> In the situation, the person would not be killed for that reason, as
> they have committed much more heinous reasons for which to be erased,
> but may be spared if they indicated that they had the capacity to be
What do you think would be valid indications that one has the capacity
to be redeemed? The one doing the indicating is the criminal himself.
Are any of his or her indications ever to be trusted and thereby termed
I suppose we're talking about repeat offenders who have shown no
capacity for redemption. In such a case, how many tries does a criminal
get? Or using the prior discourse, how many times must a criminal
recidivate before he has demonstrated his or her lack of capacity for
> It is to determine whether the material being judged is
> capable of being recycled or should be incinerated that such an
> evaluation is made...
I (stick neck out) would suggest that all material is capable of being
recycled. Especially as scarce and valuable a material as intelligent
> The criminal must demonstrate their capacity to be
> redeemed. If he doesn't, lets not waste further tax dollars on him, fry
> the mad dog.
Do you think that people are always responsible for their actions? I
tend to waffle on this point (to a fault), so I hope you might let me
pick your brain a bit.
> I value human life highly. So highly that I feel that people who do not
> value human life do not value their own life enough to go on living.
So then the reason for frying them is not that they do not value other
human lives, but rather that they do not value their own? Or is it a
combination of the two? To take this further along the so-called
tangent, why is human life any different than other life? Unless we are
talking about sentience, life is life is life. I would argue that to
value human life to the exclusion of all other life is not valuing life
at all. It is homophilia, maybe evolutionary, but merely an innate wish
to see the species continue. Do you think that you might be talking
about valuing intelligent life?