Only Spank the Bad Kids

[Wezil]

I read that story.

[Wezil]

Zkribbler once claimed the existence of a a slave trade in LA where he lived but every time I asked him about picking up a couple of domestic slaves for me (housecleaning not sex) he got all pissed off. I think he was lying.

[DirtyMartini]

Either way, it says that it is ok to kill a helpless person who has no reasonable chance of hurting anyone in the future...

If you have a good enough reason...


We can vote on the reasons, decide individually or proclaim it unacceptable. You pick. I proclaim it unacceptable.

Your views on capital punishment and your views on collateral damage seem to be based on mutually contradictory logic.

[DirtyMartini]

As in:

there's no reason good enough to allow the killing of the helpless (albeit guilty) criminal via the death penalty,

but in the case of collateral damage, there's a good enough reason, so killing helpless innocents is OK.

To paraphrase a very (IQ 134) smart man "collateral damage is just the rationalization of the justifcation of murder"

[Ben Kenobi]

Zkribbler once claimed the existence of a a slave trade in LA where he lived but every time I asked him about picking up a couple of domestic slaves for me (housecleaning not sex) he got all pissed off. I think he was lying.

Somehow I get the feeling he wasn't trying to advertise...

[Ecofarm]

Your views on capital punishment and your views on collateral damage seem to be based on mutually contradictory logic.

Collateral damage is terrible, but serves the greater good. Killing helpless and harmless people on purpose and for no reason except revenge is unjustified killing - murder. Collateral damage is not murder, as much as it is hell.

Collateral damage is the unintended killing of innocents in the course of averting a worse consequence. In the case of killing terrorists, an innocent dead to kill a mass murderer who will kill 100 tomorrow is a terrible consequence of conviction to peace and not the same thing as killing a helpless and harmless person on purpose for no defensive reason.

Capital punishment = killing a prisoner who can't hurt anyone.

Collateral damage = killing a person who is killing a dozen people (and a dozen more if you don't) and accidentally killing an innocent person next to them.


That is not at all the same thing. My views are entirely consistent upon protecting the weak. Any contradictions lay in your misunderstanding.

[Ben Kenobi]

What if the parents are abusive?

That's a different problem. Spanking, in and of itself isn't abusive.

AFAIK no western nation allows parents to do whatever they want to/with their children. They certainly can't sell them like other possessions.

I did not say owning. I said belonging. Children need to know that they belong to someone. They belong to their parents who have the authority to discipline and care for them.

You'll note I said "no more effective" so actually that's 2-0 to me.

So you admit that spanking isn't harmful?

[Riesstiu IV]

So you like spanking little boys, Ben?

[Ecofarm]

I should note, Dirty, I didn't score 134 in all of the catagories, which averaged for the test result; my scores were rather erratic.

[DirtyMartini]

Either way, it says that it is ok to kill a helpless person who has no reasonable chance of hurting anyone in the future...

If you have a good enough reason...


We can vote on the reasons, decide individually or proclaim it unacceptable. You pick. I proclaim it unacceptable.

Collateral damage is terrible, but serves the greater good. Killing helpless and harmless people on purpose and for no reason except revenge is unjustified killing - murder. Collateral damage is not murder, as much as it is hell.

Collateral damage is the unintended killing of innocents in the course of averting a worse consequence. In the case of killing terrorists, an innocent dead to kill a mass murderer who will kill 100 tomorrow is a terrible consequence of conviction to peace and not the same thing as killing a helpless and harmless person on purpose for no defensive reason.

Capital punishment = killing a prisoner who can't hurt anyone.

Collateral damage = killing a person who is killing a dozen people (and a dozen more if you don't) and accidentally killing an innocent person next to them.


That is not at all the same thing. My views are entirely consistent upon protecting the weak. Any contradiction lies in your misunderstanding.

I don't misuderstand. In one case you've decided to rationalize in order to excuse the killing of an innocent. In the other case, you've decided that it's not OK to rationalize.

I can come up with a very good rationalization that excuses the death penalty: If we don't execute violent offenders, they may go on to escape, or kill fellow prisoners or kill guards. We must protect the greater good by removing that threat.

[Ecofarm]

I don't misuderstand. In one case you've decided to rationalize in order to excuse the killing of an innocent. In the other case, you've decided that it's not OK to rationalize.

That's correct. My rationalization is...


If the innocent to be killed will be killed because another person near them has and will kill many if that person is not killed immediately.



We have reasons to kill... and we have reasons to kill innocents. Punishment should not be a reason.

Nor should be convenience.

Only the absolute defense of others, or the sustaining of one's life in the case of diet (though that should be kept to a minimal damage ecologically).

Respect life.

And then there's zen.

[DirtyMartini]

I guess that's fair. Your death penalty stance still seems quite black and white, while the collateral damage issue is a similar issue (relative value of human life) but your stance is all shades of grey and if/then clauses. When collateral damage is/is not OK seems highly dependent on the number of people killed on each side of the equation. Kill one to save one million? Kill one to save 10? Kill 2 to save 3? How could you ever know anyway?

[Ecofarm]

We all must draw the line somewhere, whether it be to kill a guilty (in the act of rape?) or an innocent who cannot be avoided.

Gandhism doesn't work for me.

I draw my line before helpless, harmless and alone.

[giblets]

If you can kill for the greater good, why not spank someone for their own good?

[Ecofarm]

Fine, but not kids.