User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 26

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    961

    Default

    I don't care if he cured AIDS and cancer. The killing is all that matters. You kill, we kill you back. That's the way things should be.

  2. #12
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Would you really go to prison for very long for killing a homeless man? I mean, a person's social status matters a lot when the courts do sentencing. Killing the president, for example, is a capital, even shoot-on-sight offense, but killing a lesser person results in lesser punishment. Killing a crazy penniless homeless person, who is practically a bug in society's eyes, would probably not be that severe (and you might not even get caught).

    I say that Mr. Nice Guy was defending himself and had every right to kill the homeless person. Rule number 1: Never trust a crazy person. And since the homeless person was crazy, killing him would put him out of his misery.

  3. #13
    Highly Hollow Wandering's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Donating a million dollars to a charity should get you more points than saving a cat from a tree.
    Mhm... So let's say you're a 20yo girl from a poor family, who works hard in college, holds two jobs to help feed her family, and spends all her week-ends helping out in the community (helping poor kids with their homework, rescuing cats from trees, cleaning out public areas, and so on...) IOW: you're a really "good" person. Then here comes this 50yo guy, born in a rich family, who's been pretty much living off his inheritance, not doing ANY "good" work, but cleverly giving huge sums of money to charity every year, not because he cares about charities but just for the points. He sees you, finds you hot, rapes you, kills you. Rape and murder carry a high number of negative points, but Mr Rich Guy has accumulated more than that number in positive points in his life, through his giving to charities. So he doesn't suffer *any* consequence for his raping and killing you, except for the loss of those rape and murder points.

    How is that any better than the current system?

    Is it unfair? They spent the first 24 - 30 years of their lives getting that unfair advantage.
    It's unfair because they get *massive* amounts of free points for doing what they *like* doing. It's also unfair because not everybody can become a doctor, even if they want to. And finally it's unfair because it equals to a *double* salary: they get paid both in money and in points for the same job.

    Interesting idea you had, but on the level of Communism if you ask me: great in theory, disastrous in practice.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sassafrassquatch View Post
    I don't care if he cured AIDS and cancer. The killing is all that matters. You kill, we kill you back. That's the way things should be.
    Then why don't we then kill the killer of the killer (and so on)? If killing is wrong in principle, why is it OK for the state to do it?

    It's an interesting idea. Perhaps part of what is behind the idea of reforming criminals.

    There is also this idea.

    I have never belived that punative measures are very effective. I consider them cop-outs, and often are institutionalized forms of exacting revenge.

    Yes, we can't be suckers to be taken advanage of, but incarcerations and executions seem like an incredible waste of human potential. The most justification we can give is the protection of other members of society, but I firmly belive there are better ways.

    EDIT: As a further comment, I consider these "Your Ideal is not Realistic" major cop-outs in discussions of ideals. It presupposes, that there will be some insta-trasformation to the ideals being discussed without time to become nuanced and account for realistic "migration paths", etc. You can use that argument against any future ideal or vision, and I consider it a tautology, and nearly useless to mention.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  5. #15
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocapszy View Post
    Proposition:
    New laws. Rather than the old type, all of which only tell you what you can't do, they are changed to what you shouldn't do, and the new set that says things you should do. Both sets go on file. You get points (varying degrees of acts in both directions) and if your score goes below 0 then you go to prison for as many years as points you've got under 0.

    Before you condemn this by saying " Well that will encourage crime! People will do good things to balance their scores, and then go and commit more crimes" I ask that you consider that statement.

    Crimes will be committed. That's a fact. That's why we have police. Because we know it's going to happen. But at least this way, even the criminals help out, and if they don't, we bag 'em up, just like before.

    Obviously I don't know everything, so suggestions or addons are encouraged.
    It's been done before. Look up the abuse of indulgences in the Reformation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    In Roman Catholic theology, an "indulgence" is the remission of temporal punishment for a sin that has already been forgiven; the indulgence is granted by the church when the sinner confesses and receives absolution. When an indulgence is given, the church is extending merit to a sinner from its Treasure House of Merit, an accumulation of merits it has collected based on the good deeds of the saints. These merits could be bought and sold.
    Indulgences were abused in the 16th century and the result was a system pretty much like you described. It was so bad, you could pay for your pardon from a crime before you even committed it by simply giving money to the church. Wandering pretty much nailed the ultimate downside to your set up. The rich can buy there way out of crimes before they even commit them simply by donating to charities just as the Reformers got out of their crimes by buying indulgences from the church.

    Somehow I think Wandering already knew all this but was just too lazy to say it.

  6. #16
    Highly Hollow Wandering's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    It's been done before. Look up the abuse of indulgences in the Reformation.

    Indulgences were abused in the 16th century and the result was a system pretty much like you described. It was so bad, you could pay for your pardon from a crime before you even committed it by simply giving money to the church. Wandering pretty much nailed the ultimate downside to your set up. The rich can buy there way out of crimes before they even commit them simply by donating to charities just as the Reformers got out of their crimes by buying indulgences from the church.

    Somehow I think Wandering already knew all this but was just too lazy to say it.
    Actually, I'd forgotten about indulgences :rolli: But then that's typical of me: I remember the ideas and concepts carried by precise historical facts, though I "forget" about the facts themselves. So now that you mention it, it's obvious that my "forgotten" knowledge of indulgences heavily influenced my hypothetical scenario, but at no time did I actually remember the indulgences themselves

  7. #17
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wandering View Post
    Actually, I'd forgotten about indulgences :rolli: But then that's typical of me: I remember the ideas and concepts carried by precise historical facts, though I "forget" about the facts themselves. So now that you mention it, it's obvious that my "forgotten" knowledge of indulgences heavily influenced my hypothetical scenario, but at no time did I actually remember the indulgences themselves
    I do that all the time too. Perhaps it's an Ni trait.

    It's as if all that really matters is the underlying meaning.

  8. #18
    Highly Hollow Wandering's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    I do that all the time too. Perhaps it's an Ni trait.

    It's as if all that really matters is the underlying meaning.
    Funny, I've actually been thinking along those EXACT same lines

  9. #19
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Indulgences were abused in the 16th century and the result was a system pretty much like you described. It was so bad, you could pay for your pardon from a crime before you even committed it by simply giving money to the church. Wandering pretty much nailed the ultimate downside to your set up. The rich can buy there way out of crimes before they even commit them simply by donating to charities just as the Reformers got out of their crimes by buying indulgences from the church.
    Actually, I'm not sure that worked for everything... did being forgiven by the church equate to being pardoned by the governments/law enforcement of the nations where the crimes were committed? So to me, I think such a system might even be worse than indulgences.

  10. #20
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    Actually, I'm not sure that worked for everything... did being forgiven by the church equate to being pardoned by the governments/law enforcement of the nations where the crimes were committed? So to me, I think such a system might even be worse than indulgences.
    Back in the 16th century, the church was the law. They were usually the ones that handed out punishment. For example, the Spanish Inquisition.

    The proposed system is actually fairly religious in and of itself if you think about it. It supposes that good deeds are redemption from bad deeds. But I have to admit, that I don't know exactly how comparable the two would be. And a system that would so clearly favor the rich over the poor without even the guise of serving religious duty could be considerably worse.

Similar Threads

  1. I Don’t Believe In Anything. I’m Just Here for the Violence.
    By onceuponatime in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06-20-2010, 08:27 PM
  2. A New Biology for the 21st Century
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-25-2009, 06:38 PM
  3. new INTJ for the moment
    By callmemigs in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-21-2009, 03:42 PM
  4. Suggestions for new fines, charges and other changes for the sake of common sense.
    By Xander in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10-24-2008, 06:35 AM

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