You don't consider a situation in which someone murders your family to be extreme? Scary world you live in, man.
you are completely unable to project how you would feel about someone who murders your family? out of touch world you live in, man.
Of course I am. There is nothing I have ever experienced that could possibly even begin to approximate how that would devastate my world. Of course I have lost people close to me as we all must do as a natural part of life, but to think that it would be possible to project your feelings in the event of the deliberate killing of your whole family? You think that something as puny and as ineffective as killing someone whose existence was previously unknown to me would somehow have an impact upon the grief at the loss of those I have always known? And I'm out of touch? Less video games and war movies for you, I think.
that's an illogical jump to make. knowing that the death of someone who murdered a family member would bring a sense of satisfaction in no way equates to lessening the impact of the grief of the loss. those are completely separate. you can be both sad for the loss and pleased by the demise of the person who cause that loss. the only reason to confuse the two would be to dishonestly defend your argument which is ridiculous to begin with or you don't grasp the very obvious difference. neither of which is very favorable to your position on the matter.
As my fundamental position is that I am vehemently anti-death penalty, then using your argument the only logical argument I can make is that I would not wish the death of the miscreant, but again I say that without having been in the position of colossal emotional stress that you hypothetically describe, the only statement that can be made with truth is that I have no idea how I would feel about them. And neither can you, regardless of what you say, because if you can then the only logical position in which you put yourself is that the murder of your family would not affect your logic or reasoning in any way shape or form which in turn points to either a lack of depth of feeling towards your family, something of which I'm not accusing you.
unfortunately, all that drivel only points to the ridiculous conclusion that one can't come to a conclusion without first experiencing an act. by such ridiculous standards I can't know that it will hurt if I smash a hammer against my toe based if I have never done so previously. does that really hold logical merit to you? I certainly hope not, because logic and reason dictates that you can predict or project an outcome without having to have experienced it. I can project the absolute horror and pain of losing a loved one based on how much I know I love them and what losing them would do to me. don't have to experience that loss to know such. and if I can project that pain, I can then project how much I would hate the person who took them from me. and from there I can project that satisfaction I would have from knowing they were dead. your position is based on the apparent practice of actually not considering the elements that comprise your argument first which then lead to a conclusion, but instead simply coming to your conclusion first, after which you then try to fit in rationalizations that defend it but don't fit, hence why you create irrelevant arguments and think they become relevant simply by association.
how do you know it is slipping away? that must mean you have had your life slip away in the past because logically it is the only way you could be able to identify such; you certainly couldn't deduce it, right?
