NationStates Jolt Archive


My faith in Humanity has dropped that little bit more

Zombie PotatoHeads
22-05-2009, 13:11
Sometimes I find it hard to argue against the Death Penalty. This is most definitely one of those times:
Baby P mother jailed indefinitely

Baby Peter's mother has been jailed indefinitely for causing or allowing the toddler's death.

The 17-month-old died after months of abuse in Haringey, north London. His mother must serve at least five years.

Her 32-year-old boyfriend was jailed for 12 years for causing the death and for life for raping a two-year-old girl. He must serve at least 10 years.

Their lodger, Jason Owens, was jailed indefinitely for causing Baby Peter's death, to serve at least three years.
...
Baby Peter suffered more than 50 injuries including broken ribs and a broken back.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8055340.stm

in before the gleeful, 'ohhh...he'll have a terrible time in prison'. Like that makes any rational sense.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:14
Those punishments are made of fail.
Galloism
22-05-2009, 13:15
Your failure is having faith in humanity.
Rambhutan
22-05-2009, 13:18
I wonder why it is 12 years for beating a child to death, and life for raping a different child? I would have thought life imprisonment was appropriate in both cases.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:21
I wonder why it is 12 years for beating a child to death, and life for raping a different child? I would have thought life imprisonment was appropriate in both cases.

Due to the paedophile moral panic/insanity of the 90s, child sex crime punishment in the UK is disproportionally strict in comparision to even more serious crimes.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:23
I still don't get why killers are ever let out.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:23
I still don't get why killers are ever let out.

Why shouldn't they be?
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:25
Why shouldn't they be?

They've taken someone else's life, for fucks sake. They diserve fuckall.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:26
They've taken someone else's life, for fucks sake. They diserve fuckall.

So? Appealing to emotion is a very weak argument.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 13:26
Sometimes I find it hard to argue against the Death Penalty. This is most definitely one of those times:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8055340.stm

in before the gleeful, 'ohhh...he'll have a terrible time in prison'. Like that makes any rational sense.

:(
Baby P. When I read about his death, and about the failure Child Services in England had with this case, after repeated instances of visible abuse, my faith in humanity already dropped quite a bit.

And after reading about the injuries Baby P sustained, the way he was found, about just how much pain and agony he must've suffered, a 17-month-old baby...:(
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:27
Also, whenever someone mentions the name "Baby P", I can't help but think that it's some rapper from Brooklyn who shouts lyrics about bitches and hos.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:28
So? Appealing to emotion is a very weak argument.

Murderers and rapist shouldn't be allowed out again to possibly comit more crime, ect.
Rambhutan
22-05-2009, 13:28
I still don't get why killers are ever let out.

It costs a lot of money to keep them in prison. The majority of murders are carried out by people acting under extreme emotional distress and making a bad decision. They deserve to be punished but as a group they are the least likely to re-offend of all prisoners.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:29
Also, whenever someone mentions the name "Baby P", I can't help but think that it's some rapper from Brooklyn who shouts lyrics about bitches and hos.

lmao
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 13:29
They've taken someone else's life, for fucks sake. They diserve fuckall.

Sooo all soldiers should be jailed for life?
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:29
Murderers and rapist shouldn't be allowed out again to possibly comit more crime, ect.

Thieves shouldn't be allowed out again to possibly commit more crime.

x shouldn't be allowed out again to possibly commit more crime.

You advocate indefinate incarceration for every person, regardless of the crime, if convicted? That's what your logic implies here.
Ifreann
22-05-2009, 13:29
Murderers and rapist shouldn't be allowed out again to possibly comit more crime, ect.

Every criminal could possibly re-offend.
Thiefs shouldn't be allowed out again to possibly commit more crime.

x shouldn't be allowed out again to possibly commit more crime.

You advocate indefinate incarceration for every person, regardless of the crime, if convicted? That's what your logic implies here.
That or killing them all.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 13:30
Also, whenever someone mentions the name "Baby P", I can't help but think that it's some rapper from Brooklyn who shouts lyrics about bitches and hos.

This routine of yours... tires. Really.:rolleyes:
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:30
It costs a lot of money to keep them in prison. The majority of murders are carried out by people acting under extreme emotional distress and making a bad decision. They deserve to be punished but as a group they are the least likely to re-offend of all prisoners.

There's still a chance of that though.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:31
This routine of yours... tires. Really.:rolleyes:

Huh?
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:31
Thieves shouldn't be allowed out again to possibly commit more crime.

x shouldn't be allowed out again to possibly commit more crime.

You advocate indefinate incarceration for every person, regardless of the crime, if convicted? That's what your logic implies here.

Rape and murder anrnt quit on the same level as theft.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:33
Rape and murder anrnt quit on the same level as theft.

Then you should be more precise with your wording.

What, quantifiably, makes murder and rape "worse" than anything else?
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 13:34
Then you should be more precise with your wording.

What, quantifiably, makes murder and rape "worse" than anything else?

The violation of life. You can rob a car, a mere thing. But when you rob someone of his/her life or his/her dignity (like rape does), then the level of "gravity" is way more.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:36
The violation of life. You can rob a car, a mere thing. But when you rob someone of his/her life or his/her dignity (like rape does), then the level of "gravity" is way more.

You're making a fundamental assumption here; that life is not a subset of the category "thing" (it is). What differentiates a life from an object?

Also, if you don't mind, can you elaborate on what routine you think I'm engaging in?
Rambhutan
22-05-2009, 13:38
There's still a chance of that though.

There is still a chance that anybody could commit a murder but you can't lock everyone up. It costs roughly £40,000 a year per person you imprison. If you imprison everybody for life the country goes bankrupt.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:38
Then you should be more precise with your wording.

What, quantifiably, makes murder and rape "worse" than anything else?

Quantifiably? :confused:

Um... there's a big difference in taking a handbag and taking a life. Murder and rape violate people, theft... not so much.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:40
There is still a chance that anybody could commit a murder but you can't lock everyone up. It costs roughly £40,000 a year per person you imprison. If you imprison everybody for life the country goes bankrupt.

That's no excuse to let scum like that out. Build more prisons and give them less luxury (which they don't diserve anyway) - problem solved.
Ifreann
22-05-2009, 13:41
You're making a fundamental assumption here; that life is not a subset of the category "thing" (it is). What differentiates a life from an object?

Life has no physical existence. Life is a property of biological organisms.
That's no excuse to let scum like that out. Build more prisons
Which will cost a few million pounds.
and give them less luxury (which they don't diserve anyway) - problem solved.
Since when have prisoners had luxury?
Eofaerwic
22-05-2009, 13:41
There's still a chance of that though.

Yes, but frankly there's a chance of everyone committing a crime. According to statistics most violent crime is committed by single white males from low SES between the ages of 16-25, since there's a chance they committ a crime do you suggest locking them all up?

Our Justice system needs to be based on just that, Justice, not Revenge. So yes, we should punish those who do bad things, but we should also look to rehabilitate and allow them the chance to change and make amends.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 13:43
You're making a fundamental assumption here; that life is not a subset of the category "thing" (it is). What differentiates a life from an object?

Life is not a subset of the category "thing". Not at all. Life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit certain biological processes such as chemical reactions or other events that result in a transformation. Living organisms are capable of growth and reproduction, some can communicate and many can adapt to their environment through changes originating internally.
Lacadaemon
22-05-2009, 13:43
What, quantifiably, makes murder and rape "worse" than anything else?

The relative difficulty of making restitution.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:43
Quantifiably? :confused:

Um... there's a big difference in taking a handbag and taking a life. Murder and rape violate people, theft... not so much.

I have difficulty understanding the concept of morality, especially in terms of a hierarchy of evils. To me, every action is of equal value. I am an amoralist - I do not believe morality exists beyond fragile human constructs (which I view as profoundly egotistical).

Murder and theft are equivilent, because both are actions. There is no intrinsic quantifiable "good" or "evil" in actions.

I'd like to hear your reasoning for the "big difference" in taking a handbag and taking a life.

Life is a subset of biological organisms, biological orgamisms are a subset of "things". Therefore, life is within the domain of "thing". Life is an attribute of another thing.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:44
Yes, but frankly there's a chance of everyone committing a crime. According to statistics most violent crime is committed by single white males from low SES between the ages of 16-25, since there's a chance they committ a crime do you suggest locking them all up?

Our Justice system needs to be based on just that, Justice, not Revenge. So yes, we should punish those who do bad things, but we should also look to rehabilitate and allow them the chance to change and make amends.

No, murders should be punnished, no matter how badly you treat em they can never feel the pain they've put a family through.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 13:45
Murder and theft are equivilent, because both are just actions. There is no intrinsic quantifiable "good" or "evil" in actions.

So, to you good and evil are just, what? Points of view? Please.
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 13:45
Quantifiably? :confused:

Um... there's a big difference in taking a handbag and taking a life. Murder and rape violate people, theft... not so much.

Have you ever been burgled?
Ifreann
22-05-2009, 13:46
No, murders should be punnished, no matter how badly you treat em they can never feel the pain they've put a family through.

Don't worry, you'll grow out of these ideas eventually. If you're lucky.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:46
The relative difficulty of making restitution.

Why is restitution important?
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:46
I have difficulty understanding the concept of morality, especially in terms of a hierarchy of evils. To me, every action is of equal value. I am an amoralist - I do not believe morality exists beyond fragile human constructs (which I view as profoundly egotistical).

Murder and theft are equivilent, because both are just actions. There is no intrinsic quantifiable "good" or "evil" in actions.

I'd like to hear your reasoning for the "big difference" in taking a handbag and taking a life.

WTF!? Can you not see it? A life is infinatly more important than a handbag. You don't understand the hierachy of evils?
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:47
So, to you good and evil are just, what? Points of view? Please.

Good and evil are labels that humans have imposed upon actions, yes.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:48
Have you ever been burgled?

Me and my mate got mugged (sort of)
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:48
Good and evil are labels that humans have imposed upon actions, yes.

It's not all that clear cut though.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:48
I have difficulty understanding the concept of morality, especially in terms of a hierarchy of evils. To me, every action is of equal value. I am an amoralist - I do not believe morality exists beyond fragile human constructs (which I view as profoundly egotistical).

Murder and theft are equivilent, because both are just actions. There is no intrinsic quantifiable "good" or "evil" in actions.

I'd like to hear your reasoning for the "big difference" in taking a handbag and taking a life.

WTF!? Can you not see it? A life is infinatly more important than a handbag. You don't understand the hierachy of evils?

I cognitively understand it, yes. I don't see how it applies to reality though. Without sentient life, there is no "good" and there is no "evil". They are labels we have applied to our actions, without any basis in the nature of the universe.

I certainly don't view my actions as within a moral framework. I do what comes naturally to me, my actions are limited only by the fear of punishment.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:49
Don't worry, you'll grow out of these ideas eventually. If you're lucky.

What are you chatting about?
Galloism
22-05-2009, 13:49
Have you ever been burgled?

When I was 15, somebody tried to mug me in NYC. That's as close as I've gotten.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 13:50
Good and evil are labels that humans have imposed upon actions, yes.

So you polarize both concepts and equate them? To you there's no good and no evil, just actions?

Now, tell me. When you're in the arms of your lover and you make love or whatever it is you call that emotion, that's in case you feel anything, how do you feel? Good? Bad? Define good and evil in your own words.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:51
I cognitively understand it, yes. I don't see how it applies to reality though. Without sentient life, there is no "good" and there is no "evil". They are labels we have applied to our actions, without any basis in the nature of the universe.

Please stop making me look up big words on the internet.

And what? We have applied these labels cos they're moral.
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 13:51
I have difficulty understanding the concept of morality, especially in terms of a hierarchy of evils. To me, every action is of equal value. I am an amoralist - I do not believe morality exists beyond fragile human constructs (which I view as profoundly egotistical).

Murder and theft are equivilent, because both are actions. There is no intrinsic quantifiable "good" or "evil" in actions.

I'd like to hear your reasoning for the "big difference" in taking a handbag and taking a life.

Life is a subset of biological organisms, biological orgamisms are a subset of "things". Therefore, life is within the domain of "thing". Life is an attribute of another thing.

Thats one way of looking at it, and indeed there seems some logical truth in that. I mean Morlaity is a wholey human construct.

Or perhaps morality comes with a certian level of concioseness.

The differance between the severity between the theft of a hand bag and the murder of a human though is one of rights.

If I steal your bag, I have taken from you your propertie rights. If I kill you I have taken from you every right.

The most fundemental right is the right to life, you get to say what you do with your life. If I kill you then I am putting my own rights above that of yours, which has got to be moraly wrong?
Rambhutan
22-05-2009, 13:51
That's no excuse to let scum like that out. Build more prisons and give them less luxury (which they don't diserve anyway) - problem solved.

No the problem isn't solved because as I have pointed out we don't have the money to do it. Building prisons cost money, keeping prisoners costs money. Your dumb Daily Mail style plan would just bankrupt the country.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 13:52
Please stop making me look up big words on the internet.

And what? We have applied these labels cos they're moral.

Careful with the morality thing. To the Muslim having more than one wife is morally fine, whereas to Westeners, that practice is morally wrong.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:54
No the problem isn't solved because as I have pointed out we don't have the money to do it. Building prisons cost money, keeping prisoners costs money. Your dumb Daily Mail style plan would just bankrupt the country.
Think about the stuff they have now that they didn't 20, 30, 40 years ago. That's what costs so much.
Careful with the morality thing. To the Muslim having more than one wife is morally fine, whereas to Westeners, that practice is morally wrong.

I don't think it's wrong if all parties consent.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:54
So you polarize both concepts and equate them? To you there's no good and no evil, just actions?

Now, tell me. When you're in the arms of your lover and you make love or whatever it is you call that emotion, that's in case you feel anything, how do you feel? Good? Bad? Define good and evil in your own words.

It's worth noting that my brain chemistry is fundamentally different from a neurotypical person. This probably contributes to my philosophical standpoint.

I'm polarising the concepts here for the sake of simplicity, I know that there's supposedly a spectrum of good and evil and things in between, but they remain labels for actions, fundamentally. There is no good and evil beyond the labels we apply.

"Good" is a label we use to describe actions that are viewed as beneficial for a society, or that have been proscribed by culture and tradition to be beneficial (even if, objectively, they aren't). Vice versa for evil. The concepts of "good" and "evil", beyond their status as mere labels, do not exist.

I don't really see how the other question is relevant. I feel things differently from neurotypical people, I'm not emotionless. In that scenario, I'd feel lust.
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 13:55
Me and my mate got mugged (sort of)

But have you ever had your house burgled?
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 13:55
I don't think it's wrong if all parties consent.

The key being: I don't think. You're expressing your personal opinion on the subject. To the rest of our Western society, morally wrong.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 13:57
But have you ever had your house burgled?
Nope.
The key being: I don't think. You're expressing your personal opinion on the subject. To the rest of our Western society, morally wrong.

So everyone else thinks that? Every single person in the west? Bullshit.
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 13:57
Careful with the morality thing. To the Muslim having more than one wife is morally fine, whereas to Westeners, that practice is morally wrong.

To some Westerners.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 13:59
Thats one way of looking at it, and indeed there seems some logical truth in that. I mean Morlaity is a wholey human construct.

Or perhaps morality comes with a certian level of concioseness.

The differance between the severity between the theft of a hand bag and the murder of a human though is one of rights.

If I steal your bag, I have taken from you your propertie rights. If I kill you I have taken from you every right.

The most fundemental right is the right to life, you get to say what you do with your life. If I kill you then I am putting my own rights above that of yours, which has got to be moraly wrong?

That's actually a very interesting way of looking at it. I've not really considered that before.

I'm skeptical of the idea of instrinsic rights, though. Rights are another thing we've created.
Galloism
22-05-2009, 13:59
But have you ever had your house burgled?

I haven't, but I have seen what it does to people. The whole "my home is my castle" mentality is very much alive and real, and having your house burgled shatters your mental state of being "safe" in your own home.

It's psychologically traumatizing, even if the person is caught and the stuff returned, because it's a constant reminder to the individual that he's never safe, even in his own residence.
Lacadaemon
22-05-2009, 14:00
Why is restitution important?

Restitution/compensation returns the victim to the state they were before.

You can return or replace property, you can't unkill or unrape someone.
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 14:00
Nope.

Then you can't really claim that theft causes 'not so much' damage to persons life as murder.

Imagine how you and your family would feel to have your fortress violated? To feel unsafe in your own home, it takes a long time to return to normal.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 14:00
That's actually a very interesting way of looking at it. I've not really considered that before.

I'm skeptical of the idea of instrinsic rights, though. Rights are another thing we've created.

For good reason.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:02
It's worth noting that my brain chemistry is fundamentally different from a neurotypical person. This probably contributes to my philosophical standpoint.

I'm polarising the concepts here for the sake of simplicity, I know that there's supposedly a spectrum of good and evil and things in between, but they remain labels for actions, fundamentally. There is no good and evil beyond the labels we apply.

Your view on things is interesting. I don't know if I should say you're apathetic or are, indeed, quite different brain chemically-wise to me.

"Good" is a label we use to describe actions that are viewed as beneficial for a society, or that have been proscribed by culture and tradition to be beneficial (even if, objectively, they aren't). Vice versa for evil. The concepts of "good" and "evil", beyond their status as mere labels, do not exist.

Are you absolutely sure of this? Good and evil are just labels and do not really exist? Because I see the murdering, the neglect of Baby P as evil. What his mother and what those men did to him was evil. Can you label that in any other way?

I don't really see how the other question is relevant. I feel things differently from neurotypical people, I'm not emotionless. In that scenario, I'd feel lust.

Nevermind about that comparison.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 14:02
Restitution/compensation returns the victim to the state they were before.

You can return or replace property, you can't unkill or unrape someone.

Do we do this out of a sense of "fairness"?
Lacadaemon
22-05-2009, 14:04
Do we do this out of a sense of "fairness"?

I wouldn't think so. Regardless, it is a quantifiable difference.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:04
So everyone else thinks that? Every single person in the west? Bullshit.

CI, for fuck's sake! Read about these subjects before you go on rattling nonesense about them.

Ask your mother. A man that has 2 wives, in English society, is looked upon with respect or is he frowned upon?
Galloism
22-05-2009, 14:05
CI, for fuck's sake! Read about these subjects before you go on rattling nonesense about them.

Ask your mother. A man that has 2 wives, in English society, is looked upon with respect or is he frowned upon?

In the US, he would be arrested.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 14:05
Then you can't really claim that theft causes 'not so much' damage to persons life as murder.

Imagine how you and your family would feel to have your fortress violated? To feel unsafe in your own home, it takes a long time to return to normal.

Yeah, but I've never met anyone that got mudered, if theat make sense.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:05
To some Westerners.

To the great majority, Peeps. And I'm talking of secular as well as those who are religious.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 14:05
Your view on things is interesting. I don't know if I should say you're apathetic or are, indeed, quite different brain chemically-wise to me.



Are you absolutely sure of this? Good and evil are just labels and do not really exist? Because I see the murdering, the neglect of Baby P as evil. What his mother and what those men did to him was evil. Can you label that in any other way?



Nevermind about that comparison.

My inability to empathise with other people shapes my worldview very strongly, as does my ego.

I'm internally sure, yes. I can only label their actions as unlawful, nothing more.
Lacadaemon
22-05-2009, 14:06
Ask your mother. A man that has 2 wives, in English society, is looked upon with respect or is he frowned upon?

Frowned on in public, respected in private.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:07
In the US, he would be arrested.

Ça c'est la chose. Voilá! Western society frowns upon that practice.

Now, take the same situation in a Muslim country. A man that has 2 wives in, let us say, Saudi Arabia, is he looked upon with scorn or is he respected?
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:08
My inability to empathise with other people shapes my worldview very strongly, as does my ego.

I'm internally sure, yes. I can only label their actions as unlawful, nothing more.

Understood.
Rambhutan
22-05-2009, 14:09
Think about the stuff they have now that they didn't 20, 30, 40 years ago. That's what costs so much.


No it isn't - you are just making things up. If you can't provide me some figures that show expenditure on 'luxuries' for prisoners has massively increased I am not going to bother with you.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:09
Frowned on in public, respected in private.

My question is, does English law allows this?
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 14:09
CI, for fuck's sake! Read about these subjects before you go on rattling nonesense about them.

Ask your mother. A man that has 2 wives, in English society, is looked upon with respect or is he frowned upon?

Depends who's looking at the man tbh.


And what does reading have to do with polygamy?
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 14:11
Ça c'est la chose. Voilá! Western society frowns upon that practice.

Now, take the same situation in a Muslim country. A man that has 2 wives in, let us say, Saudi Arabia, is he looked upon with scorn or is he respected?

JJust becuase you disagree with it, it doesn't mean we all do.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:11
Depends who's looking at the man tbh.

Lolwut?

And what does reading have to do with polygamy?

Nevermind, CI. Gestión natimuerta con vos. *facepalms*
Galloism
22-05-2009, 14:11
Ça c'est la chose. Voilá! Western society frowns upon that practice.

Now, take the same situation in a Muslim country. A man that has 2 wives in, let us say, Saudi Arabia, is he looked upon with scorn or is he respected?

Respected I suppose.

I never understood the punishment for bigamy. I always thought bigamy carried its own punishment - two mothers-in-law.

*hits the cymbal, throws down a smoke bomb, and vanishes*
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 14:12
Understood.

Now, can you explain what you meant by "routine"?
Holy Cheese and Shoes
22-05-2009, 14:12
My question is, does English law allows this?

I'm pretty sure there's no religious exemptions for bigamy, I have never come across it. I don't think it's enforced so much as additional marriages are just not seen as valid.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:13
JJust becuase you disagree with it, it doesn't mean we all do.

Who says I frown upon such? Did I posted that? No.

I am a sub and I am quite happy with my dom taking as many women as he wants. But I am not blind to the fact that this practice or the practice of having more than one wife, in Western society, is frowned upon.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:18
Now, can you explain what you meant by "routine"?

I was having a hard time understading you. That's all.
Lacadaemon
22-05-2009, 14:20
My question is, does English law allows this?

Grey area TBH.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 14:21
I was having a hard time understading you. That's all.

Yes, it's something I've noticed. I'm not sure that my expression abilities are quite up to scratch for describing my worldview, to be honest. It also doesn't help that it's often so far removed from the "norm" that people assume it's a joke. It can be frustrating, and often amusing.
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 14:22
Lolwut?*
Depends what person is judging him.


Nevermind, CI. Gestión natimuerta con vos. *facepalms*
wtf?
Who says I frown upon such? Did I posted that? No.

I am a sub and I am quite happy with my dom taking as many women as he wants. But I am not blind to the fact that this practice or the practice of having more than one wife, in Western society, is frowned upon.

It sure sounded like you thought it was bad.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:23
Yes, it's something I've noticed. I'm not sure that my expression abilities are quite up to scratch for describing my worldview, to be honest. It also doesn't help that it's often so far removed from the "norm" that people assume it's a joke. It can be frustrating, and often amusing.

I don't claim I understand you completely, really. But now I will read you in another light.
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 14:23
Yes, it's something I've noticed. I'm not sure that my expression abilities are quite up to scratch for describing my worldview, to be honest. It also doesn't help that it's often so far removed from the "norm" that people assume it's a joke. It can be frustrating, and often amusing.

The only time I understand you is when you talk about sex. (quite often)
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 14:24
The only time I understand you is when you talk about sex. (quite often)

Yes, well, I'm getting quite a bit at the moment so it's at the forefront of my mind :)
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:26
Depends what person is judging him.

RoI, leave it at that because you are more lost than a blind crab.

wtf?

I am not in the mood to amuse even Jesus with translations.

It sure sounded like you thought it was bad.

No, I don't care much. Whatever floats peoples boats...
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 14:26
Yes, well, I'm getting quite a bit at the moment so it's at the forefront of my mind :)

Lucky shit.
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 14:27
That's actually a very interesting way of looking at it. I've not really considered that before.

I'm skeptical of the idea of instrinsic rights, though. Rights are another thing we've created.

Ohh yeah I agree with you. There are no inherent rights, only those that we take or are given. Yet the declarationg of human rights gives us such rights.

The thing with human abstracts and constructs though is this.

It is irrelevant where such things come from, the only relevance is that we are aware of them and that we live as though such things are inherently true.

We have emotions, and we act and react according to them. To kill another human will bring about emotion responses in the majory of humans, so it is essential that we have logical non emotional methoeds for dealing with things. Otherwise we revert to animals acting on instinct.
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 14:28
RoI, leave it at that because you are more lost than a blind crab....

Can crabs even see? And for that matter- they walk sideways. Why would they need to see?
Holy Cheese and Shoes
22-05-2009, 14:28
Yes, it's something I've noticed. I'm not sure that my expression abilities are quite up to scratch for describing my worldview, to be honest. It also doesn't help that it's often so far removed from the "norm" that people assume it's a joke. It can be frustrating, and often amusing.

It's all sounded perfectly logical and straightforward to me.

In particular, I don't see why claiming good and evil are just labels is such a bizarre thing. Moral nihilism is hardly controversial, it's a rational conclusion you can draw from the plurality of religious and moral codes that exist.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:30
Can crabs even see? And for that matter- they walk sideways. Why would they need to see?

Joder, el morro!! El morro!!!

Crabs have compound eyes and see quite well.

http://www.cyhaus.com/marine/crabs.htm
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 14:31
Are you absolutely sure of this? Good and evil are just labels and do not really exist? Because I see the murdering, the neglect of Baby P as evil. What his mother and what those men did to him was evil. Can you label that in any other way?


He is correct you know. Morality (as far as we know) does not exist outside of our own species. There is no inherent moral code, the lion killing for food is neither good nor evil according to the lion and it's 'victim', only we put moral labels on things.
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 14:31
Joder, el morro!! El morro!!!

Crabs have compound eyes and see quite well.

http://www.cyhaus.com/marine/crabs.htm

They have no need that I can see of.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:32
He is correct you know. Morality (as far as we know) does not exist outside of our own species. There is no inherent moral code, the lion killing for food is neither good nor evil according to the lion and it's 'victim', only we put moral labels on things.

I understood Getbrett's point already, Peeps. Thanks. :wink:
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 14:33
To the great majority, Peeps. And I'm talking of secular as well as those who are religious.

Yes of course to the great majority. Just not to all Westerners.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 14:34
Ohh yeah I agree with you. There are no inherent rights, only those that we take or are given. Yet the declarationg of human rights gives us such rights.

The thing with human abstracts and constructs though is this.

It is irrelevant where such things come from, the only relevance is that we are aware of them and that we live as though such things are inherently true.

We have emotions, and we act and react according to them. To kill another human will bring about emotion responses in the majory of humans, so it is essential that we have logical non emotional methoeds for dealing with things. Otherwise we revert to animals acting on instinct.

I also have enormous difficulty accepting the concept of anyone or anything being superior to me, or having authority over me, even if that authority grants me benefits such as rights. I am uncomfortable with accepting the laws that are imposed upon me by society, but do so, because I do not wish to be punished by society. Accepting the rights that are imposed on me? I won't be punished if I reject them, so I'm naturally (and completely irrationally) inclined to do so. I can't provide an explaination for why, really. Absolute rejection of authority, even in beneficial forms, is a marker of ASPD.

Your final paragraph sums up why I have such difficulty understanding moral philosophy. It's something I have a great intellectual interest in, quite simply because I can't understand it innately.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 14:34
They have no need that I can see of.

They can live in more extreme areas because of their ability to adapt well to the changing environment. Crabs can see fairly well with their compound eyes; their senses of smell and taste are also more advanced which helps them to find food and mates easier.

http://www.cyhaus.com/marine/crabs.htm

And this is totally irrelevant to the OP. I merely used it as an expression we use in Spain to say people are truly and utterly lost.
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 14:35
My inability to empathise with other people shapes my worldview very strongly, as does my ego.

I'm internally sure, yes. I can only label their actions as unlawful, nothing more.

What about the differance between morality and ethics?

Your statement here is all about your own morality, but can you see that murder is still ethicaly unsound?
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 14:37
What about the differance between morality and ethics?

Your statement here is all about your own morality, but can you see that murder is still ethicaly unsound?

I'm not clear on the distinction, can you explain?
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 14:37
I also have enormous difficulty accepting the concept of anyone or anything being superior to me, or having authority over me, even if that authority grants me benefits such as rights. I am uncomfortable with accepting the laws that are imposed upon me by society, but do so, because I do not wish to be punished by society. Accepting the rights that are imposed on me? I won't be punished if I reject them, so I'm naturally (and completely irrationally) inclined to do so. I can't provide an explaination for why, really. Absolute rejection of authority, even in beneficial forms, is a marker of ASPD.

Your final paragraph sums up why I have such difficulty understanding moral philosophy. It's something I have a great intellectual interest in, quite simply because I can't understand it innately.

That got me into so much shit at school. :(
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 14:37
My question is, does English law allows this?

As far as I know currently it does not.
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 14:38
http://www.cyhaus.com/marine/crabs.htm

And this is totally irrelevant to the OP. I merely used it as an expression we use in Spain to say people are truly and utterly lost.

That quote you used had nothing to do with what I said. But anyway...
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 14:40
JJust becuase you disagree with it, it doesn't mean we all do.

I don't think Nana does actulay disagree with it, but remeber that this little wayside is all about what you said about morality. Morality is not a constant and changes from individual to individual and culture to culture, which I think is what she was trying to point out.
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 14:41
That got me into so much shit at school. :(

I never really had that problem. People, including my teachers, found it easy to like me.
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 14:41
I don't think Nana does actulay disagree with it, but remeber that this little wayside is all about what you said about morality. Morality is not a constant and changes from individual to individual and culture to culture, which I think is what she was trying to point out.

Allot of morals are complete bullshit though.
Holy Cheese and Shoes
22-05-2009, 14:42
I'm not clear on the distinction, can you explain?

short and sweet (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm)

personal vs external standards, in essence.
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 14:43
I never really had that problem. People, including my teachers, found it easy to like me.

No, people liked me, I just couldn't except (especially male) teachers authority. I got all the female teachers just fine.
Blouman Empire
22-05-2009, 14:44
No the problem isn't solved because as I have pointed out we don't have the money to do it. Building prisons cost money, keeping prisoners costs money. Your dumb Daily Mail style plan would just bankrupt the country.

You could always do what you did a few hundered years ago, that is ship them off to uncolonised areas of the planet.

Of course then you do open yourself up to another country that will beat you in every sport you invent, like Rugby (both kinds) and cricket. :p
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 14:45
You could always do what you did a few hundered years ago, that is ship them off to uncolonised areas of the planet.

Of course then you do open yourself up to another country that will beat you in every sport you invent, like Rugby (both kinds) and cricket. :p

:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 14:46
I understood Getbrett's point already, Peeps. Thanks. :wink:

Heh can't help it, I do work on the helpdesk, I'm helping!:D
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 14:47
short and sweet (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm)

personal vs external standards, in essence.

Hmm.

My "ethics" are dictated by the laws passed in the society I choose to live in. That doesn't mean I don't always obey those ethics (if I'm sure I won't be caught I can, and do, break those laws). I don't really have an internal standard for my behaviour. A lot of it is entirely impulsive and without foresight or rationalisation, and therefore can't be easily broken down as an ethical choice. My behaviour, or ethical conduct, is limited only by those laws, and by the level of desire I have to perform a particular behaviour. Often, my desire simply overrides the fear of being caught.

I dunno if that makes sense because I don't think I'm entirely 100% of the distinction.
Lacadaemon
22-05-2009, 14:47
As far as I know currently it does not.

That's not entirely correct. If the polygamous marriage takes place outside the UK in a country where it is legal (and all parties are domiciled there at that time) the government will recognize them, even though bigamy is normally a criminal offense in the UK. There's immigration issues too, of course.
Blouman Empire
22-05-2009, 14:48
No, people liked me, I just couldn't except (especially male) teachers authority. I got all the female teachers just fine.

This doesn't make much sense.

You don't expect teachers authority? What are you on about lad?

What do you mean you got all the female just fine? You got authority with them?
Blouman Empire
22-05-2009, 14:49
:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Hahaha looking forward to the upcoming ashes?
Getbrett
22-05-2009, 14:49
This doesn't make much sense.

You don't expect teachers authority? What are you on about lad?

What do you mean you got all the female just fine? You got authority with them?

He means accept.

I didn't accept their authority, but so no real benefit in undermining their perception of authority for the most part.
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 14:50
I also have enormous difficulty accepting the concept of anyone or anything being superior to me, or having authority over me, even if that authority grants me benefits such as rights. I am uncomfortable with accepting the laws that are imposed upon me by society, but do so, because I do not wish to be punished by society. Accepting the rights that are imposed on me? I won't be punished if I reject them, so I'm naturally (and completely irrationally) inclined to do so. I can't provide an explaination for why, really. Absolute rejection of authority, even in beneficial forms, is a marker of ASPD.

Your final paragraph sums up why I have such difficulty understanding moral philosophy. It's something I have a great intellectual interest in, quite simply because I can't understand it innately.

Yeah I sorta understand why. If empathy for the plight of your other members of your speices is lacking then how can you understand social rules which we put into place to reflect such?
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 14:52
Hahaha looking forward to the upcoming ashes?
Hell, no. Another whitewash? I thinks so.
He means accept..
Fuck. Yeah sorry, can't spell.
I didn't accept their authority, but so no real benefit in undermining their perception of authority for the most part
There's not much to gain from it.
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 14:53
I'm not clear on the distinction, can you explain?

Morality is merely what each indivdual things are good actions or bad. Ethics are more about doing that which is right.

Morality is individul, ethics is social. If your own morality says stealing is not bad, but ethicaly sociaty say it is bad, then social ethics trumps your own morality.
Blouman Empire
22-05-2009, 14:55
Hell, no. Another whitewash? I thinks so.

I wouldn't be to sure the Aussies haven't been going so well over summer.

Fuck. Yeah sorry, can't spell.

There's not much to gain from it.

True except when you end up being kicked out for going up and saying "You are a fucking bitch how about you piss off"

Unless of course Getbett meant he would act as if they had authority without accepting it.
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 14:55
Allot of morals are complete bullshit though.

Meh! Well yes of course we all find some moral behavours bullshit, that is because morality is subjective, so we are bound to find disagreement somewhere.
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 14:57
That's not entirely correct. If the polygamous marriage takes place outside the UK in a country where it is legal (and all parties are domiciled there at that time) the government will recognize them, even though bigamy is normally a criminal offense in the UK. There's immigration issues too, of course.

Ahhhh clarification, cheers.:D
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 14:57
I wouldn't be to sure the Aussies haven't been going so well over summer..

You're still 100X better than us.

True except when you end up being kicked out for going up and saying "You are a fucking bitch how about you piss off"

Unless of course Getbett meant he would act as if they had authority without accepting it

I never got kicked out (perminatly) for saying shit like that. I did have it so that I could only go to school for 3 days a week for two years. :(
Holy Cheese and Shoes
22-05-2009, 14:58
Morality is merely what each indivdual things are good actions or bad. Ethics are more about doing that which is right.

Morality is individul, ethics is social. If your own morality says stealing is not bad, but ethicaly sociaty say it is bad, then social ethics trumps your own morality.

not necessarily - e.g. if you are starving then your morality may trump ethics and you steal food. The ethical code may be completely at odds with your moral code too (especially where a strict religion has shaped the ethics and you are from a different faith). It's a choice, not an automatic win for ethics.
Lacadaemon
22-05-2009, 14:59
I wouldn't be to sure the Aussies haven't been going so well over summer.


I think I'm going to have a punt on England. I did well on it the last time you guys played there.
Blouman Empire
22-05-2009, 15:02
You're still 100X better than us.

Well it should still be interesting.

I never got kicked out (perminatly) for saying shit like that. I did have it so that I could only go to school for 3 days a week for two years. :(

That explains why you can't spell. :) Sorry shouldn't tease you on that.

Well I never got kicked out either just ended up with a Saturday detention, helps to know a few influential people. As well as an explanation for my actions along with getting many students to back me. But please do explain what happned with you?
Blouman Empire
22-05-2009, 15:06
I think I'm going to have a punt on England. I did well on it the last time you guys played there.

That's very true, Australia did lose last time it was held in England.

I wouldn't be so worried except that Australia has been proforming very badly over the past 8 months I am hoping that they are able to pick up against the poms but it will be tight.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 15:07
Allot of morals are complete bullshit though.

No, they're not and there you go again with your generalizing. You may find morals to be BS, that doesn't mean everyone else will think exactly like you. But Peeps already told you so. I do not disagree with people doing what pleases them. I do disagree with the senseless act of murdering a 17-month-old child. And that, RoI, that's what this thread's about.
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 15:07
Well it should still be interesting.?
You mean painful.


That explains why you can't spell. :) Sorry shouldn't tease you on that.
:mad:
Well I never got kicked out either just ended up with a Saturday detention, helps to know a few influential people. As well as an explanation for my actions along with getting many students to back me. But please do explain what happned with you?

Oh, that. That was my school putting up with three years of me telling teachers to fuck off, doing little work and just genrally being a dick. But it's all good, I can still do what I wanna do.
Kamsaki-Myu
22-05-2009, 15:16
My inability to empathise with other people shapes my worldview very strongly, as does my ego.
I think empathic awareness and intuitive morality have a link, but the relationship between the two is not direct.

You (people) can act in the interests of those around you without believing yourself to be morally justified in doing so - for instance, stealing bread to feed a family. Conversely, the baker of that bread can see the theft as morally wrong even should he sympathise with the family in poverty.

Empathic concience is about awareness of other human beings, but morality is more like a social conscience. It's about looking at your society itself (whether a local or universal society) and saying "does this action impact society in a positive or negative way?". Obviously, the same kind of reasoning is used, but empathy and morality do not always agree.

One other thing that ties them together is that while both are value functions, the value domain is not objectively defined. Empathy is about the interests of others, while morality is about the collective interests of societies, and while physiology and genetics have some part to play in human preference and anthropology can tell us something about how humans instinctively congregate, there is a subjective element to "interest" that means that one size does not necessarily fit all. It's effectively a learning problem - we try to learn a strategy for dealing with people and societies, but the degree of variation inevitably means that it's not a solveable problem. That is, it's not possible to establish a complete morality, because society is so complex that each fundamental assertion in our valuation is almost certain to be challenged.

That said, I do think it's important to consider how to control our actions to influence our societies. Humans may not be hive-slaves, but we are nonetheless groomed to be dependent upon social constructs, and as long as that remains the case, it is in our personal interests to consider how to maintain a system that is both sustainable and beneficial. This is the fundamental source of law - we (continue to) have law because we believe it is socially advantageous, and that, basically, is what moral judgement is all about.
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 15:19
not necessarily - e.g. if you are starving then your morality may trump ethics and you steal food. The ethical code may be completely at odds with your moral code too (especially where a strict religion has shaped the ethics and you are from a different faith). It's a choice, not an automatic win for ethics.

What I meant was ethics are more likely to be made law than morality. If the 'moral majority' agree then that agreement can be made law. As in the case of murder, so ethics offten trumps morality.
Holy Cheese and Shoes
22-05-2009, 15:33
What I meant was ethics are more likely to be made law than morality. If the 'moral majority' agree then that agreement can be made law. As in the case of murder, so ethics offten trumps morality.

Couldn't you argue that morality trumps ethics if the personal morality of a group of people changes an ethical code?
Peepelonia
22-05-2009, 15:38
Couldn't you argue that morality trumps ethics if the personal morality of a group of people changes an ethical code?

Yeah I guess you could, but then once that moral rule changes an ethical law, does it not become ethical and stop being morality?
Bluth Corporation
22-05-2009, 15:45
What, quantifiably, makes murder and rape "worse" than anything else?

Absolutely nothing.

All bona fide crimes are violations of the sanctity of an individual's sovereignty. Therefore, they are all equally bad, and they all carry a proper punishment of execution-by-torture.
Galloism
22-05-2009, 15:46
Absolutely nothing.

All bona fide crimes are violations of the sanctity of an individual's sovereignty. Therefore, they are all equally bad, and they all carry a proper punishment of execution-by-torture.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/sadatroll.gif
Neo Bretonnia
22-05-2009, 15:55
I still don't get why killers are ever let out.

Because the hope is that they can eventually do something productive for society by being out and contributing. Rather than sit in a cell until they die, which does no good for anybody, maybe they can get out and give a little back by participating in society. They can never fully make it up to the families and friends of their victims, but that wouldn't happen anyway by them sitting in a cell their whole life.

Since we can never adequately or equitably punish murder, it's pointless to even try. Better to focus on reform.

And TBH, with that said, I'd rather execute someone than give them a life sentence without possibility of parole. At that point no further good can come of it so better to send them on to their final judgment.
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 15:58
Because the hope is that they can eventually do something productive for society by being out and contributing. Rather than sit in a cell until they die, which does no good for anybody, maybe they can get out and give a little back by participating in society. They can never fully make it up to the families and friends of their victims, but that wouldn't happen anyway by them sitting in a cell their whole life.

Since we can never adequately or equitably punish murder, it's pointless to even try. Better to focus on reform.

And TBH, with that said, I'd rather execute someone than give them a life sentence without possibility of parole. At that point no further good can come of it so better to send them on to their final judgment.
They deserve to rot in a cell with fuckall to do.

The last man to be hanged in The UK was innocent so I don't agree with mudering a murderer. "An eye for an eye only make the whole world blind" or some shit.
Bluth Corporation
22-05-2009, 16:06
Since we can never adequately or equitably punish murder, it's pointless to even try.

Even granting your premise, your conclusion does not follow.

Should I give up on adjusting the height of my van's steering wheel because I'll never get it perfect?

Should a parent give up on trying to raise his kids right because he's bound to make a few mistakes along the way?

Just because it might be impossible to accomplish something perfectly and completely, is not necessarily any reason to not try to do as much as you can.
Neo Bretonnia
22-05-2009, 16:08
They deserve to rot in a cell with fuckall to do.

The last man to be hanged in The UK was innocent so I don't agree with mudering a murderer. "An eye for an eye only make the whole world blind" or some shit.

It has nothing to do with what they deserve. Giving them what they deserve won't undo the wrongs they have committed. Putting them away protects others from being harmed by them, but also leaves open the possibility that they could reform and give something back.

The idea of tossing someone in a cell to rot may be emotionally satisfying but it doesn't serve any constructive purpose.
Ring of Isengard
22-05-2009, 16:09
It has nothing to do with what they deserve. Giving them what they deserve won't undo the wrongs they have committed. Putting them away protects others from being harmed by them, but also leaves open the possibility that they could reform and give something back.

The idea of tossing someone in a cell to rot may be emotionally satisfying but it doesn't serve any constructive purpose.

Well make em do hard labour then.
Neo Bretonnia
22-05-2009, 16:10
Even granting your premise, your conclusion does not follow.

Should I give up on adjusting the height of my van's steering wheel because I'll never get it perfect?

Should a parent give up on trying to raise his kids right because he's bound to make a few mistakes along the way?

Just because it might be impossible to accomplish something perfectly and completely, is not necessarily any reason to not try to do as much as you can.

Your point is well taken but I'm not talking about simply letting them be. I'm talking about keeping the focus on reform and safety as opposed to simply punishment.

The fact is, our justice system is so inconsistent anyway for it to truly be justice and punishment it would have to be consistent, but it can't even pretend to be that. The best we can do, IMHO, is to focus our prisons on reform. if someone can't be reformed, then we can remove them - permanently - from our society.
Rambhutan
22-05-2009, 16:21
You could always do what you did a few hundered years ago, that is ship them off to uncolonised areas of the planet.

Of course then you do open yourself up to another country that will beat you in every sport you invent, like Rugby (both kinds) and cricket. :p

You mean pretend Australia exists and then dump them in the Channel weighted down with chains?
Ifreann
22-05-2009, 16:32
Think about the stuff they have now that they didn't 20, 30, 40 years ago. That's what costs so much.
Like what? Plumbing? Oh what luxury!

No, they're not and there you go again with your generalizing. You may find morals to be BS, that doesn't mean everyone else will think exactly like you. But Peeps already told you so. I do not disagree with people doing what pleases them. I do disagree with the senseless act of murdering a 17-month-old child. And that, RoI, that's what this thread's about.
I thought this thread was about the sentence handed down to those found guilty of murdering the baby in question.
Absolutely nothing.

All bona fide crimes are violations of the sanctity of an individual's sovereignty. Therefore, they are all equally bad, and they all carry a proper punishment of execution-by-torture.

Why torture?
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 16:36
Like what? Plumbing? Oh what luxury!


Some people don't have it, why should they? Though, that's not what I meant.
Ifreann
22-05-2009, 16:38
Some people don't have it, why should they?
Even criminals are afforded basic human rights.
Though, that's not what I meant.

Then what did you mean? Maybe instead of making vague references to luxuries and things being different in the past you should be specific.
Nanatsu no Tsuki
22-05-2009, 16:43
I thought this thread was about the sentence handed down to those found guilty of murdering the baby in question.

The topic got into a discussion of morality and what's good and evil. That's why I made reference to the murdering of Baby P and not about the sentence given to his murderers.
Bluth Corporation
22-05-2009, 17:08
Why torture?

That's what it deserves.
Ifreann
22-05-2009, 17:16
That's what it deserves.

Because.......
Galloism
22-05-2009, 17:17
Because.......

Because it's objectively moral and correct, of course. :rolleyes:
Ifreann
22-05-2009, 17:49
Because it's objectively moral and correct, of course. :rolleyes:

Ah, I get it now, A=A.
Galloism
22-05-2009, 17:50
Ah, I get it now, A=A.

Except if A=B and then you divide by (A-B).
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 17:55
Except if A=B and then you divide by (A-B).

http://torontofc.theoffside.com/files/2008/04/wtf.jpg
Galloism
22-05-2009, 17:56
<snip irrelevant pic>

Either I don't get that, or you don't get the joke.

I think you need to take some Ginko.
Colonic Immigration
22-05-2009, 17:59
Either I don't get that, or you don't get the joke.

I think you need to take some Ginko.

I'm an idiot, man. I thought I'd put that cat one on until 2 seconds ago.
Galloism
22-05-2009, 18:00
I'm an idiot, man. I thought I'd put that cat one on until 2 seconds ago.

Ah ok. Proceed.
Rambhutan
22-05-2009, 18:05
Should I give up on adjusting the height of my van's steering wheel because I'll never get it perfect?


Well yes if you actually want to get on and drive the van from A to B....or should that be from A to A.
Skama
22-05-2009, 18:46
Then what did you mean? Maybe instead of making vague references to luxuries and things being different in the past you should be specific.I heard some inmates can even get internet access in some countries.
Holy Cheese and Shoes
22-05-2009, 23:30
I heard some inmates can even get internet access in some countries.

And using that nefarious luxury to post here, I'll warrant.
No true scotsman
22-05-2009, 23:32
Sometimes I find it hard to argue against the Death Penalty. This is most definitely one of those times:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8055340.stm

in before the gleeful, 'ohhh...he'll have a terrible time in prison'. Like that makes any rational sense.

Don't argue against the death penalty. These people should be removed from the population in the most permenant and absolute manner possible.
Ifreann
23-05-2009, 00:44
I heard some inmates can even get internet access in some countries.
I heard the moon was used as an incubator by aliens to create all life on Earth.
Don't argue against the death penalty. These people should be removed from the population in the most permenant and absolute manner possible.

Be honest, do you actually think that'll achieve anything, or are you just getting hard from the vengeful bloodlust?
No true scotsman
23-05-2009, 01:11
Be honest, do you actually think that'll achieve anything, or are you just getting hard from the vengeful bloodlust?

I think it will achieve an end result that is immediately obvious..

As for 'getting hard from... bloodlust', given the OP, I have to admit I kind L.O.L.ed out loud. No thought was further from my mind than any pleasure I might achieve.
Ifreann
23-05-2009, 01:16
I think it will achieve an end result that is immediately obvious..
So you want to kill criminals so they'll die. Right.

As for 'getting hard from... bloodlust', given the OP, I have to admit I kind L.O.L.ed out loud. No thought was further from my mind than any pleasure I might achieve.

If you insist.
No true scotsman
23-05-2009, 01:40
So you want to kill criminals so they'll die. Right.


That does seem like a logical deduction. Death penalty kills criminals... I can't see a flaw.


If you insist.

I don't need to insist. You conjured up some kind of sexual frisson, from the response of someone to (I'm sure you'll admit) a pretty horrific stimulus.

My response was fairly clinical and dispassionate, actually - but if there'd been passion, it wouldn't have been of an erotic kind, and I'm a little disturbed that eroticism crossed your mind, to be honest.
New Manvir
23-05-2009, 04:36
Also, whenever someone mentions the name "Baby P", I can't help but think that it's some rapper from Brooklyn who shouts lyrics about bitches and hos.

That makes two of us.
Non Aligned States
23-05-2009, 05:32
So you want to kill criminals so they'll die. Right.


I believe the idea is that certain types of criminals are at such a danger to society at large, complete removal of their ability to commit any crime now and forever is the best course of action. So far, no one has come back from the dead, so it's a rather flawless method of ability removal.

The downside being that there's no flawless way to ensure you've got the right person all the time.
Bluth Corporation
23-05-2009, 05:38
Be honest, do you actually think that'll achieve anything

It'll achieve justice: giving criminals what they deserve, which is desirable for its own sake.
No true scotsman
23-05-2009, 05:40
I believe the idea is that certain types of criminals are at such a danger to society at large, complete removal of their ability to commit any crime now and forever is the best course of action. So far, no one has come back from the dead, so it's a rather flawless method of ability removal.

The downside being that there's no flawless way to ensure you've got the right person all the time.

It's a risk. But I'm okay with it.
Kamsaki-Myu
23-05-2009, 10:27
I believe the idea is that certain types of criminals are at such a danger to society at large, complete removal of their ability to commit any crime now and forever is the best course of action. So far, no one has come back from the dead, so it's a rather flawless method of ability removal.

The downside being that there's no flawless way to ensure you've got the right person all the time.
It's not the only downside. Criminals don't exist in isolation from the rest of society, and killing someone (even the state doing it for the sake of social security) inevitably leads to resentment in someone else. Sure, the fear of getting killed for committing a crime might make that someone else think twice about acting on that resentment, but they'll certainly feel less disposed to simply toe the legal line when they feel the Law has acted to deprive them of a friend or relation. If death scared people into compliance, we wouldn't have gang warfare, would we?

It'll achieve justice: giving criminals what they deserve, which is desirable for its own sake.
The illusion of justice isn't desirable for its own sake - it's desirable because it makes potential criminals think twice. Justice itself doesn't really exist, except in as much as the appearence of it results in stability.
Chumblywumbly
23-05-2009, 11:34
My faith in Humanity has dropped that little bit more.
Why tar an entire species with the same brush?

Are you yourself more likely to rape and kill a small child after reading this story? Of course not.

If a dog mauls a human, do we say, 'my faith in dogs has just dropped'? Of course not.
Non Aligned States
23-05-2009, 12:11
It's not the only downside. Criminals don't exist in isolation from the rest of society, and killing someone (even the state doing it for the sake of social security) inevitably leads to resentment in someone else. Sure, the fear of getting killed for committing a crime might make that someone else think twice about acting on that resentment, but they'll certainly feel less disposed to simply toe the legal line when they feel the Law has acted to deprive them of a friend or relation.

Naturally. But while social niceties and empathy might do for some portion of society, fear is what really keeps the law from being flouted at will. If you don't fear the consequences of law breaking, and it is desirable to do so, most would break the law.


If death scared people into compliance, we wouldn't have gang warfare, would we?


You could have picked better by choosing suicide units rather than gangs.

No one goes into a gang expecting to die. Risking it, certainly, but not as a guarantee.

Combine death penalty with a law enforcement system that appears to be implacable and 100% thorough, and you might put an end to that sort of criminal activity. Much harder to do, as the objective here is to kill the hope of committing crimes in general and living to tell the tale.
Ifreann
23-05-2009, 19:59
That does seem like a logical deduction. Death penalty kills criminals... I can't see a flaw.
I would think that the potential to kill innocent people would be a pretty big flaw.



I don't need to insist. You conjured up some kind of sexual frisson, from the response of someone to (I'm sure you'll admit) a pretty horrific stimulus.

My response was fairly clinical and dispassionate, actually - but if there'd been passion, it wouldn't have been of an erotic kind, and I'm a little disturbed that eroticism crossed your mind, to be honest.
Over-exposure to people who are in favour of the death penalty simply out of a desire for revenge is to blame.
No true scotsman
23-05-2009, 20:17
I would think that the potential to kill innocent people would be a pretty big flaw.


You can't make an omelette without brutality slaughtering millions of people.


Over-exposure to people who are in favour of the death penalty simply out of a desire for revenge is to blame.

That might explain why you would think I was out for revenge, it wouldn't explain why you'd assert I was getting some kind of sexual gratification.
Neo Art
23-05-2009, 20:21
You can't make an omelette without brutality slaughtering millions of people.

mmmmm, genocide omlettes.
Ifreann
23-05-2009, 20:22
mmmmm, genocide omlettes.

Is it kosher?