Re: [Bulk] Re: Death penalty

Assassin!  ; )

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


On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Mike Findlay <[email protected]>wrote:

> 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
>

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