Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 91 to 98 of 98
  1. #91
    Forum Whiz DoubleDevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 14
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, Germany
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by Freawaru View Post
    That is what I tried to say .



    Personally, I thought this was a really strong scene, especially as it linked to Oliver ready to kill someone who wanted to to kill Laurel - and her then seeing him as a monster. Having trouble to kill animals myself I could really identify with Oliver in that scene. But with the current mosquito plague here - yes, I slap them to death when I find them sitting on me, drawing blood.



    I suspect it is simply bad writing on that character. I mean, they can do many other characters right (IMO), why was it so hard to write Felicity in season three ? I am currently re-watching season three and the way they wrote Felicity is one of the reasons why this season that had so many good elements and characters after all I liked way less that the first two - maybe I will start a thread about this...
    There are idealogies that say killing is wrong no matter what and there are idealogies that claim killing is wrong except in this situation or that. I don't think the writers were doing a bad job, rather the idealogy Felicity follows makes it near impossible to consistantly defend without seeming hypocritical. I had that problem in an early scene in the Defenders, Daredevil ran off to save 2 kids looting a store from getting shot by the store owners. Sure, they didn't need to be killed but Matt didn't stop the kids from stealing after preventing them from getting shot. Wasn't that a crime too? Didn't it deserved to be stopped?

  2. #92
    Forum Whiz DoubleDevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 14
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, Germany
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by Freawaru View Post
    As far as I know people are usually not against the death penalty because they are against taking a criminal life. The reasons are deeper than that. They know that the justice system is not infallible, sometimes innocent persons are judged guilty. There is no way around that. Bad luck or intentional manipulation - it is not unheard of that years or even decades after judged guilty new evidence shows that the sentence was wrong. You can't give these innocent persons their years back but if one took their life it is even worse. And think of those who had made the wrong judgement, judge or jury, imagine yourself to have to live with the guilt of that.

    It is our custom to think of the impersonal Law as the responsible one so that nobody really is responsible and has to live with the decisions they made. But in the end that is not true. It is humans who make a law and it is humans who judge according to this law and it is humans who execute this law and it is humans who didn't do anything to prevent that law used to kill an innocent. If an innocent is killed due to the law-system failing all these people are responsible, they all are murderers or guilty co-perpetrators because they didn't interfere. To prevent this from happening people are against the death penalty. They try to protect innocents and they try to protect themselves from guilt.
    I understand the anti death penalty arguement and can agree with a lot of it but my moral take on the subject doesn't find it convincing enough to change my view on the subject. What I hear is that I'd rather allow a criminal to walk and be able to kill again than possibly take an innocent life just so that I'M not morally damned. It's a selfish arguement cloaked in compassion for the innocent. You're not pushing what's good for society, you're pushing what's good for you. The arguement then becomes it makes for a morally more just society. By whose morals? Society is made up of so many people that having or not having a death penalty has no influence on the societies morals unless it's proven to be abused.
    Last edited by DoubleDevil; 08-25-2017 at 05:11 AM.

  3. #93
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,557
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleDevil View Post
    There are idealogies that say killing is wrong no matter what and there are idealogies that claim killing is wrong except in this situation or that. I don't think the writers were doing a bad job, rather the idealogy Felicity follows makes it near impossible to consistantly defend without seeming hypocritical.
    Yes, but we have the same with Quentin, Laurel, even Dig occasionally.

    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleDevil View Post
    I had that problem in an early scene in the Defenders, Daredevil ran off to save 2 kids looting a store from getting shot by the store owners. Sure, they didn't need to be killed but Matt didn't stop the kids from stealing after preventing them from getting shot. Wasn't that a crime too? Didn't it deserved to be stopped?
    I don't know Daredevil but just as killing, stealing is not that easy to judge. Take Oliver for example, how many times has he stolen something, often cars or bikes to follow a criminal. Did he ever gave them back, did he pay for it if he damaged them? I don't think so. Certainly not the car he stole in Hongkong. Team Arrow steals a lot, Felicity steals information all the time for it, and occasionally they steal this or that technology they feel they need.

    So why did those kids in Defenders steal? Was it for fun - because they are addicted to the rush of adrenaline? Was it for survival because they have nobody to care for them?

  4. #94
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,557
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleDevil View Post
    I understand the anti death penalty arguement and can agree with a lot of it but my moral take on the subject doesn't find it convincing enough to change my view on the subject.
    I did not intend to change it, I only answered because you wrote you didn't understand.

  5. #95
    Forum Whiz DoubleDevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 14
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, Germany
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by Freawaru View Post
    I did not intend to change it, I only answered because you wrote you didn't understand.
    That's OK, I didn't mean to direct the post at you personally. I didn't mean your arguement didn't change my mind rather I haven't heard an arguement on the subject from anybody that was able to convince me. As for what I don't understand, it's how somebody can believe a fetes is a life form and be pro abortion yet at the same time be against the death penalty. It's more common in Europe but I have seen those types of people everywhere.
    Last edited by DoubleDevil; 08-25-2017 at 01:44 PM.

  6. #96
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,557
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleDevil View Post
    That's OK, I didn't mean to direct the post at you personally. I didn't mean your arguement didn't change my mind rather I haven't heard an arguement on the subject from anybody that was able to convince me. As for what I don't understand, it's how somebody can believe a fetes is a life form and be pro abortion yet at the same time be against the death penalty. It's more common in Europe but I have seen those types of people everywhere.
    Ah, okay, I misunderstood you. As to your question: I have no idea. Personally, I think as long as the embryo is not yet a foetus (about first three months since last menstruation) it is not a life form and if a woman does not want to have a baby these three months should be enough time to abort it. But once it is a foetus it is a life form. Why women would want to abort when it is already a foetus instead of before that time I don't know. Human, IMO, one cannot call a foetus until about the 20th week as only then the cerebral cortex is starting to build so basically the foetus is an animal before that time.

    Of course, I just use biological concepts here, other people may have other definitions of "not life", "life" and "human".

  7. #97
    Forum Whiz DoubleDevil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 14
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, Germany
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by Freawaru View Post
    Ah, okay, I misunderstood you. As to your question: I have no idea. Personally, I think as long as the embryo is not yet a foetus (about first three months since last menstruation) it is not a life form and if a woman does not want to have a baby these three months should be enough time to abort it. But once it is a foetus it is a life form. Why women would want to abort when it is already a foetus instead of before that time I don't know. Human, IMO, one cannot call a foetus until about the 20th week as only then the cerebral cortex is starting to build so basically the foetus is an animal before that time.

    Of course, I just use biological concepts here, other people may have other definitions of "not life", "life" and "human".
    Again, if the embryo/fetes isn't considered a life form then I can understand the argument, it's when people have the moral belief that an embryo/fetes IS a life form that I don't understand the argument. Some europeans still have a strong religious belief and it's the argument against the death penalty yet abortion is socially accepted so the religious belief is discarded and THAT'S what I don't understand. They pick and choose what THEY benefit from. Again, a totally selfish argument cloaked in compassion.

  8. #98
    Posting Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 12
    Posts
    1,557
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleDevil View Post
    Again, if the embryo/fetes isn't considered a life form then I can understand the argument, it's when people have the moral belief that an embryo/fetes IS a life form that I don't understand the argument. Some europeans still have a strong religious belief and it's the argument against the death penalty yet abortion is socially accepted so the religious belief is discarded and THAT'S what I don't understand. They pick and choose what THEY benefit from. Again, a totally selfish argument cloaked in compassion.
    I am sorry I cannot help much here. In my experience religious beliefs and logic and compassion don't mix.

    But maybe it helps if you remember that the majority of humans don't develop own opinions but only assimilate those of their surrounding (usually those from childhood). This may be due to an evolutionary advantage, because it stabilizes a human culture in it's current environment and thus helps the human species to survive. When one grows up in a surrounding that on the one hand accepts abortion and disapproves of death penalty but also is strongly influenced by the way Christianity was altered during the medieval age (just think of what all that abuse of LSD and alkaloid poison did to the religious beliefs in medieval Europe) self consistency is hard to reach and it takes a lot of inner strength to face those inconsistencies, a strength most people simply don't have.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •