Tracer, you are probably right about them being 17 (or 16). I'm actually quite surprised that they were executed at that age, because over here we get the impression that people stay on death row for 10+ years! But I'm sorry, execution at that age is simply wrong, 'cultural rift' or not. You are not giving them a chance to repent or say sorry or come to terms with what they've done and try to change. And as a christian man, Bush is also doing them a dis-service by allowing their lives to be taken in the first place, and not letting them live a 'full' life and find god (i.e. he is sending them to hell, which is not actually a punishment for disobeying the commandments, but for not believing in god/christ).

Anyways, screw you guys, I'm going to get drunk now!

(ps I'm as atheist as you can get)

You guys have to look at it both ways. You say then we are as nothing so then why cant we die. Personally, I dont give a f**k if I die tomorow in some accident, cause s**t happends. But to have someone else order my life ended?

If we dont have reason enough to live, why is it so easy to say he can die? What is the difference between life and death? Executions are just a cowards way of dealing with a problem. Execute someone and he goes to the afterlife (or whatever comes after life). But if you put said person in jail, that does more harm to the criminal. Because he gets to suffer.

Maybe it's because nihilism appeals to me in some strange way. to me, wthout davinity, there is only entropy. The second law of thermodynamics rules all. at the core, I am far more a scientist than a ophilosopher.

I guess I must be missing the point again, because except for the last possibility, it seems as though you are agreeing with me. I was never arguing for the nesscity of a christian style God, simply that for there to be a predetermained purpose there must be somthing to define that purpose.

The last idea is interesting, but remindes me too much of "Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy" in which the earth was setup specificly as a super computer for determaining the meaning of life.

First, I'd like to say that law does not equal justice, no matter how hard you try to make it so. There will always be someone that gets screwed by the law.

But as for my real point...

As a wise man once said, a true warrior fights not to hurt his enemy, he fights to help him - though inflicting physical pain is sometimes necessary. I think that's what honor is all about; even though nowadays, people use morals as a reason to look down on people they consider to be 'weak', honor is about protecting the weak.

Damn, it feels good to be a hardliner - you get that nice, warm, fuzzy feeling inside when you condemn a man to death - and almost since the start of civilization, people have always killed their fellow man and defended their actions with things like honor and religion.

If I ever say that nobody should ever have to die, you're full welcome to deliver a swift kick to my balls. I believe there are circumstances under which it is necessary to kill, and circumstances where someone deserves to be killed. However, the fact that someone deserves to die does not mean they should. That a man, for a time, harbors sick ideas, or has a tendancy towards violence and madness that cause him to hurt others, does not mean he should be killed. It means he should be helped, and sometimes that means hurting him, physically and emotionally.

In my eyes, almost any premeditated killing is wrong, and that includes the death penalty. However, the stance I described above has to acknowledge one thing: there are some people who simply cannot be helped. It is possible to push yourself past redemption in this world. To try and change somebody who is literally deranged and dangerous is folly and, quite frankly, a waste of time.

The idea of justice is the restoration of balance when it is disturbed, right back to Hammurabi's code. Though we've evolved a bit past the theory that 'hey, if both of them lose an eye, everybody wins!', the idea is still the same. When someone does wrong, justice is there to see to it that he faces the same amount of suffering that he inflicted.

In that sense, there is no justice when you kill a man for his wrongs, because he will not suffer for whatever misery he created. No balance is achieved when a man who could be healed has his timeline cut short (see Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning for a good example).

P.S., my point was only about the death penalty and what is right to do with TB's point about the 'child', and I'm full aware I didn't even touch on the whole subject of the conversation.

[EDIT] Oh wait, s**t, the meaning of life?

We live in a world which few people even claim to understand. I'd say 99% of the human population is living in total confusion, not only about their lives, but life in general.

I'd say this is because of the unification of all society, and some values deep-rooted in Western culture. There is, first, a belief that there is a one mission to all life, or a single explanation for all things that happen to find their way into reality, that everyone can hear and magically be satisfied with their whole lives - in complete contradiction with Eastern ideas of the tao, the way, one that is different for all people. I'd like to point out that polytheistic peoples did not make war on eachother for religion. The Powow tribe does not attack the Whatever tribe because their Raven God is blasphemous and heathen (for all those of you who would attack me for this, I would remind you that I am Christian, and that in ancient times, Hebrew tribes worshipped Yahweh as only one of the gods, only one force of nature).

But recently, an even more sickening idea has surfaced. People turn to their wise men, after thousands of years of ridiculing and even persecuting them, searching for the meaning of life - that is, a sentence or a word which will at once grant them divine satisfaction and complacence.

I think not.

Human beings were not meant to become a global community. A confused wash of ethics of empire and equality have been bound together with duct tape, and bam - we have a global nation. That's where things get f**ked, in my opinion, because ultimately, human beings should not be expected to control the world.

It sounds good, right, the modern idea of Utopia? Well first, equality. Everybody can vote, everybody can run, everybody has their say. Oh, well sure, we'll have a good economy! And sure nobody will have to be poor, and the successful can remain wealthy! And sure nobody will be corrupt - because people are all hard-working and moral, right? Oh wait a second - s**t. There goes Utopia.

Human nature is to deal with themselves and a small group of friends family. Human nature is not about throwing your life away searching for the one truth of existence to apply to everyone. Human nature is not about equality and fairness. Human nature is caring for yourself, those you know and love, and fighting against anything that threatens that community.

To do whatever it takes to defend and improve what you love, I think, is the meaning of life.

/rant

cass is a communist

arguing the meaning of life, death, and morality is the meaning of life. the constant struggle for balance... fairness... opinion... that's our meaning. because if we didn't, we'd have no identity. and with no identity.. there is no meaning to life.