5 ms·
I answered you as if you weren't being funny, since the answer to you being funny is "ha ha". The problem with killing people for being violent is that violenc
by sshine 9mo ago
I answered you as if you weren't being funny, since the answer to you being funny is "ha ha".
The problem with killing people for being violent is that violence is a spectrum with genocide and serial murder on the one end, and snarky comments on the other. Whereas the capital punishment is pretty far towards the killing end of violence.
So when you seek to kill people for being violent, you need to at least specify how violent you need to be. Is killing one person enough? Or maiming multiple? Or just being really snarky for decades?
While "an eye for an eye" seems direct, manslaughter comes in several degrees based on intent and state of mind.
The main reason why capital punishment in the US is preceeded with decades of imprisonment is because killing people "legally" isn't simple.
The only way to simplify killing people is to let go of your humanity.
- nailer 9mo ago> violence is a spectrum with genocide and serial murder on the one end, and snarky comments on the other No.
- bigyabai 9mo agoSay no all you want. There's a reason your comments aren't showing up without showdead enabled.
- nailer 9mo agoI care about truth more than agreement and moderation on HN tends to come in waves - right now the comments you're replying to are on +3, +1 and +2. 'Snarky comments' are not violence, that is a silly thing to say, if you are old enough to write you should be aware of that.
- sshine 9mo agoFine, put "side jabs to strangers on trains" on the far right. Whatever your idea of "least amount of actual violence" is. The point is: It's a spectrum with very light offenses on the other end. Imposing death penalty for generic violence shows there's absolutely no understanding of that. Hard to argue with someone who can only see things from one side.