Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Given the time, there wasn't much more he could have done as it was. Not like there were adequate care homes about. What do you think he should have done, just killed him in case he accidentally killed someone?
Are You Qualified to be the Executioner?
- Thread starter CabinetMaker
- Start date
Given the time, there wasn't much more he could have done as it was. Not like there were adequate care homes about. What do you think he should have done, just killed him in case he accidentally killed someone?
Duh.
Never intentionally, but always when he's lost control, which is often enough for the story to make mention of it a few different times throughout the book.
And it's because he doesn't recognize his own strength AND that he loses control often that makes him dangerous.
Crushing a man's hand isn't violent? :think:
So?
He doesn't know his own strength, and he loses control often, and often kills creatures around him because of it, and eventually he ended up killing a human.
:think:
If an ox kills someone, the Bible says it should be put to death.
But if the ox is known to have been dangerous in the past, both ox and it's owner should be put to death.
Sounds like George is in trouble too, for not restraining George.
So a murderer doesn't deserve to be executed? :think:
Yes, it is.
It's not.
Good for you!
Pretty sure we're not talking about those without families here...
I mean, if someone has an elderly family member, especially if it's their parent, they should try to put some effort in returning the favor of them having to raise the person. That precludes those who do not have families.
Why not? Which is more important to them, having a job and making money? or taking care of the one who raised you?
Nothing wrong with that.
So put them in an environment where they don't know anyone? Sounds like a real charming place to be. :mock:
I mean, I'm all for having someone help take care of someone who is disabled, I'm against dumping that person in an environment where the family member can easily forget about them.
No, but it sure does make it far easier for them to be able to stop caring or visiting.
Which inherently makes him dangerous, let alone the fact that he easily loses control of himself.
Addressed above.
LIke locking them up in some room somewhere and forgetting about them?
Weren't they already locked up? or were they released from prison after a few years? I forget.
Oh, and locking someone up doesn't prevent them from committing more crime.
Executing someone for committing a capital crime is the only 100% guaranteed solution for making sure he doesn't commit another crime.
Now, instead of stopping at murder, they're now guilty of pedophilia, all because you people are too nice to the criminals.
If a man is beating his wife, and she's desperately reaching around for something to defend herself with, and manages to grab a baseball bat, and whacks him over the head with it to stop him, but accidentally kills him, then there is no fault against her. But if she, while he's not assaulting her, but instead calmly reading a newspaper at the kitchen table, takes a bat and starts beating his head to a pulp, she is guilty of murder, because he was not doing anything wrong at the time.
Obviously, this scenario assumes she has not gone to the police yet to report her husband for abusing her, which would result in him being flogged, and could potentially result in her divorcing him.
Who said anything about being "inspired"?
He's correcting the misreading of scripture. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ok, and?
That law was for Israel only, because it was a symbolic law, and therefore no longer should be enforced.
Not necessarily.
Yeah, because that's God's standard of justice for those crimes. Who are you to say they should be different?
Nope, not the only example.
Again, no He did not forgive her. He simply didn't condemn her, which comes before repentance, which comes before forgiveness, according to JESUS, you know, our Lord and Savior and God...
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Repeatedly saying it doesn't make it so either, it just means you're committing the fallacy of "proof by repeated assertion".
Jesus didn't forgive her. It's not in the text.
It says he didn't condemn her.
My measure is Christ's righteousness, you know, the one who wrote the law given to Moses...
So does that mean that ALL are going to heaven, because ALL are forgiven? What are you, some kind of universalist? I mean, you say that Christ forgave all, so that means that all will go to heaven, and no one will be punished!
:vomit:
:blabla:
Huh? Where?
Duh!
So if man's laws differ from God's laws, which should we use? Man's or God's?
So you think there's multiple standards of righteousness?
:blabla:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You say "duh" and yet I doubt you really have understood the book on any kinda level.
What do you suppose the point Steinbeck might have been making with that? That Lennie should have been a character that should be put to the sword?
Oh, so let's just kill the guy then eh? Let's just put him on a par with a cold blooded individual who kills with intent and get rid of him?
He doesn't know his own strength and is responding to an assault, remember? Honestly, do you even have a box you can actually think out of?
Oh, grief, you're back to the ox stuff again and now George should be held accountable for not being able to monitor Lennie 24 hours a day? Can you actually think outside of some doctrinal box JR or what is even the point in discussing the finer points of literature with you?
Lennie isn't a murderer.
:AMR:
It absolutely is and for all the reasons I'd provided already.
Good for you!
Why? shouldn't any sort of care work be redundant according to you?
And where it comes to dementia and where family can't be there 24 hours a day to be there to ensure their wellbeing? You're full of pompous platitudes as to what should be done but you don't have a clue of the reality of such situations for people and families. Care isn't a "light" thing at all and when you grow up a bit (hopefully) you'll realize why there's an essential need for professional care services.
Yeh, cos it's just as black and white as that and anyone who seeks care for a loved one is doing so because they're an inconvenience and just interfering with their life. You really are just a clueless kid.
lain: Oh, so now you're all okay with care workers as long as they're providing additional support? Hey, why the need for them at all if the family just steps "up to the plate" and removes the need altogether right?
In some cases they don't have the capacity to know their carers or anyone else on any "meaningful" level because of their illness so start thinking things through before you type stuff out.
Ya, cos that's what I've been arguing for, an environment where people can just be discarded and forgotten about.
:rain:
You should have just stopped at "No".
Well, let's do away with "The World's Strongest Man" contests in case one of them loses their temper for coming second...
Um, no.
Nope.
You sure do like to respond to what you wanted me to say instead of what I actually said...
:think: Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"? :mock:
Anyways, defending oneself is one thing. Crushing someone's hand because they're assaulting you is not an appropriate escalation of force.
And don't forget that Lennie didn't even start responding to the assault until George told him to...
Is all you have personal attacks?
Considering that George is Lennie's de facto guardian, yes (excluding obviously when Lennie sleeps).
Are you able to respond to my posts without resorting to ad hominem attacks such as this one?
Because you say so?
:AMR:
It absolutely is and for all the reasons I'd provided already.
Why? shouldn't any sort of care work be redundant according to you?
And where it comes to dementia and where family can't be there 24 hours a day to be there to ensure their wellbeing? You're full of pompous platitudes as to what should be done but you don't have a clue of the reality of such situations for people and families. Care isn't a "light" thing at all and when you grow up a bit (hopefully) you'll realize why there's an essential need for professional care services.
Yeh, cos it's just as black and white as that and anyone who seeks care for a loved one is doing so because they're an inconvenience and just interfering with their life. You really are just a clueless kid.
Oh, so now you're all okay with care workers as long as they're providing additional support? Hey, why the need for them at all if the family just steps "up to the plate" and removes the need altogether right?
In some cases they don't have the capacity to know their carers or anyone else on any "meaningful" level because of their illness so start thinking things through before you type stuff out.
Ya, cos that's what I've been arguing for, an environment where people can just be discarded and forgotten about.
:rain:
You should have just stopped at "No".
Well, let's do away with "The World's Strongest Man" contests in case one of them loses their temper for coming second...
Pretty sure that's called an "appeal to absurdity" fallacy...
:nono:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
:AMR:
I don't think that meant just standing there and allowing yourself to be beaten to a pulp, and again, Lennie doesn't know his own strength.
That wasn't a personal attack although you can always thank the resident bridge dweller when he inevitably reappears with a drive by troll...
okayyy then.
lain:That wasn't an ad hominem attack, it was a question.
No, because common sense, logic and the law says so. Murder is the premeditated killing of another.
Pretty sure that's a lame dodge.
You can shake your head all you want.
So your gutless position is for execution based on the presumption that "It isn't like it's ever going to happen."? :idunno:
Are you simply anti-liberal posturing or do you actually favor executing 6-year olds who kill?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Thompson and venables deliberately and with full knowledge of their actions chose to kidnap, torture and murder two year old James Patrick Bulger
I say they should have been executed for their crimes
What do you say?
Me: "No."
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Sift through thread...pick my prior response.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Or...rational discourse with you is a wasted effort.
:wave2:
genuineoriginal
New member
That is the wrong question, since it implies that we enjoy the death of the wicked.
Ezekiel 18:23 23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? |
The right question is whether adulterers are worthy of death according to the judgment of God.
Romans 1:32 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. |
The right question is whether adultery is a sin unto death.
1 John 5:16-17 16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. 17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. |
Don't you though?
Or at the very least enjoy dispensing justice upon the wicked ....on the behalf of God?
Say to them: ‘ As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’ - Ezekiel 33:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel33:11&version=NKJV
You're not the Lord God.
genuineoriginal
New member
No, I don't enjoy the death of the wicked, but I am wise enough to see the necessity.