>>Because EVERYBODY HAS THEM. That's
>>how "human rights" work.
>>Every single human being deserves
>>those basic human rights, and
>>that includes our president, it
>>includes Pinochet, it includes neo-nazis
>>and it includes Timothy McVeigh.

>is that how human rights works?

Yes it is, as far as I'm concerned. Of course the UN, the ACLU, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, and the Bill of Rights all agree with me on that.

>you answered it yourself. "basic human
>rights". HA!!!
>like there are multi-tier levels to
>human rights or something.

No, there aren't. The reason they're called "basic" is because everybody who lives on this earth is entitled to them, AND because they're necessary to survival.

>btw, i noticed you mentioned neo-nazis.
>
>how about the original nazis including
>hitler himself. ya think they
>had those "basic" human rights?

Most did. It wasn't the "Neuremburg Executions," was it?

>>>what to do with him?
>>>stick him in prison, perhaps?

>>Perhaps. Or he could do
>>community service for 65 years.

>are you kidding me?!?

No. It's better than him sitting in a cell for 65 years.

>thats besides the point. THE FACT
>and POINT IS that when
>he is in prison, he
>will possibly get all those
>things that others are more
>deserving of. got it.

I see. "More deserving of." Well guess what? If you own more than one car, more than one pair of shoes, if you've been to the movies twice, you're getting plenty of things that others are "more deserving of," at least according to your rationale.

>>>let him have a new start
>>>on his life, meanwhile...........the victims
>>>families cant even get over
>>>their loss?!?
>>
>>You call numerous consecutive life sentences
>>"a new start?"

>i see you didnt address the
>real victims plight.

I don't see how I could. Do I know how to heal someone's grief?
I'm just saying that your outrage is possibly misplaced.
Do you think killing more people helps heal a community or a family?

>i just realized something..........what YOU rather
>have for tims punishment is
>no different then what the
>government wanted.........and that is to
>DEFINE ones rights and to
>ultimately have them AT YOUR
>DISPOSAL.

NO. I spoke of judging the worth of HUMAN LIFE. I think the right to be alive is a "basic human right."

I believe he should be punished, because he violated exactly that human right for 168 people.

But what basic human rights means is that under any condition, at ANY time, even if one is in jail or in a coma or in an infant nursery, those rights aren't violated.

>dont you think having him clean
>up every weekend is taking
>away from his right to
>freedom and to do what
>he wants on those weekends?

I don't consider "doing what you want on weekends" to be a basic human right on par with, say, breathing. Our criminal justice system *does* take certain rights away from those who hurt others. There are countless problems with that system, but it should never violate the basic rights of those incarcerated (unfortunately, as with the death penalty, free expression, health, reproduction, etc. it tends to violate them on a regular basis).

>dont you think consecutive life sentences
>take away from his rights
>to freedom of the outside
>world?

It does. I'm not in support of consecutive life sentences either, but if it's a choice between that and lethal injections...

>why do YOU get to decide
>HIS "BASIC" HUMAN RIGHTS, and
>nobody else?!?
>who do you think you are?!?

I didn't decide them. Nobody did. I'm just telling you how I understand them.

If you want to, you can understand it such that humanity defined human rights (in that it's been amoral to kill another since prehistory), and is perhaps continually redefining it.

But it's there, regardless.


Alek
______________________________________
Can't kill something that's already dead.