|
Wild Horses posted:That sounds fine and all and then you realise its actually rapists we are talking about. No matter of morality talk is gonna change that they're human garbage. Being a perfect human being is quite hard. Rape is particularly detestable, but we are all guilty of crimes that prove us to be less than the absolute paragons of morality. It's not unthinkable that you have knowingly hosed over people in similar if not nearly as heinous ways. For example, you've presumably already been through puberty and have lied to and taken advantage of your parents in numerous ways. Those are the people you owe more to than anyone else on the entire planet, you loving monster. But that's ok because bad people like you are people too. Just because you are capable of betrayal does not mean that you are not also capable of loyalty. And just because you hosed someone over doesn't mean you can't love or otherwise care for them. People do bad poo poo in their lives but are also capable of goodness. It's a story as old as humanity. It's so intertwined in our existence that it might as well be defined as humanity itself.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Wild Horses posted:That sounds fine and all and then you realise its actually rapists we are talking about. No matter of morality talk is gonna change that they're human garbage. Even then there is little profit to the rest of us to be found in tormenting them. Strapping their balls to a car battery won't enrich my life any. I could understand the death penalty for repeat, violent, and currently unreformable offenders, but not because it's a good thing, simply because it seems a little more merciful and (theoretically) cost effective than life imprisonment. The desired goal should be the prevention of people getting to that stage which is not helped by the current criminal justice system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Even then there is little profit to the rest of us to be found in tormenting them. Strapping their balls to a car battery won't enrich my life any. They should all be in prison or hung. I'm not talking about torture or elaborate plots, that's just silly. Also I'm speaking from a northern european point of view. Our murderers and rapist usually get quite low sentences. Some rapist got maybe 4 years for horrible brutal rape. The US got some strange practices and also registries that we don't. Changes a lot of things. Maybe I should've clarified that part. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Depends if you're arguing that because of necessity or because you like the idea of doing unpleasant things to people you feel deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Wild Horses posted:Repeat offender violent rapists and pedophiles are probably okay to have the death penalty for. Broken violent beings with impure thought. Cannot will not change. Who can defend them? OK Rohrschach.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:When a person transgresses against their community they need to be reconciled with the community, and part of that process is suffering. wateroverfire posted:Do you think if only those people were educated about the social harm they were doing they'd feel remorseful and stop doing harm? If so why do you think that? wateroverfire posted:People should not get raped and especially not in state custody. That's pretty hosed up. Wild Horses posted:That sounds fine and all and then you realise its actually rapists we are talking about. No matter of morality talk is gonna change that they're human garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Why? Fascists (the variety that sniff Pinochet's cape or others) believe suffering is purifying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Fascists (the variety that sniff Pinochet's cape or others) believe suffering is purifying. I suppose, to flesh out my question, I could have written "Why are we using that process rather than one which doesn't have an arbitrary mandatory pain threshold?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Why? It's a theme that occurs in a broad range of cultures from primative hunter-gatherer to the modern SJW tumblerites. I literally cannot think of any examples of a culture that doesn't incorporate it somehow. Can you? IDK dude why do you think it's NOT necessary besides asserting that "we could totally not do it, or something, amirite?" Somfin posted:I think that in most cases, people do crime because they are driven to by forces basically outside their control. Universal urges like hunger and fear. Unusual urges- desire for children, for example- that have not been properly dealt with and have become obsessions or worse. Societal urges that are not properly mediated and become cancerous and warped in the mind. Most people know when they've done wrong. There needs to be a better solution for people with these issues for these people than "Bottle it up until it explodes and then hope I get away with it." It seems like you're unwilling to hold anyone accountable for what they do and that seems really weird to me. Many people will experience fear or hunger. Only a few will use them as an excuse to do something terrible. And many of those that do won't be particularly afraid, or hungry, or horny, or subject to whatever other IRRESISTABLE URGE you feel they couldn't possibly deal with in any other way. They know when they've done wrong and they don't care or believe they're justified in their choices. Somfin posted:But what about the suffering? I know that you said separation was enough, but given that part of the process is 'suffering,' wouldn't more suffering hasten the process of them being able to pay their way past this 'suffering paywall' you've set up between criminals and society? You pay the price decided by society. More than that is unnecessary and cruel. We don't sentence people to prison rape, though perhaps in some ways it'd be more humane if we did that in lieu of incarceration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Somfin posted:I suppose, to flesh out my question, I could have written "Why are we using that process rather than one which doesn't have an arbitrary mandatory pain threshold?" What process would you suggest? If someone, for instance, murders someone, what do we do? And why is that just?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's a theme that occurs in a broad range of cultures from primative hunter-gatherer to the modern SJW tumblerites. I literally cannot think of any examples of a culture that doesn't incorporate it somehow. Can you? IDK dude why do you think it's NOT necessary besides asserting that "we could totally not do it, or something, amirite?" Jesus poo poo you're ignorant. Here's a tidbit for you: In plenty of societies transgressions are primarily dealt with through some form of restitution, usually of a monetary kind, rather than inflicting suffering on the transgressor. Hell, to pick an well-known example, even a society as brutal and warlike as the Old Norse society, you first tried to solve a transgression through the payment of weregild. It was only after that failed that you took up arms, and even then it wasn't because the transgressor deserved to suffer but because not getting restitution would tarnish your honour. So you're literally more barbaric than the goddamn vikings, which I suppose it's a kind of achievement in itself. wateroverfire posted:You pay the price decided by society. More than that is unnecessary and cruel. We don't sentence people to prison rape, though perhaps in some ways it'd be more humane if we did that in lieu of incarceration. Which this poo poo amply demonstrates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Jesus poo poo you're ignorant. Here's a tidbit for you: In plenty of societies transgressions are primarily dealt with through some form of restitution, usually of a monetary kind, rather than inflicting suffering on the transgressor. Hell, to pick an well-known example, even a society as brutal and warlike as the Old Norse society, you first tried to solve a transgression through the payment of weregild. It was only after that failed that you took up arms, and even then it wasn't because the transgressor deserved to suffer but because not getting restitution would tarnish your honour. Weregild closed the matter through financial suffering, which, hey, if society wants to do that is I guess fine. The old norse didn't say "hey bro we understand you had some urges so welcome back into the fold with love and unity" did they? No they did not. Also the vikings did some pretty hosed up poo poo quite outside the bounds of their system of justice so idk I think I'm probably not literally more barbaric than they were. They might also refuse to accept your weregild and come after your rear end anyway, so there's also that. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:"we could totally not do it, or something, amirite?" wateroverfire posted:It seems like you're unwilling to hold anyone accountable for what they do and that seems really weird to me. Many people will experience fear or hunger. Only a few will use them as an excuse to do something terrible. And many of those that do won't be particularly afraid, or hungry, or horny, or subject to whatever other IRRESISTABLE URGE you feel they couldn't possibly deal with in any other way. They know when they've done wrong and they don't care or believe they're justified in their choices. wateroverfire posted:We don't sentence people to prison rape, though perhaps in some ways it'd be more humane if we did that in lieu of incarceration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It seems like you're unwilling to hold anyone accountable for what they do and that seems really weird to me. Many people will experience fear or hunger. Only a few will use them as an excuse to do something terrible. And many of those that do won't be particularly afraid, or hungry, or horny, or subject to whatever other IRRESISTABLE URGE you feel they couldn't possibly deal with in any other way. They know when they've done wrong and they don't care or believe they're justified in their choices. There's something to be said for personal accountability but this quote betrays a very simplistic and naive notion of how we make decisions. The Stanford Prison experiment collapsed into chaos not because the guards gave into their urges to abuse their authority, but because peoples' decisions are informed by their environment. Ergo a violent environment produces more violent decisions. In fiction, evil often has no ontological inertia. When the bad guy is killed his spooky tower immediately falls down and the people of the story can start getting back to living in peace and decency. This isn't how it really works. Once you've been stuck in a lovely situation, the impulse is to continue acting upon that shittiness. Longstanding ethnic conflicts that no one can stop no matter what aren't that way because the ethnicities involved are horrible violent barbarians. The decisions of the people involved are merely being informed by the conflicts. There is certainly a subset of people who will willfully do wrong for their own gain and never feel a drop of remorse but true sociopathy is rare. Much more common are the wrongs committed in the act of going with the flow whether it's conscious or not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Weregild closed the matter through financial suffering, which, hey, if society wants to do that is I guess fine. The old norse didn't say "hey bro we understand you had some urges so welcome back into the fold with love and unity" did they? No they did not. Nice missing the point there. The vikings did not consider inflicting "financial suffering" (also nice broadening of the concept of suffering so much that it essentially becomes meaningless) to be of importance, what was important was to uphold your honour as the party that had been wronged. This is a pretty crystal clear example where your universal claim that inflicting suffering is mandatory for justice is flat-out wrong. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Mar 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:It's a theme that occurs in a broad range of cultures from primative hunter-gatherer to the modern SJW tumblerites. I literally cannot think of any examples of a culture that doesn't incorporate it somehow. Can you? IDK dude why do you think it's NOT necessary besides asserting that "we could totally not do it, or something, amirite?" Well, we could totally not do it. If your only argument for why we should do it is that we always have, that's not a very good argument. To ask the question more precisely, can you explain the mechanical benefit of doing it? What effect does it have if we do it, and why is that effect beneficial?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
When I think of people in jail, I think of this Richard Pryor routine. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xc501v_richard-pryor-on-arizona-penitentia_shortfilms If you stand up for the rights of prisoners, you have to be willing to recognize that you are going to be standing up for some people who have done some horrible things and chances are have personality disorders and derangements. The thing we have to be willing to say is that human dignity is non-negotiable. That doesn't mean we let these people out. But we do treat them with dignity while they are there. Rape of anyone is unacceptable. Torture of anyone is unaceptable. These are inherently evil acts regardless of who they are done to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:When I think of people in jail, I think of this Richard Pryor routine. Agreed, you don't protect the monsters among us for their own sake, you do it for yourself and everyone else's sake. Decency ultimately leads to more decency and barbarity to more barbarity. It's important to act like every human being is decent and is deserving of dignity because that's a lie we're still in the process of making true. In the state of nature there is no such thing as dignity. The idea that one should minimize suffering and not gently caress with people too much is an entirely contrived one, you'll never see a lion not kill a rival male's cub because it would feel positively AWFUL about it. It is easily possible for humans to act as brutishly as it is in their nature to act. When we do, everyone is worse off. When we rise above that base nature, everyone benefits. The link is direct and causal as much as it might not look like it: look at WWII specifically or war in general for examples of how an entire society can slide back toward barbarism and subsistence living because of the willingness of a minority of its population to do whatever it takes. Europe was bombed nearly into the ground. The greater part of an entire generation was slaughtered. We literally nuked two whole cities. Say what you want about necessity, as an American I can at least partially buy that line, but it's still loving horrifying to think about. On the one hand, we now have powers that are so great they require us to act civilized 100% of the time or else we can literally destroy ourselves. On the other hand we are not yet so advanced morally that we can afford to backslide. To quote Sagan: The Sagan posted:In our tenure on this planet we've accumulated dangerous evolutionary baggage — propensities for aggression and ritual, submission to leaders, hostility to outsiders — all of which puts our survival in some doubt. But we've also acquired compassion for others, love for our children and desire to learn from history and experience, and a great soaring passionate intelligence — the clear tools for our continued survival and prosperity. Which aspects of our nature will prevail is uncertain, particularly when our visions and prospects are bound to one small part of the small planet Earth. As much as we'd like to think so, when it comes to decency we are not talking about a game that's been won yet. As Sagan notes, the ultimate result is still in doubt. Its comfy to think of ourselves as the paragons of civilized behavior but there is still plenty of room for a more socially enlightened civilization of the future to look upon some of our current habits as just as unfortunate, uncivilized, and self-defeating as things like feeding people to the lions or crucifictions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Sorry, I don't think anyone capable of murder is capable of reforming. Execute the bastards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Sorry, I don't think anyone capable of murder is capable of reforming. Nicely done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Nicely done. Hey, I live in a glorious state where we still execute our murderers so I'm not the one doing it. EDIT: Well, we say we do, but haven't done so in like ten years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Sorry, I don't think anyone capable of murder is capable of reforming. The question isn't about whether or not they can be reformed, the question is about brutality on our own end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 05:08
|
|