Types of people

[Tiger's Eye]

Tiger's Eye...

 

Thanks for the lesson on Japan' date=' but I already know the real reason the bombs were dropped.

 

Also, in case your referring to me, I haven't changed my mind one bit on the classifications of people. I wish we lived in a world where that would be unheard of, but we don't...so I can't.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Reason being? (since you seem to disagree with what i said, i'm guessing...)

 

And I'm not trying to change your mind. As i said in my earlier post, i was speaking for myself and myself alone (as far as i know). I referred to the terms that you defined for "good', "bad", and "monsters" because, personally, i did not agree with them; i wrote what i did in order to make a point. Like i said, i'm not out to change anyone's mind, but i do think that it's inapproriate to deem those terms as, well, appropriate ways to categorize people. I honestly did not mean to make any personal attacks.

 

I can sympathize with you in wishing for a perfect world, but as you say, we don't. But we also do not like in a black and white world. It is much more complex than that...more complex than 'good', 'bad', or 'monsters'. Again, please consider the examples that i presented.

 

Please do not take any offense. No harm was intended.

 

L8er,

 

Tiger

[Bettina]

Reason being? (since you seem to disagree with what i said' date=' i'm guessing...)

 

And I'm not trying to change your mind. As i said in my earlier post, i was speaking for myself and myself alone (as far as i know). I referred to the terms that you defined for "good', "bad", and "monsters" because, personally, i did not agree with them; i wrote what i did in order to make a point. Like i said, i'm not out to change anyone's mind, but i do think that it's inapproriate to deem those terms as, well, appropriate ways to categorize people. I honestly did not mean to make any personal attacks.

 

I can sympathize with you in wishing for a perfect world, but as you say, we don't. But we also do not like in a black and white world. It is much more complex than that...more complex than 'good', 'bad', or 'monsters'. Again, please consider the examples that i presented.

 

Please do not take any offense. No harm was intended.

 

L8er,

 

Tiger [/quote']

 

You did not offend me in the least.

 

I don't want other posters to think that this is rehashing of an old subject, so forgive me it it sounds that way, but lets take a look at Joe Smith. He was in the news a few days ago as being convicted of kidnapping, 11 year old Carlie Brucia.

 

He led her away like a frightened lamb, raped her, told his brother that he had "rough sex" with her, then when he was done, he strangled her...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/17/taped.abduction/index.html

 

This man is a monster of the worst kind and you can go ahead and protect him if you want, but I want him dead. I want the parents to pull the switch....I would. I would cry for him....but I would pull it. She was only 11.

 

Edit: This is no gray area either.

 

Bettina

[Pangloss]

TE, what would you suggest the US have done following the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941?

[LazerFazer]

@Bettina

This man is a monster of the worst kind and you can go ahead and protect him if you want' date=' but I want him dead. I want the parents to pull the switch....I would. I would cry for him....but I would pull it. She was only 11.

[/quote']

 

I dont see anybody protecting this guy. It's more like trying to protect those who, in their blind hatred, in their emotion-fuelled rage, want this guy to be executed. But if you really think about it, does executing the guy bring back the little girl? Does it return what was taken away? NO. Executing him doesn't achieve anything, except perhaps making him into a martyr. You can't deny that there are probably more people out there who have the same ideas, perhaps even really believe that they are doing the right thing. If they hear about this, and see this guy being executed, wouldn't that perhaps inspire them, encourage them even? If this guy really shows no remorse for what he did, I say lock him up in prison and leave him there to rot for all of eternity (or at least until he dies of natural causes). Does it make you any better than him if you are willing to kill out of pure, sadistic pleasure? No, it makes you just as bad. He killed for pleasure, you killed him for pleasure. Look at it from an outsiders point of view, and the two are identical crimes.

 

@Pangloss

TE' date=' what would you suggest the US have done following the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941?

[/quote']

 

I don't think that Tiger's Eye was making a reference to the entire war, just to the needless attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't know what she thinks about the entire war, but I DO know that she doesn't support the pointless killing of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly civilians. Would it have been so bad to accept the surrender of Japan when the proposal was initially made? At least half a million lives would have been saved, not to mention the wasted resources in the last part of the war. As for Pearl Harbour, are you saying that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were revenge for Pearl Harbour? If so, then you go back to the whole thing of 'and eye of an eye'. Also, this point was brought up in relation to the labeling of people under three catagories. So how DO you label the US government (at that time) then? Heroes for defending the nation? Or monsters for killing hundreds of thousands of civilians without a backwards glance?

 

@Tiger's Eye

I can sympathize with you in wishing for a perfect world' date=' but as you say, we don't. But we also do not like in a black and white world. It is much more complex than that...more complex than 'good', 'bad', or 'monsters'. Again, please consider the examples that i presented.

[/quote']

 

Yes, excellent point there. We sometimes get so consumed by the idea of a perfect world that we forget what reality is about. Life is complex, and so are people. If you want to label people as good, bad, or monsters, then you would have to go into their entire life's history.

 

Who do you blame if the person turns out to be a 'monster' because he/she was taught that was the best way? What about someone who kills a large number of people but then feels remorse for what he/she did?

 

LazerFazer

[Tiger's Eye]

You did not offend me in the least.

 

I don't want other posters to think that this is rehashing of an old subject' date=' so forgive me it it sounds that way, but lets take a look at Joe Smith. He was in the news a few days ago as being convicted of kidnapping, 11 year old Carlie Brucia.

 

He led her away like a frightened lamb, raped her, told his brother that he had "rough sex" with her, then when he was done, he strangled her...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/17/taped.abduction/index.html

 

This man is a monster of the worst kind and you can go ahead and protect him if you want, but I want him dead. I want the parents to pull the switch....I would. I would cry for him....but I would pull it. She was only 11.

 

Edit: This is no gray area either.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

First of all, I’m really glad that I didn’t offend you

 

Secondly, I’m not sure what gave you the impression that I was trying to protect this guy, cause I’m not. Like I said, let him pine away in jail for the rest of this life; it’s not like it wouldn’t be well deserved. I understand that you have particularly strong feelings on the subject, and as you already voiced, you want him dead. Now, by the rights of our Constitution, you are perfectly entitled to speak your mind, but I’m not inclined to agree with it. And that is all I’m doing. Disagreeing with you. Don’t go and take it the wrong way. I want this guy to get whatever he deserves, however, the reason as to why I have a problem with sending him to the electric chair…well, that lies in your motive. You say that not only do you want him dead, but you want to pull the switch. Now here’s the question: does one want to do this in order to ‘avenge’ the girl or is this to satisfy one’s own desire? Either way, this is not exactly justice. By wanting to watch this guy suffer painfully to ease your want, this is revenge and slightly sadistic, if I can say that. I cannot stomach that quietly. Revenge is not about the little girl at all; it becomes a selfish thing.

 

TE, what would you suggest the US have done following the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941?

 

Please understand it was not my intention to bring about discussing this issue in this context. It was merely an example. However, you ask me what I would have done? Well, honestly, I’m not sure, nor am I certain that I have the particular grounds to support or, in fact, make such a suggestion, since I was neither there in terms of time or place. I don’t agree with the bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a few reasons:

1) As my post above suggests, there were other means to end the war. (read the articles. They reveal a lot…not exactly things that you find in your history book. I sure didn’t.)

2) The US intentionally bombed highly populated areas of Japan, thus killing several thousands of people that did not deserve such deaths that would also soon take their children due to radiation

3) “History is propaganda of the victor”. (Corelli’s Mandolin: great book. Highly recommend it)

 

 

The US bombed the two cities for revenge. That’s how I understand it. So again, does this make our decision-makers, our heroes, monsters? Or are they good, because they supposedly ended the war?

 

In a final thought, revenge is ugly and will never really get us anywhere. It won’t bring those dead people back from Pearl Harbor, nor the dead girl back. We only seek revenge to satisfy ourselves. Is that not selfish? Is that justice?

 

K, gotta go. L8er,

 

Tiger

[cosine]

I tried searching but couldn't find exactly what I was looking for so I posted this.....

 

During class Wednesday' date=' a boy started talking to us about Michael Ross, the murderer who wants to die. He killed like 8 girls and even showed the police where all the bodies were. Two of the girls were only 14 and he told the police that one of them begged for her life. He was judged sane during his trial and knew exactly what he was doing. Anyway, the teacher heard us and decided to probe the class on our feelings toward capital punishment and we discussed it again on Friday.

 

The kids in my class wanted to see him die and so did I, and as I listened, I decided I could look at how people treat each other and place them into three main groups. [i']Good, Bad, and Monsters.[/i] The good need no explanation, but the other two I thought about a lot. The bad are the ones who bully people, beat their wives, and just cause trouble everywhere they go. Then, there are the monsters. I believe Ross was one of those, as are the ones who rape and murder.

 

I can't yet classify the ones who are truly sick or the ones that were emotionally driven to be temporarily bad, but it's the monsters that I've always been afraid of like Ross and those who behead other people in cold blood. I wouldn't have any problem watching them get executed and I told my teacher just that. He told me and another girl that he was surprised hearing that from an emotional type like her and I and found it very interesting. (interesting?}

 

After the short discussion, he wanted us to vote, and I felt better when all of us (19 in all) wanted him dead. My teacher thought I would feel grief for Ross's family, and I'll admit I would have, but I wanted revenge for those girls. He said he won't judge our decision because it was a personal matter that we had to decide for ourselves, but he was hoping for more of an imbalance to promote more of a debate. I still would like an opinion on the sick ones though. What do you think...should monsters be executed?

 

Bettina

 

Who defines what a monster is? What will keep this definition of monster from changing from culture to culture, generation to generation, when people no longer share your views?

 

Edit: I shouldn't have posted this, I'm sure this has probably been asked somewhere in these 181 posts...

[Pangloss]

Well first of all, the US bombed a lot more than two Japanese cities, and did far more harm to the civilian population *before* the bombs were dropped. None of those bombings brought about the end of the war.

 

The "evidence" that Japan was willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped is scanty and circumstantial. The cases people make on that basis are always and often refuted and are simply not statable on a factual basis. Because historians disagree, you simply cannot make a statement like "Would it have been so bad to accept the surrender of Japan when the proposal was initially made?", as Cosine does above. It's just too refutable a point to accept the premise of that question without further debate.

 

If you want to have a debate on the subject, please start a new thread for that. Otherwise you're going to have to agree to disagree in this thread, and move along. There is insufficient basis for more than a simple statement of opinion there.

[Tiger's Eye]

Well first of all' date=' the US bombed a lot more than two Japanese cities, and did far more harm to the civilian population *before* the bombs were dropped. None of those bombings brought about the end of the war.

 

The "evidence" that Japan was willing to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped is scanty and circumstantial. The cases people make on that basis are always and often refuted and are simply not statable on a factual basis. Because historians disagree, you simply cannot make a statement like "Would it have been so bad to accept the surrender of Japan when the proposal was initially made?", as Cosine does above. It's just too refutable a point to accept the premise of that question without further debate.

 

If you want to have a debate on the subject, please start a new thread for that. Otherwise you're going to have to agree to disagree in this thread, and move along. There is insufficient basis for more than a simple statement of opinion there.[/quote']

 

Okay…

 

I think that we’re all going about this the wrong way. I did not bring about the issue in order to debate about it on this thread, it was intended as an example, but apparently, it didn’t really work out. Fine, I’ll use my other example that I had also mentioned. The US troops in Iraq. They are there supposedly fighting a war for the sake of both the Americans and the Iraqis. Ok. Well, we then find out that Iraqi prisoners are being needlessly abused and beaten and who-knows-what-else to the point of which they become even less than animals that are dragged around by leashes and stripped naked…by these American soldiers. So now, the question remains (as I’ve stated before): Are these soldiers ‘good’, since they are fighting for our countries and are hailed as heroes? Or are they ‘monsters’ for stripping human beings of their humanity for no valid reason except for pleasure (I highly doubt they were ordered to take pictures by their superiors)? Basically, my point goes back to the main topic of this thread: “Types of People” of which presents three categories classifying people as “good”, “bad” and “monster”. In my opinion, one cannot classify people in such a light manner since humans are much more complex than that. That’s basically all I wanted to do: to present my own opinion and ask you to consider it. Perhaps I should have made that clearer beforehand. Sorry about the confusion.

 

If you wish to know why I choose to use the example of Hiroshima, it was because I wanted to stress upon my own opinion about pulling the switch in reference to the electric chair (since it was mentioned so many times in this thread). Fine, the US dropped more bombs on Japan than just those two cities. Ok, but those last two bombs happened to be very destructive atomic bombs which not only killed at the instant they hit ground, but continued to kill due to radiation that was passed through generations. As far as I understand, these bombs were in retaliation for what happened in Pearl Harbor, but the damages in Japan were greater. Much greater. This is no longer just eye-for-an-eye. It’s more like revenge, to extent that the US only wanted Japan to suffer a great deal for what it had done. My ‘evidence’ may appear scanty, mainly because it’s not mentioned in a US history book. Well, no surprise, really, considering that the referendum that I mentioned was censored from the public knowledge and only released in newspapers after the war had ended and the bombs were dropped. But indeed, if anyone wishes to continue debating on this topic, create a new thread.

 

So, how does this relate to the electric chair? The US made Japan suffer in order to taste its own satisfaction; people here would want to pull the switch and would willingly see a man die a painful death. Both the US and the executioner (the one who wants to pull the switch to see the murderer/rapist/etc. die) say that they are bringing the criminals to justice, but I do not believe that one can deny the blood thirst present in both of these situations. Killing a crowd or one person will not bring loved ones back…(I’m sorry. I’m having a hard time gathering my thoughts) Ok, I’m going to try and say this concisely: by all means, I think that if someone wants to send a criminal to the electric chair, so be it. That someone is entitled to his/her opinion. The problem that I have with this is the motive behind such a strong act. Again, some say that they are bringing the criminal to justice. But I mean, why not let the guy rot behind bars for the rest of his life? Why must the guy die immediately, and by one’s own hand (as I have read pple saying)? I have a problem with the satisfaction behind pulling the switch, because if a person wants to kill another for his/her own desire, then that person is not really thinking about the victim that had been killed/raped/etc. It is more for a selfish reason that the criminal dies; in other words, revenge. A person then becomes just as guilty of the same crime that the criminal committed, since that person is killing to satisfy his/her own bloodlust while totally disregarding the original victim. So, basically, this is no eye-for-an-eye situation, because in addition to ‘avenging’ the victim, one is killing the criminal to gain his own satisfaction (kinda sadistic, since the criminal will suffer more than necessary, in a matter of speaking). And THIS is not justice…

 

Ok, I’m sorry if this got confusing. But let me make it clear that I’m not trying to support any murderer/rapist/etc. He should get what he deserves, whatever it is. I just wanted to point out the setback that I find in wanting so badly to ‘pull the switch’ of the electric chair.

 

L8er,

 

Tiger

[Bettina]

Ok' date=' I’m going to try and say this concisely: by all means, I think that if someone wants to send a criminal to the electric chair, so be it. That someone is entitled to his/her opinion. The problem that I have with this is the motive behind such a strong act. Again, some say that they are bringing the criminal to justice. But I mean, why not let the guy rot behind bars for the rest of his life? Why must the guy die immediately, and by one’s own hand (as I have read pple saying)? I have a problem with the satisfaction behind pulling the switch, because if a person wants to kill another for his/her own desire, then that person is not really thinking about the victim that had been killed/raped/etc. It is more for a selfish reason that the criminal dies; in other words, revenge. A person then becomes just as guilty of the same crime that the criminal committed, since that person is killing to satisfy his/her own bloodlust while totally disregarding the original victim. So, basically, this is no eye-for-an-eye situation, because in addition to ‘avenging’ the victim, one is killing the criminal to gain his own satisfaction (kinda sadistic, since the criminal will suffer more than necessary, in a matter of speaking). And THIS is not justice…

 

Ok, I’m sorry if this got confusing. But let me make it clear that I’m not trying to support any murderer/rapist/etc. He should get what he deserves, whatever it is. I just wanted to point out the setback that I find in wanting so badly to ‘pull the switch’ of the electric chair.

 

L8er,

 

Tiger [/quote']

 

I appreciate your POV, but it doesn't change my mind. In the Joe Smith world, I put myself inside that 11 year old girl as she was being raped. I know what she went thru and I can imagine what "rough sex" with her must have been like. All of this was just to satisfy his lust for something young. He planned it, thought about her, and carried it out.

 

This is much different than what you describe in Japan, Iraq, or anyplace else of that ilk that you wish to go.

 

This was not a war, or crimes against humanity and this person is not mentally sick no matter how much I stretch the word. He was found guilty of raping a parents daughter for his own personal pleasure and those parents have the right to seek revenge.

 

I think a law should be passed that in rapes and murders of little kids, the surviving parents should be given the option of pulling the switch on the convicted killer. This to me is closure.

 

Sorry, but this is a very personal thing with me and I meant no offense.

 

Bettina

[timo]

[...'] I've always been afraid of like Ross and those who behead other people in cold blood. I wouldn't have any problem watching them get executed [...]

That´s an interesting statement. How come? Because you´re not pushing the button yourself or because it´s another way of execution? Or because "monster" naturally doesn´t apply to yourself?

 

EDIT: I can pretty much guess your answer so there´s no need to give me one if you didn´t like my comment. It was merely though as a cause for thoughts that you´re hopefully not offended by.

[Pangloss]

TE, I don't have a problem with the argument that justice should not be about revenge or retaliation. I think that's what you're saying there, and I think that's fine.

 

What is it about the current nature of this issue, as it's being debated in society today, that strikes you as being an example of this? Are you concerned about Jessica's Laws, for example? Maybe I just missed this in your post before, but if you could be specific and succinct it's always appreciated.

[eruheru]

this might have already been quoted but "Many that live deserve death, and some that die deservive life. do not be too quick to deal out death in judjment, for even the very wise cannot see all ends"

[Bettina]

That´s an interesting statement. How come? Because you´re not pushing the button yourself or because it´s another way of execution? Or because "monster" naturally doesn´t apply to yourself?

 

EDIT: I can pretty much guess your answer so there´s no need to give me one if you didn´t like my comment. It was merely though as a cause for thoughts that you´re hopefully not offended by.

 

I'm not offended. I can't respond because I'm not quite sure what your implying.

 

Bettina

[Sisyphus]

Perhaps he's saying that calling someone a "monster" dehumanizes them, thus making it not an immoral act to kill them. The irony being that this is exactly what such people do to others: they don't consider their victims as people, and so have no qualms about doing anything to them. Calling someone a "monster" is just a way of excusing oneself from the responsibility that would come with seeing them as human beings. Also, it's a way of just giving up any hope of trying to understand them, which is extremely dangerous: if you don't have any idea why someone does something, or how they became what they are, you don't have any way of protecting yourself from such people, and you have no way of knowing if you yourself could become what they are. You can say "but I would never do that," but how can you say that if you don't even know why they did it?

 

In wartime, propaganda often tries to portray one's enemies as inhuman and evil, as if they didn't have motivations for their actions, and as if everyone didn't do what they thought was best. (*cough* "axis of evil" *cough*)

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by Bettina

[...] I've always been afraid of like Ross and those who behead other people in cold blood. I wouldn't have any problem watching them get executed [...]

Concerning the Jessica Lunsford case and others..............

 

I'm with you Bettina, and I don't have to dehumanize anyone by conjuring images of monsters, devils or evil spirits to convince myself to execute them tout de suite. I don't try to persuade myself that they can be rehabilitated, I'd pull the switch without hesitation. The good part is........I would not be ashamed, conscience-stricken, saddened or mournful.

 

There's evil in this world, many of them in the form of John Couey (Jessica's killer) and to the victims of the John Couey's of the world, I would say....rest in peace, John Couey will harm no more.

 

For those soft on crime, Please....don't bore me with "revenge" stuff