have protected themselves with laws? And talk about being a cipher-
who does that better than the government- unless it would be the
attitude of commerce and entertainments, deep down?
On Aug 19, 4:19 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally I think justice should be blind,,, and ther is little room for
> emotions,, but when it comes to sentencing the effect and damage done
> emotional damage should be included be taken into account..
>
> Now unfortunately the stealing of company funds is very punishable but the
> companys that steal from their employees by not paying a living wage.. that
> is not punishable.. That must be because companies only exist legally on
> paper.
> Allan
> On Aug 17, 2011 12:45 PM, "Lee Douglas" <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ohh Rigys, i don't doubt for a second that thoese effecthave every
> > right to be angry, I question wether or not morality is best served
> > with any emotional attachment. I have used anger as an example, but
> > really I mean all emotions.
>
> > A freind of mine posted on facebook something along the lines of bring
> > back national servic, as a punishment for the looters. This was said
> > in anger and when it comes down to it, is it a good idea to teach
> > thugs how to kill?
>
> > On Aug 16, 11:45 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> There must be laws on the books to cover riots, looting, damage to
> >> property. This isn't the first era of a poor economy for Britain. Has
> >> networking changed the formulas?
>
> >> Another factor is immigration and clash of cultures and religions.
> >> What if once cheap labor is no longer needed? It seems to me- though I
> >> may be wrong- that immigrants rarely return to their original homeland
> >> and bring their new skills and education forward in third world
> >> countries. And social programs may quash desires to roll up their
> >> sleeves once again in their homeland.
>
> >> I learned this weekend from a discussion that one cannot fire upon a
> >> thief- it's only permitted when one's life is in jeopardy. That seems
> >> a thin line- wait till the bloke attempts to kill you! Our laws have
> >> probably changed a great deal- I doubt cattle rustlers were treated so
> >> mercifully.
>
> >> As to anger, I think shop owners and home dwellers and townsmen had/
> >> have every right to be blistering mad at the looters and rioters.
>
> >> I made a long list of non-lethal protective measures. Baseball bats
> >> were not on the list as they can crack a skull and kill someone.
>
> >> On Aug 16, 6:09 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Paradox, yes agreat frind of mine tells me the same sorta thing, that
> >> > morality without emotion is somehow lacking. It is partly due to his
> >> > words and my respect for him that I have started this thread.
>
> >> > However as Rigsy points out to evict a looter from his council home
> >> > for his looting does not adress any problems, nor does it serve as
> >> > adiquate punishment, and would I think only make things worse.
>
> >> > This course of actions is a fine example of thinking/talking about
> >> > morality whilst angry, and is to my mind no good at all.
>
> >> > I maintian that morality is best sreved without emotions attached, can
> >> > you show my why I am wrong?
>
> >> > On Aug 14, 5:31 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Deep question, Lee; not an easy one. One who suffers injury must have
> >> > > the right of redress, be that restitution or retribution, or else we
> >> > > live in Hobbes's state of nature. The question of balance and
> >> > > proportionality is the proper remit of the law courts and great
> minds.
> >> > > Where the injury in question falls outside the purview of the
> >> > > collective good or the legal framework to that end, morality and
> >> > > values must act to constrain the individual in respect of balance and
> >> > > proportionality; that is why it's so very vital that we understand
> >> > > what we do when we tinker with the foundations and structures of a
> >> > > society's moral compass.
>
> >> > > Personally, i've always felt that emotions are the fuel for the
> >> > > directed mind.
>
> >> > > On Aug 12, 1:28 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > So as we should all know we have had quite a week of it here in the
> >> > > > UK. Facebook and many other web places have been inundated with
> all
> >> > > > sorts of sillyness.
>
> >> > > > Calls to bring back national service, calls to evict those found
> >> > > > guilty of the rioting and looting, calls to stop their benifits. I
> >> > > > have witnessed some of my good good friends spew out all mannor of
> >> > > > sillyness in their anger.
>
> >> > > > I have procliamed in the past that all questions of morality are
> >> > > > better served sans emotions and I see much this week that has only
> >> > > > firmed this view.
>
> >> > > > In order to discover though the validity of this thought tell me do
> >> > > > you agree, or not and why? People of ME sway my opinion with your
> >> > > > wise words.
>
> >> > > > What good can come of deciding upon a course of action whilst
> holding
> >> > > > onto your anger?
>
> >> > > > I ask of course as a self confessed recovered angry man.- Hide
> quoted text -
>
> >> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário