User Tag List

First 3456 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 55

  1. #41
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    ...
    Laws about stealing and killing don't seem to be universal though, and have through history generally only applied to people within the same society/perceived community.
    ...
    I would be curious to know which civilizations or tribes did not have laws against murder and stealing.

  2. #42
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    I would be curious to know which civilizations or tribes did not have laws against murder and stealing.
    Which civilization did not have laws that only extended to people within the society/perceived community?

    The shortest answer would be to ask the opposite: Which civilizations did have laws against stealing from or killing people outside the perceived community?

    The answer is extremely few before the humanistic ideals started spreading through the enlightenment and even after that there are multitudes of examples of no laws applying if the offended part was not a part of the perceived community. Vikings murdered and stole from the Brits, Irish, French and Baltic states before they became Christian and started seeing themselves as part of the Christian community, after which it was only ok to kill and steal from non-Christians (which didn't stop Nordic crusaders going by boat to the holy land from pillaging the occasional coastal village on their way along the coasts of France, Portugal, Spain, Italy et cetera. ) Romans killed and stole from their neighbours until they were integrated into the Roman Empire. African communities killed and stole people and treasure from other African communities and sold their captives as slaves (long before atlantic slave trade). Hitler managed to get the Germans to steal from and kill the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and homosexuals by convincing the German people that these groups were not part of the German community. I can only think of a very few pre-enlightenment examples of communities where there existed "universal" and not just community based laws or ethics against killing and stealing. On the other hand I can think of extremely many examples even today of the laws against killing and stealing only applying to people within a perceived community.

    If we agreed that the US war against Iraq was a violation of Iraqui sovereignty and done partly to get their oil, US soldiers killing Iraquis defending their country during the invasion would serve as a more recent example of rules against stealing and killing not being universal.
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  3. #43
    Senior Member Griffi97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    124

    Default

    And this type of stuff is still going on today... http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...tary-film.html

    Whether it's the culturally accepted norm is debatable, but the men still steal, rape, mutilate, and murder with impunity.

  4. #44
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    Which civilization did not have laws that only extended to people within the society/perceived community?

    The shortest answer would be to ask the opposite: Which civilizations did have laws against stealing from or killing people outside the perceived community?

    ...
    I don't understand you.
    I said murder, not killing. All of a sudden you're talking about war.

    I cannot believe there has ever existed a civilization who did not have laws against murder and stealing, and you said there were some, and I want to know what they are.
    Don't start adding modifiers to my question.
    Please name the groups of people who allowed murder and stealing in their society.

  5. #45
    Senior Member aeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    Please name the groups of people who allowed murder and stealing in their society.
    In as much as murder is a legal term, the answer is none. For murder to exist, there must be a law that defines a killing as such.

    Of course I an answering from the context of this society. Such terms may not apply elsewhere.

    There are currently societies that allow for the killing of women based on familial judgement of their actions, even in the face of laws against murder. But again, those are killings, not murders, because the law does not recognize them as such.

    So again, you can't allow murder. You can ignore killings, however.


    cheers,
    Ian

  6. #46
    will make your day Carebear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    1,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom
    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear
    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom
    It is inherently wrong per the Laws of the God of the Universe, just like murder and stealing.
    ...
    Laws about stealing and killing don't seem to be universal though, and have through history generally only applied to people within the same society/perceived community.
    ...
    I would be curious to know which civilizations or tribes did not have laws against murder and stealing.
    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom
    I don't understand you.
    I said murder, not killing. All of a sudden you're talking about war.

    I cannot believe there has ever existed a civilization who did not have laws against murder and stealing, and you said there were some, and I want to know what they are.
    Don't start adding modifiers to my question.
    Please name the groups of people who allowed murder and stealing in their society.
    As you see I was always talking about stealing and killing, not murder, as the latter wouldn't make sense, like aeon pointed out. You were talking about the Laws of the God of the Universe (by the power of Greyskull! ;-) ), not the laws of logic, so I assumed you were talking about killing and stealing, not the juridical terms murder and theft.

    No, perceived communities have never accepted murder or theft, as prevention of those constitutes one of the prime reasons people started organizing themselves in communities in the first place. But killing and stealing from people outside the perceived community has normally been acceptable, and I think what the enlightenment changed wasn't this dynamic as much as the perception that not all humans were part of the same community.

    I think this also explains why some people today have started to champion animal rights. It's not that they feel it's wrong to kill creatures outside of their "community". They've simply come to see all semi-sentient life as part of their own community. (Yes, I'm stretching the term community now, but you get the idea.)
    I have arms for a fucking reaosn, so come hold me. Then we'll fuvk! Whoooooh! - GZA

  7. #47
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    As I have the power (sneaky bear!!)...

    Mom,
    The definition of murder presumes some kind of wrong doing does it not? At what point is murder a killing? At what point does mass murder become war? Is civil war fine?

    Killing can be justified no? Does that make it any less Murder?

    Now if we persecuted every soldier for each round they fired I'd bet the recruitment rate would drop for the armed services. That would be the power of stigma.

    The way I see it is that if you approach a child calmly after they have fallen over, they seem less bothered about it. If you run full pelt each time they scrape a knee then the child seems to cry more and become more emotionally wound up.

    If we are indeed social creatures then societies reactions will, in part, define our experiences. Ergo if we keep adding such stigma to abuse then it makes it worse for the victim.

    Now if you had a celebration where they got to kick their victimiser just once... now that could go some way to rectifying the problems
    (For one there'd be a resurgence in concrete shoes )
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  8. #48
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    My mother came from a culture and time where it was acceptable for men to beat their wives, and parents to beat their children.

    My grandmother was a physically abusive women who beat my mother and her siblings, and who even attempted to beat me and my sisters, YUCK!!!

    My mother even resorted to physical forms of "discipline" that some liberals would definitely say qualified as abuse.

    Also, I've seen my uncle kick the crap out of my innocent cousin, on several occasions, what a prick.

    Point being, I found the culture my mom was raised in to more or less be borderline barbaric. It screwed her up in the head, for sure.

    I've stated this before and I'll state it again, human beings and the moral rights they deserve transcend whatever their culture, and cultural norms happen to be or dictate.
    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  9. #49
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carebear View Post
    As you see I was always talking about stealing and killing, not murder, as the latter wouldn't make sense, like aeon pointed out. You were talking about the Laws of the God of the Universe (by the power of Greyskull! ;-) ), not the laws of logic, so I assumed you were talking about killing and stealing, not the juridical terms murder and theft.

    No, perceived communities have never accepted murder or theft, as prevention of those constitutes one of the prime reasons people started organizing themselves in communities in the first place. But killing and stealing from people outside the perceived community has normally been acceptable, and I think what the enlightenment changed wasn't this dynamic as much as the perception that not all humans were part of the same community.

    I think this also explains why some people today have started to champion animal rights. It's not that they feel it's wrong to kill creatures outside of their "community". They've simply come to see all semi-sentient life as part of their own community. (Yes, I'm stretching the term community now, but you get the idea.)
    Thank you for clarifying.

  10. #50
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainChick
    I've stated this before and I'll state it again, human beings and the moral rights they deserve transcend whatever their culture, and cultural norms happen to be or dictate.
    That might be a defensible position.

    I think the point here was one being made from an anthropological standpoint, NOT a moral standpoint.

    Carebear was not advocating that any of this was "good."

    He was simply stating that, as far as laws go, a community will establish laws for its own citizens... and if you are "other" -- i.e., not part of that community -- then you have no legal rights within that community.

    This is why a country that does not allow murder or theft within its own community can hand guns off to its young men and send them into ANOTHER community ... where they are not punished for murdering THOSE citizens or stealing.

    It might help if you also thought in terms of "tribes." If you are in a tribe, you have expanded your self-identity to include the tribe -- you treat them as you would treat yourself, and vice versa, your personal identity boundaries encompasses other members of your tribe.

    But you do not identify with the OTHER tribes... so you do not have to treat them as yourself. They are "Other."

    [You see this on a small scale in "Lost" -- with the "Others." The survivors of the crash are tribes, now they're TWO tribes... one run by Locke, one by Jack... and there were still the Others out there too. People protect their tribe; the other tribes are treated as outsiders and dealt with accordingly.]

    * * *

    As far as INTJMom's thoughts go (and maybe yours, but hers are based on Christianity), Jesus basically said, "Love your enemy as yourself" -- do you see what he was saying, he said you have to actually identify with your enemy, your personal identity boundaries include them as part of yourself. They are no longer "other," they are YOU. Love them as you love yourself.

    So your enemy -- and all of humanity -- is part of you. Part of your tribe. Thus the morality and the rights you apply to yourself applies to your enemy. There is no "other" in Christianity, at least as Jesus set it down.

    Philanthropists also tend to have this attitude -- they care about ALL people as if they were part of their tribe. They think in terms of the human race being one large tribe, and no one is "other."

    For a long time, the US treated the AIDS epidemic in Africa as a problem belonging to the "Other" tribe. It wasn't OUR problem. Our tribe seemed to be okay, We didn't have to be concerned about THAT problem.

    But some people argued that all humans are part of the SAME tribe. They expanded their identity boundaries outwards to include Africa as part of their tribe.

    So the US finally started to deal with the problem as if it were happening within its own borders.

    * * * *

    Carebear also points out that animal-rights activists have basically extended their identity boundaries even further, viewing ANIMALS as part of them selves in a sense and thus "part of the tribe."

    Some people would disagree with that, seeing animals as separate... but it's why some people treat animals as they would treat other human beings.



    Just some clarifications.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Mother uses Hot Sauce to punish child - abuse?
    By Patches in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 194
    Last Post: 07-18-2013, 11:22 PM
  2. Dept. Of Heath And Human Services Defends Child Abuse
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-04-2012, 05:09 PM
  3. Child abuse and ideological thinking
    By onemoretime in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-29-2010, 12:37 AM
  4. child abuse, alcholism, and personality "type"
    By velocity in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-11-2009, 12:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO