Happiness in another's death (locked)

Right and wrong don’t exist. Its all a matter of perspective. Right and wrong are opinions and are equally valid in opposite ends at once.

Edit:

Discuss?

Are you questioning whether this is discussion worthy or the merit of your post?

Yep, I could easily be pleased someone had died, and think it’s a quite normal thing to feel.

Wow, you really weren’t kidding when you said this was going in SD, were you? xD

Anyway, as I said in the thread in the Kongregate section, No.

You should never be happy that someone is dead. You can be happy that the person will no longer be a source of trouble and whatnot, but you shouldn’t be happy they are dead.

An example of this close to me is my father. He’s never contributed anything, and should be shot.

He helped conceive you, didn’t he? That should be contribution enough, even if only in your eyes.

Of course not, didn’t want to spam up that thread xD

Compare a low-life scumbag of a person to a fly… it buzzes around, then you kill it, and you’re happy that it’s dead. While it’s true that you’re happy that it isn’t buzzing around anymore, most people would just be happy that another fly is dead.

The more scum the dead, the better. If they aren’t willing to reform, then they’re just a burden on society… and one should be able to shoot them with a smile on his/her face.

Who are you to decide what is “scum”? We are all beings all with passions, emotions, and dimensions. All of equal value.

Originally posted by Deathreape98:

Of course not, didn’t want to spam up that thread xD

Compare a low-life scumbag of a person to a fly… it buzzes around, then you kill it, and you’re happy that it’s dead. While it’s true that you’re happy that it isn’t buzzing around anymore, most people would just be happy that another fly is dead.

The more scum the dead, the better. If they aren’t willing to reform, then they’re just a burden on society… and one should be able to shoot them with a smile on his/her face.

When I kill a fly buzzing around my head, I’m not thinking “Huzzah, a creature died!”.

You kill the fly to stop the annoyance, not just so it will be dead. The same can be applied to the death penalty, but on a greater scale. They must kill the person if that person refuses to change their ways, but that’s not to say the executor/judge is happy about the choice.

No two people are equal. Somebody with a vast intellect and skill with the ability to change the world cannot be compared to a drunkard beggar. They are just simply not equal human beings.

Scum, in this thread, will be defined as people with little to no positive contributions to society or anybody else, and engage in crimes and negative activities constantly.
(This was in response to Tw1tchy)

Sure, the judge might not be actively thinking it, but a lot of times we feel emotions without thinking about them. Why shouldn’t a judge be happy that another criminal is going to die? Why should anything stop him from enjoying the death of the criminal and being happy about it?

Originally posted by Deathreape98:

No two people are equal. Somebody with a vast intellect and skill with the ability to change the world cannot be compared to a drunkard beggar. They are just simply not equal human beings.

Scum, in this thread, will be defined as people with little to no positive contributions to society or anybody else, and engage in crimes and negative activities constantly.

Yes they can be compared.

They are both human beings with goals and aspirations. Their lives went in seperate directions, and the drunkard begger didn’t make the best decisions, but they are still human beings and deserve to be treated as such.

(now in response to death’s edit)

If a judge is honestly (and even subconciously) happy about a criminal’s death, then they don’t deserve to be in a position of so much power.

Like I’ve said before, you may perceive it as being happy that person is dead, but you are really thinking “I’m happy that person is no longer a threat.”

If, hypothetically, a new drug which would make any person which it was given to a good person who would never damage or do anything against society (kill, rape, etc) again was developed, would that not be preferable to the death penalty? (assuming, of course, they don’t give the drug to every human being at birth)

No two people are equal. Somebody with a vast intellect and skill with the ability to change the world cannot be compared to a drunkard beggar. They are just simply not equal human beings.

White supremacists feel the same way. Everything is equal and not at the same time. See first post.

Edit:

Originally posted by james123193:

wow im happy he is dead….

In regards to the MJ topic.

They are both human beings with goals and aspirations. Their lives went in seperate directions, and the drunkard begger didn’t make the best decisions, but they are still human beings and deserve to be treated as such.

The drunkard beggar had the power to make different decisions… but he didn’t. Because of that, he either needs to try to reform, or be treated appropriately.

If, hypothetically, a new drug which would make any person which it was given to a good person who would never damage or do anything against society (kill, rape, etc) again was developed, would that not be preferable to the death penalty? (assuming, of course, they don’t give the drug to every human being at birth)

Of course, that would be preferred, since they could then give a positive output and eventually give a net of positive over negative contribution. You’re going to say that saying this proves that I’m instead happy that they don’t do the negative things anymore, but I am talking about scum. If you give a scumbag this drug, then he is no longer scum… thus the discussion doesn’t apply.

White supremacists feel the same way. Everything is equal and not at the same time. See first post.

They are not judging based on something that, with undisputed proof, shows that whites contribute and blacks/asians/hispanics don’t. Now please, back on topic. This is not discussing equality, but instead whether or not it is morally right to be happy in another’s death.

That’s exactly the thing, though.

No one is truly ‘scum’. Everyone’s definition of ‘scum’ differs. For example, you think a drunkard beggar is scum, while I think there really is no one who is ‘scum’.

And in response to your second paragraph…

What I’m trying to say is (and I don’t know if I can put it into any other words), when a bad person (or, by your standards, ‘scum’) gets killed/dies, you aren’t actually happy that that person no longer walks the Earth. You may think that’s what you’re thinking, but really you are happy that the person can no longer do the bad things he has done previously.

They don’t give the death penalty just because they don’t have any more jail room. In fact, why do you think they have jail? To teach people a lesson to see if they will become better and if they don’t then the government has no other option except to remove the threat.

Jail is there to keep the citizens safe from their harm… in reality, so much more could be done to reform the prisoners.

By your logic, I’m just happy that they can’t do any harm… then why is there a death penalty? Why not just lock him up in some high-security place like Alcatraz?

As for the word scum, I defined it earlier for use in the thread. AX, perhaps?

EDIT: My god, Tw1tchy, that was hilarious.

They don’t give the death penalty just because they don’t have any more jail room. In fact, why do you think they have jail? To teach people a lesson to see if they will become better and if they don’t then the government has no other option except to remove the threat.

Its a little less of rehabilitation where I live and more of this

at 2:38

Originally posted by Deathreape98:

Jail is there to keep the citizens safe from their harm… in reality, so much more could be done to reform the prisoners.

By your logic, I’m just happy that they can’t do any harm… then why is there a death penalty? Why not just lock him up in some high-security place like Alcatraz?

As for the word scum, I defined it earlier for use in the thread. AX, perhaps?

I think that beign locked up in Alcatraz would be worse than death, but that’s just my opinion.

Originally posted by Deathreape98:

Jail is there to keep the citizens safe from their harm… in reality, so much more could be done to reform the prisoners.

By your logic, I’m just happy that they can’t do any harm… then why is there a death penalty? Why not just lock him up in some high-security place like Alcatraz?

As for the word scum, I defined it earlier for use in the thread. AX, perhaps?

Why do you think they made Alcatraz?

Jail is there to keep the citizens safe from their harm… in reality, so much more could be done to reform the prisoners.

Like what?

And that’s what the death penalty is for: keep the citizens safe—“remove the threat”.

I haven’t looked into what exact reform measures have been used, but from personal contact with a man that’s been in jail almost constantly for 16 years (My father), atleast where I live not much is being done. And with our crime rates (USA), it’s obvious something isn’t working.

Why do you think they made Alcatraz?

For the reason I stated. And now they aren’t using it… they want them dead.

And that’s what the death penalty is for: keep the citizens safe—“remove the threat”.

Alcatraz did the same thing, with only two people having ever escape when it was in use. But now, it isn’t in use. Instead, criminals are being killed.. and people can be happy in their deaths.

I think that beign locked up in Alcatraz would be worse than death, but that’s just my opinion.

I agree.

In my opinion, I cannot form that opinion about people like Michael Jackson because I’ve never spoken to him, known his thoughts, or anything. Was I happy that he was dead? No. was I sad? No. I was indifferent. There’s nothing we can do.

However, there are some people that are dangerous to peoples’ lives; I have a relative like this. Would I be sad if they died? Yes, but in the end it would bring our family comfort and peace.

Sure I’m happy when people die. My aunt was hit by a car, which damaged her brain severely, so she decided to die instead of live off a tube. I was happy that she didn’t have to live in a broken shell of a body. She is at peace now, and I’m happy for her.

But as for feeling glee towards another persons death in an internal feeling of ultimate joy is bordering becoming a sociopath, or a psychopath.

No, from either a religious or atheistic there are circumstances where it would be find to be happy somone died.

Religiously death could separate someone from their suffering and otherwise it would be the same as saying you are happy because you killed the bear terrorizing your family… humans are no less animals than bears.

I am sure parents of killed children are very happy to have closure when their child’s killer is executed.

Scum, in this thread, will be defined as people with little to no positive contributions to society

Children, anyone that genuinely can’t find a job, disabled people that can’t work.

They all deserve to die in your view? They are all technically a drain on society as they don’t work and have money spent on them without paying taxes.

They are just simply not equal human beings.

By law, they are. Also, you cannot compare a millionaire (using this as comparison, not what you mentioned) to a drunkard. A lot of millionaires are rich because their parents were. A drunkard may have lived up in a poor environment with bad parents not caring for him at all. There is no way the drunkard could ever become a millionaire.

As for the comment on bugs, I particularly only kill when they have a significant effect on my life. A bug that keeps me awake at night is going to get killed. Why? Because I will get ill if I don’t get enough sleep.

But I’ll never be “happy” when a person dies, no matter if it’s a mass murderer. I would rather be sad at the way people can behave and feel “good” that the threat is gone.

Originally posted by dd790:

Scum, in this thread, will be defined as people with little to no positive contributions to society

Children, anyone that genuinely can’t find a job, disabled people that can’t work.

They all deserve to die in your view? They are all technically a drain on society as they don’t work and have money spent on them without paying taxes.

Generally they contribute positively to those around them, meaning their family or loved ones. I suppose I should have elaborated more on children and such, saying that they are exempted.

Originally posted by xTw1tchyx:

They don’t give the death penalty just because they don’t have any more jail room. In fact, why do you think they have jail? To teach people a lesson to see if they will become better and if they don’t then the government has no other option except to remove the threat.

Its a little less of rehabilitation where I live and more of this

at 2:38

As much as I hate that guy, I can agree with that line.

I’ve noticed a few people saying they would be happy if someone died because it would end that person’s constant suffering and allow them to move on to a “better place”.

I think the thread creator was talking about less of a religious aspect, and more of a ‘physical’ one.

Not your average joe, but instead somebody that’s harmed you or somebody else.

And would you be happy if that person died, not because he no longer is a threat to anyone, but because he no longer has to rot in prison? No, you don’t ‘feel sorry’ for the people who did wrong to you, at least, to the extremes of killing of a family member or harming you/traumatising you in a severe way.

(I’m sorry if I’m not making sense here, I’m very tired. :X)

In short, I think this thread is directed not to family members that you are happy for them passing on to a better place, but is directed to serial killers, rapists, and other threats to society.

And as I’ve said numerous times above, in my mind, what people perceive as “being happy another is dead”, is actually “being happy they are no longer a threat”.

At least, that’s how I think.