L
Landkiller
Guest
NO, China is NOT modern as far a civil rights are concerned. You chose perhaps the poorest example available Spidey
M
Multani
Guest
Interesting topic. I should've dug myself into this sooner.
Now:
As for the "Modern country" issue, let's just for the sake of argument say every country is modern and leave it at that. Personally, I'm insulted by Landkiller's comment about China. Besides, whether or not a country is modern is an opinion.
Spidey: The U.S. executes spies as well. I heard somewhere that the FBI spy was to be executed.
And all this time I can't help but notice that there is the recurring argument about taxpayers paying for an inmate being locked up, etc. Well, since when did economics ever come into play with Justice???
Also, the way the U.S. justice system works depends on the people, and that I think is both a strength and a flaw, and in this case, I consider it a flaw. The Salem witch trials are an exellent example. I simply don't think that twelve people can or should have the power to order a person to die.
Dementia: People should pay for their actions. Just not with death. I truly don't think any action deserves death. Also, I don't think Justice should be in any way, associated with vengence.
If you notice, a single event or action, or circumstance can be the difference between a person murdering someone, and the person suppressing his rage and going on with his life.
You are intellegent, but the people of the United States are dumb animals. A mob if you will.
As for Timothy McVeigh, has anyone ever wondered why he did what he did?
I heard that he bombed the Federal building because he was angry for what the government did at Waco and Camp David. In a way, it was his way of protest.
Just thought I'd add that little insight.
As for the death penalty, I have no problem with it. As long as the government admits to that it is an ugly thing but that it's necessary. What I can't stand is the U.S. governemnt proclaiming how it cherishes life, and then taking it from it's own citizens.
Capital punishment is gonna be around for awhile as much as I hate it. I can't do anything yet about it, so I therefore have no choice but to go with it. Governmental hypocrisy on the other hand is something that's far worse than any death penalty.
Now:
As for the "Modern country" issue, let's just for the sake of argument say every country is modern and leave it at that. Personally, I'm insulted by Landkiller's comment about China. Besides, whether or not a country is modern is an opinion.
Spidey: The U.S. executes spies as well. I heard somewhere that the FBI spy was to be executed.
And all this time I can't help but notice that there is the recurring argument about taxpayers paying for an inmate being locked up, etc. Well, since when did economics ever come into play with Justice???
Also, the way the U.S. justice system works depends on the people, and that I think is both a strength and a flaw, and in this case, I consider it a flaw. The Salem witch trials are an exellent example. I simply don't think that twelve people can or should have the power to order a person to die.
Dementia: People should pay for their actions. Just not with death. I truly don't think any action deserves death. Also, I don't think Justice should be in any way, associated with vengence.
The statement is true...to an extent. Yes, it is the person's fault, but Society is also to blame. It's like a case when a mentally retarded person commits a murder. Yes, he did kill. But also, his physical condition also played a part. Things like upbringing are not easy to change. So, I think because society as well as other factors are part of the cause of murders, the murderer himself should not get the death penalty.
If you notice, a single event or action, or circumstance can be the difference between a person murdering someone, and the person suppressing his rage and going on with his life.
As a matter of fact, TCIM's comment has some truth in it. "A person is smart. People are dumb panicky animals."
You are intellegent, but the people of the United States are dumb animals. A mob if you will.
As for Timothy McVeigh, has anyone ever wondered why he did what he did?
I heard that he bombed the Federal building because he was angry for what the government did at Waco and Camp David. In a way, it was his way of protest.
Just thought I'd add that little insight.
As for the death penalty, I have no problem with it. As long as the government admits to that it is an ugly thing but that it's necessary. What I can't stand is the U.S. governemnt proclaiming how it cherishes life, and then taking it from it's own citizens.
Capital punishment is gonna be around for awhile as much as I hate it. I can't do anything yet about it, so I therefore have no choice but to go with it. Governmental hypocrisy on the other hand is something that's far worse than any death penalty.
Multani: Yes, the US does execute spies, but they usually get a trial first. And that's just the big names. I'm also talking about the lesser people who got betrayed by Hanesson and were "never heard of again" (off the top of my head). Taking Russia as an example, they also hold trials for "big media names" like that exchange scholar dude, but others happen "in a back room" (woo, I'm full of movie imagery today).
I'm not sure why the reasons why McVeigh bombed the building have anything to do with anything.
I think this got lost in this thread: Why do people keep saying that the US government cherishes life?
I'm not sure why the reasons why McVeigh bombed the building have anything to do with anything.
I think this got lost in this thread: Why do people keep saying that the US government cherishes life?
M
Multani
Guest
Well according to the media, they do, don't they? I mean, considering all the gross human rights violations and the multiple protests in human rights deprivation, you'd assume that the United States would be a champion of life wouldn't it?
If you ask any well-educated American whether or not the government champions human life, they'd probably answer yes.
C
Cateran Emperor
Guest
CT: No, that was not a serious example. It was merely an analogy to point out something that I always thought made no sense, particularly with unrepentant criminals who instead get life without possibility of parole. Simply put, it seems foolish and an awful lot like a Bond villian that we would do something that way.
L
Landkiller
Guest
Multani : How can you be insulted?? Can you claim that China's civil rights are up to par with the rest of the modern world? No. I've spent a semester studying Chinese history, and certainly the people of China have been exploited time and again, both by foreigners and their own leaders.
I would define a modern nation as a nation that is technologically, economically, socially, and politically "State of the Art". Or relatively close to such.
I would define a modern nation as a nation that is technologically, economically, socially, and politically "State of the Art". Or relatively close to such.
Multani:
Landkiller: Hate to be nit-picky, but then what is "State of the Art"? Internet access? Cell phone access? Having a Stealth bomber? Having nuclear capability? What?
Say what? "According to the media"? So you trust the media on this and not on other stuff? I think "human rights violations and deprivation" are NOT analogous to being a champion of life. That's being a champion of human rights.
And I'd ask the same of them: how exactly did they come to that conclusion? What specific document(s) or policies can support that?
Landkiller: Hate to be nit-picky, but then what is "State of the Art"? Internet access? Cell phone access? Having a Stealth bomber? Having nuclear capability? What?
M
Multani
Guest
Landkiller: Would you be insulted if I said the United States was a warzone surrounded by hot-headed apes running around with semi-automatics?
Spidey: The point on whether or not the U.S. cherishes life in and of itself is an opinion. Now being an opinion, the media gives the idea that the U.S. government does cherish life.
Spidey: The point on whether or not the U.S. cherishes life in and of itself is an opinion. Now being an opinion, the media gives the idea that the U.S. government does cherish life.
L
Landkiller
Guest
Well, I am enlisting into the US Air Force, so what you said has meaning to me. I believe what you said is overstated, and phrased in insulting language. However, I do recognise some truth in the statement. I don't believe what I said was really bad though...I mean, not all nations will be advancing at the same pace in all areas. I believe the United States is socially backward, just as China is politically backward.
Anyway, "state of the art" is not a defined concept, although I think that some concept for which I search, exists but is unnamed. Generally, I'll admit that this is probably a futile point.
How about the term Underdeveloped Nation rather than the whole Modern issue. Or is that just as problematic?
Anyway, "state of the art" is not a defined concept, although I think that some concept for which I search, exists but is unnamed. Generally, I'll admit that this is probably a futile point.
How about the term Underdeveloped Nation rather than the whole Modern issue. Or is that just as problematic?
So your above quote is based on media reports, not necessarily the US government's position in itself?
In other words, you're taking the media's word for it that the government cherishes life, not any "official" document or statement or even policy that demonstrates this view.
Why don't you refute Landkiller's statement with any records that show the contrary, rather than respond with a vague, non-constructive retort?
Landkiller: I think "underdeveloped" is just as problematic