[sweetjazz]

Hey bill,

I should apologize for my other reply. While I was attempting to make a point about freedom of speech in a playful way (and probably failing at that), my comment was completely off topic from your initial post and not helpful in adding dialogue to your thread.

I'll attempt to give a serious reply to your initial post, as retribution for my past sin. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

As far as the quote goes, it sounds from the context of it that it was meant as a joke, i.e. not being able to engage in sexual activity is as bad as death. If that's the case, then it's just a silly statement.

But it's interesting as a serious statement. Both castration and the death penalty involve the state doing to people what would be criminal if that person did it to another person. At the same time, so would locking someone up in a cell for many years.

The ultimate question is how much power should be given to the state, and how much certainty should we have the state has correctly assessed the guilt or innocence of the person on trial before it implements a given penalty.

I don't think I can agree with the claim made by the other party. Castration is not equivalent to the death penalty. Castration involves the state taking an invasive action against you; the death penalty involves the states taking an invasive action you that is on another level. After the death penalty, that's it. After castration, you still have the ability to enjoy some aspects of human life. So they just aren't the same. Of course, they might both be legitimate punishments or they might both be illegitimate punishments.

But they are not equivalent. All punishments involve some form of invasive actions, and they differ by their degrees of invasiveness. In this regard, there is no comparision between loss of sexual potency and loss of life.