12379f1def6c
tech



Hello Robert - 

--8<--cut 

CA>>>> I find it difficult to impose a slow and painful death
CA>>>> on others so that I can just keep everything as it was
CA>>>> and not have to sacrifice by doing without. 

RS>>> While I agree with this sentiment, I don't agree that we
RS>>> should force people to NOT do things that we think are
RS>>> bad for them "for their own good" so to speak. 

RS>>> I should have the choice to breathe in zinc or asbestos
RS>>> or any other poison that I so choose. I have the right to
RS>>> be wrong. 

CA>> Those who drink and drive (or take drugs and drive) feel
CA>> the same way. Truth is we share this planet and your risk
CA>> taking can involve others in risks they do not chose to
CA>> share with you. 

RS> But, they should be punished for what happens, not what we
RS> fear might happen. If they're weaving all over the road,
RS> punish them for that and add an additional stiff penalty
RS> for the substance as it is a contributor, but don't just
RS> pull someone over at random and find them under the
RS> influence when their driving gave no indication of such. 

RS> Rule due to fear is wrong and unjust. 

RS> (In case anyone cares, we do not smoke, drink, nor do
RS> drugs.) 

That's what we have _now_. We can know a crime is about to
happen but we cannot interfere until _after_ the crime is
committed. How would you feel if I _knew_ your mother or father
were going to be shot and killed but I stood and did nothing
waiting for the crime to be committed then offerred to 'punish'
the perpetrator(s)? 

'Punishment' is a word used by people who have no idea how
inadequate that really is. No punishment can fix the lives of
children who are abused or raped. No punishment will replace
lost body parts because someone was allowed to drive under the
influence until they pushed you into a tree or hit you head on.
Punishment is impotent, as powerless as regret and as useless. 

--8<--cut 

RS>>> Don't try to take rights away that are not yours to take.
RS>>> Don't try to take away the consequences of my behavior.
RS>>> Don't try to take away my right to be wrong. 

CA>> If I am allowed to put mortar shells into vehicles manned
CA>> by drunks who are swerving at 90 mph in front of me, shoot
CA>> violent people in public places who are threatening me (or
CA>> anyone else) in an attempt to intimidate me, and am
CA>> allowed to remove children from the homes of suicidal
CA>> parents then I am more than willing to allow your right to
CA>> be wrong. 

CA>> Meanwhile the 'rights' you refer to infringe on my right
CA>> to not be involved in your consequences. 

RS> I see your points. 

RS> I would also like to avoid consequences of others' actions,
RS> but I don't think that the world can (nor should) work that
RS> way. 

It's called a 'pre-emptive strike'. Dance around my
neighborhood shooting long range weapons and I'll pop ya' from
behind before you can 'accidently' shoot me in my living room
and then be 'punished' sometime after my funeral. 

Good girls like 'bad boys', they tend to breed. Some old
fashioned "eye for an eye" would thin THAT herd real fast! 

>
>        ,                                        ,
>      o/      Charles_Angelich  - DOS Ghost       \o       ,
>       __o/
>     / >  www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/faf/  < \   __\__
 

___ * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... Xmas Music! www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/faf/snowsc.htm

--- Maximus/2 3.01