Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby Philwelch » Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:32 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
zug wrote:I think that trying to eradicate or mitigate the effects of this instinct is unnatural as hell. More civilized, possibly, but in a very creepy and impersonal, even alien, manner.

And now on into naturalistic fallacy land.


Having read G.E. Moore about the naturalistic fallacy, I have to quibble: that's not an instance of the naturalistic fallacy at all. The naturalistic fallacy has to do with how we define the term "good". You're talking about "appeal to nature", a conflation of the is-ought problem.

(As an aside, I would like to point out that a degree in philosophy qualifies you to make pedantic corrections about other people's misuse of technical terms from philosophy. It qualifies you to do little else.)
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
zug
Posts: 902
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:05 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby zug » Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:12 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
zug wrote:I'd also argue that the desire for revenge is natural and not something "barbaric" that must be "overcome." The desire for sex is natural, and could be called barbaric in a similar fashion (aka, it's not barbaric, it's base and instinctive in a morally-neutral way). They both lend themselves to propagation of the good in our species.
What gmaviluk said, but I'll try to be a little nicer: There is absolutely no reason to value a process merely because it is 'natural'. If revenge is natural, and lynch mobs are an expression of that, are lynch mobs therefore good?

You and gmal both missed out on the necessary and sufficient clause I mentioned: "They both lead themselves to propagation of the good in our species." This is why I think rubbing out the revenge instinct is just as silly and fruitless as trying to rub out the sex instinct.

Rape genes lead to bad things for our species (but nice strawdude), namely unwanted or abused babies, and/or fear/hatred of men/women/sex by the victims. Sex leads to a good thing for our species, more babies. Justified revenge leads to good things, elimination of criminals, deterrence of future crime, and making the victim or proxy victims feel better, all at the mere cost of punishing the person who fucked up in the first place.

Totally worth it.
Velifer wrote:Go to the top of a tower, drop a heavy weight and a photon, observe when they hit the ground.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:21 am UTC

zug wrote:You and gmal both missed out on the necessary and sufficient clause I mentioned: "They both lead themselves to propagation of the good in our species." This is why I think rubbing out the revenge instinct is just as silly and fruitless as trying to rub out the sex instinct.

Rape genes lead to bad things for our species (but nice strawdude), namely unwanted or abused babies, and fear/hatred in the victims. Sex leads to a good thing for our species, more babies. Justified revenge leads to a good thing, elimination of criminals and deterrence of future crime.
Sex leads equally to good and bad - sex is responsible for intimacy and the production of children (which I don't see as inherently good, but we'll pretend it is), and also leads to rape, coercion, and other unsettling matters. Similarly, revenge can coincide with positive things (less criminal activity) and horrible things (lynch mobs, human rights violations, Abu Graihb).

Just as any system of consent that's based on our individual desire for sex rather than pursuing happiness for everyone will lead inevitably to rape (see: enthusiastic consent versus coercion), so will a system of punishment that's based on our desire for revenge rather than pursuing happiness for everyone (when it is possible) inevitably lead to Abu Graihb.

I still fail to see your point here; sex is a primal desire which occasionally aligns with positive results. Revenge is a primal desire which occasionally aligns with positive results. Neither of these desires should form the basis of a system intended to protect the rights and lives of human beings.

I don't think you're being strawman'd here, but that is the result of a system based on revenge: rape, murder, and torture. These things are things we should minimize. If removing revenge from the equation does that, well - I'd rather deny you your revenge then allow criminals to be victimized.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:26 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
zug
Posts: 902
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:05 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby zug » Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:26 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Neither of these desires should form the basis of a system intended to protect the rights and lives of human beings.

The rights and lives of human beings who deserve to live.

shrug, I'm done with this thread. It is, as I stated earlier, a fundamental belief of mine that arguing won't change. Yours appears to be, as well. I'll save myself the internal frothing and move on from here.
Velifer wrote:Go to the top of a tower, drop a heavy weight and a photon, observe when they hit the ground.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:28 am UTC

zug wrote:The rights and lives of human beings who deserve to live.
As I said to Adalwolf and the other fellow: If you cannot get over the hurdle that criminals are people - that criminals do not deserve to be made into victims anymore than victims deserve to be made into victims - that criminals do not deserve to be killed, raped, tortured, or otherwise harmed anymore than you do - there is precious little you will get out of this discussion.

And if you think a criminal deserves to be murdered, you might as well say that a criminal deserves to be raped. And if you say that a criminal deserves to be raped, you might as well say that victims deserve to be raped. I really cannot see any difference between these notions; as far as I can see, they are all equivalent statements.

Maybe the problem is that people are incapable of seeing criminals as victims.



Edit: Actually, in retrospect, as the entire point of this thread is to convince people that criminals do not deserve to be murdered, tortured, and raped, I suppose I shouldn't be saying that this is a hurdle you need to 'get over'. I mean, that's kind of like bursting into a room and saying "I'm here to argue with everyone that there is no God! But I'll only argue with people who will first agree with me that there is no God!".

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:54 am UTC

Your jump there from saying criminals deserve something to victims deserving it is quite unfair. First of all, it depends on the what the criminal did. Second of all, how does saying a criminal deserving something equate to saying the victim deserved whatever they are a victim of? 'They're both people' isn't valid. One is an innocent person, the other is someone who has broken the rules.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:22 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:Your jump there from saying criminals deserve something to victims deserving it is quite unfair. First of all, it depends on the what the criminal did.
Does it? Is there something a criminal can do that makes them suddenly deserving of rape, torture, or murder? And if so, does it not logically follow that there is something a victim can do that makes them deserving of rape, torture, or murder? Also, the implication you're making here is that criminals can't be victims - or, at least, there are actions a criminal can take that makes them incapable of ever being victims.

Which parses to me as "There are circumstances where you deserve to be raped" -- or at the very least, "There are circumstances where you getting raped is perfectly fine and dandy".

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:41 am UTC

Breaking certain rules set up by society. We call those rules laws. Breaking certain laws makes you deserving.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:46 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:Breaking certain rules set up by society. We call those rules laws. Breaking certain laws makes you deserving.
I'm not comfortable with allowing society to determine when I deserve to be raped. Are you?

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:53 am UTC

Unfortunately, when you are a part of a society, you agree to submit yourself to the majority.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:00 am UTC

So if the majority decides you deserve to be raped, it's okay? Are lynch mobs okay?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
zug
Posts: 902
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:05 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby zug » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:02 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:So if the majority decides you deserve to be raped, it's okay? Are lynch mobs okay?

If I rape someone, then I deserve to be raped by the majority, yes. If I killed someone, I deserve to be hanged by an angry irrational crowd of people. Sounds logical to me.


Zug, for the inclusion of your little spoiler there, you're no longer welcome in the thread. Do not continue posting here.

-Az
Velifer wrote:Go to the top of a tower, drop a heavy weight and a photon, observe when they hit the ground.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:07 am UTC

zug wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:So if the majority decides you deserve to be raped, it's okay? Are lynch mobs okay?

If I rape someone, then I deserve to be raped by the majority, yes. If I killed someone, I deserve to be hanged by an angry irrational crowd of people. Sounds logical to me.

I'm not the one who just said that anyone who's part of a society agrees to submit themselves to the majority, even if the majority decides they deserve to be raped. (Whether or not they decide this in response to raping someone was not mentioned in the post I replied to.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:12 am UTC

Also, I apologize for switching murder out for rape - really, I'm relying on rape as an emotional wedge here, which is totally not cool. But part of this is because I see absolutely no difference between killing someone out of a desire for personal gratification and raping them. To me, they are morally equivalent actions. From my perspective, if you're willing to subscribe to a system that sponsors vengeance-killing, you should have no problem with a system that sponsors vengeance-torture, or vengeance-rape. Once we're killing people for our own gratification, there really isn't any place left to go. You've taken away the most important fundamental right (the right to live). You might as well not bother with the rest.
H2SO4 wrote:Unfortunately, when you are a part of a society, you agree to submit yourself to the majority.
gmalivuk wrote:So if the majority decides you deserve to be raped, it's okay? Are lynch mobs okay?
This, and also, I never agreed to anything. I never signed a contract that gave anyone the right to deprive me of my life, my freedom, or my right to not be abused. And I never willingly would.

The notion that my right to not be abused is conditional - that I am given it only so long as I refrain from taking actions that society deems 'wrong' enough to justify taking my rights away - is basically the same mechanic by which victim blaming works ("You took the wrong actions. You broke the rules. You deserved what happened to you." - Said now not to a criminal, but to someone who was brutalized for speaking out of turn - or wearing the wrong clothes - or walking down the wrong alley at the wrong time of night).

And yes, I am saying that those who claim criminals deserve punishment are operating under the same mechanic by which we claim a victim deserves to be victimized. Because they wore the wrong clothes, or had too many drinks, or shouldn't have been out alone.

If you accept that nothing a victim can do can possibly justify their victimization, then you must also accept that nothing a criminal can do can possibly justify their victimization.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:43 am UTC

Lynch mobs are not the majority. They are a small group of people. Now, if 150,000,000 people say you deserved to be lynched, then yes. Or if 12 people chosen by courts (as the majority has agreed that the courts have the power to make a 'majority' out of 12 people) to say you deserved to be lynched, then yes.

You don't sign anything. It's by being a member of that society that is governed by a certain government.

There are also no laws about what clothes you can wear, nor laws about walking out alone. Now, you can say, "To help prevent getting raped/murdered/victimized, make yourself look like less of a target. Dress conservatively, drink responsibly, walk with friends, carry a gun, etc. If you don't do these things, you are putting yourself at risk of getting raped/murdered/victimized." That is not saying they deserve to be, but that they are statistically more likely to. It's like saying, "Don't go near the edge of that cliff, you might fall off." If the person falls off the cliff, would people stand around saying, "Well, you warned him. He deserved it."? No.

If you accept that nothing a victim can do can possibly justify their victimization, then you must also accept that nothing a criminal can do can possibly justify their victimization.

I still don't see how you are making this leap.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:54 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:Lynch mobs are not the majority. They are a small group of people. Now, if 150,000,000 people say you deserved to be lynched, then yes. Or if 12 people chosen by courts (as the majority has agreed that the courts have the power to make a 'majority' out of 12 people) to say you deserved to be lynched, then yes.
Okay. I'm not really equipped to debate with someone who thinks a consensus among the majority should enough to deconstruct individual rights.
H2SO4 wrote:There are also no laws about what clothes you can wear, nor laws about walking out alone.
Sure there are. Depending on your location, women can't go bare-breasted in public, men can't wear assless chaps, we have curfews, etc. There are a lot of justifications behind these laws, but one of the more common ones I've heard is that they're for your own good - if you go out after curfew, you might get attacked. Now, if I break that law - if I go out after curfew, and someone attacks me - did I deserve to get attacked? Did I deserve to get killed? That's an important question, I think
H2SO4 wrote:I still don't see how you are making this leap.
Because criminals are victims. Criminals are raped in prisons. Prostitutes are killed, raped, and tortured. Thieves are brutalized. Etc.

But more to the point: If you accept that we can never blame a victim for being victimized, then what if the victim was victimized while they were in the process of committing a crime? Or are victims who are victimized while performing crimes a 'special case' where victim-blaming is okay?

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:11 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Okay. I'm not really equipped to debate with someone who thinks a consensus among the majority should enough to deconstruct individual rights.

But that's just it. When the majority decides to take away individual rights, that's where the courts (which are put there mostly by the majority) step in. So it is still the majority. When the courts also agree with the majority, obviously no rights are being taken away, otherwise the courts wouldn't agree with it.

The Great Hippo wrote:Sure there are. Depending on your location, women can't go bare-breasted in public, men can't wear assless chaps, we have curfews, etc. There are a lot of justifications behind these laws, but one of the more common ones I've heard is that they're for your own good - if you go out after curfew, you might get attacked. Now, if I break that law - if I go out after curfew, and someone attacks me - did I deserve to get attacked? Did I deserve to get killed? That's an important question, I think.

That's where the notion of 'degree' or possibly even 'escalation' comes in. What type of infraction is breaking curfew or any of those other laws you mentioned? Most likely misdemeanors. Killing someone? Actual crime. But again, the cliff analogy.

The Great Hippo wrote:Because criminals are victims. Criminals are raped in prisons. Prostitutes are killed, raped, and tortured. Thieves are brutalized. Etc.

Criminals are victims that before being victims broke the rules. Therefore no longer victims.

But more to the point: If you accept that we can never blame a victim for being victimized, then what if the victim was victimized while they were in the process of committing a crime? Or are victims who are victimized while performing crimes a 'special case' where victim-blaming is okay?

Depends on what crime they were committing and how they were victimized. If someone broke into someone else's house and was holding them at gunpoint and then was made a victim by being shot, it's totally justified. But, if someone was out past curfew and was then made a victim by getting raped, no, not justified. See my above point about 'degree'.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:35 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:But that's just it. When the majority decides to take away individual rights, that's where the courts (which are put there mostly by the majority) step in. So it is still the majority. When the courts also agree with the majority, obviously no rights are being taken away, otherwise the courts wouldn't agree with it.
So, when the US courts said that slaves are property, no actual rights were being taken away or violated; this was all good and fine and moral because the majority agreed and the federal court saw no problem with it. Slavery's cool so long as the majority likes it and the courts don't take issue (slaves don't get a say; they've had their right to vote stripped away - and, surprise! It's the same with criminals).

I'm trying really hard not to be snippy here, but when your system of morality can be used to justify slavery, then you might want to go shopping for a new system of morality.

The rest of your post is... I'm not really sure how to address any of this. You're kind of on a different plane of morality here. I'm not sure if we can really connect. By what mechanism do criminals lose their right to be victims? Simply by breaking the law? By what means do I agree to a social contract - simply by existing in a society (a society which makes it incredibly hard for me to leave? Is that how contracts work - you start out in one without your consent and suffer penalties if you try to exit it?)? And...
H2SO4 wrote:Depends on what crime they were committing and how they were victimized. If someone broke into someone else's house and was holding them at gunpoint and then was made a victim by being shot, it's totally justified. But, if someone was out past curfew and was then made a victim by getting raped, no, not justified. See my above point about 'degree'.
What does being 'justified' have to do with anything? I don't care if a violation of your rights is justified; it's still a violation of your rights. If I have to shoot you to protect myself from you, then that's what I have to do - but you are still dead. Your right to life has still been violated. I had to violate it to protect my right to life, so the sensible thing would be not to punish me - but no matter how we look at it, you're still a corpse.

User avatar
Naurgul
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 10:50 am UTC
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby Naurgul » Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:56 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Okay. I'm not really equipped to debate with someone who thinks a consensus among the majority should enough to deconstruct individual rights.

But that's just it. When the majority decides to take away individual rights, that's where the courts (which are put there mostly by the majority) step in. So it is still the majority. When the courts also agree with the majority, obviously no rights are being taken away, otherwise the courts wouldn't agree with it.
I think you got it all wrong.The justice system is there to protect minorities from the majority. If our societies were solely based on the rule "whatever most people say, goes" then we wouldn't need courts. The majority could force their opinion just fine by themselves since they have the greater numbers. Courts exist to prevent the majority from abusing their power.
Praised be the nightmare, which reveals to us that we have the power to create hell.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby Philwelch » Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:05 pm UTC

But at some point the majority HAD to agree that setting up courts was the right idea, no?

Also, a lot of government is meant to make the majority SLOW DOWN and use their best judgment. A large and committed enough majority will still rule, though.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:26 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:A large and committed enough majority will still rule, though.

Yes, and a lynch mob can still kill you. But the question is whether the victim of mob rule would deserve what happens.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:42 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yes, and a lynch mob can still kill you. But the question is whether the victim of mob rule would deserve what happens.

A lynch mob is NOT the majority. Said that before.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:45 pm UTC

H2SO4 wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Yes, and a lynch mob can still kill you. But the question is whether the victim of mob rule would deserve what happens.

A lynch mob is NOT the majority. Said that before.

But if it were the biggest lynch mob EVAR, it would be okay for them to string you up?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:47 pm UTC

Obviously something had to convince them that I deserve to die.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:50 pm UTC

And if what convinced them was lies and hallucinogens, that still somehow changes something about *you* so that now you deserve to die?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:34 pm UTC

If the majority falls for a lie and does hallucinogens enough to pass legislation that somehow makes it so I deserve to die, again, then you have unrealistically have a majority of idiots in your country.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:42 pm UTC

H2SO4 wrote:If the majority falls for a lie and does hallucinogens enough to pass legislation that somehow makes it so I deserve to die, again, then you have unrealistically have a majority of idiots in your country.

So what? I'm asking you whether your bizarre political philosophy would extend to such a hypothetical situation.

Because the point is, I don't care why the majority decided I should die. I have a problem with the very notion that what they believe magically makes me *deserve* to die. It might lead to them making laws that require me to die, but I still can't fathom anyone thinking that all it takes for me to truly morally deserve something is for other people to believe I do.

Do you think falsely convicted criminals deserve to die? Even though they didn't actually do the crime they're being executed for?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:49 pm UTC

So you're going for reductio ad absurdum?
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 02, 2009 9:54 pm UTC

The way it looks so far, there's no reductio necessary. Your proposal, that the majority can make me deserve to die, seems pretty absurd on its face.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby H2SO4 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:16 pm UTC

No. It's only absurd if you say the majority fell for a lie and are on hallucinogens. Otherwise it's democracy. Realistically, there is no society that has a majority all fall for a lie, especially when it comes to criminal proceedings. You can have the majority decide something based on fears (internment of Japanese-Americans on the west coast based on the fear that any one of them could be a spy) which might be absurd, but was not a lie. Any one of those Japanese-Americans could have been a spy. We'll never know, as that's the action that was taken and no Japanese-Americans were allowed contact with anyone but those also in the internment camps, so don't try to argue otherwise.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

somebody already took it
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:03 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby somebody already took it » Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:59 pm UTC

H2SO4 wrote:don't try to argue otherwise.

Are you seriously demanding that no one argue against you on an internet discussion forum or was that just a poorly chosen figure of speech?

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby H2SO4 » Sat Oct 03, 2009 12:02 am UTC

If you read the full sentence...
We'll never know, as that's the action that was taken and no Japanese-Americans were allowed contact with anyone but those also in the internment camps, so don't try to argue otherwise.

(emphasis added)
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

somebody already took it
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:03 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby somebody already took it » Sat Oct 03, 2009 12:34 am UTC

I did read the full sentence. I also read the sentence before it which is:
Any one of those Japanese-Americans could have been a spy.

To prove this statement wrong only requires proof that one Japanese-American in the internment camps was not a spy. I doubt that should be such a hard thing to prove, especially considering that children lived in them.
But that is beside the point. Asking people not to argue with you in a discussion forum is preposterous no matter what your argument is.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby H2SO4 » Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:16 am UTC

somebody already took it wrote:I did read the full sentence. I also read the sentence before it which is:
Any one of those Japanese-Americans could have been a spy.

To prove this statement wrong only requires proof that one Japanese-American in the internment camps was not a spy. I doubt that should be such a hard thing to prove, especially considering that children lived in them.
But that is beside the point. Asking people not to argue with you in a discussion forum is preposterous no matter what your argument is.

Um. No. ANY one of them could have been a spy. Not EVERY one. ANY. Every is the absolute, and yes, that can be disproved that one wasn't. The assumption that any one of them is a spy requires proof that all are not to be false, or one proven to be a spy to prove it true.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:25 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:But at some point the majority HAD to agree that setting up courts was the right idea, no?
Right, and you usually see this at the creation of a modern government. We're eager to talk about rights when we're in the process of creating a government; that eagerness ebbs and flows as we get into the actual daily work of governance.

Either way, America defined certain individual rights as unalienable; the majority can not (or at least, is not supposed to) take them away. Even if it's 30 million to one, that one still has (or is supposed to have) certain rights that the thirty million cannot take away. It's a balance I've always appreciated.
H2SO4 wrote:No. It's only absurd if you say the majority fell for a lie and are on hallucinogens. Otherwise it's democracy. Realistically, there is no society that has a majority all fall for a lie, especially when it comes to criminal proceedings. You can have the majority decide something based on fears (internment of Japanese-Americans on the west coast based on the fear that any one of them could be a spy) which might be absurd, but was not a lie. Any one of those Japanese-Americans could have been a spy. We'll never know, as that's the action that was taken and no Japanese-Americans were allowed contact with anyone but those also in the internment camps, so don't try to argue otherwise.
Again, the majority (or at least the voting majority) of Americans must have supported slavery (actively - or passively enough not to vote against it) in order for slavery to remain. Functioning from your perspective, slavery was therefore not an act that deprived anyone of their rights. It was fine, and if it happened again today, it would also be fine.

You seem to be failing to grasp that at the core of a democracy is a balance between the rights of the people and the rights of an individual. What you're describing is pure and absolute mob rule. And yes - the majority have believed in ridiculous things before. I mean, do you really feel like justifying every single decision ever made by any governing body that had the support of the majority? Because if we work under the notion that mob rule can accurately determine what you deserve, that's what you're going to have to do. And you are going to fail. Hard.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby BlackSails » Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:38 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:But at some point the majority HAD to agree that setting up courts was the right idea, no?


Or just the enlightened few who ran the army and formed the government.

Zcorp
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:14 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby Zcorp » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:27 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:No. It's only absurd if you say the majority fell for a lie and are on hallucinogens. Otherwise it's democracy. Realistically, there is no society that has a majority all fall for a lie, especially when it comes to criminal proceedings.

You're right how utterly and totally absurd. That might lead to segregation of minorities. No voting rights, right to hold property, educational, treating minorities (read women and blacks) as property.

How absurd would it be if most of America all of a sudden believed in God, or that it is better to invest all of your money in mutual funds and a house then save it. Or that if I gave my girlfriend cunnilingus it would offend some supreme being and would of deserved up to 10 years in prison during my high school years if I had lived in Oklahoma.

Good thing that the majority of people don't fall for lies or take hallucinogens, otherwise we might end up with some really messed up laws.

Its a really good thing that China and India agree that the U.S. should be utilizing a disproportionate amount of the worlds resources leading to many wars and innocent deaths. Otherwise the we would be dead.

So glad Saddam is gone, now he can't blow us all up with his WMDs.
Last edited by Zcorp on Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:34 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

somebody already took it
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:03 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby somebody already took it » Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:12 am UTC

H2SO4 wrote:Um. No. ANY one of them could have been a spy. Not EVERY one. ANY. Every is the absolute, and yes, that can be disproved that one wasn't. The assumption that any one of them is a spy requires proof that all are not to be false, or one proven to be a spy to prove it true.


So what do you perceive as being the difference between these phrases:

Any one of those Japanese-Americans could have been a spy.
One of those Japanese-Americans could have been a spy.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 03, 2009 6:15 pm UTC

Zcorp wrote:Good thing that the majority of people don't fall for lies or take hallucinogens, otherwise we might end up with some really messed up laws.
What's really weird for me to parse here is that, unless I'm misunderstanding, H2SO4 is basically calling for absolute socialism.

H2SO4
NOCTUNICUS, LORD OF SLEEP
Posts: 931
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:36 am UTC

Re: Crime and Punishment: What Criminals Deserve

Postby H2SO4 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 9:01 am UTC

somebody already took it wrote:So what do you perceive as being the difference between these phrases:

Any one of those Japanese-Americans could have been a spy.
One of those Japanese-Americans could have been a spy.

In their meaning? Nothing.

What's really weird for me to parse here is that, unless I'm misunderstanding, H2SO4 is basically calling for absolute socialism.

Your misunderstanding. If anything, I'm basically calling for absolute democracy.

You're right how utterly and totally absurd. That might lead to segregation of minorities. No voting rights, right to hold property, educational, treating minorities (read women and blacks) as property.

How absurd would it be if most of America all of a sudden believed in God, or that it is better to invest all of your money in mutual funds and a house then save it. Or that if I gave my girlfriend cunnilingus it would offend some supreme being and would of deserved up to 10 years in prison during my high school years if I had lived in Oklahoma.

Good thing that the majority of people don't fall for lies or take hallucinogens, otherwise we might end up with some really messed up laws.

Its a really good thing that China and India agree that the U.S. should be utilizing a disproportionate amount of the worlds resources leading to many wars and innocent deaths. Otherwise the we would be dead.

So glad Saddam is gone, now he can't blow us all up with his WMDs.

Democracy would fix those in time.

And the God point gets into a religious debate, and that's not what this thread is about.

I assume the mutual funds and house point was referring to the recent economic collapse?

First of all, the UN recognized that Saddam had WMDs 10 times (read Resolution 1441 and the 9 related ones). Second of all, we didn't invade because we believe he had WMDs. We invaded because he broke the terms of the cease-fire agreement we had with him back in the early 90s. You break an agreement, there will be consequences.
But I, being poor, have only my dreams. I have spread my dreams under your feet; tread softly, because you tread on my dreams.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests