Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

servdragoon · 08-27-2002, 12:08 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by darius:
Oh, you had a point?

More importantly, your example was flawed, which allowed those with humorous intentions to crawl all over it.<hr /></blockquote>Not only was it flawed, but it was presented in such a horribly pretentious manner that I just couldn't resist nitpicking!

I guess a more apt response to the pretentiously stated, but incredibly obvious point of servdragoon's original post would have been "yeah. and?"

-m<hr /></blockquote>Here's another example, what do you think a cow would do if it found out the reason for it being held in by electirc fences?

Cows develop fear of the fence, simply because they cannot comprehend what is going on and why. They have no clue who put the fence around them and why. They also have no desire to find out. From our perspective it is easy to notice that cow's fear is a result of their lack of understanding.

What would an intelligent human being do when surrounded by electric fence? First, a human being would notice the existence of the world beyond the fence and seek REASONS for the existence of the fence. Then he/she would investigate properties of the fence (by analysis as well as by trial and error) in order to understand its properties. With enough understanding a human being would develop a number of ways to disable, dismantle the fence, or safely go over it.

From this example it is obvious that in order to overcome any barrier such as gulit or innocence it is essential to understand it. First, motives or needs for such an understanding need to be established. Then it is necessary to conduct creative investigation, tests, trials, analysis, explore the limits and draw conclusions. All of the above are functions of Intellect and are incorporated in a method that is being used to manipulate law.

[ 08-27-2002, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: servdragoon ]

darius · 08-27-2002, 12:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />With enough understanding a human being would develop a number of ways to disable, dismantle the fence, or safely go over it. <hr /></blockquote>The same could be said for horses. Please, make the analogies stop now.

edew · 08-27-2002, 01:42 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by servdragoon:
[...]
There are obvious laws which can be accepted to be right or wrong. For example: 1+1=2. there would be no debate about the validity of this statements truth, nationally, or internationally. These kinds of laws are not relative from person to person, they are understood universally.
yet, a question to be considered is, can the logic that proves statements to be true or false be adopted to justify behaviour of people to such a degree as to come to a universal understanding of what is right or wrong, or true or false. This understanding becomes practiced in law and our judicial system.
The whole judicial system of america is based on a fundamental belief that there exists right and wrong, good and evil, constatly battling against each other for control. Yet the mechanism for control, our laws, can be manipulated as if justice did not exist.<hr /></blockquote>If you want to try to use an example of a "universal" law, try one that might even be considered as a "universal" law. It is hardly universal that 1+1=2. It all depends on what "1", "+", "=", and "2" mean. Lots of people might not accept your point of view (and for valid reasons, too). If you want to talk about things with deep sociological and philosophical underpinnings, try not to play the naivete card.

sallearmourer · 08-27-2002, 01:44 PM

Edew,

I have killed pepole in combat. What does that makes me.
I beleive in the Death Penlety. If proven by DNA he had a hand in the Van Dam munder and found guilty by the jury and sentence by the jury to death one appeal to go though the system to make sure his rights to a fair jury was up held. Then Hang em

Tim

edew · 08-27-2002, 01:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by servdragoon:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by darius:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />you have the freedom to choose to believe that 1+1=10, if that is what you want. Yet if you dont have the intellectual capacity to understand the logic of the statement 1+1=2, you might as well be a monkey, or a dog. Because we can understand things logically, after being presented with an argument that 1+1=2, and seeing the logic of it, one would have to choose not to see it as true, but just because we can choose to not understand doesnt mean that the statement isnt true.<hr /></blockquote>1+1=10 is a mathematical truism. Just because you can't think outside of your puny human base-10 number systems doesn't mean you should call people names!

darius<hr /></blockquote>My point was not to call someone a name, but to show that we as humans have the capacity to understand things in a way that monkies and dogs dont. They cant make the same choices we do because they dont have the same intellectual capacity as us. This is not an insult to dogs, or monkies, i love my dogs, just the way they are and they are happy just the way they are. Just as we should all be happy with our capacities and incapacities.
When we compare a dogs ability to understand things with our own, there are important differences in how we choose things. I think that for a human to choose not to use his capacity to use logic, would show a lack of intelligence, that would bring us to a concisousness of something like a monkey.<hr /></blockquote>Funny, I don't recall dogs or monkeys killing some other dog or monkey because that dog or monkey did some harm to a fellow dog or monkey. Many just get over the fact that the fellow dog or monkey is dead and they move on. If only humans can show such restrain and understanding of life and death.

Other than that, I would suggest you refrain from continuing this thread: your lack of intelligence about right vs wrong, logic, mathematics, human and animal behavior, and so many other things make continued discussions with you almost impossible because we have to constantly pull out the big book of basic understanding and read you chapters and verse to correct your lack of, or mis-, understandings.

edew · 08-27-2002, 01:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by sallearmourer:
Edew,

I have killed pepole in combat. What does that makes me.
I beleive in the Death Penlety. If proven by DNA he had a hand in the Van Dam munder and found guilty by the jury and sentence by the jury to death one appeal to go though the system to make sure his rights to a fair jury was up held. Then Hang em

Tim

<hr /></blockquote>As I have said time and again: people kill people all the time. It's been done since Cain and Abel. I would say that the fact that you've killed people makes you a killer (or at least a one-time) killer. People can and do kill other people. Sometimes, the killing is not justified, sometimes the killing is justified. Whatever the case, the act of killing isn't going to be prevented among humans any time soon. Not in my lifetime, that's for sure.

What I advocate is that the state not be allowed or be in the position to decide to kill people. The state is not a person. The state cannot and will not (and will do all the unethical shenanigans too) take responsibility for unjustified killings. You can't sue the federal government if it screws up and you're dead, for example (well, if you're dead, you can't sue anyone, but you get the point).

If I kill someone, I can find myself a hero or on the lam. If the state kills someone, especially if it's unjustified, there's no negative repercussions to the state. They can deny it away, the can BS it away, they can stall forever.

Inquartata · 08-27-2002, 06:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
[quote]Actually, even then there were more stringent gun laws in England. Remember, in the US at that time, it was legal to purchase and own ANY type of firearm. In England, I don't believe you could mail order a tommy gun as you could in the US. Also, guns were certainly less common, regardless of official regulation.<hr /></blockquote>Er..."tommy" guns in the 18th century? Even in the 19th they had pretty much the same kinds of guns everywhere...

Not sure about the early 20th, but---a person killed with a Webley is just as dead as one killed with one of those EBR's.

Major demographic trends take a while to peter out even after their cause comes to an end. Probably one could draw a pretty steady curve upward in the crime rate from the end of the death penalty in England, and another from the advent of strict gun control. But then, there may well be other causative factors involved.

When did this turn into a gun control debate, BTW?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And you are agreeing with him. Gee, and I thought eugenics went died with Hitler..... tell me, do you advocate preventing the procreation of those with hereditary diseases too?<hr /></blockquote>Yep, I agree with him---in this case. I don't happen to believe that having one or two grievous personal and intellectual flaws automatically invalidates all of a person's ideas. Other of his opinions I reject, or regard with amusement but no particular nodding of the head.

No, apart from the more egregious practices eugenics didn't die with Hitler. The idea is alive and well and even practiced in this country in a number of ways ( and we'll say nothing about the perhaps unintentional eugenic effects of rationing of medical services by many national health care systems abroad ).

And yes, I do also believe that people with the more debilitating hereditary syndromes ought not to reproduce. There are enough children in need of adoption to make up for any resulting lack, I think.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I'd like you to show me THOSE statistics....<hr /></blockquote>Mencken did not cite any statistics. Sorry.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />btw, you still haven't responded to my contention that the Mencken quote was tongue in cheek. If it wasn't, it just doesn't jive with his other writings, though Mencken WAS known for being inconsistant....<hr /></blockquote>It's possible, but given his cynical attitude toward a whole host of political sacred cows of the era I doubt that his tongue was very firmly there. It is true that he couched most of his commentary in a wry, arch, occasionally mordant language---as a journalist he had to entertain, after all--- but I don't think he was wholly disingenuous about any of his views.

135711 · 08-27-2002, 06:14 PM

I don't want to burst your bubble eric, but dogs and monkeys kill other dogs and monkeys and sometimes small children or adults. Not only do they do that, but they devour them. Now, that sounds pretty gross doesn't it, but we all go 'ah, the poor dog, he didn't know' and no he didn't know, but we're people not dogs and we don't breed for money [do we] so I thought we were supposed to have 'dominion' over the beasts, but apparently not. Now to the human beasts, by talking endlessly, we by now know that it only serves those people waiting on death row. Where there is doubt, for example in some of the more public cases where dna has cleared a person, obviously, they should be released etc. What we are talking about here are those people, who are found with actual victims in their houses, like there, on the premises, caught as they say 'red handed' with the goods, etc. They really need to go to meet their maker, you know like in the olden days, when the preacher in the black robes would solemly follow the man to the gallows, reading a passage from the good book to send them off properly, I see nothing wrong with that. The system worked just fine until a bunch of do-gooders started marching around prisons sermonizing.

Inquartata · 08-27-2002, 06:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
[QBreduce cost how? lower number of appeals? I again submit that to lower the number of appeals not only causes intolerable injustice, but further victimizes the poor and minorities.[/b]<hr /></blockquote>Here's the system I envision:

Two tracks. One is for the great majority of capital cases, the so-called "dead bang" ones, where there is absolutely no question of innocence. The perpetrator shoots his victim in a room full of witnesses who know him, or is found by police standing over the victim's body with a bloody knife shouting "There! How d'ya like THAT, mo fo?" at it. Or bodies are found in his tool shed. Most criminals are not particularly smart, and they have poor impulse control. Planning is generally vestigial at best. These would go straight to to death row, do not pass go, do not get twenty years of automatic appeals.

The other track would be for those where there is some doubt. Any doubt. These would get the full spectrum of appeals---although even here things could be streamlined by pruning the grounds for appeal. A good example would be the technicality recently advanced by the government of Mexico for staying the death of a convicted cop killer in Texas---"he wasn't allowed to contact the Mexican Consulate". Give me a break. Would it have changed things one iota if he had? No. The guy killed a police officer during an undercover sting. The evidence was overwhelming, and the man confessed. Niggling details like this ought not provide the basis for continued beating of dead horses.

And factors in extenuation and mitigation ought to play a larger role in the assignment of the death penalty. So should exacerbating factors.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> you are talking about eugenics. a policy which nobody in their right mind has put forward since prior to world war II. <hr /></blockquote>Not true, I'm afraid. Eugenics is fairly commonly practiced, though not under that name, which has acquired pejorative connotations. And the theories are still advanced, although usually they provoke outraged protests from the PC crowd.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />[b] to do as you suggest opens the door to vast misuse.

-m[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Perhaps. Everything is open to "abuse", though. Human cloning? Organ transplants? Euthanasia? Drug decriminalization? You name it. But the abuse is not inevitable.

epeemike81 · 08-27-2002, 06:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
[quote]Actually, even then there were more stringent gun laws in England. Remember, in the US at that time, it was legal to purchase and own ANY type of firearm. In England, I don't believe you could mail order a tommy gun as you could in the US. Also, guns were certainly less common, regardless of official regulation.<hr /></blockquote>Er..."tommy" guns in the 18th century? Even in the 19th they had pretty much the same kinds of guns everywhere...

Not sure about the early 20th, but---a person killed with a Webley is just as dead as one killed with one of those EBR's.<hr /></blockquote>Go check on that quote again. the time period in which the DP was USED was the 19th, but the time period on which he was claiming an effect was the one he was writing in (i.e. the 1920's). Since my point was that the EFFECT had other causes, it is the 1920's which are important. at that time, you could mail order a tommy gun in the US. Also, there was prohibition, which led to quite a bit of crime....

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Major demographic trends take a while to peter out even after their cause comes to an end. Probably one could draw a pretty steady curve upward in the crime rate from the end of the death penalty in England, and another from the advent of strict gun control. But then, there may well be other causative factors involved.<hr /></blockquote>yes, there could be other factors. which is why you must compare those curves to curves of a society with the DP and without gun control. If you do this, I am fairly certain that you will find that DP has no impact, and that gun control reduces crime.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />When did this turn into a gun control debate, BTW?<hr /></blockquote>when you held up England as a shining beacon...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />No, apart from the more egregious practices eugenics didn't die with Hitler. The idea is alive and well and even practiced in this country in a number of ways ( and we'll say nothing about the perhaps unintentional eugenic effects of rationing of medical services by many national health care systems abroad ).

And yes, I do also believe that people with the more debilitating hereditary syndromes ought not to reproduce. There are enough children in need of adoption to make up for any resulting lack, I think.<hr /></blockquote>Given that many people will find this a horrific position, I think I will just let that position speak for itself.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It's possible, but given his cynical attitude toward a whole host of political sacred cows of the era I doubt that his tongue was very firmly there. It is true that he couched most of his commentary in a wry, arch, occasionally mordant language---as a journalist he had to entertain, after all--- but I don't think he was wholly disingenuous about any of his views.<hr /></blockquote>Add to that the fact that he HATED England and would NEVER have held them up as an example of what to do......

-m

Inquartata · 08-27-2002, 06:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
Let's face it. Inquartata is hopelessly infatuated with the naive belief that there is clear right and wrong; that if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide; that the government is blameless, works only for the good of the people, and infinitely just.<hr /></blockquote>Straw man;poisoning the well; ad hominem.

There's no need to put words into my mouth, Eric, I have enough controversial views without your having to exaggerate them for effect.

Yes, I believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil. You are welcome to your world of "situational ethics"; it does not attract me.

I do not, on the other hand, particulary trust the governments benificence. Quite the contrary, in fact. But I see no reason to warehouse the most obvious monsters so that they might have the continued chance to wreak future harm and to place an enourmous drain on society's resources by so doing in order to salve the consciences of those who feel as you do. And that is the extent of it. You need not attempt to reduce the position to ridiculous extremes the better to ridicule it.

I do not sneer at your position, Eric---I merely argue against it on logical grounds. If you choose to view my disagreement with you as a personal affront or de facto evidence of moral turpitude, I'm afraid that says more about you than me...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
When people die because their court appointed lawyer decides to sleep DURING the trial, and the courts later deem that such atrocious behavior by the attorney is not sufficient grounds for changing the verdict, we have a clear-cut case of abuse and misuse of justice, not "costly overruns during the appeals process".<hr /></blockquote>You are correct, but this is a one-sided position. There are innumerable trifling technicalities any of which as often as not serve only to extend the appeals process of defendants whose guilt is obvious beyond any doubt. I cited one such celebrated case in my reply to epeemike above. Explain to me just how being permitted to call the Mexican Consulate somehow would have "saved" a man who killed a police officer during an undercover drug operation and who admitted guilt. Please.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />[b]There has been constantly many, many examples of government abuse of justice. Everything from Amadou Diallo to Tulia, TX to Ashcroft to whatever. It's epidemic.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>We can all cite the famous cases, Eric. They make splendid press. They get lots of coverage. And I am sure that there are a lot that are just as bad that don't quite have "what it takes" to attract the attention of the media, in terms of sensational circumstances. But I wonder how those anecdotal cases compare to the numbers of garden variety, run of the mill arrests and convictions that occur every day?

For every Diallo, there is a Dean Corll. For every Rodney King, a Green River Killer. We have to try to keep the police and the courts fair and evenhanded, in the face of enormous tendencies toward dysfunction. But it does no good to see all police as JBT's and all courts as corrupt and incompetent. That's just paranoia. There are far more good people doing those jobs than bad, IMO.

MikeHarm · 08-27-2002, 07:28 PM

They used to put animals on trial for a long time. Made everything a bit silly trying to cross examine a goat and such so we did away with it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 135711:
I don't want to burst your bubble eric, but dogs and monkeys kill other dogs and monkeys and sometimes small children or adults. Not only do they do that, but they devour them. Now, that sounds pretty gross doesn't it, but we all go 'ah, the poor dog, he didn't know' and no he didn't know, but we're people not dogs and we don't breed for money [do we] so I thought we were supposed to have 'dominion' over the beasts, but apparently not. Now to the human beasts, by talking endlessly, we by now know that it only serves those people waiting on death row. Where there is doubt, for example in some of the more public cases where dna has cleared a person, obviously, they should be released etc. What we are talking about here are those people, who are found with actual victims in their houses, like there, on the premises, caught as they say 'red handed' with the goods, etc. They really need to go to meet their maker, you know like in the olden days, when the preacher in the black robes would solemly follow the man to the gallows, reading a passage from the good book to send them off properly, I see nothing wrong with that. The system worked just fine until a bunch of do-gooders started marching around prisons sermonizing.<hr /></blockquote>

Inquartata · 08-27-2002, 07:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
Go check on that quote again. the time period in which the DP was USED was the 19th, but the time period on which he was claiming an effect was the one he was writing in (i.e. the 1920's). <hr /></blockquote>OK, I see your point.

Yeah, he was saying that the cause ( widespread capital punishment ) had a delayed effect, and that the effect was long-lasting enough to still be apparent in his day.

BTW, when exactly was the death penalty abolished in Britain? I thought it was early in the last century.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />yes, there could be other factors. which is why you must compare those curves to curves of a society with the DP and without gun control. If you do this, I am fairly certain that you will find that DP has no impact, and that gun control reduces crime.<hr /></blockquote>You lost me here. The sort of "other factors"
( demographics, social homogeneity, etc ) we are talking about would invalidate any such comparisons, no? Only if you had two more or less identical societies would such a comparison let you draw positive results.

I think it is less problematic to compare two eras of the same society. This comes closer to controlling for the extraneous factors. If you do so, England with capital punishment and no gun control clearly had lower rates of violent crime than it does today.

As to your latter points: capital punishment, at least in the way it is dabbled in today in America, clearly has no deterrent effect on crime, as I've said, and inasmuch as it is not applied either often or swiftly it has no chance in reducing the ranks of the criminal class, either. Which is just what Mencken was saying, I think.

There is no evidence to support such a broad statement as "gun control reduces crime". Again, if we omit consideration of other factors, the violent crime rate was much lower in the 1920's, when there was almost no gun control, than it is today. Such crime is typically highest in jurisdictions where gun control laws are the stiffest, and lowest where the laws are not so strict---lower still where there is widespread non-discretionary issuance of concealed weapon permits by the state. This applies internationally as well.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />when you held up England as a shining beacon...<hr /></blockquote>Be so good as to show me where I did that, if you would. I merely cited Mencken's view on capital punishment. I never mentioned gun control, nor did I forward England as a beacon of anything. Certainly not the England of the stringent controls on private firearms ownership. So I still don't see how gun control got dragged into this debate.

Not but that I would be happy to argue the latter issue---I just don't see how it became germane to this one...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Given that many people will find this a horrific position, I think I will just let that position speak for itself.<hr /></blockquote>Oh? And why would they do so?

Do you believe that even destructive freedoms, such as the "right" of a person with a terrible genetic defect almost guaranteed to be passed on to any natural children, are worth preserving? That even when there are children in orphanages in need of good homes, it is better to have people who carry genetic defects indulging their own vanities by insisting upon having "their own flesh and blood" instead, whatever the cost?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Add to that the fact that he HATED England and would NEVER have held them up as an example of what to do......
<hr /></blockquote>I am not sure that "hated" is justified. I am even less sure that "hated England" necessarily implies that he despised every single aspect and facet of it and every one of its policies. Rather the same way that I said I don't think that picking out one of his ideas as sensible requires one to agree with everything else he wrote---or that DISagreeing with one of his ideas invalidates all of his other positions...

[ 08-27-2002, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Inquartata ]

edew · 08-27-2002, 08:22 PM

Inquartata, you speak of believing in right and wrong, and then you say you speak based on logic. The two cannot go together. If you have any sense of logic, then you must wash yourself of any belief or conviction on universal right and wrong, of any sort of "absolute" morality. Any little amount of study into the concept will clearly show that moral absolutism is inherently illogical.

That said, all it takes to show the injustice of government procedures is ONE innocent person sent to prison. It's not enough that we say, "ok, one Diallo for one Corlli (or whoever it was you wrote down).

Psychopaths and murderers are always present with us. There is no possible way to rid society of murderers. I hope you understand the mathematics and logic in that. That said, the only goal should be in making the clean-up of the aftermath of a killing as simple and efficacious as possible to the relatives of the victim. Punishing the murderer with capital punishment does not undo the act. At best, it's venting just as HilandDoug exclaimed when he wanted to garrot Westerfield. It is not logic being spoken, it is emotion; raw, violent, hateful, vengeful, blood-lusted rage; not logic. Even the economics do not show a preference for capital punishment.

As for my examples with monkeys and dogs. Well, sure, I'm aware that dogs kill. They are, originally, predators; carnivores. Monkeys (ok, apes anyway) are at least omnivores and will kill for food, for personal gain. But I don't think either dogs or monkeys kill for revenge. That is, revenge for the death of a close-one by another dog (or monkey). They might fight to the death, but in the course of defense. But I don't think they ever consider planning and orchestrating a murder of a "guilty" dog (or monkey) as a punishment or "cleansing of the society".

I'm certainly not on top of animal behavior, so if there's any indication otherwise, please feel free to post here.

epeemike81 · 08-27-2002, 08:28 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
The other track would be for those where there is some doubt. Any doubt.<hr /></blockquote>so this gets me back to misuse. who decides if there is any doubt? a jury? if THEY thought their was doubt, they would have found not guilty. it is their miscarriages of justice we are trying to correct. A judge? well, the term hanging judge comes to mind. certainly his biases, and personal views on the death penalty would come into play all too much.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />These would get the full spectrum of appeals---although even here things could be streamlined by pruning the grounds for appeal. A good example would be the technicality recently advanced by the government of Mexico for staying the death of a convicted cop killer in Texas---"he wasn't allowed to contact the Mexican Consulate". Give me a break. Would it have changed things one iota if he had? No. The guy killed a police officer during an undercover sting. The evidence was overwhelming, and the man confessed. Niggling details like this ought not provide the basis for continued beating of dead horses.<hr /></blockquote>so, international law is a "niggling detail"...
well, that is a typical American viewpoint which ignores our place in international society.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Not true, I'm afraid. Eugenics is fairly commonly practiced, though not under that name, which has acquired pejorative connotations. And the theories are still advanced, although usually they provoke outraged protests from the PC crowd.<hr /></blockquote>Its not just the PC crowd.

question: you have acknowledged that the death penalty is unfairly meted out. thus, your eugenics proposals will affect minorities more harshly. Does this not seem to resemble the cleansing techniques used in the past? make up an excuse, and start executing minorities?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />[b]Perhaps. Everything is open to "abuse", though. Human cloning?[/qb]<hr /></blockquote>there is a ban, if I remember correctly.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Organ transplants?<hr /></blockquote>Not open to LEGAL abuse. the death penalty can be abused by manipulation in the courts, which is not, unfortunately, illegal. the only abuses organ transplantation is open to are inherently criminal, and can be prosecuted.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Euthanasia?<hr /></blockquote>Again, the difference is that abuse of this can be, and is, prosecuted.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Drug decriminalization?<hr /></blockquote>lets straighten this out: decriminalization is not abused, drugs are. and the entire issue is personal freedom.

People are free to abuse drugs, free to kill themselves (in general, not just in relation to drugs). I believe they're right to life should also be protected. None of the examples you gave are as easy to abuse as the DP policy you put forward.

-m

servdragoon · 08-27-2002, 08:47 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by servdragoon:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by darius:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />you have the freedom to choose to believe that 1+1=10, if that is what you want. Yet if you dont have the intellectual capacity to understand the logic of the statement 1+1=2, you might as well be a monkey, or a dog. Because we can understand things logically, after being presented with an argument that 1+1=2, and seeing the logic of it, one would have to choose not to see it as true, but just because we can choose to not understand doesnt mean that the statement isnt true.<hr /></blockquote>1+1=10 is a mathematical truism. Just because you can't think outside of your puny human base-10 number systems doesn't mean you should call people names!

darius<hr /></blockquote>My point was not to call someone a name, but to show that we as humans have the capacity to understand things in a way that monkies and dogs dont. They cant make the same choices we do because they dont have the same intellectual capacity as us. This is not an insult to dogs, or monkies, i love my dogs, just the way they are and they are happy just the way they are. Just as we should all be happy with our capacities and incapacities.
When we compare a dogs ability to understand things with our own, there are important differences in how we choose things. I think that for a human to choose not to use his capacity to use logic, would show a lack of intelligence, that would bring us to a concisousness of something like a monkey.</fo