well in my system they would not be free, but controlled on where they are allowed to be and under guidance.
Woman blinded by acid wants same fate for attacker
- Thread starter Mickmeister
- Start date
well in my system they would not be free, but controlled on where they are allowed to be and under guidance.
oh oh with electroshock collars and/or leg braces! Which will zap them if they move to far from their controller or when ever their controller hits the zap button on his remote! The controller is like a prison guard only they go out into the cities/farms/etc and do community service tasks like picking fruit, cleaning roads, cleaning out obstructions in sewers, or generally do task of horrible menial labor. Or with some training they can be made to work in factors for prices that may be almost competitive with china.
And if some refuse to work their is always medical experimentation! Imagine all we could learn about the living brain by experimenting on (assumingly) completely undamaged brains, perhaps we could find a cure for violences, by say cybernetically altering a criminals mind so they are passivified, it would be like a lobotomy only the patient would remain more/completely functional and it could be turned down or off if the courts deem so. And then we could replace all prisons with forced cybernetic surgery, surgery, that makes them incapable of getting angry and hurting or killing other people, that makes them incapable of raping or abusing others, that prevents them from breaking laws or cures their addiction to drugs, that makes them work without becoming bored or procrastinating... fuck!, people will start voluntarily getting such surgeries if they end up that good, crime would never be so low and the national moral and work ethic would never be so strong!
It's been insisted and duly ignored from you since you arrived. As a Muslim, how can you even know the meaning of rational?
Surgery to prevent anger, or aggression?
Fuck that, no one is altering my mind. Just kill me.
Fuck that, no one is altering my mind. Just kill me.
There are no such things as accidents, unless your vehicle suffers mechanical failure, but then you might still be to blame for not maintaining it correctly.
So if you kill someone in a collision, you are happy to be killed in return? I don't think so, I think you'd try and blame the other driver, the road conditions, the road markings, the signs, the vehicle manufacturer, anything to save your own life. It's easy to support barbaric punishment when you think it will never happen to you.
If she doesn't want the money now, I don't think she'll want the money later. She wants him to suffer as she has.
And if he's blind, I don't think there's much chance of him blinding another woman.
Then let's blind everybody, so nobody can lose their sight in an acid attack, ....
Is that sentence one of those strawmen statements??
There are such things as accidents. They happen every damn day. Freud was an idiot when he said that.
Humans are not perfect. There is a minimum 5% error rate in anything we attempt to accomplish even if we are paying strict attention and proceeding carefully. It's just the way the universe works.
No, it's abstraction to absurdity, pay attention.
Here, the Police no longer refer to 'car accidents' but refer to them as 'traffic incidents', because for the most part, someone is to blame, and the word accident belies this. I do't care what Fraud, sorry, Fraudian, oops, Freudian slip, thought.
So you run 5% of the stop signs and red lights that you see while driving? Exceed the speed limit 5% of the time? Change lanes without checking your mirrors and indicating 1 out of every 20 manoeuvres? I don't believe you, that figure sounds like a made up sorry excuse.
That's not the same situation at all. A road accident is an accident. This son of a bitch threw the acid in her face on purpose. It wasn't negligence, or some kind of accident, it was the pre-meditated blinding and mutilation of a woman. Stop comparing apples and oranges.
Short on comprehension? Like I said earlier, the Police no longer use the word 'accident' here, but 'incident' because there is often a very real cause, and it's down to a driver's decision.
And people speed on purpose, and drink drive on purpose, and change lanes without indicating on purpose, and run stop signs on purpose, and run red lights on purpose, and don't maintain their vehicle on purpose, and don't leave enough distance between them and the car in front on purpose, and people die because of it. Don't diminish these things, because historically they have been written off as blameless. The tide is turning on this issue, people are to blame for road deaths.
There are few 'accidents', so the comparison stands. If you support an eye for an eye, you have to be accountable for all your own actions too, and not try and cop out saying 'I hurt them in an accident' (while talking on my cellphone). I know you yanks are notoriously bad drivers, but please, take some responsibility for your actions.
I guess the key difference would be malicious intent.
Explain that to the dead or injured person. Doesn't make them any better does it?
Our goal is to help the many, not the few.
Yet another pointless random phrase.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Wow.
So this is what imaginary love does to people. I wonder how bad the real thing is .
Anywho.
No.
She should not get her way. If we gave ourselves away to emotion, everytime someone has a crime committed against them, we would be no better than those who committed the crime due to emotion in the first place.
That said,
Part me just wants to blind the guy myself.
So this is what imaginary love does to people. I wonder how bad the real thing is .
Anywho.
No.
She should not get her way. If we gave ourselves away to emotion, everytime someone has a crime committed against them, we would be no better than those who committed the crime due to emotion in the first place.
That said,
Part me just wants to blind the guy myself.
Excellent post, recognising the desire for revenge, but tempering it with the need for justice.