[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Who said anything about genocide?

worlock77

You compared me to Hitler (or appeared to).

I differentiated myself from him by saying i do not posses one of his main traits I.E genocidal tendencies.

Was there a specific facet of Hitler you were comparing me to or suggesting i had?

I know you have a hard-on for inflexible totalitarian government. I merely alluded to one such government.

Technocracy is anything but inflexible.

democracy is inflexible, tyrany is inflexable and constitutions are inflexable, NOT technocracy.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Ja mein Fuhrer.

worlock77

There's a difference between correctly dealing with violent criminals and genocide of innocent contributors to society.

Who said anything about genocide?

You compared me to Hitler (or appeared to).

I differentiated myself from him by saying i do not posses one of his main traits I.E genocidal tendencies.

Was there a specific facet of Hitler you were comparing me to or suggesting i had?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i don't understand how some can support some of the people on that list. they committed violent crimes and should not be allowed to participate in society ever again.

there is no such thing as "paying your debt to society". the only solution is permanent removal.

redstorm72

Yeah, except we have these things called "rights". It's kind of what our society is based on. Also, how is permanent removal a "solution"? What exactly does it solve? How to blow even more money on incarceration or how to destroy any legitimacy of the constitution? Anyway, these people did their time, so I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to teach. Firing them would only stigmatize them further and make it more likely they would go back to criminal activity.

"rights" don't exist, they are just words. At best an individual can have a privilege given by a higher party.

In a technocratic system no money would be spent on the removal of violent individuals as we would be free of the price system.

The constitution is an idiotic and stagnant document holding back the American people.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i don't understand how some can support some of the people on that list. they committed violent crimes and should not be allowed to participate in society ever again.

there is no such thing as "paying your debt to society". the only solution is permanent removal.

Fightingfan

i only have this view on VIOLENT crime. drug crime is a different thing entirely.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i don't understand how some can support some of the people on that list. they committed violent crimes and should not be allowed to participate in society ever again.

there is no such thing as "paying your debt to society". the only solution is permanent removal.

worlock77

Ja mein Fuhrer.

There's a difference between correctly dealing with violent criminals and genocide of innocent contributors to society.

Lai you never answered my question.

Is the conscious individual moral and the Non-person immoral?

i don't understand how some can support some of the people on that list. they committed violent crimes and should not be allowed to participate in society ever again.

there is no such thing as "paying your debt to society". the only solution is permanent removal.

[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]

Boudin was convicted in a robbery that left two police officers dead in 1981. That's not cool.

Aljosa23

i don't even think she should be out of prison, let alone work at a university.

Remove the state remove private property and collectivize everything.

osirisx3

no...

i'd tell you why but history already has.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]That depends on the standards of the contest. The conscious individual is superior in the meaningful ways. The conscious individual has the capability to create - industry, art, whatever else. The brute way exhibit a superior capacity to destroy, or something equally purposeless but far less malicious such as athleticism.

Laihendi

so you contradict your earlier agreement to the statement "individuals are better in all ways compared to non-persons"

no matter... would you agree to this statement instead: "individuals are better in all meaningfull (as you have described) ways compared to non-persons"?

you mentioned that the non-person is Superior to the individual in the ways of destruction. is that true in matters both physical and ideological?

Is the conscious individual moral and the non-person immoral?