Quote :

"So...how'd you get that gift of discernment to decide which archaic Biblical laws you'll follow and which you wont'? "

I never mentioned following or believing in the Bible at all. An eye for an eye may come from the Bible but it has become a pretty modern day term for revenge.
&
^Thanks for letting me know this was the soap box, maybe next time you can actually reply to the subject of the thread, if it isn't too hard for you to think outside something as simple as correcting someone.

6/8/2006 2:03:49 PM

So revenge, as opposed to...I don't know...justice, is meant to be the foundation of our justice system?

6/8/2006 4:15:10 PM

Justice and revenge aren't mutually exclusive

6/8/2006 4:30:57 PM

As a matter of motivation they are. One relies on impartiality/objectivity/"fairness" as its basis, where the other is of a purely emotional response. They can both result in the same "punishment", but that doesn't mean they aren't mutually exclusive.

6/8/2006 4:34:59 PM

If Justice was the only issue then attempted murder and murder would have equal punishments. However, people feel the state should take revenge upon wrong doers.

It also explains why we put people in jail for 15 years for the crime of driving too fast and someone dying as a result (negligent homicide).

If Justice was the only issue then the cops would issue you a speeding ticket and leave you to drive home.

[Edited on June 8, 2006 at 5:15 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/8/2006 5:14:58 PM

Oh, by no means am I asserting that justice is actually the biggest factor in our justice system. Money and revenge play pretty big roles.

My initial response in this thread was in hopes of pointing out the inconsistency of following certain tenets of the Bible but not others, brought on by the phrase "eye for an eye". That got shot down pretty quickly (although due to the nature of these forums, I'm sure I'll have an opportunity to do so before too long). Now it's more a question of what should be the guiding principle in our system of punishment. It seems to me that dman is content with a system based on revenge. I disagree.

6/8/2006 5:22:21 PM

Quote :

"They can both result in the same "punishment", but that doesn't mean they aren't mutually exclusive."

This sentence is borderline retarded.

Perhaps a lack of understanding of the phrase "mutually exclusive" is your problem.

6/8/2006 8:58:51 PM

As a matter of motivation, they are mutually exclusive. As a matter of end result, they aren't. But I'm talking about the former.

6/8/2006 9:26:57 PM

I am an avid supporter of the death penalty, but even I don't agree with it being used except in the event of first degree murder or multiple second degree murder in which the victims were tortured.

6/8/2006 9:27:42 PM

may I add district attorneys who indict without a reasonable degree of evidence for political gain

6/8/2006 10:19:17 PM

Poaching on the King's land.

6/8/2006 10:40:55 PM

^ like susan spurlin? I know her personally, actually. In case you don't know, she's the one who sentenced the Johnson kids to death. She lives out on some farm between Zebulon in Rolesville. Her husband is a drug dealer and they recently have been caught stealing electricity from Wake County. I know these people, literally; they are fucked up beyond repair.

6/8/2006 10:41:27 PM

she fucking poached on the king's land?

OFF WITH HER MOTHERFUCKING HEAD

6/8/2006 10:44:44 PM