Yonique, there's no need to resort to insults. I have my opinion, and I expressed it.
Bran, it's good that you want to step away from your USA bashing. It wasn't helping your argument. But you can't just make a blanket biased statement without expecting a response. It's not about comparing countries for me. Notice how I only poked fun of your obvious bias against the USA, and not Norway itself.
I don't know how people buy weapons. I've never had the need for one or a stockpile. I am inclined to doubt your claims about how fast it is for a lone sociopath in the USA to build up an arsenal - you are making them without any historical or social context. :p
Maybe it only took this guy three years because he had to earn the money to buy them first - not because they were hard to get. And isn't it a worse situation if that were the case? Nobody noticed what was going on for three years!
Animals don't have a voice, that is true. Some would say that if you are a criminal, you don't have a voice, either. Most governments allow criminals to have a voice in their defence. That is justice: to give someone the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. You're attacking Alex's comments on the retribution part of justice, not mine. I really am not concerend with Justice in this argument, and more concerned with expedience - that's probably the coldest statement I'll make in this.
You could argue that he, like an animal, has no voice, that he gave up the right to have any voice once he confessed to his crime, and that it would be the most humane thing to put him down. Surely a rational person would understand the consequences of his/ her actions. If he understands what he did and doesn't care, is it not the most humane thing in the world to put an end to his existence? For his own sake, to allow him to continue on, suffering in his delusion is perhaps crueller than a quick end. If he does understand, or eventually feels remorse, surely he would decide for himself at that point that it would be better not to live with such guilt.
I am not arguing for the death penalty, or its broad use as a tool for retribution in any country. In unique circumstances such as this, it can be warranted without "making all of us murderers" or "uncivilized".
It is simply narrow-minded and elitist to think otherwise.
Well, of course it's pandering, and of course it's going to be some minor character that nobody's ever heard of before, and of course it's a stunt, and of course they're in it to make money. Isn't that the nature of the business?
Once they had token black superheroes in minor roles; now nobody would bat an eye at one in a larger role - except maybe the diehard bigots. Society progresses in stages, and tokenism is just one part of the jouirney on the road to tolerance.
@another Norwegian: maybe you want to provide your context in shorter segments. You know what short attention spans Americans have.
So the guy goes on a rampage and admits to killing 77 people with no remorse. I'm not discussing the death penalty as a deterrent here. I'm not discussing the death penalty as a measure of humaneness or civility.
I just don't see the point in keeping him alive. It has nothing to do with savagery. He was able, in the supposed non-savage much-more-humane-than-the-USA Utopia that is Norway, to amass enough firepower to kill 77 people in the space of a few hours.
I think a civilized society is well within its right to end the life of such a person, without worrying about the "where does it end" factor. The "where does it end" in this case is considerably easier to determine than most "where does it end" scenarios. "Where does it end" is the cry of the Chicken Little who knows his/her point is indefensible by means of rational thought, and so construes an irrational situation to underpin the shaky foundations of their logic.
Simply put, being humane often involves making tough decisions. For example, being humane can involve putting an animal to death rather than allowing it to suffer needlessly.
Then the debate is expanded into a universal health care issue, which has no contextual basis with the issue of why we as humans with civilized governments should suffer someone who is capable of murdering others with no regrets (and would do it again) to continue to live in society. This isn't about chopping off the hands of people who steal, or caning someone who spits on the sidewalk.
Most humans learn that they must live with the consequences of their actions. In an extreme case like this, I see no point in keeping him alive. What point would there be?
@Norwegian: Are the facts incorrect? Your comments seem to be elitist and xenophobic. Nobody can understand a sitaution because they're either not educated enough or they're foreigners.
Obviously this was a result of ignorance. But we do see instances of deliberate changes to small details in books. I can think of one where the villain's first name is changed because it's the same as the main character's first name. It's a sort of dumbing down of the story, possibly to avoid confusion, but it also takes something - a connection between the two - away from the story.
And of course, there's the whole idea of taking a particular offensive word out of Huck Finn.
Bran, it's good that you want to step away from your USA bashing. It wasn't helping your argument. But you can't just make a blanket biased statement without expecting a response. It's not about comparing countries for me. Notice how I only poked fun of your obvious bias against the USA, and not Norway itself.
I don't know how people buy weapons. I've never had the need for one or a stockpile. I am inclined to doubt your claims about how fast it is for a lone sociopath in the USA to build up an arsenal - you are making them without any historical or social context. :p
Maybe it only took this guy three years because he had to earn the money to buy them first - not because they were hard to get. And isn't it a worse situation if that were the case? Nobody noticed what was going on for three years!
Animals don't have a voice, that is true. Some would say that if you are a criminal, you don't have a voice, either. Most governments allow criminals to have a voice in their defence. That is justice: to give someone the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. You're attacking Alex's comments on the retribution part of justice, not mine. I really am not concerend with Justice in this argument, and more concerned with expedience - that's probably the coldest statement I'll make in this.
You could argue that he, like an animal, has no voice, that he gave up the right to have any voice once he confessed to his crime, and that it would be the most humane thing to put him down. Surely a rational person would understand the consequences of his/ her actions. If he understands what he did and doesn't care, is it not the most humane thing in the world to put an end to his existence? For his own sake, to allow him to continue on, suffering in his delusion is perhaps crueller than a quick end. If he does understand, or eventually feels remorse, surely he would decide for himself at that point that it would be better not to live with such guilt.
I am not arguing for the death penalty, or its broad use as a tool for retribution in any country. In unique circumstances such as this, it can be warranted without "making all of us murderers" or "uncivilized".
It is simply narrow-minded and elitist to think otherwise.
Once they had token black superheroes in minor roles; now nobody would bat an eye at one in a larger role - except maybe the diehard bigots. Society progresses in stages, and tokenism is just one part of the jouirney on the road to tolerance.
So the guy goes on a rampage and admits to killing 77 people with no remorse. I'm not discussing the death penalty as a deterrent here. I'm not discussing the death penalty as a measure of humaneness or civility.
I just don't see the point in keeping him alive. It has nothing to do with savagery. He was able, in the supposed non-savage much-more-humane-than-the-USA Utopia that is Norway, to amass enough firepower to kill 77 people in the space of a few hours.
I think a civilized society is well within its right to end the life of such a person, without worrying about the "where does it end" factor. The "where does it end" in this case is considerably easier to determine than most "where does it end" scenarios. "Where does it end" is the cry of the Chicken Little who knows his/her point is indefensible by means of rational thought, and so construes an irrational situation to underpin the shaky foundations of their logic.
Simply put, being humane often involves making tough decisions. For example, being humane can involve putting an animal to death rather than allowing it to suffer needlessly.
Then the debate is expanded into a universal health care issue, which has no contextual basis with the issue of why we as humans with civilized governments should suffer someone who is capable of murdering others with no regrets (and would do it again) to continue to live in society. This isn't about chopping off the hands of people who steal, or caning someone who spits on the sidewalk.
Most humans learn that they must live with the consequences of their actions. In an extreme case like this, I see no point in keeping him alive. What point would there be?
Are the facts incorrect? Your comments seem to be elitist and xenophobic. Nobody can understand a sitaution because they're either not educated enough or they're foreigners.
I'm just not sure why they don't just kill him. In the extraordinary circumstances, it would seem to be the right thing to do.
And of course, there's the whole idea of taking a particular offensive word out of Huck Finn.
Actually, I have no idea who he is, but if he's that messed-up looking, I figure it's some kinda prison thing.