Does societies laws kill homeless people?

Loves To Spooge · 2008-07-31T08:17:35+00:00

I just saw this Law & Order episode that had a case that was very intriguing. This homeless dude killed another homeless dude because he wouldn't share his orange. It became a case of Human Nature VS Societies Laws. The law says not to kill. Human Nature says to resort to murder for your own survival. "Survival of The Fittest". So the lawyer in defense of the homeless man had a hell of a defense/argument to be like: "Being homeless is like being in the wilderness. Society casts homeless out into exile. Society treats and sees homeless people like animals." (Although i always refer to human beings as such being we are apart of the animal kingdom. Were just at the top of the food chain. Please keep this in mind for this discussion. Here's an argument for you if you think otherwise of this point: "If were something more then animals then what are we?... Gods?") Now the Law & Order lawyer (Sam Waterson) had another argument saying that: Society is meant to protect people, but also to punish. We can't ignore the fact that this man murdered another man and if justice isn't served then society really did turn its back to homeless people. Because what about the man who died? You can't ignore him and pretend he never existed. They both had strong arguments and i couldn't pick a side. But i guess that in a dire situation a humans' primal instincts kick in and.... well.... Shit happens. Back in cave men times. If one cave man was starving and saw another cave man with that orange. The hungry cave man would contemplate for a while and judge whether or not he can kill the other cave man. And if he thinks he can, he will try. If he succeeds. He eats. Because as we all know. In the end the only thing a human would think about is its own survival.

Pages 1 23

Loves To Spooge

16 years ago

The Jesus wrote...

Time and time again our civilized society has created new ways to cheat death or attempt to play god and there's a point where we put an end to it. I'm fine with nature killing people off at its own pace, but the fact that we have technology to thwart nature's attempts means that there has to be a level of human influence to lend a hand.

What is so wrong with choosing to extend your life for a while longer if you can? You can cheat death, but you cannot cheat death forever. We all die eventually and the cycle continues. I see nothing wrong with paying some doctors to hook you up to a bunch of machines or to get medication that will extend your life and keep you alive.

Why do you see that as wrong?

It may seem like something you want, but when you're laying on your deathbed with a tube down your throat being pumped full of drugs, who's to say you won't be begging to die. All these drugs and shit that have been developed to keep people alive just prolong their suffering. There aren't all many people who live longer than nature intended and actually enjoy that time. I understand the fact that people would want to spend a little more time with their loved ones, but is it fair to them? Have you ever seen a person who is being kept alive with machines, its incredibly disturbing and I don't see how anyone would want to put someone they love through that. They're basically dead, but still out of selfishness and attachment, a family will fight tooth and nail to keep them hooked up to machines with all kinds of tubes and shit in them because they are no longer able to eat or breath for themselves.

-Jack Kevorkian

I agree heavily with this. I thought his prison sentence was absurd. I don't think that people do it out of selfishness. But do it because most people i guess like to have false hope. Either that or they really are selfish and they are unable to let go. Which is also unhealthy. They just don't realize that instead of letting they're loved ones die because there's nothing else they can do, they make them suffer until the end.

Post Reply

Pages 1 23