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

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

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

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

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

CA> RS> Rule due to fear is wrong and unjust.

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

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

 I would not like that; but, stopping them
and punishing them are two different things.

 Preventing a crime should not mandate a
punishment to make it happen.

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

 Punishment is not intended to help the
injured directly. It is to help society as
a whole. And, yes, this sucks!

CA> --8<--cut

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

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

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

CA> RS> I see your points.

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

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

 There should be consequences for shooting
long range weapons in a "neighborhood"; but,
I'm not sure death is the appropriate one in
all cases.

 Also, your scenario sounds more like self-
defence than a "pre-emptive strike". I'd
hate to see people with the right to kill
others "just in case" they might kill them.

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

 I wish I were as sure.

 TTYL.

 Robert

 * SLMR 2.1a * It takes a Viking to raze a village.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5