Is it a bad thing *any* time someone dies?

[Brian]

Someone brought this up on Google+.

They expressed the opinion that killing someone is a terrible thing, because someone dies. I'm not sure I buy that, though.

Hitler
Jeffrey Dahmer
Osama Bin Laden

Is there any justification for thinking it's a bad thing that any of these people died?

[silverpop]

let's see

Hitler- killed millions of Jews

dahmer-killed and dismembered people

Laden-mastermind of 9-11 ( over 2500 people died)

seems pretty cut and dry they deserved to die for the crimes they did , some died by their own hand, others were helped into death either way their fate for these horrors was death

Is there any justification for thinking it's a bad thing that any of these people died

none what so ever these people deserved to die

[Millennium]

No, not *any* time someone dies, as presented earlier, sometimes it' well warranted.

[Brian]

I'll let you know what brings this up.

On Google+, someone had posted a story about a son who had killed his neo-Nazi father. Apparently, the son (who is a minor) was found mentally competent and will stand trial. I suggested (honestly) that instead of a trial, the son should be given a medal and sent on his way. That provoked the comment that it's a tragedy any time someone dies, and should not be celebrated.

[Boba]

I'll let you know what brings this up.

On Google+, someone had posted a story about a son who had killed his neo-Nazi father. Apparently, the son (who is a minor) was found mentally competent and will stand trial. I suggested (honestly) that instead of a trial, the son should be given a medal and sent on his way. That provoked the comment that it's a tragedy any time someone dies, and should not be celebrated.

I don't think that killing someone should be taken lightly. SP made a great post on the issue. These are known facts. (Except I believe Dahmer actually ate his victums) WIthout knowing all the details of the mentioned story, I would be hesitent to make such a statement. One mans neo-Nazi is another mans freedom fighter. After all I have seen in the press over the past few years, I have a hard time weeding out the truth.

As far as "it's a tragedy any time someone dies" I think there are many people that I wouldn't shead a tear over. (Anyone who fires on our troops, murders an innocent person, molests a child.....I would celebrate any of these)

[Brian]

I don't think that killing someone should be taken lightly. SP made a great post on the issue. These are known facts. (Except I believe Dahmer actually ate his victums) WIthout knowing all the details of the mentioned story, I would be hesitent to make such a statement. One mans neo-Nazi is another mans freedom fighter. After all I have seen in the press over the past few years, I have a hard time weeding out the truth.

As far as "it's a tragedy any time someone dies" I think there are many people that I wouldn't shead a tear over. (Anyone who fires on our troops, murders an innocent person, molests a child.....I would celebrate any of these)

My understanding of the case (which, admittedly, could be wrong) is that the man killed was an actual neo-Nazi. And by "actual neo-Nazi, I mean, that's him holding the flag:



Someone wants to kill a guy like that, I say, let them.

Here's the story.

That story is actually old. The boy was convicted. Here's an updated account of the case. He apparently faces up to eleven years in juvenile detention.

[Quicksilver]

Re: "Is it a bad thing *any* time someone dies?
Sure, many like it when an enemy dies, but don't like it when a friend dies (but are relieved when a suffering loved one dies), and of course, don't want to die ourselves.
I was brought up to protect women, old people and kids, friends, and saved many in combat.
There is the awful reality we found out in the late 1960s that is beyond control and has hurt our biosphere and kills many children in the future. That is depletion, pollution, over-crowding, wars, and diseases with overpopulation(with greed and stupidity) as the root cause.
The birth rate has dropped, but not enough, and spent too much time at high levels, and the death rate has been too low, but will increase as economic effects make medical care less available, soil losses and aquifer losses along with pollution effects lower the amount of food that can be produced and distributed.
People first were able to not depend on currents and winds for distribution of food from coal power. Technological breakthroughs lead to destroying predators and self predation gradually decreased. Then medical breakthroughs made it so less people died young. Wars became negatively evolutionary with the best being killed and the non-selectivity of bombs, then even WWII had a net gain in world population of 140 million. Oil made it so even more food could be grown and water pumped out of the ground, depleting soil and water(at over 100 times regeneration rates) and in much of the farmlands left(from the flush and forget urbanized societies) have no organics, and only depleting(at 50K times regeneration rate) petro chemicals grow food of lesser nutrition. Oil made it so the oceans will be depleted before 2050. The huge amount of emissions beyond the absorption ability of the biosphere (by over a thousand times) will and are negatively affecting crop yields.
With this depletion and pollution the maximum amount of food that the Earth can produce will be less than half enough even at sedentary starvation levels by mid-century. The population, before that time will begin to collapse. To stop the misery and suffering of the crash would require such a high death rate now as to be about as bad.
It was reversible with 2 child families from 1967 when I found out, to 1985 or so, then with one child families worldwide by 1998 or so, and now by a moratorium of having kids for 20 years followed by one child families until sustainability is reached at a universally acceptable standard of living. I would say that is unlikely.
There is another even bigger problem that still has 7 years or so left to halt. If humanity can reduce emissions 80-90% by around 2020 (the sooner and lower, the better). Anthropocene Thermal Maximum may be able to be avoided with its 85-90% extinction rate, and re-sequestration of carbon time of over 200K years and diversity recovery of 3 million years. The extinction includes our species. There are several due geologic events that could affect the outcome (Kafka volcano, La Palma tsunami, Cascadia R9 quake and tsunami). Also human events such as economic collapse or a war worse than WWII, could affect population and emissions.
We tend to live our lives in our own little selfish worlds and not think ahead of the long term consequences of what we do. The first commandment of "Replenish the Earth" is overlooked, and ancient wisdom (like of the Utes or Chief Seattle) is ignored. People long ago started thinking of it being a bad thing when someone dies, most of the time. Over-compassion and over-tolerance, along with lust and greed, had set in well before fossil fuels and technology acted as stimuli in making the population "explode". Actually this extinction event is technically (geologically) in progress and has been since the technology of the Folsom Point. It will be over in a thousand years or so----a 12K year blip in the geologic record similar to above and below the "K-T" iridium layer, but worse in species loss, and with no human to ever study it.
I suppose it is a bad thing when a good person, friend, or family dies, and a good thing when an enemy, criminal, or an uncaring of future generations dimwit dies. It is even worse when mass death strikes taking the good, the bad and the ugly, even though many of the good did all they could to help it not happen. Worse even than that is helping cause your own species and most others to go extinct. The worst possible thing, which is unlikely to happen, is if somehow people stay overpopulated and burn all of the fossil fuels, causing a runaway greenhouse effect that eventually makes it so no life at all exists on Earth and no recovery is possible.
If by some miracle, people soon reduce their population and change their ways to being sustainable and with intimate knowledge of natural processes. Then they can have another 3 billion years of harmonious living, with the ability to divert large meteors and live through catastrophes foreseen and unforeseen, until they must move in generational ships to the gamble of other stars. The sun will be expanding and too hot. The the collision with Andromeda may have some effects, too in 3 1/2 billion years. Earth itself will melt into the outer portion of the red giant sun(nova), which will then shrink to a white dwarf then cool to brown, then to a dark cinder. Space dust which may be absorbed in another accretion disc of a new planetary star system. We ourselves, the planets and Sun are remnants from previous supernovae.
Again, if by some miracle, people soon reduce their population and change their ways to being sustainable and with intimate knowledge of natural processes. Then ecocide is avoided. That is my hope.

[sledge]

Killing is murder many of us would find it hard taking someone's life. Those mass murderers that brian mention above you cannot reason with as they will go on murdering others if we don't take action. I'm firm believer that the crime should meet the punishment. Look at the guy 'James Homes' who shot all those people at the movie Theater last year he was planning the massacre he was stockpiling weapons in his apartment and visited the cinema before the attack
" The defense has a psychiatry expert on its defense team and plans to use him as an expert, giving further insight into a possible insanity defense by James Holmes, the documents showed.
Defense attorneys claim Holmes is mentally ill, raising the possibility that Holmes will plead not guilty by reason of insanity."

'Mentally Insanity' is a word you hear when someone shoots down other people. ? what I read he should be given the death sentence but it seems he may end up in a mental institute with USA taxpayers paying his bill.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/28/pr ... z2JrTw1V3C

[Boba]

I think you've brought up an interesting point Sledge. How can anyone be in their right mind and go in a theater and start shooting people up? Of course they're "Mentally ill". My question is "So what?" Mentally ill or not, they still committed the crime. Are the people any less dead if he was found mentally ill? He should face the same sentence as a "Sane" person would.

[Quicksilver]

The theater shooter planned it out showing he was not insane. He killed 12 and wounded 68, so should get a total of say 18 days of torture before being electrocuted. Putting various amounts of torture commensurate with suffering caused would be a deterrent to crime.
It doesn't seem "civilized", but is necessary, if we really want to deter crime.