| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 85695 | 2007-12-18 23:21:00 | Just Who The Hell Do You Think You Are? God? | Roscoe (6288) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 622694 | 2007-12-19 01:03:00 | The point I was making is, judge people if you will, but what gives you the right to deal out what you think is a just punishment? You DO NOT have that right whatever you think of those people. but does that give you the right to beat them up? What happened to our justice system? I see you have no experience of prisons and those that live there. You think they are in there because they are moral, just sort of people? Of course they are going to attack them. And anyone else who looks at them funny. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 622695 | 2007-12-19 01:06:00 | :waughh: Why did you post this if you weren't seeking discussion? :confused: allblack - well said - I couldn't have put it better myself . :thumbs: |
Miami Steve (2128) | ||
| 622696 | 2007-12-19 01:12:00 | If I was the parent of a child that had been molested,then that gives me ever right in the world. The justice system does not work. It is too liberal,new age,weak,Its not my fault blam someone else mentality.Get 7 years and get out in 2 1/2 years,is wrong. The way my justice system would be if I was in charge would be to have road gangs like the U.S.A. does but I would get them to clear out all the Gorse,clean up N.Z,build roads,do community projects that need doing,wearing pink jumpsuits. Do the crime,do the REAL time!! |
memphis (2869) | ||
| 622697 | 2007-12-19 01:26:00 | Maybe it's a question of understanding rights, and if people can't, then somehow it has to be installed in to them . I guess most reasonable and educated thinking people do understand rights but perhaps within different boundaries - based on upbringing, social and cultural environments, persona, state of mind, and so on . But those boundaries can be broken or overstepped depending on circumstances and unfortunately results in violence . It's not right to most of us, but unfortunately violence appears to be right for some . It's whether if they really comprehend that it is not right . . . |
kahawai chaser (3545) | ||
| 622698 | 2007-12-19 01:27:00 | The point I was making is, judge people if you will, but what gives you the right to deal out what you think is a just punishment? You DO NOT have that right whatever you think of those people. And I re-iterate that you are talking about people who are behind bars anyhow so criticizing them for their lack of complex moral thinking on the actions they take towards sex offenders seems a bit pointless. It's as pointless as delving deep into the "morality" behind any criminal code of conduct, such as the way the American mafia originally (until the profits changed their point of view) didn't tolerate drug dealing, at the same time the were pimping, blackmailing and murdering their way to riches. When you've dropped off the moral high ground by your actions anyhow, it isn't so unusual that you'll do something to try and claw your self back up a few rungs on the morality ladder. So choosing to believe that you are morally superior to a sex offender, when you yourself are a murderer, is not an un-expected human response. And it is a short step - when you deal in violence anyhow - to assume you then claw back some more ground by enacting violent retribution on sex offenders. Like I say, if you want a careful and studied approach to morals, looking for it among violent offenders in prison is probably not a good bet. |
Biggles (121) | ||
| 622699 | 2007-12-19 01:31:00 | Why did I post this if I did not discussion? Of course I wanted discussion. But nobody has yet come back with an opinion on my original question. What gives you the right to judge, and when you have rightly or wrongly, judged them, to deal out their punishment? We all know that our justice system is wanting, but at least we have a justice system and that is where the judgement should be made. Not by you, no matter how you feel. How about some opinions on my original question instead of the predictable and emotional rhetoric? Thank you, Bruce. You are the only one with a sensible, non-emotional, on the topic, reply. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Do you not think that is correct? |
Roscoe (6288) | ||
| 622700 | 2007-12-19 01:36:00 | People who interfere with kids have lost all rites to exists. Therefore scum of the earth can kill them. | rob_on_guitar (4196) | ||
| 622701 | 2007-12-19 01:37:00 | Why did I post this if I did not discussion? Of course I wanted discussion. But nobody has yet come back with an opinion on my original question. What gives you the right to judge, and when you have rightly or wrongly, judged them, to deal out their punishment? We all know that our justice system is wanting, but at least we have a justice system and that is where the judgement should be made. Not by you, no matter how you feel. How about some opinions on my original question instead of the predictable and emotional rhetoric? Thank you, Bruce. You are the only one with a sensible, non-emotional, on the topic, reply. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Do you not think that is correct? your correct, nobody has the right to deal punishment to these cretins. That is simple. In saying that everybody has the right to turn a blind eye when this happens. |
plod (107) | ||
| 622702 | 2007-12-19 01:53:00 | Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Do you not think that is correct? Nope. It's great moral lesson, but a lousy way to run a society. Society, by its very nature, runs on compromises. And the need for society to put in place mechanisms for casting that first stone, regardless of the sin level of those involved is one of those compromises. That is because the individuals involved in enforcing the laws are not acting as individuals but as representatives of society as a whole. The actions they take are the actions of society, towards individuals who have broken the laws of that society. So the morality is the morals of society vs the morals of the individual offender. Of course, criminals behind bars have no moral or other right to take action against any other offender. That is society's right, not theirs, and society has already exercised that right. If you disagree with the severity of that punishment then you must address that within the mechanisms of society, no matter how dysfunctional this system seems. Because if you don't, morally, you're no better than a criminal who believes he has the moral right to beat up another criminal. Society is often barely contained dysfunction and doesn't always give a satisfying result in cases like this. But it is better than the chaos that results without the control of society. |
Biggles (121) | ||
| 622703 | 2007-12-19 01:56:00 | Personally, I can’t see the point in going to all the trouble we do to care for the Crims . It’s not just the kiddie fiddlers that have to be segregated, it’s Bent Cops, Rapists, every know Gang and it just goes on . The do-gooders and politicians seem unable to comprehend that these sods couldn’t care less about the victims of the crime that they’re doing time for . So why should anyone worry about them . As of this moment we have god only know how many before the court for torturing and killing children . I suppose the ever suffering tax payer is expected to provide them with food, clothing, shelter, and a personal Minder . :eek: Well, I could save all that money, and, I could offer an absolute guarantee that none would re-offend . ;) |
B.M. (505) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||