What do we do with this piece of shit?

Originally posted by Nothing But Net
That was exactly the point I was trying to make. If you lost your other eye, you would be totally blind. And pissed off!

But I <b>didn't</b> lose my other eye and I'm not totally blind. And if I were, I would have more important things to do than be pissed off. Maybe you can't understand it because you haven't been submitted to it. After being really bummed out for about a year, I realized "hey, I'm not going to let that jackass ruin my life", and I <b>did something about it</b>. Being pissed off doesn't help me cope and is counter-productive - it steals my focus from adapting to my changed life.

Not to be patronizing, but when you turn 40 and have seen a little more of the world, you will understand better...

Not to be patronizing, but you're an assuming ignoramus. The fact of the matter is that you only have a foggy idea of what I've gone through and what I have seen. You know about my eye, but you cannot understand it until it has happened to you. That's where your knowledge of my life and its trials and tribulations ends.

I will have certainly seen more when I am 40; I cannot argue that, and I agree with that. But I take issue with your assertion that I will "understand better". What you are saying is that when I turn 40, I will appreciate your point of view more. Very simply, I believe you are incorrect. Neither one of us can say what is in store for me in 20 years, but I certainly can tell you that I have arrived at my views from a lot of experience and from watching the world around me, and that the more I see, the more I feel them to be accurate. You are on a far end of a spectrum and I am on another. You have been steadily moving away from me and I have been moving away from you even more quickly. It is my contention that our ideals will never meet again; whereas I used to be where you are, I have no desire to go there again. It is flawed logic at best.

Timothy McVeigh's act was upon a federal building which he thought would be filled with government workers. In this respect, he was ignorant. The same ignorance ran rampant through the government during the Waco standoff, and whether or not they set the fires themselves, the end result was that upwards of 80 people ended up dead for no good reason. In the end, Timothy McVeigh played executioner the same as the government did and he was, in turn, killed for it. Where does the cycle end? Who can we say is "in the right"? Should he who pushed the button and started the poison flowing be executed? Why not? Because the government said it was okay? What if the government is an outdated institution? Who says their decision making capabilities are better than Timothy McVeigh's as far as who should die and who should not? Do we elect politicians to make those decisions? Are emotional human beings really capable of handling the responsibility of deciding one's fate?

What if a mistake was made, as was in the case of your buddy with child support?

What if Luke Helder is insane? What if he has schizophrenia and cannot control what's going on? Should we still steal his life for something he cannot understand he did?

What if we had the death penalty for deliberately assaulting someone? What if <b>you</b> were wrongly convicted of assault after you tried to defend yourself from an attacker? What if you were sentenced to die for that? Would you still support the death penalty for just "hurting" someone?

Of course you wouldn't, because that's <b>ridiculous</b>, and because you would <b>know</b> what was going on with you when it happened.

And that's just my point - you are not <b>capable</b> of knowing everything in connection with this case, so you cannot responsibly decide that he should die for his crimes. Your decision was based on emotion, not logic.

Contrary to what you may think, you're not omniscient.