Reply #89: on not having a clue

[iverglas]

to my way of thinking these people have forfeited their right to live

So, what's your private definition of "inalienable", then? And you imagine the purpose of all the fine words that have been written over recent centuries, about inalienable rights, and the right to life, and all that jazz -- all just meaningless buzzing, has it been?


What I do not understand is how we human beings can allow someone to live who has taken that life (and those other things I mentioned before) away from another human being.

Uh, because we stopped being ignorant savages a while back?

"And those other things"? Death penalty for assault, now?


A man or woman decides that he/she is going to kill another human being for some reason.

Actually, not a whole lot of homicides are the result of decisions. Most are impulsive acts, and many were not intended to cause death.

These would be among the factors that explain why homicide is a difficult offence to deter via possible sentences / sentencing.


I understand that this desire to try to redeem/rehabilitate these people springs in large part from the teachings of some religious and spiritual groups that life is sacred and we humans should never take a human life because of that. I respect that, but I don't buy it.

I don't give a toss about it, myself, being a hardcore atheist. I just don't want to belong to a species that has not evolved beyond collectively killing its members.


typo