Just tell me which name to write first and I'll go along. This is nothing to get worked up about.
7 ( +7 / -0 )
It's time for a real fast food burger joint like In N' Out to make its debut in Japan and show everyone how it is done. You don't need a fancy menu, just do what you offer really well. Double double, grilled onions and fresh cut fries with a vanilla shake. Yes please!
2 ( +2 / -0 )
The problem with the argument that "killing is wrong" is that it doesn't take into account who is being killed. Yes, generally killing is wrong. But it gets much mirkier when we consider specific situations. For example, is it wrong for me to kill an attacker to defend my own life or my child's life? If not then clearly not all killing is wrong. What has changed about the situation if the attacker succeeds in killing me or my child? If I am clearly justified in killing them to protect my life or a loved ones life then isn't the state also justified in killing them after the fact. I suppose that is the difference between killing in self defense and killing in retribution. What we need to distinguish is whether we think that society is served in some positive way by eliminating convicted murderers from society. It doesn't necessarily have to be for the reason of deterring crime. It could be that it should be done because these murderers are of no benefit whatsoever to society and are, in more ways, a drain. The tricky part is determining who should be responsible for deciding that. We have thus far left it up to courts to hand out judgements. I don't know of a better way.
-1 ( +4 / -5 )