Re: Didn't need no welfare state (Was: Re: news...)

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Tue Apr 18 2000 - 13:25:33 MDT wrote:

> In a message dated 4/18/2000 7:20:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> writes:
> >
> > I don't, however, feel cold hearted about execution. Anyone who has
> > demonstrated no respect for their fellow man is no longer human.
> >
> You are joining in a self deception that is a dangerous argument; useful when
> you are called upon to murder. When you enter into this terrain you join a
> charade that has been in place for centuries. Calling humans non-human is a
> convenient lie, a fairy tale in order to treat them inhumanly.

Calling innocent humans non-human due to unimportant characteristics like skin
color, eye shape, gender, or how they rub blue mud in their belly buttons is in
fact, evil, and I beleive as you do. Calling non-human humans who have
demonstrated by deed as individuals that they do not regard other humans as
worthy of living for no good reason (like those no good reasons stated above) is
not evil, and is merely putting rabid dogs down.

> Richard
> Ramirez no doubt deserves, really deserves to be treated like animal. But it
> is not because he really *is* an animal, it is because he is evil. We have
> decided to treat him like one -- out of an abhorrence for what he does -- and
> to guarantee our own safety.
> He is in a cell alone, no bed, no furniture, only himself on the floor, in
> his underwear. And there he shall stay until perhaps one day he is murdered
> by us.

And you don't think he deserves to die? I think its a crime that he's been
permitted to live this long.

> Not all murderers are inhuman. I know it. I work with them. We make art
> together.

You work with children, the 'noble savages'. We are discussing adults, who
supposedly 'know better'. Just because a creature is polite, engaging, and
gregarious when it is not on a vicious rampage does not make it human, you might
say it is human, but not a civil or civilized human. Goebbels and Hitler were
both considered to be gregarious, yet I don't think either of them deserved to
live. Mao would go skinny dipping with his 'ladies' between a breakfast on the
Yangtse and signing an order to kill off hundreds of thousands of

Hitler loved to paint too. Would you have painted with him in prison had we
gotten our hands on him? I don't think so.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:32 MDT