|
Rakosi posted:Hmmm, so my previous quip that this whole conversation seemed "spergy" was right on the money I suppose. I don't get how you feel appeals to emotion are worthless when it is impossible to discuss a topic as emotionally dark as murder if you want to reach any other conclusion than that which a computer could do just as well. I think it's a lot less weird than your dreams of murdering pedophile cannibals with your bare hands. 
paragon1 fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Mar 22, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
Rakosi posted:Hmmm, so my previous quip that this whole conversation seemed "spergy" was right on the money I suppose. I don't get how you feel appeals to emotion are worthless when it is impossible to discuss a topic as emotionally dark as murder if you want to reach any other conclusion than that which a computer could do just as well. One might argue that the entire point of ethics is to avoid appealing to emotion in situations where it manifestly does not produce a good outcome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 08:35
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:If possessing some basic moral principles in the face of an extreme and outrageous scenario makes me autistic, then an autist I shall be I suppose. Ad hominem much? I don't have any dreams of that at all; it was a hypothetical situation and I was being honest about my likely reaction, and whether or not people not in that position would have a right to criticize.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Ad hominem much? I don't have any dreams of that at all; it was a hypothetical situation and I was being honest about my likely reaction, and whether or not people not in that position would have a right to criticize. lol dude you came out swinging about how we're all uptight liberal spergs over-concerned with the welfare of murderers. you don't get to bitch about ad hom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Ad hominem much? I don't have any dreams of that at all; it was a hypothetical situation and I was being honest about my likely reaction, and whether or not people not in that position would have a right to criticize. Nobody gives a flying gently caress who you would or wouldn't murder though so why don't you shut up?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Ad hominem much? I don't have any dreams of that at all; it was a hypothetical situation and I was being honest about my likely reaction, and whether or not people not in that position would have a right to criticize. I don't much care about the right to criticize. We do have the right to stop people from committing torture out of personal vendettas though!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Private citizens murdering other people of their own volition is a bad idea. Whoa whoa whoa there! I think I need to take a look at your premises!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Whoa whoa whoa there! I think I need to take a look at your premises! It's a very radical and unconventional stance, I understand if you feel the need to apply additional intellectual rigor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:The question is kind of a weird one. Is Tsutomu Miyazaki no longer human, in your eyes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 11:16
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:If possessing some basic moral principles in the face of an extreme and outrageous scenario makes me autistic, then an autist I shall be I suppose. Where in those basic moral principles is your outrage for the victim? The need for retribution? Those are also basic human things. Somfin posted:Is Tsutomu Miyazaki no longer human, in your eyes? He's a human responsible for horrible things that warrant retribution of whatever culturally-appropriate sort.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 13:22
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Where in those basic moral principles is your outrage for the victim? The need for retribution? Those are also basic human things. So you've finally come around to the idea that murder is a crime against a person, eh? But an eye for an eye blinds us all, and it in turn denies the possibility of forgiveness. So where does that end? What kind of society would we have if we denied forgiveness and focused on revenge?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Where in those basic moral principles is your outrage for the victim? The need for retribution? Those are also basic human things. I don't think there is a need for retribution, though. There is certainly a desire for it. Lord knows I've had terrible, visceral fantasies about harming the people who made my girlfriend's childhood a living hell. But what good would it do? What positive impact can there be from retribution? Once we burn off that initial rush of adrenaline, what is left but a void? Would it not be better to see someone who has done terrible things rehabilitated and restored to a place in the community? I am not calling for blank-slate forgiveness. I am not suggesting that crimes be forgotten. But I am, at present, certain that thinking of justice in terms of retribution cannot be healthy in the long run. Just because someone has been monstrous to us does not mean that we get to be monstrous in return. I'm reminded of the discussion that followed last year's botched execution in Oklahoma. The man died in utter agony, terrified, fighting, begging for mercy, of a heart attack during a failed lethal injection. It took him 43 minutes to die. In several critics' eyes, this was retribution, and it was appropriate. In fact, several suggested that executions should be handled this way- make them more painful, more vicious, to keep 'the criminal' at bay. One critic, a truly awful human by the name of Ted Rall, said that he was against all forms of state-sanctioned executions, but as long as they were around they should be made as brutal and violent as possible to allow the families to draw maximum catharsis from the proceedings. He suggested feeding murderers a thread of barbed wire and then pulling it out of them, allowing them to slowly bleed out in agony. (This, incidentally, was not meant as accelerationism bullshit, nor satire. This was his genuine suggestion of a genuine punishment.) As far as I can tell, this is basically your suggestion that there is a natural human need for retribution, which the state should cater to, taken to its logical extent. What if the state's preferred method of punishment doesn't give you enough feeling of retribution? Do you get to argue for more brutal punishments because you personally don't feel like enough harm has been done in turn? Should we bring back drawing and quartering so that public outrage can be sated? Retribution should be the last thing on the list in terms of things which our society should cater to. We already have enough problems with vigilantism and people 'avenging' perceived slights. Look at Elliot Roger. He was indulging his natural retributive urges. Look at the Columbine massacre. Look at Men's Rights Activism and the GamerGate rape threats. Retribution. Retribution. Retribution. The need for retribution is a base urge. It is unhealthy. It is addictive. It harms us all. That is why I urge both compassion and rehabilitation. Can there be a greater victory than seeing someone healed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Agreed, the preferable response to someone asking you if you want vengeance, is to ask them whether they think it would help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
just execute throughly proven murderers one month past their sentencing and castrate convicted rapists. who cares, gently caress em
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So you've finally come around to the idea that murder is a crime against a person, eh? But an eye for an eye blinds us all, and it in turn denies the possibility of forgiveness. So where does that end? What kind of society would we have if we denied forgiveness and focused on revenge? Uh, our current one basically. I don't want to live in a more bloodthirsty society either, but you're not showing everybody how much better your set of values is than that of someone who does with silly platitudes. Somfin posted:But what good would it do? What positive impact can there be from retribution? Once we burn off that initial rush of adrenaline, what is left but a void? Would it not be better to see someone who has done terrible things rehabilitated and restored to a place in the community? Not necessarily to all people. Why is it so hard to deal with the fact that a lot of people don't value human life and forgiveness as highly as you do? It scares the poo poo out of you, but it's the case in the here and now. It's not degeneracy. It doesn't create Hell on Earth. Don't scare yourself into thinking that just because because someone has a stronger retributive drive than you do that they can't control their impulses in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
I'm not so much scared by the retributive justice crowd as I am exasperated that shortsighted mental children with the morals of baboons have such a profound impact on public policy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Why is it so hard to deal with the fact that a lot of people don't value human life and forgiveness as highly as you do? It scares the poo poo out of you, but it's the case in the here and now. It's not degeneracy. It doesn't create Hell on Earth. Because the case in the here and now led to the introduction of three-strikes laws, prison sweatshop labour, and the entire concept of a life sentence without a chance for parole. It has led to judges who put down harsher sentences to appear tough on crime so as to win re-election, even in cases when they know that the person is innocent, then immediately pardoning them as soon as that election goes against them. And it led to Elliot Rodger. Now there's someone with a strong retributive drive. Glad we had him on this planet. I don't think that the state should cater to those of us with the strongest retributive drives. I don't think it should cater to our retributive urges at all. I think we should be better than to ask for that. Is there some long-term benefit of retribution over rehabilitation that I'm missing, here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Is there some long-term benefit of retribution over rehabilitation that I'm missing, here? No. What you are missing is the possibility of placing some personal value on retribution while not being anywhere near so stupid as to think it should have anything to do with criminal justice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Where in those basic moral principles is your outrage for the victim? The need for retribution? Those are also basic human things. Yeah, I said basic moral principle, not basic human things. Basic human things have us all making GBS threads in caves and murdering and raping each other all the time. No thank you. Blue Raider posted:just execute throughly proven murderers one month past their sentencing and castrate convicted rapists. who cares, gently caress em Yeah, it's not like any of them are actually innocent! What's that? 150 people sentenced to death have been released due to new DNA evidence or sheer lack of evidence in their conviction in the past 40 years? Most of them spent years in prison? Who cares? gently caress 'em!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Yeah, I said basic moral principle, not basic human things. Basic human things have us all making GBS threads in caves and murdering and raping each other all the time. No thank you. Basic moral principles can include retribution though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Basic moral principles can include retribution though. Can but shouldn't!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Yeah, I said basic moral principle, not basic human things. Basic human things have us all making GBS threads in caves and murdering and raping each other all the time. No thank you. notice i said thoroughly proven numb nuts
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:notice i said thoroughly proven numb nuts oh and who gets to set the standard for that dipshit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:notice i said thoroughly proven numb nuts Yeah that's basically what we have already. What's the difference between "thoroughly" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" that would prevent things like what's happened?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:oh and who gets to set the standard for that dipshit? probably the loving judge. ill never understand the intrinsic aversion to the death penalty Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:Yeah that's basically what we have already. What's the difference between "thoroughly" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" that would prevent things like what's happened? idk dna or something inarguable, red handed stuff
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
like my functional example is that texan farmer who killed the dude he caught molesting his daughter. that was good, and right, and good on him for having the stones to be a man about it
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:like my functional example is that texan farmer who killed the dude he caught molesting his daughter. that was good, and right, and good on him for having the stones to be a man about it It was neither good nor right. What it was was understandable and excusable. Those are not the same thing at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:like my functional example is that texan farmer who killed the dude he caught molesting his daughter. that was good, and right, and good on him for having the stones to be a man about it This is one of the more hilarious examples of an idiot's bare-faced misogyny I've seen this week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:This is one of the more hilarious examples of an idiot's bare-faced misogyny I've seen this week. glad to oblige, ill have to up my game though because i wasnt really even trying
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:probably the loving judge. ill never understand the intrinsic aversion to the death penalty Judges are not incorruptible and infallible arbiters of fact, so this is loving retarded on the face of it. Aversion to the death penalty can come from many places. Like the fact that you can't un-kill someone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:glad to oblige, ill have to up my game though because i wasnt really even trying Super edgy bro we're all majorly impressed 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:probably the loving judge. ill never understand the intrinsic aversion to the death penalty And I'll never understand the lust people like you have for murdering as many innocents as it takes so long as sometimes you also happen to kill someone guilty every once in awhile. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:No. What you are missing is the possibility of placing some personal value on retribution while not being anywhere near so stupid as to think it should have anything to do with criminal justice. All right. I agree. Some people value the idea of retribution. Though I do not agree with them, I sympathise with them, as I mentioned. If you believe that retribution should have nothing to do with criminal justice, then we agree on that point as well. Where to from here?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Where to from here? Round up all the pseudo-murderers that support the death penalty and keep them imprisoned for life so they can no longer support murder?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Somfin posted:All right. I agree. Some people value the idea of retribution. Though I do not agree with them, I sympathise with them, as I mentioned. If you believe that retribution should have nothing to do with criminal justice, then we agree on that point as well. Where to from here? Why does it need to go anywhere else? This whole discussion is pretty facile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:just execute throughly proven murderers one month past their sentencing and castrate convicted rapists. who cares, gently caress em Strictly speaking we're not suppose to sentence people at all unless they are thoroughly proven though, even if its for shoplifting or burglary. But either way, doesn't it seem a little messed up to cause suffering to someone who could not have acted any differently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Blue Raider posted:like my functional example is that texan farmer who killed the dude he caught molesting his daughter. that was good, and right, and good on him for having the stones to be a man about it I don't know about the specific example you are referring to, did he find the molester in the act and kill him or did he do it later?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And I'll never understand the lust people like you have for murdering as many innocents as it takes so long as sometimes you also happen to kill someone guilty every once in awhile. He's not wrong. Exterminate all humans, it's the only sure way to stop human-on-human rape. Man up and end rape, you sissy liberal. Mandy Thompson posted:Strictly speaking we're not suppose to sentence people at all unless they are thoroughly proven though, even if its for shoplifting or burglary. Alternate interpretation: Blue Raider is saying we should suspend the death penalty until we overhaul the court system and guarantee that no one is convicted who isn't thoroughly proven to have committed the crime, which is obviously not the case in our justice system today considering that exonerations happen. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:He's not wrong. Exterminate all humans, it's the only sure way to stop human-on-human rape. Man up and end rape, you sissy liberal. im not advocating executing or even punishing innocent people, of course im not, but i dont see the issue with executing murderers of violent intent. somebody dies in a bar fight, lock the killer up for a time. somebody kills 3 in a home invasion, yeah thats death. execution should only be administered in retroactively provable situations. something that can be on record. dna, film, something that 100% incontrovertibly can be proven at any subsequent time. no witnesses, no firearm forensics, no et cetera and when they are proven guilty of red handed, purposeful murder, then the expedited execution should happen within a few days or weeks Mandy Thompson posted:I don't know about the specific example you are referring to, did he find the molester in the act and kill him or did he do it later? he caught him in the act and beat him to death
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
Blue Raider posted:execution should only be administered in retroactively provable situations. something that can be on record. dna, film, something that 100% incontrovertibly can be proven at any subsequent time. no witnesses, no firearm forensics, no et cetera Okay so not in the US justice system then, which has a pretty terrible track record at not executing innocent people, got it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 06:44
|
|