Re: [Bulk] Re: Death penalty

And I thought we had put it to death.  ; - )




________________________________
From: Johne Cook <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, November 16, 2010 3:53:11 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] [Bulk] Re: Death penalty

Longest. Thread. Evar.


; )


Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |



On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:43 PM, pcg <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sure there are. They're both doing something that may hurt an innocent
>> party. They're both doing something they know is wrong. They're both
>> breaking an implicit contract (she, with her lover; he, with society).
>> Both activities entail unpleasant consequences if they're found out.
>> Both activities can result in the relief of pent-up frustrations, at
>> the expense of something greater. Both can be justified, given the
>> proper context.<
>>
>> Oh, I thought we were talking about similarities that didn't involve gross 
>>moral
>> equivocation.  Silly me.
>
>The only moral equivocation here is whatever you're applying. Bruce's
>analogy was prefaced by acknowledgement that the two *weren't*
>equivalent.
>
>
>> And on your last one - when exactly can murder be justified?  If homicide 
were
>> justified it wouldn't be murder.
>
>I should have been more clear on this point -- the person committing
>the "sin" can justify their behavior to themselves.
>
>To your more direct point, what if I said *no* homicide is justified?
>Would that make it *all* murder? I suspect that in your mind, it would
>not, and you would prefer that I didn't impose my viewpoint upon you.
>Why, then, should I accept that any homicide is justified, simply
>because someone else says it is?
>
>
>>>There are as many similarities (and dissimilarities) as you care to
>> see. The purpose of an analogy is to draw attention to a *specific*
>> similarity between two situations, and illuminate that particular
>> point by casting it in a *different* light. If analogies were intended
>> to exactly reproduce the original situation, there wouldn't be any
>> point in making them.<
>>
>> So all analogies are equal?
>
>Not sure where you're getting that from.
>
>My point is that, by your apparent definition, *every* analogy would
>be flawed because every situation carries countless considerations
>which make it utterly unique, and thereby inequivalent to any other
>situation, and that's without even getting into the Rashomon effect.
>
>Me killing your mom is not the moral equivalent of you killing my cat,
>but a legitimate analogy could be drawn between the two -- not to
>demonstrate that a cat's life is worth as much as a human life, but
>that it's cruel to deprive someone of a relationship they treasure.
>Unless someone specifically says they're demonstrating a moral
>equivalent with their analogy, you're attacking... (wait for it)... a
>straw man.
>
>--
>-pcg
> [email protected]
>
>
>--
>dadl-ot mailing list
>http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
>http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot