Final-Fan said:
vlad321 said:
Final-Fan said:
"manners are social behavior or habits, however society has made it very clear it does not want the person on death row. So I don't see why they should be extended to the person."
"Constitutional protections are American rights, however America has made it very clear it does not want the person being deported. So I don't see why they should be extended to the person."
You are seriously telling me you don't see the parallel here?
On food: but you do care. And in fact you prove my point when you say we are evolved to want to eat sweets, that they would be something desired because the person will enjoy them and not purely for the fuel provided. You can still argue that you think we ought to withhold the food as further punishment but not on the basis of "the body doesn't need the fuel so it doesn't matter".
|
I can see the parellel, however saying that a cuban being sent back is deprived of his constitutional rights isn't the same as some one receiving a meal before dying. If the person being deported is harmed, physically or mentally, then the harm will remain after he has left the country. If you don't give the death row person a meal, it won't matter worth a damn to him after being dead (again, if it does we can set up an office where he can complain afterwards, let's see how many complaints we get). That is why the parallel is not correct. One is lasting, one is not.
I admit that sweets are something to be esired yes, but that was so we can survive, the whole "survival of the fittest" having a power over evolutin and stuff. The prisoner will not be surviving, hence even the evolved tastes are very much pointless in the grand scheme of things. If it's to make the person feel good, just shoot up some meth in him and then kill him.
|
A person doesn't have to be hurt to have their rights violated. Is it OK for the FBI to ransack your house if you never know they were there? The harm is also to our laws, or our society, as in the case of "social behavior" as you put it.
Your argument that our tastes are pointless if they no longer serve an evolutionary purpose is irrelevant. If you're OK with giving them meth, why not food? I don't get your position at all anymore.
|
Seeing as how I am being deported, I don't see why I should give a damn if the FBI ransack it. If there is no harm done whatsoever, then I REALLY don't see what theproblem would be. After all, the point of the Constitution is to provide people the groundwork to prosper, by avoiding harm, physical or not, to our persons.
Also, I just assumed it would be super cheap to make meth legally, but I could be wrong. My point is that if they HAVE to be comforted (I still can't find a single reason why they should be though) why does it have to be something as dumb and pointless as food? You eat -> survive.
