Results 1 to 40 of 41

Thread: How we value life???

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,065

    How we value life???

    Are certain lives more valuable than others? The initial response by most would be no, that each life is just as valuable as another. If that's the case, why does everything in our society say differently? Here are some examples:

    1. If I walk into a room and kill the first person I see, I will be arrested and sentenced harshly. If I walk into the same room, kill the first person I see and that person is a police officer, I will receive a much harsher sentence.

    2. If a leader, be it political or in business dies, a large portion of society mourns his loss. This man could have been, let's just say "subpar" when it comes to his family and personal relationships, but he did contribute to society as a whole in some way. And that same day another man dies, a regular man who made little to no impact on society in terms of what we all see. He was loved by his family and friends, a good man, but other than his immediate family no one really mourns his loss.

    3. Ten people die tragically, let's say due to some type of terrorist or criminal act. Ten lives are cut tragically short. That same day in the same city, ten people die of cancer, ten lives are cut tragically short. Regardless of what kind of people these twenty people were, people will mourn the ten that lost their life to tragic violence far more than the other ten; in fact, in comparison it will be immeasurable.

    Personally, I think we have a warped view of the value of life, and I think all three of the examples above show this warped view. In any of the deaths above, I cannot see how one is more meaningful in terms of who that person was. Am I wrong? Do we have a warped sense of the value of life or do we see and view things properly?

  2. #2
    kelkel's Avatar
    kelkel is offline HRT Specialist ~ AR-Platinum Elite-Hall of Famer ~ No Source Checks
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East Coast Dungeon
    Posts
    29,919
    1a. Absolutely.
    1b. Absolutely. Without some form of law and order it would be anarchy. Stiffer penalties are deterrents to help achieve order. To quote Charles Barkley it would be "the wild wild west" without police.
    Without harsher penalties for police, emergency workers, teachers, etc., it would be open season on them and this country would fall apart.
    2. Sure, people who impact society in a meaningful way will be. They're simply known by more people via their accomplishments. Think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, medical pioneers, etc.
    3. Agree

    imho.
    -*- NO SOURCE CHECKS -*-

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,065
    Quote Originally Posted by kelkel View Post
    1a. Absolutely.
    1b. Absolutely. Without some form of law and order it would be anarchy. Stiffer penalties are deterrents to help achieve order. To quote Charles Barkley it would be "the wild wild west" without police.
    Without harsher penalties for police, emergency workers, teachers, etc., it would be open season on them and this country would fall apart.
    2. Sure, people who impact society in a meaningful way will be. They're simply known by more people via their accomplishments. Think Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, medical pioneers, etc.
    3. Agree

    imho.
    Law and order, absolutely necessary, I agree. But That doesn't have anything to do with the level of a penalty, the severity. Murder should carry a sever penalty regardless of the victim being a cop or citizen...the life of one isn't more valuable than another. Punish the crime, do not base the punishment on who the crime was committed against. And that's not an anti-cop sentiment.

    Anyway, I don't care for anything that gives value to one life over another on the basis of a job, a physical achievement or position in the community. That type of thinking, IMO, is the type George Bernard Shaw loved to endorse, who was, again IMO, nothing but evil to his core although often praised as a genius in modern history.

  4. #4
    kelkel's Avatar
    kelkel is offline HRT Specialist ~ AR-Platinum Elite-Hall of Famer ~ No Source Checks
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East Coast Dungeon
    Posts
    29,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalject View Post
    Law and order, absolutely necessary, I agree. But That doesn't have anything to do with the level of a penalty, the severity. Murder should carry a sever penalty regardless of the victim being a cop or citizen...the life of one isn't more valuable than another. Punish the crime, do not base the punishment on who the crime was committed against. And that's not an anti-cop sentiment.

    Anyway, I don't care for anything that gives value to one life over another on the basis of a job, a physical achievement or position in the community. That type of thinking, IMO, is the type George Bernard Shaw loved to endorse, who was, again IMO, nothing but evil to his core although often praised as a genius in modern history.
    Murder carries a severe penalty regardless. As I stated earlier, if not for higher penalties for crimes against specific professions it would be chaos. Look at all the teachers who get assaulted now and imagine how much worse it would be. The amount of cops that are killed would grow exponentially as well. Then, when it becomes more of an open season on cops they would then become more aggressive toward the public and assume an even more defensive posture. It's about balance and federal, state and local laws help to achieve those. If there aren't enhanced penalties against certain professions then those in said professions should not be held to higher standards, to follow your line of thinking.
    -*- NO SOURCE CHECKS -*-

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by kelkel View Post
    Murder carries a severe penalty regardless. As I stated earlier, if not for higher penalties for crimes against specific professions it would be chaos. Look at all the teachers who get assaulted now and imagine how much worse it would be. The amount of cops that are killed would grow exponentially as well. Then, when it becomes more of an open season on cops they would then become more aggressive toward the public and assume an even more defensive posture. It's about balance and federal, state and local laws help to achieve those. If there aren't enhanced penalties against certain professions then those in said professions should not be held to higher standards, to follow your line of thinking.
    If murder carries a sever penalty regardless, one that supposedly is supposed to detract someone from committing murder, than why the need for an even stiffer penalty when it relates to killing a police officer?

    Last year police officers killed more people than people killed police officers. Last year more DOT workers were killed on the job than police officers.

    ^^^maybe we should make killing civilians by police officers a greater crime with a stiffer penalty bc it seems that it's more open season on the citizenry than it is on the police officers.

    If it's one thing we should have learned by now is stiffer penalties don't do much to deter crime. If so, the death penalty would have had a profoundly greater impact than it currently does.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Docd187123 View Post
    If murder carries a sever penalty regardless, one that supposedly is supposed to detract someone from committing murder, than why the need for an even stiffer penalty when it relates to killing a police officer?

    Last year police officers killed more people than people killed police officers. Last year more DOT workers were killed on the job than police officers.

    ^^^maybe we should make killing civilians by police officers a greater crime with a stiffer penalty bc it seems that it's more open season on the citizenry than it is on the police officers.
    If it's one thing we should have learned by now is stiffer penalties don't do much to deter crime. If so, the death penalty would have had a profoundly greater impact than it currently does.
    Doc,

    I respect your opion in a lot of areas, but this one has me scratching my head about you.

    Let's stop and think. The basic premise is that an employee should not have to face death as a natural consequence of doing their job. in order to achieve that objective, certain precautions must be made. one is the authority to use lethal force for the police officer to protect themselves from eminent danger. I will admit this is a judgement call. but no matter how you slice it, it will always be a judgment call; leaving civilians like you and I to second guess the officer "after the fact".

    Here is a fact of life:

    People will die in the line of fire during incidents involving police officers. Some on the side of law enforcement, and some on the side of civilians.

    Since the civilian population tremendously outnumbers law enforcement in the line of fire (boots on the ground), it would be extremely alarming if LE had more that die in the line of fire instead of the other way around, wouldn't you agree? (you seem to think that more LE should die in the line of fire than the citizens)

    I may complain about the WAY LE is used to run this country (minor speeding tickets, jay walking, very small amounts of marijuana, that sort of thing), I will not argue that LE has a legitimate role in ANY civilized society.

    I either read your comment wrong, or you didn't' think your answer out very well. You usually have pretty level headed answers, which is why I'm scratching my head...?
    Last edited by Times Roman; 12-08-2014 at 08:21 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    AZ Side
    Posts
    12,815
    It's reality that I have learned & have not been taught. Some people's lives mean a whole lot less than others - it's life & that's just how it is


    LE and politics is a whole separate pile of crap


    But, look at it like this: A Taco Bell employee gets shot in the face - damn, what a tragedy. Someone famous in any way has the same fat - you'll see that shit on TV for the next decade.


    It's life - tough shit


    But, it the truth - We are the disposables

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    30,272
    Because the news talks about them doesn't really make them any more important. No one will remember them a week later but someone close to us dies it effects us the most and is a lot more important than someone we don't know.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    AZ Side
    Posts
    12,815
    Quote Originally Posted by lovbyts
    Because the news talks about them doesn't really make them any more important. No one will remember them a week later but someone close to us dies it effects us the most and is a lot more important than someone we don't know.
    Good point

    I guess it depends on how we're defining importance

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    MEXICAN DRUG LORD
    Posts
    1,463
    It's not that the famous person is more important. It is just that more people know that famous person so the news stations etc. want to get that news out so the media people cover it more to get a paycheck. It's really just all about the money. I doubt any of the news people or media give an actual **** or will lose sleep over that celebrity dying. It's money and political correctness

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,305
    We cant let media dictate the importance of anything. If we did the Kardashian's would be the most important people in the world; which we all know is NOT THE CASE.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    There are two relevant aspects to human life we should consider:

    1) The intrinsic value of that human life
    2) The net contribution to society that life has made

    Therefore, to a certain extent, all life is equal. But how we treat that life is also a reflection of #2 as well.

    proof:

    if you are a net detractor from society, society will punish/kill you. Think state sponsored executions
    if you are a net contributor to society, society will reward you. Think actors and A list athletes.

    So you need to consider not only how individuals treat one another, but also how groups of individuals (called societies) treat you. We all know that the psychology of individuals is much different than the psychology of societies.

    This should help you understand better

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,093
    "The death of one is a tragedy; the death of millions is just a statistic." -Marilyn Manson (one of the probably many who have been credited for coining this phrase)

    This may be slightly off the original topic, but have you ever considered why, many times, when one person makes the news upon death, everyone knows his/her name and background, but when, say, a natural disaster strike and takes the lives of many, it's just a number?

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Times Roman View Post
    Doc,

    I respect your opion in a lot of areas, but this one has me scratching my head about you.

    Let's stop and think. The basic premise is that an employee should not have to face death as a natural consequence of doing their job. in order to achieve that objective, certain precautions must be made. one is the authority to use lethal force for the police officer to protect themselves from eminent danger. I will admit this is a judgement call. but no matter how you slice it, it will always be a judgment call; leaving civilians like you and I to second guess the officer "after the fact".
    One of my jobs when I was a teenager was working in a manufacturing plant where I was almost killed by a 50ton press. Are you arguing giving that press the death penalty or giving it a stiffer punishment bc I "as an employee should not have to face death as a natural consequence of doing my job"?

    What about doctors without borders? Those doctors face much more dangerous situations than police officers, why not make it a stiffer penalty for killimg them?

    The premise isn't about not facing death as a natural consequence of doing your job bc if you accept the position of police officer you accept the inherent dangers of the job. Are we to tell our military men and women that they shouldn't have to face death as a consequence of their career choice?

    You are valuing the life of one person more than another and justifying it with "the ends justify the means". This means all you're saying is that the life of one person maybe worth more than the life of another.

    Here is a fact of life:

    People will die in the line of fire during incidents involving police officers. Some on the side of law enforcement, and some on the side of civilians.
    Agreed

    Since the civilian population tremendously outnumbers law enforcement in the line of fire (boots on the ground), it would be extremely alarming if LE had more that die in the line of fire instead of the other way around, wouldn't you agree?(you seem to think that more LE should die in the line of fire than the citizens)
    No, I think that the statistics show it's more dangerous being a citizen confronted by a cop than a cop confronted by a citizen.

    Every police officer on the job carries a weapon, not every civilian carries one boots on the ground isn't the whole picture if some of the boots are armed with only their cellphones. Then you have to figure how much of the civilian population actually encounters police? Some go their whole lives never being pulled over, ticketed, or arrested.

    Also your attempting to argue that killing a police officer should have stiffer penalties yet acknowledge the fact that they kill more people than they themselves are killed. Just how dangerous is this job if that's the case?

    I may complain about the WAY LE is used to run this country (minor speeding tickets, jay walking, very small amounts of marijuana, that sort of thing), I will not argue that LE has a legitimate role in ANY civilized society.
    I never argued that they don't have a legitimate role, I'm arguing that their lives should be treated the same as everyone else's. No better no worse. Murder is when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. The definition of murder makes no room for who was murdered or who did the murdering.

    I either read your comment wrong, or you didn't' think your answer out very well. You usually have pretty level headed answers, which is why I'm scratching my head...?
    Last edited by Docd187123; 12-08-2014 at 08:45 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Docd187123 View Post
    One of my jobs when I was a teenager was working in a manufacturing plant where I was almost killed by a 50ton press. Are you arguing giving that press (do you mean the press OPERATOR or the machine itself?) (if you mean the operator, then I am sure the death at most would have been one of sentencing the operator to negligance) the death penalty or giving it a stiffer punishment bc I "as an employee should not have to face death as a natural consequence of doing my job"?

    1) I used the term "employee" to also, and specifically, refer to LE. Bottom line, they are still employees

    2) I went on to clarify "natural consequence" later on....

    What about doctors without borders? Those doctors face much more dangerous situations than police officers, why not make it a stiffer penalty for killimg them?

    I would like to see the stats on that comment. Please include a link to an authoritative reference that is credible....

    The premise isn't about not facing death as a natural consequence of doing your job bc if you accept the position of police officer you accept the inherent dangers of the job. Are we to tell our military men and women that they shouldn't have to face death as a consequence of their career choice?

    somehow, you didn't read the very next sentence I wrote that you somehow forgot to include in your paraphrase of the first sentence I wrote...

    " in order to achieve that objective, certain precautions must be made. one is the authority to use lethal force for the police officer to protect themselves from eminent danger."

    this is a reasonable position, would you not agree?


    You are valuing the life of one person more than another and justifying it with "the ends justify the means". This means all you're saying is that the life of one person maybe worth more than the life of another.

    that is not exactly what I said, is it. you interpreted and filtered what I said and somehow came up with this.

    what I said was...

    "There are two relevant aspects to human life we should consider:

    1) The intrinsic value of that human life
    2) The net contribution to society that life has made

    Therefore, to a certain extent, all life is equal. But how we treat that life is also a reflection of #2 as well.

    proof:

    if you are a net detractor from society, society will punish/kill you. Think state sponsored executions
    if you are a net contributor to society, society will reward you. Think actors and A list athletes.

    So you need to consider not only how individuals treat one another, but also how groups of individuals (called societies) treat you. We all know that the psychology of individuals is much different than the psychology of societies."




    Agreed



    No, I think that the statistics show it's more dangerous being a citizen confronted by a cop than a cop confronted by a citizen.

    Every police officer on the job carries a weapon, not every civilian carries one boots on the ground isn't the whole picture if some of the boots are armed with only their cellphones. Then you have to figure how much of the civilian population actually encounters police? Some go their whole lives never being pulled over, ticketed, or arrested.

    Also your attempting to argue that killing a police officer should have stiffer penalties yet acknowledge the fact that they kill more people than they themselves are killed. Just how dangerous is this job if that's the case?



    I never argued that they don't have a legitimate role, I'm arguing that their lives should be treated the same as everyone else's. No better no worse. Murder is when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. The definition of murder makes no room for who was murdered or who did the murdering.
    please read my notes.

    I'm trying to be very clear.

    please take a moment to understand and not miscommunicate it to yourself and others....
    Last edited by Times Roman; 12-08-2014 at 09:33 PM.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Times Roman View Post
    please read my notes.

    I'm trying to be very clear.

    please take a moment to understand and not miscommunicate it to yourself and others....
    1 and 2 you missed my point.

    I'll try and post links later but for now you can look up what happened to DWB in Sudan and other African countries.

    If someone uses force on a cop I have absolutely no issue with them using force, deadly if necessary, to defend themselves. The issue once again isn't about them defending themselves, it's about the crime and punishment aspect. I never said to tie their hands behind their backs and go serve warrants on drug cartels or anything of the sort.

    I don't beleive the death penalty works at all which IMO invalidates your proof. A list actors and celebrities don't have laws re-written to make killing them a worse crime than killing an average citizen.....

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    13,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Docd187123 View Post

    What about doctors without borders? Those doctors face much more dangerous situations than police officers, why not make it a stiffer penalty for killimg them?
    Attacks against EMS and hospital personnel (doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc) do carry higher penalties in most places.
    What you seem to be missing is that these harsher prosecution laws are meant to deter someone who has already attacked civilians from also attacking the professionals who are placing themselves in harm's way and do not have the luxury to just run away and "let someone else take care of it".

    If someone has already crossed that line and committed violence against another civilian, there must be another line drawn to make him think twice about attacking those professionals charged with the task of stopping him.

    Society cannot afford to have as many public servants killed as random civilians. We would run out of public servants very fast, and then there would be anarchy and we'd all be burning and raping each other.
    Last edited by Bonaparte; 12-08-2014 at 10:44 PM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    30,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonaparte View Post
    Attacks against EMS and hospital personnel (doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc) do carry higher penalties in most places.
    What you seem to be missing is that these harsher prosecution laws are meant to deter someone who has already attacked civilians from also attacking the professionals who are placing themselves in harm's way and do not have the luxury to just run away and "let someone else take care of it".

    If someone has already crossed that line and committed violence against another civilian, there must be another line drawn to make him think twice about attacking those professionals charged with the task of stopping him.

    Society cannot afford to have as many public servants killed as random civilians. We would run out of public servants very fast, and then there would be anarchy and we'd all be burning and raping each other.
    But that is exactly what certain groups are saying should be done, such as in the Michael Brown case. They are saying when/if Michael Brown was charging the officer he should have just ran away. STUPID...

  19. #19
    kelkel's Avatar
    kelkel is offline HRT Specialist ~ AR-Platinum Elite-Hall of Famer ~ No Source Checks
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East Coast Dungeon
    Posts
    29,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonaparte View Post
    Attacks against EMS and hospital personnel (doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc) do carry higher penalties in most places.
    What you seem to be missing is that these harsher prosecution laws are meant to deter someone who has already attacked civilians from also attacking the professionals who are placing themselves in harm's way and do not have the luxury to just run away and "let someone else take care of it".

    If someone has already crossed that line and committed violence against another civilian, there must be another line drawn to make him think twice about attacking those professionals charged with the task of stopping him.

    Society cannot afford to have as many public servants killed as random civilians. We would run out of public servants very fast, and then there would be anarchy and we'd all be burning and raping each other.
    I've tried to explain that yet failed miserably. I'm guessing it's just the extreme liberal mindset these days regurgitated by so many college professors, etc. I could be wrong but that's the impression given. I guess a public servant must be almost killed before they can fight back....
    Last edited by kelkel; 12-09-2014 at 10:31 AM.
    -*- NO SOURCE CHECKS -*-

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by kelkel View Post
    I've tried to explain that yet failed miserably. I'm guessing it's just the extreme liberal mindset these days regurgitated by so many college professors, etc. I could be wrong but that's the impression given. I guess a public servant must be almost killed before they can fight back....
    If you can please point me to the part where I stated they're not allowed to fight back I'll grant you the point. All I've said is that the punishment of a crime should be no different based on who it was committed against. That does NOT in any way, shape, or form say anything about them being able to fight back or not.

  21. #21
    kelkel's Avatar
    kelkel is offline HRT Specialist ~ AR-Platinum Elite-Hall of Famer ~ No Source Checks
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    East Coast Dungeon
    Posts
    29,919
    Quote Originally Posted by Docd187123 View Post
    All I've said is that the punishment of a crime should be no different based on who it was committed against. That does NOT in any way, shape, or form say anything about them being able to fight back or not.
    Well, this is where all our current lawmakers for generations feel you are wrong, as do I. I don't understand how anyone cannot see how enhanced penalties in this situation is not a deterrent. Why would anyone not want people in these professions to have these added protections baffles me. Crime against workers in those fields would rise exponentially as scumbags who have no problems assaulting fellow scumbags would have even less an issue with assaulting cops, teachers, fire fighters, etc.
    -*- NO SOURCE CHECKS -*-

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonaparte View Post
    Attacks against EMS and hospital personnel (doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc) do carry higher penalties in most places.
    What you seem to be missing is that these harsher prosecution laws are meant to deter someone who has already attacked civilians from also attacking the professionals who are placing themselves in harm's way and do not have the luxury to just run away and "let someone else take care of it".

    If someone has already crossed that line and committed violence against another civilian, there must be another line drawn to make him think twice about attacking those professionals charged with the task of stopping him.

    Society cannot afford to have as many public servants killed as random civilians. We would run out of public servants very fast, and then there would be anarchy and we'd all be burning and raping each other.
    If someone has crossed he line and violence against a civilian, no law or punishment is going to make them think twice about doing the same to a police officer. They view the citizen as defenseless and commit the violence. A police officer they know has a gun and can and will shoot back or fight back. I are that's what deters them not a punishment after the fact.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Back from Afghanistan
    Posts
    27,376
    here's what I do think of LE

    to a high extent, there are too many of them that have too much time on their hands.

    the proof of this statement is by observing how they spend a significant portion of their time hassling citizens

    1) pulling people over that for all intents and purposes, are operating their vehicles safely, yet are pulled over for doing a few miles an hour over the speed limit

    2) giving a handicapped person's vehicle a parking ticket because 1 tire is touching a painted line

    3) pulling someone over for a seat belt violation at night on a country road when it is hard to see

    4) pulling over someone on a Harley that has been following you for over a mile, and then the cop pulls to the right quickly, just long enough to get behind the guy on the Harley, just to give him a speeding ticket. The Harley rider took the cop to court and easily beat the charges, but what a huge waste of time for the cop who sucked off the taxpayers by pulling overtime, the courts for the frivolous ticket, and the citizen for having to take time off from work.

    The list can go on and on. The solution for this is to reduce the headcount of police officers so that they no longer have time for pulling this stupid shit.

    And this example also extends to other civil servants that suck off tax payers, like the fire department. Google Ripon, Ca fire department. each station probably only gets four calls a day. yet they drive only the best, most modern fire trucks and use the best fire equipment, and their fire stations are like little apartments. All paid for by the tax payer. True, they have a huge volunteer force, and intentionally so. What happened was, there was a huge endowment to the volunteer fire fighters, millions, and it has to be spent on the volunteers. so they lead these poor fvckers on telling them to just play the game and they will be next in line to be hired full time (volunteers do not make any money). But it's been almost ten ? years since the last volunteered was hired. this doesn't mean they don't hire, just not volunteers. asnd they borrow money from the volunteer endowment.

    friggin game

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,642
    Quote Originally Posted by Metalject View Post
    Are certain lives more valuable than others? The initial response by most would be no, that each life is just as valuable as another. If that's the case, why does everything in our society say differently? Here are some examples:

    1. If I walk into a room and kill the first person I see, I will be arrested and sentenced harshly. If I walk into the same room, kill the first person I see and that person is a police officer, I will receive a much harsher sentence.

    2. If a leader, be it political or in business dies, a large portion of society mourns his loss. This man could have been, let's just say "subpar" when it comes to his family and personal relationships, but he did contribute to society as a whole in some way. And that same day another man dies, a regular man who made little to no impact on society in terms of what we all see. He was loved by his family and friends, a good man, but other than his immediate family no one really mourns his loss.

    3. Ten people die tragically, let's say due to some type of terrorist or criminal act. Ten lives are cut tragically short. That same day in the same city, ten people die of cancer, ten lives are cut tragically short. Regardless of what kind of people these twenty people were, people will mourn the ten that lost their life to tragic violence far more than the other ten; in fact, in comparison it will be immeasurable.

    Personally, I think we have a warped view of the value of life, and I think all three of the examples above show this warped view. In any of the deaths above, I cannot see how one is more meaningful in terms of who that person was. Am I wrong? Do we have a warped sense of the value of life or do we see and view things properly?
    All life is sacred! f*ck society, political and conditioned views. IMO...

  25. #25
    GirlyGymRat's Avatar
    GirlyGymRat is offline Knowledgeable Elite ~ Respected Female Leader ~
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    In a gym!
    Posts
    14,955
    Quote Originally Posted by Juced_porkchop
    All life is sacred! f*ck society, political and conditioned views. IMO...
    I'm with juiced. LoL

  26. #26
    Meanwhile, in 2014 there were over 1000people killed by cops. Yes most of them were justified killings but how many were not? It's hard to tell bc cops killing citizens goes largely Unwatched by bureaucratic agencies. If even one quarter of one percent of those killings were unjustified, that means, like I mentioned earlier, it's more of an open season on you and me than it is on a police officer doing his job. Z

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,065
    First comment is perhaps an obvious yet often forgotten one. 99% of the people in this thread and on this message board are law breakers and would be subject to extreme police action if they were caught. And most would find the behavior of the police against them to be over the top as well as demeaning if they were to find themselves in that position. Most here are criminals according to the law, and while their life may hold value as all life does, they would quickly find they have forfeited that value (to a degree) if ever in a hand caught in the cookie jar situation.

    Police are definitely necessary. Police also without question need some leeway in terms of what they can and cannot do, a definite need for authority in some situations. But it's important to remember and recognize that authority comes from the people they are intended to serve, merely an extension of the larger government arm. Policemen are often referred to as Public Servants, but, in my opinion, we've long lost the sense of what that means. While we call them servants they have largely turned into enforcers and have been raised to a position over those they were intended to serve. The police themselves are not really to blame - they are merely tools of the larger apparatus, they are not the apparatus.

    When you look at the use of deadly force, policemen should without question have this right of power when their lives are threatened. But the same right should be given to men who are not police officers...all men should equally possess this right because as men they are equal. And when one attempts to unjustifiably take a life of an individual, cop or not, the punishment should be just as severe in either case. Personally, I believe taking another's life without just cause is reason enough to forfeit your life. This could mean a death penalty or life in prison, that's another argument, but in either case your freedom is forfeit.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •