User Tag List

First 311121314 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 132

  1. #121
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5231311252 View Post
    An argument that is common in this thread is "it's out of revenge", when not every repercussion is an act of "revenge". If a child punches her parent and the parent reacts to the assault with some form of punishment, it is not usually an act of "revenge", but some form of "repercussion". If there are no repercussions, what's to stop people from acting out? The kindness and goodness that rests nestled in their hearts? Lulz, maybe for some, but the reality is that it's not widespread. And then there are those like this fellow whose thoughts cannot be deterred by threat of punishment, law, religion or morality, which is a danger to the society.
    A parent attempting to teach their child good manners is not even close to the same thing, a parent does that (generally) out of love for the child.

    I can see about 3-4 camps in the thread:

    Those who want him killed, now: When people talk of injuring-killing Loughner for what he did they are talking about revenge, there have been more than one or two posts by those who would be judge, jury and summary executioner in here, that is about revenge/anger/getting even, not "repercussions" or what is best for society or any other noble cause. Just wanting to hurt him.

    Those who seek the death penalty: Those who are talking about the death penalty needing to be on the table are not being so emotionally rash about things but if he is found to be not mentally culpable and they still wish to see him executed then I would question their motivation.

    Those who don't seek the death penalty: Unless the issue is sanity, those who object to the death penalty would generally do so regardless of the crime.

    And of course, those who are attempting to point out that the first category of people are about vengeance not justice.

  2. #122
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    A parent attempting to teach their child good manners is not even close to the same thing, a parent does that (generally) out of love for the child.

    I can see about 3-4 camps in the thread:

    Those who want him killed, now: When people talk of injuring-killing Loughner for what he did they are talking about revenge, there have been more than one or two posts by those who would be judge, jury and summary executioner in here, that is about revenge/anger/getting even, not "repercussions" or what is best for society or any other noble cause. Just wanting to hurt him.

    Those who seek the death penalty: Those who are talking about the death penalty needing to be on the table are not being so emotionally rash about things but if he is found to be not mentally culpable and they still wish to see him executed then I would question their motivation.

    Those who don't seek the death penalty: Unless the issue is sanity, those who object to the death penalty would generally do so regardless of the crime.

    And of course, those who are attempting to point out that the first category of people are about vengeance not justice.
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  3. #123
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Empathy leads to a desire for justice. Revenge fulfills that desire. So without empathy there would be, for people like you, no need for justice and, consequently, no need for revenge (at least in this case)? Yet there will be justice - in court. Would you not agree, then, that empathy is rather counterproductive to a rational treatment of this case, quasi a bad thing?
    It may be counterproductive, but there is no way to remove empathy from humanity, so the discussion is moot.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  4. #124
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    I was criticized for not being counterproductive.

  5. #125
    XES 5231311252's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    A parent attempting to teach their child good manners is not even close to the same thing, a parent does that (generally) out of love for the child.
    It wasn't even about the people or things committing the actions, but the actions being committed and the repercussions for those actions. Maybe some parents discipline out of love, but others discipline their children because it was done to them and so it's what is suppose to be done. Because they've done something that is considered wrong and must be reprimanded.

    there have been more than one or two posts by those who would be judge, jury and summary executioner in here, that is about revenge/anger/getting even, not "repercussions" or what is best for society or any other noble cause. Just wanting to hurt him.
    My post was me speaking for myself, in that I think he should be reproached for what he as done, not because I want to bask in his blood, but because I've weighed the pros and cons, the possibilities, of letting him live coked up on prescriptive narcotics or sporting orange for a good chunk of his life.


    Viewing his Youtube makes me think about the possibility of him developing a cult following. Other such "philosophers" were either shunned, killed or imprisoned in the past and now some are praised today. Though I don't believe they murdered anyone....
    “'Fuck', I think. What a beautiful word. If I could say only one thing for the rest of my life, that would be it.”

  6. #126
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Herring View Post
    That was your answer to the question if feelings of r´revenge should be acted upon. When I asked if you by "antisocial traits" you meant biological traits, because I have no idea what you mean by that term
    It was a poor choice of words on my part. I should use "tendency" instead of "trait". All I meant was that if you killed one murderer, there would be one less murder in the world to exert his influence.
    Are you implying that religion would be the only reason to attribute inherent value to human life? I was talking about taking another human being's life, by the way.
    Yes. Remove religion and emotional bonding and a human life would have no inherent value from a rational perspective. But I would agree not to kill so that the other person would return the favor. Can you propose an alternative view?

    Damn it, now I forgot to comment on the juicy part where you claim the criminal willfully relinquishes his right to life when he commits his crime.
    I don't believe I said that and I'm too lazy to check. My position is that if he breaks the social contract by killing, society is no longer bound by the social contract to refrain from killing him. It's only fair. His wishes are irrelevant.

  7. #127
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
    It implies that the threat of retaliation does not deter. I think that's incorrect. In cases where it does not, swift retaliation will set an example for others as well as satisfy the psychological need for fairness in other members of society. The law breakers are not left being better of than the law abiding citizens.

  8. #128
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    It was a poor choice of words on my part. I should use "tendency" instead of "trait". All I meant was that if you killed one murderer, there would be one less murder in the world to exert his influence.

    Yes. Remove religion and emotional bonding and a human life would have no inherent value from a rational perspective. But I would agree not to kill so that the other person would return the favor. Can you propose an alternative view?
    Okay, tendency would have been a bit clearer. I am not convinced by the assumption that murderer influence other murderers and that therefore there would be less homocidal influence going on if they were killed themselfs. Do you mean literal influence from one individual to another or do you mean a general culture of condoning violent behavior?


    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    I don't believe I said that and I'm too lazy to check. My position is that if he breaks the social contract by killing, society is no longer bound by the social contract to refrain from killing him. It's only fair. His wishes are irrelevant.
    I'm sorry, my fault. I confused you with Lowtech Redneck who said:

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    That's one way of looking at it; another way of looking at it is that murderers willfully abrogate their right to life through their actions, and failure to enact a sentence sufficient to the crime committed devalues the life of a victim. I've noticed, for instance, that many European countries routinely (and in some cases this is required by law)give relatively miniscule prison sentences for murder crimes, and sometimes even release dying perpetrators of mass-murder (I seem to recall starting threads on both such occurances).

    On the issue of the death penalty, even opponents in Europe and opponents in the United States speak different languages; the latter speaks out against the probabilities of innocent men being sentenced, while the former speaks out against guilty men being sentenced.
    I tend to agree with his last statement. Over here it is the idea of the state having the right to kill somebody at all that bothers people, not just the possibility of an innocent person receiving an irreversable punishment.

    That being said, I understand your reasoning behind the criminal "opting out" of the social contract, but I think it is in the general interest of society not to let anybody opt out of it. That implies that he too must be treated according to the rules of the game.

    As to religion, I am an atheist with a strong humanistic streak who has spend half her life explainig to religious people that there is a rational basis for ethics. I agree that there are no inherent natural rights in the traditional sense when you take god out of the picture. But you still have a bunch of human beings with certain hardwired behavior patterns (most of them useful and constructive) that we can't easily shake off anyway, so the risk of all hell breaking loose the day we lose religion seems pretty low to me. And since those human beings are endowned with reasoning skills, they can sit down and agree on basic rules for a mutually beneficial coexistents (most of those will coincide with the hardwired ones). One of the basic rules for a successful coexistence that most of the other rules are build on is that of the inherent value of human life. It is not a given that precedes civilization (in this we can agree), it is an agreed upon working hypothesis and ground rule for civilization created by man.
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  9. #129
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    It implies that the threat of retaliation does not deter. I think that's incorrect. In cases where it does not, swift retaliation will set an example for others as well as satisfy the psychological need for fairness in other members of society. The law breakers are not left being better of than the law abiding citizens.
    So how's your prison population looking? Overcrowded much?

  10. #130
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Herring View Post
    I am not convinced by the assumption that murderer influence other murderers and that therefore there would be less homocidal influence going on if they were killed themselfs. Do you mean literal influence from one individual to another or do you mean a general culture of condoning violent behavior?
    I was thinking of capital punishment. Assuming wrongful conviction was not an issue, execution would efficiently remove the risk of undesirable consequences from the offender. If we don't kill them, some will reform, some will repeat offend. One example is Laurence Singleton. Years ago, he raped and severed the arms of a 15 old girl. He served this time and then killed a woman when he was released. An eye for an eye type punishment might have prevented the second killing.


    I tend to agree with his last statement. Over here it is the idea of the state having the right to kill somebody at all that bothers people, not just the possibility of an innocent person receiving an irreversable punishment.
    Why is it a problem? Death at the hand of criminals are much more probable than death at the hands of the state.

    That being said, I understand your reasoning behind the criminal "opting out" of the social contract, but I think it is in the general interest of society not to let anybody opt out of it. That implies that he too must be treated according to the rules of the game.
    I'm not sure I understand. The criminal is not allowed to opt out. His actions simply removes the protection offered by the social contract. If he kills, society is no longer under any obligation refrain from killing him.

    One of the basic rules for a successful coexistence that most of the other rules are build on is that of the inherent value of human life.
    I would have to very strongly disagree with this one. Self interest is sufficient motivation for creating a suitable social contract. I aid others because it increases the probability that others will aid me.

    In my opinion placing value on human life will actually create unnecessary dilemmas. Can you illustrate why it is necessary?

Similar Threads

  1. What type is Jared Lee Loughner?
    By + patch in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-20-2011, 11:55 PM
  2. Preschool, Yes or No?
    By Tigerlily in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-07-2009, 12:18 AM
  3. Wii or No?
    By Sunshine in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-05-2008, 08:09 PM
  4. Homeschooling: yes or no?
    By Oberon in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 04-04-2008, 06:01 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