There is a moral difference between Shelton’s killing of his attackers and that of his other victims. Darby and Ames caused personal harm to Shelton and thus gave him the moral right to try and prevent any other future pain that could be caused by these men, but the other victims were combatants in the war that Shelton waged against the “system”. When looking at Darby and Ames, Shelton takes a more utilitarian approach when dealing with their killings. The government “system” is supposed to punish those who are wrong. But in the trial of Darby and Ames, only Ames was punished severely while Darby was allowed to go free.
“Overzealous officials” grill suspicious foreigners “to the point of near panic” (Khan 559). In worst cases, death has occurred Haitians seeking refuge, a man was not allowed to keep his medication while he was put in Krome (Danticant 569). The profiling does not only happen with officials, but many Americans often profile foreigners. Americans heightened suspicion on not only non-Americans, but on Americans with Middle Eastern traits. Americans know “racial profiling is both morally wrong and ineffective”, but they rather be safe than sorry (Chavez 563).
Martin Luther King Jr. on the other hand took after the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, and believed in nonviolence and boycotting. The reason why they had such different views was probably because of their experiences with Jim Crow. Malcolm X witnessed the burning of his house by white supremacist, his father was killed, and he was put in a foster home after his mother had a nervous breakdown. Malcolm was put in jail for selling drugs when he was a teenager, and later joined the Muslim Brotherhood. Martin on the other hand had well educated parents who taught him that he was as good as white people, he went to college and became a Southern Baptist Pastor.
That is what a lot of people asked themselves and still ask themselves until this day. To put it briefly, Fussel’s argument states that war was savage for invasion forces and killing civilians of Japan was the only way to avoid a Japanese invasion. In complete disregard to civilian lives, he believes the atomic bomb may have killed many but that it saved many more. Walzer believes that dropping the atomic bomb was inhumane and that war is all about the choices that you make. Walzer makes many valid points that forced me to change
2) Berger argues that what happened on August 6, 1945 was "consciously and precisely planned". Highlight, underline, or flag the evidence he uses to support this claim. How does this argument support his larger purpose? Berger supports his claim by stating "The victims are chosen indiscriminately in the hope of producing a shock effect on political decision-making by their government" as well as "The two bombs dropped on Japan were terrorist actions. The calculation was terrorist.
Bateman kills people for his own satisfaction, the nameless narrator does it because of his urge to get rid of an eye. Similarities Patrick Bateman and the nameless narrator both feel the judgement or "the eye" of the antagonist. This force them to do very drastic actions in order to control their psychological problems. The main character in American Psycho appears very normal to the public. This is getting clarified in the beginning of the movie, while doing his morning routine, this goes through his mind: "There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction.
This brings issue of how can one be against torture, but when a scenario as the ticking time bomb is presented he or she then accepts the reality that torture needs to be warranted. McCain states that in the rare instance, the interrogator might try extreme measures to extract information to save lives may not be granted as a success when judging his actions in which he accomplished the task (Page699). In my opinion, this is horrible and where I lose sense of reality on how someone could believe in such act. The lives of American people are saved due to the heroic acts of the interrogator. Understanding the moral concept of torture being wrong but in this case the use of torture used to terrorist attacks on innocent people.
Instead of him getting the poison to use it against his wife he got poisoned when the druggist slipped it in his coffee, so the when the druggist told him you already had the poison in him, he panicked so he asked how much for the antidote the druggist said 1000$ so Sangstrom didn't hesitate to buy the antidote. The violence that fits in this story is that he wanted to kill his wife with the poison, but instead the poison got to him. So it was almost like payback but nobody got poisoned accept Sangstrom. There was also some hatred with Sangstrom against the druggist. Sangstrom also was violent when he pulled out the pistol and was scaring the druggist.
IS THE USE OF TORTURE UPON TERRORISTS JUSTIFIED YES:CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER//NO: ADREW SULLIVAN Introduction: The topic at hand, Is the use of torture against those who intend to inflict psychological and physical harm to Americans at home and abroad justified in its use? Taking these talking points stances will be Charles Krauthammer for the Justification and Andrew Sullivan for the unjustification of torture use. I believe the use of torture against domestic and foreign terrorist is extremely justified and should be applied liberally to those who wish to strike the fall of the United States, destroy capitalist and democratic systems, and seek to annihilate all who oppose Islamic Sha’ria law and follow the Christian and Jewish faiths. A
It is smart, but not fair. A similar case happened a few years ago. In the case of John Errol Ferguson, he was delusional believing that as the Prince of God, he was being executed so he can save the world from communism, among with other paranoid delusions. Ferguson cannot rationally connect his criminal punishment and perceive the finality of the execution (MENTAL ILLNESS 1). The difference between James Holmes and John Ferguson is that John had already been diagnosed with a mental disorder years before he