So torturing her is going to bring those people back to life? No? So then theres no point to it other than sadism.
Sadism would be torturing an innocent. She's far from that. And she won't spend her life in prison so she won't even get the punishment inflicted by the law. They'll kill her before long. Why all this grace reserved to an angel of death?
Because decency is for everyone or it's not decency.
Such a being doesn't deserve decency.
I've heard that phrase somewhere before...
Where, oh sun god?
The pages of Mein Kampf.
I bet it wasn't used to describe an angel of death...
No, it was used to describe Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, Communists, and pretty much everybody the Nazis disliked.
As the poster further up the chain said, decency is for everyone or it is not decent.
I disagree. I'm not talking about some group of people some other group doesn't like, but somebody who's universally despised, somebody who does things so against our nature it's nuts. Some people deserve decency, some others do not.
I disagree, it is dangerous to dehumanise people no matter how disgusting we find them. People are still people man, we may never understand how they think or why they do the things that they do.
History has shown time and again where dehumanisation leads to.
Not dehumanizing. Some things she doesn't deserve cos of her behaviour. Freedom of movement for example. To me she doesn't deserve decency either.
"But then we're no better than them!"
This moral purism of theirs is hypocritical. It can only exist if there are good people who are "impure". The threat of violence for instance is what keeps wanton violence at bay. Someone can be as pacifistic as they like, but at the end of the day, you aren't going to solve all violence in the world with clever words.
the threat of violence is what keeps wanton violence at bay
Given that the threat of violence did absolutely nothing to keep this violence at bay I'd love for you to expound upon this point further.
I'm referring to the general theory of government where the state has a monopoly on violence. It should be fairly obvious that the threat of violence is used to keep people in line -- it's why police, security guards, and bouncers exist. Why do you think guards and soldiers are some of the world's oldest professions?
We didn't threaten her or any other serial killer in countries where there's no death penalty with violence. But death is too swift a punishment.
So torturing her is going to bring those people back to life? No? So then theres no point to it other than sadism.
Sadism would be torturing an innocent. She's far from that. And she won't spend her life in prison so she won't even get the punishment inflicted by the law. They'll kill her before long. Why all this grace reserved to an angel of death?
Because decency is for everyone or it's not decency.
Such a being doesn't deserve decency.
I've heard that phrase somewhere before...
Where, oh sun god?
The pages of Mein Kampf.
I bet it wasn't used to describe an angel of death...
No, it was used to describe Jews, Roma, Homosexuals, Communists, and pretty much everybody the Nazis disliked.
As the poster further up the chain said, decency is for everyone or it is not decent.
I disagree. I'm not talking about some group of people some other group doesn't like, but somebody who's universally despised, somebody who does things so against our nature it's nuts. Some people deserve decency, some others do not.
I disagree, it is dangerous to dehumanise people no matter how disgusting we find them. People are still people man, we may never understand how they think or why they do the things that they do.
History has shown time and again where dehumanisation leads to.
Not dehumanizing. Some things she doesn't deserve cos of her behaviour. Freedom of movement for example. To me she doesn't deserve decency either.
"But then we're no better than them!"
This moral purism of theirs is hypocritical. It can only exist if there are good people who are "impure". The threat of violence for instance is what keeps wanton violence at bay. Someone can be as pacifistic as they like, but at the end of the day, you aren't going to solve all violence in the world with clever words.
Given that the threat of violence did absolutely nothing to keep this violence at bay I'd love for you to expound upon this point further.
I'm referring to the general theory of government where the state has a monopoly on violence. It should be fairly obvious that the threat of violence is used to keep people in line -- it's why police, security guards, and bouncers exist. Why do you think guards and soldiers are some of the world's oldest professions?
We didn't threaten her or any other serial killer in countries where there's no death penalty with violence. But death is too swift a punishment.