Reply #92: It seems you didn't read what I wrote

[jwlashta]

You're attacking inconsequential points rather than the crux of the argument. In fact, your first argument misses the point of the argument all together: the fact that people tend to think with both emotions and reasons, whereas the state should ideally be a reasonable entity.

I would hate to live next to a pedophile or some psychotic mass-murderer. If this guy had killed a family member, I would want him dead; this is because I am a human being. That being said, the public/political institutions are set up to protect the interests of all human beings. I cannot see any reasonable human being wanting to live in a state which kills its citizens. If you counter that some crimes are morally reprehensible, one could easily ask whether your counter argument is truly grounded in reason or is it an emotional response.

By the way, information coming out about the suspect is that he was "a nice guy." I have read nothing about the suspect eating the flesh of the victim; it sounds like fear mongering to me.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/01/stabbing-victim.html


Once again, as I originally stated, I think you're jumping the gun before the facts have/had been even released. You say this suspect is the type of person in which "...there is no evidence of humanity, no hope of rehabilitation." Do you base this on the accusation that he was taunting the police with the head? So, if he were high would that change your mind? What if he were an upstanding citizen up until this point and then he just snapped--would there be no hope for rehabilitation then? How exactly do you set a criteria for "...no evidence of humanity, no hope of rehabilitation?"