[Hugbees]

I think the punishment for any sort of harm against another person or animal is to have the same thing done to them.

No matter what it is, no matter how inhumane it is, they should have the same thing done to them. They thought it was a good idea to throw puppies into rivers or into boiling water? Then they wouldn't mind it if someone did it to them.

[Val]

It actually turned out that the old woman that saved the puppies was lying =[

Yes, bad things should happen to these cruel people... "Justice" is too kind to these monsters

[Cid]

On a similar note...

Michael Vick is back in full swing and now people are talking MVP.

Worse than throwing puppies in a river he oversaw the raising of dozens of dogs only to abuse them continuously and kill them eventually.

Does it piss anyone else off that he is now "MVP" of his team? wth?

People say he did his time, but I'm still mad. lol

[Eorzea]

What he did is disgusting, no doubt, but most people deserve a second chance. Here's a nice article about Vick, his "redemption," etc.: http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=5838668

[Momotaru]

Hugbees, on Nov 20, 2010 - 1:14 PM, said:

I think the punishment for any sort of harm against another person or animal is to have the same thing done to them.

No matter what it is, no matter how inhumane it is, they should have the same thing done to them. They thought it was a good idea to throw puppies into rivers or into boiling water? Then they wouldn't mind it if someone did it to them.

Kevin Spacey in Kpax would not agree with you.... and I don't think I do either, even though through my rage, I would heartily beat upon their skulls with a sledge hammer.


Eye for an Eye is Old Testament law. It's primitive and cruel. ... Finding a better system is difficult, but I think the answer involves forcing the criminal to feel shame as all humans and even some animals can feel it, whether there is an additional punishment or not.

[Cid]

Eorzea, on Nov 22, 2010 - 5:07 PM, said:

What he did is disgusting, no doubt, but most people deserve a second chance. Here's a nice article about Vick, his "redemption," etc.: http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=5838668

Good article. I do think he deserves a second chance. I'm still just bitter about it. I think he is incredibly talented, but I never liked his "character" even back in his college days.

Momotaru, on Nov 22, 2010 - 5:07 PM, said:

Finding a better system is difficult, but I think the answer involves forcing the criminal to feel shame as all humans and even some animals can feel it, whether there is an additional punishment or not.

I think that is a good start, I just don't believe you can force some people to feel shame. Some people, no matter what they do, feel completely justified no matter how many people show them and tell them what they did was wrong.

[Hugbees]

I don't think Vick deserves a second chance at all. Why should any murderer deserve to the opportunity to walk among the rest of us once again, liable to kill another at any time?

Vick doesn't feel any shame for what he did, he's only sorry because he might have lost all of his money from playing football. He was already rich enough, why else would he gamble on dog fights? Because he enjoyed it.

The only shame people feel from murder is losing their material possessions. If Vick was some no named gang member he wouldn't even get the chance to go on TV and apologize, or try to right his wrongs, nor would he even try to.

Eye for an eye works because it works with the "golden rule" treat others the way you want to be treated. So a murderer should be killed for his crime. If someone is so willing to take a life they do not deserve to have their own.

You think an eye for an eye sounds bad, but it's the biggest insult ever to release a murderer just to have him take another victim.

This post has been edited by Hugbees: Dec 9, 2010 - 4:54 AM