|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rice Thresher
Phone:
|
Columnist vents anger at undeserving party
To the editor:
We question why it would matter whether that employee said "ain't got none" or made a more formal statement like "do not have any." Both phrases communicate the same point equally well and are perfectly acceptable expressions of spoken English. We seriously doubt that Shreffler is a grammar expert who speaks the King's English in every waking moment. Instead, it strikes us that in her anger she has chosen to scapegoat one person for her problems, and has done so with racial overtones. Personally, we have had good experiences with registrar employees, and even in cases where there have been clerical problems, we have found them to be friendly and helpful. Judgmental assessments of the way people speak do not solve problems, and they certainly are no way of endearing oneself to a new community. We hope Shreffler will think twice before making further ad hominem attacks in this publication.
Todd Makse Jeff "The Transfer" Cliver Sid seniors Capital punishment warrants discussion
To the editor:
In the grand scheme of things, most things can be seen to be inconsequential. But trivializing an issue just because you personally don't see the merit in it is very dangerous. The fact that a large portion of the population sees the capital punishment issue as significant should be reason for further discussion, not cessation because it pisses you off. I feel that capital punishment touches us all, because the taking of a human life has repercussions beyond the immediate life in question. I will continue to make capital punishment a major issue because human life as a whole is important. With capital punishment, we are basically saying that there is some finite level of human dignity which can be lost by committing a crime. Perhaps this is a point to be debated, but it is certainly not a point to be trivialized. Life is the fundamental right of human civilization. Additionally, the idea that living in prison is worse than dying misses the point. Even if prison is a life worse than death (which is a statement I would in no way find myself - or anyone who has not personally experienced the situation - qualified to make). An alarming percentage of those convicted of capital crimes are eventually found wrongly convicted, and often even innocent. When that happens, the prisoner is released. A prison sentence can be reversed while a death sentence cannot. If capital punishment is not inherently immoral, it is at least inappropriate in a legal system which cannot with finality and without partiality determine who committed the wrong. And to the statement, "People will get what's coming to them and things will work out." Sorry, my friend, life doesn't reward you according to your good and bad deeds. Some people get the shaft. That is life. Or, unfortunately for some, that is death.
Ben Horne Wiess junior Pro-death penalty logic is flawed, dangerous
To the editor:
Here's why: While you think that we should all just take a "chill pill," it is obvious that you are arguing in one direction and one direction only ("Controversy destroys capital punishment," Sept. 29). That is, that the death penalty is something that should neither be thought about nor debated. Notwithstanding our country's long tradition of debating issues such as these, you proceed to make what can only be seen as an argument by analogy. You point out that prisons are far worse than death, and therefore, we are to assume that death is the preferable option. In the same line, you then point out that although there are, admittedly, innocent people's lives at stake, these people will remain in prison anyway, getting whacked by seven foot tall "Neanderthals." Continuing in your incredibly sensitive vein, you then point out that either way one rolls the dice, opponents and proponents of the death penalty system will find whatever "evidence" that comes their way to their side's favor, concluding that the penal system sucks. I would agree. People will interpret what they want to interpret. But that does not mean that one can therefore jump to the conclusion that since they will do this, it is useless to try. However, in the interests of a philosophical analysis, there are a few flaws to your line of reasoning and your "chill pill" conclusion. Even if it is true that "either way" people will get what's coming to them, this is not an ethical justification to continue to give people what shouldn't have been coming to them. The question here centers instead on the kind of penal system reform that we might need in this country, not as you suggest, a blase live and let live policy. Next, you invoke correlations between the good stuff and the bad stuff in capital punishment. These consist of things like "hell, I'd rather die than get whacked for the next 40 years," or "I sure as hell won't make that mistake again." These latter components of your argument are unforgivable, since we are supposed to assume that the ethical thing to do is allow prison inmates (presumably all guilty) to get "whacked" since that is the better option. I don't see how the evidence fits the conclusion, or moreover, how the conclusion is at all relevant to your discussion. What you really seem to be saying, after rifling through all the ridiculous argumentation, is that perhaps we should reform the penal system overall. Reforming the penal system means "suspending our judgments" about it, which means if there is any doubt as to the functioning of the system, a moratorium, at the very least, is in order. Unfortunately, you conclude differently, saying that we should all just "chill out" and forget about arguing this one. "Chilling out" apparently means silencing the discussion, which means that there should be no resolution and therefore no truth. Here's where I'd urge you, as Peter Jennings did to Al Gore after the latter made a stupid comment, to rethink your position. And of course, lest I need remind you, to argue in your vein is to forget that truth is philosophy's Biggie fries - whether ethical, logical or with an extra helping of fried, innocent inmates on top.
Alexei Angelides Lovett senior Backpage should stop mocking Camacho
To the editor:
Dr. Camacho's job takes enough of a toll on him already (take a good look at him the next time he says "Hi" to you and asks about your hometown as you pass on the sidewalk) without his having to worry about uninspired BPEs making fun of him for no apparent reason. The Rice student body is lucky to have a man like him to represent us on a day-to-day basis, and the recent Backpage jokes at his expense, well-intentioned or not, are uncalled for. To paraphrase the old adage, if you can't say something funny, don't say anything at all.
Sol Villarreal Baker junior
- back - |
|
|
Search the Thresher pages:
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of: The Rice Thresher, Rice University MS-524, PO Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251-1892, USA. The Thresher Online Project -- ethresh@listserv.rice.edu |
