Hacker News Reader

Comment by rabbits77 | Hacker News Reader

The guy writing this article killed his dad.

Not really into reading what this sort of monster has to say about chess or anything else, do you?

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/former-san...

I don't think anyone condones or wants to promote murder, but treating humans (even criminals, even terrible, violent criminals) as subhuman is the kind of thing that puts us in a bad space as a society with regard to criminal justice. See: America.

Maybe we think this guy is the most reprehensible person on earth. Maybe we think he's irredeemable. But is he so bad that we are unwilling to listen to his thoughts on prison conditions? Or do we not care because he's a "monster?"

For what other crimes do we now get to completely ignore and dismiss the person who committed them?

Is there no action a person can take before they qualify as subhuman? honest question.

In my mind? No.

So a person who, motivated by naked greed, murders another in cold blood, you would be more sorry to see him go than a loyal and faithful family pet? Why?

You're suddenly changing the question.

I don't think I am. We summarily execute beloved pets all the time, simply as a matter of convenience for their owners. In my mind, a person can in fact take actions that make their lives worth less than the lives of these animals, therefore they are dehumanized.

You're absolutely changing the question. The original post was about not listening to anything someone has to say because they're a "monster."

Worth of life is an arbitrary discriminator, but even if we use it your example doesn't really carry much weight.

Let me make it as simple as possible: even the worst criminals are human. The best dogs are not.

I also think the concept of putting down animals merely out of convenience is a broad, largely inaccurate brush. It's usually done in an attempt to reduce suffering. In some places we do this with humans well - not out of malice, but out of empathy.

Animals can be and are routinely put down just because their owners happen to feel like it. They have no legal protection from the whims of their owners, as long as their lives and deaths are not considered unusually cruel. The worst criminals are human in the biological sense, undeniably. Is that all it takes for them to deserving of irrevocable human moral and legal status?

If it's true that you'd feel worse about the arbitrary execution of a beloved pet than that of a criminal, doesn't that contradict any intrinsic value the criminal has?

> Animals can be and are routinely put down just because their owners happen to feel like it.

I really have no idea why you're leaning into this non sequitur so hard. Yes. Many cruel things happen to humans and non humans. What that has to do with treating criminals as inherently sub-human I cannot surmise.

> If it's true that you'd feel worse about the arbitrary execution of a beloved pet than that of a criminal,

I don't understand the straw man argument here. If you're going to put words in my mouth at least make them close to what I'm saying.

Just because someone does something terrible, doesn't mean there isn't anything valuable to learn from them.

Don't judge a book by it's cover and all that.

Given the amount of upvotes and comments, clearly some people do.

Amy why not, just because someone did something terrible even if you find that irredeemable, do you really believe that nothing can be learned from from or their thoughts?

if he raped a woman would you still say that? what if he raped a black woman while calling her the N word?

of course you would change your mind, because you have no consistent philosophy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com