|
I live in Quebec, Canada, and I've been on Teamliquid.net for a little bit. In "real life", I haven't really had the chance to argue about many important topics with people as my friends and most of the people I talk to agree with me. If we're to bring up topics like abortion, almost everyone is pro-choice as apparently we're morally superior (sorry!).
I know that the rest of Canada, and even the rest of Quebec, can be very different from the values most have in this town. There have been many big topics over the last few months and I was surprised to see how many TL users seem to be very much in favor of capital punishment and even physical torture to criminals.
Currently, there's a thread on general forums about a man who defaced a woman with acid. Today, he's supposed to get blinded by the government of Iran. An absolutely frightening number of teamliquid users are in support of that disgusting punishment. But what was even worse to me is that I always thought of "my country" as an advanced society - one beyond that kind of barbaric BS. However, I notice that many, many Canadians are in favor of this. The thread is absolutely clogged with comments from people from Canada saying "I like that legal system" and "he should suffer more".
I'm not into nationalism, I don't care for it one bit. I don't relate to Canadians more than I relate to Australians or Zimbabweans or people from any other country. However, I'll admit that I feel a bit of shame. I shouldn't since we merely share a landmass, but part of me is ashamed anyway - or at the very least I'm incredibly disappointed.
A part of me still believes and hopes that people who are posting on those threads don't represent the opinion of TL. I guess the more civilized people kind of gave up.
Regardless, I'm posting this because in recent years, I've been discovering that Canada is not what I imagined it to be. Funny that I made so many assumptions about my own country and I was so awfully wrong... It's weird.
I'm very sad about it. Oh well. Just wanted to vent a little.
Edited for redundancy.
  
|
Indeed, us Canadians are fucked up people eh?
I've never really noticed any serious things that make Canadians stand out which puts us on a different level than any other country to be honest.
|
Well, there is a disparity of opinions where certain people want the man who destroyed the life of a woman by throwing acid on her face to get away with it and there are some people that want justice to be served so the woman may at least relish in the fact that the guy who destroyed her life didnt get away with it.
|
On May 15 2011 06:28 Daimai wrote:
Well, there is a disparity of opinions where certain people want the man who destroyed the life of a woman by throwing acid on her face to get away with it and there are some people that want justice to be served so the woman may at least relish in the fact that the guy who destroyed her life didnt get away with it.
I think you are misrepresenting the argument. People who object to the punishment aren't saying that the guy shouldn't be punished, but rather, the punishment of being blinded is barbaric and imprudent. Having a punishment of an extended period of jail time would be more practical and 'just' in this sense.
As to these sorts of topics though, I never understand how one is supposed to respond to those sorts of topics. Of course the punishment is a bit severe and inconsistent with how Canadians or any other nation would punish their criminals, but what else is there to be said? I recall there was a thread yesterday about someone being beheaded in Tenerife. Of course, that is an awful occurrence, but there is nothing else to be said about it - it happened, it is bad, hopefully they catch the killer. I feel like that is why you see alot more extreme views in those threads because most posters simply have nothing to say on those topics.
|
I think it's barabaric too.
Heres the thing. I think the original crime was even more barbaric and it gets perpatrated a lot in that part of the world. Now normally honour killings and disfigurements meet with a *nudge nudge wink wink* don't do it again kind of attitude. This means the would be perpatrators don't really have a big dis-incentive to do it. At worst they were in for a judicial slap on the wrist.
Now a terryfying example is being made of a perpatrator. If you step back from the individual case and look at the "big" picture, this is going to act as a massive deterrant to those who considered doing it. In one fell swoop this has probably saved scores of women from the same fate.
Yes its barbaric but I believe more good will come of this than harm because of the reasons I stated above. I don't like comments like "he should suffer more" but in principle I think the punishment will achieve more than a custodial sentence. If this makes me one of the people that ashames you then so be it.
|
I'm pretty sure that attitude is an American problem, swapping over to Canada obviously. Inhuman behavior towards criminals, enemies or minorities never seems to have been even debatable there, where it's standard in more (insert word that would get me warned for sure) parts of the world.
|
On May 15 2011 06:36 Deja Thoris wrote:
I think it's barabaric too.
Heres the thing. I think the original crime was even more barbaric and it gets perpatrated a lot in that part of the world. Now normally honour killings and disfigurements meet with a *nudge nudge wink wink* don't do it again kind of attitude. This means the would be perpatrators don't really have a big dis-incentive to do it. At worst they were in for a judicial slap on the wrist.
Now a terryfying example is being made of a perpatrator. If you step back from the individual case and look at the "big" picture, this is going to act as a massive deterrant to those who considered doing it. In one fell swoop this has probably saved scores of women from the same fate.
Yes its barbaric but I believe more good will come of this than harm because of the reasons I stated above. I don't like comments like "he should suffer more" but in principle I think the punishment will achieve more than a custodial sentence. If this makes me one of the people that ashames you then so be it.
Deterrence is an important factor in any sort of punishment, but it should not be the only factor. Looking at this example, would a 10-year jail sentence be any less of a deterrent than being blinded? Even if it is less of a deterrent, it wouldn't be much less - nobody would willingly commit the crime given the consequences.
Furthermore, if we only look at deterrence and as you say " If you step back from the individual case and look at the "big" picture, this is going to act as a massive deterrant to those who considered doing it." then we can make extreme statements like: "why not kill all criminals? that would deter crime". The punishment in any case regardless of circumstance must be the proper and just one, not based on retribution, but based on a humane and proportional punishment.
|
On May 15 2011 06:36 FeiLing wrote:
I'm pretty sure that attitude is an American problem, swapping over to Canada obviously. Inhuman behavior towards criminals, enemies or minorities never seems to have been even debatable there, where it's standard in more (insert word that would get me warned for sure) parts of the world.
Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Some people just cant imagine them selfs in another persons shoes. It really isn't hard to become a criminal in the u.s.. uncle had sex with a woman who was 4 years younger.. Bam 2 years in prison and a registered sex offender for life.
oh and she lied about her age. wut can u do
|
United States24676 Posts
On May 15 2011 06:50 VPCursed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 06:36 FeiLing wrote:
I'm pretty sure that attitude is an American problem, swapping over to Canada obviously. Inhuman behavior towards criminals, enemies or minorities never seems to have been even debatable there, where it's standard in more (insert word that would get me warned for sure) parts of the world. Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Some people just cant imagine them selfs in another persons shoes. It really isn't hard to become a criminal in the u.s.. uncle had sex with a woman who was 4 years younger.. Bam 2 years in prison and a registered sex offender for life. oh and she lied about her age. wut can u do
Yeah I've always wondered about this.
"Hey baby let me see some ID before we get started."
|
On May 15 2011 06:53 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 06:50 VPCursed wrote:On May 15 2011 06:36 FeiLing wrote:
I'm pretty sure that attitude is an American problem, swapping over to Canada obviously. Inhuman behavior towards criminals, enemies or minorities never seems to have been even debatable there, where it's standard in more (insert word that would get me warned for sure) parts of the world. Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Some people just cant imagine them selfs in another persons shoes. It really isn't hard to become a criminal in the u.s.. uncle had sex with a woman who was 4 years younger.. Bam 2 years in prison and a registered sex offender for life. oh and she lied about her age. wut can u do Yeah I've always wondered about this. "Hey baby let me see some ID before we get started."
Theres also a law in maine where you cant have sex with a drunk woman.. i haven't looked at the finer details but i found it amusing.
|
United States24676 Posts
On May 15 2011 06:56 VPCursed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 06:53 micronesia wrote:On May 15 2011 06:50 VPCursed wrote:On May 15 2011 06:36 FeiLing wrote:
I'm pretty sure that attitude is an American problem, swapping over to Canada obviously. Inhuman behavior towards criminals, enemies or minorities never seems to have been even debatable there, where it's standard in more (insert word that would get me warned for sure) parts of the world. Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Some people just cant imagine them selfs in another persons shoes. It really isn't hard to become a criminal in the u.s.. uncle had sex with a woman who was 4 years younger.. Bam 2 years in prison and a registered sex offender for life. oh and she lied about her age. wut can u do Yeah I've always wondered about this. "Hey baby let me see some ID before we get started." Theres also a law in maine where you cant have sex with a drunk woman.. i haven't looked at the finer details but i found it amusing..
"Hey baby blow into this thing for me real quick."
|
On May 15 2011 06:50 VPCursed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 06:36 FeiLing wrote:
I'm pretty sure that attitude is an American problem, swapping over to Canada obviously. Inhuman behavior towards criminals, enemies or minorities never seems to have been even debatable there, where it's standard in more (insert word that would get me warned for sure) parts of the world. Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Some people just cant imagine them selfs in another persons shoes. It really isn't hard to become a criminal in the u.s.. uncle had sex with a woman who was 4 years younger.. Bam 2 years in prison and a registered sex offender for life. oh and she lied about her age. wut can u do
What? I don't understand how the anecdote has anything to do with the quoted post
|
On May 15 2011 06:21 Djzapz wrote:
An absolutely frightening number of teamliquid users are in support of that disgusting punishment.
Morally superior are we?
On May 15 2011 06:21 Djzapz wrote:
But what was even worse to me is that I always thought of "my country" as an advanced society - one beyond that kind of barbaric BS. However, I notice that many, many Canadians are in favor of this. The thread is absolutely clogged with comments from people from Canada saying "I like that legal system" and "he should suffer more".
The difference being that the society that is mentioned in the story is vastly different from the societies commenting on it. It's almost like you're condoning the guy's actions and that's a disturbing thought.
|
Human beings aren't that advanced, really. I mean, we got to the top of the food chain by beating the hell out of competing caveman species back in the day. That kind of aggressive nature will be in our blood for many millions of years. That's why suicide rates in neutral countries like Switzerland tend to be pretty high. People need conflict in their lives to feel human.
|
On May 15 2011 07:34 divito wrote:It's almost like you're condoning the guy's actions and that's a disturbing thought.
The thought may be disturbing because it's not even remotely close to reality.
|
The reason you should be more confident, generally, in your own opinion than the opinion of others, is that you are fully aware only of your opinion and the basis for it. If there are reasons to believe what someone else does instead, you don't know what they are, and it must be said that it seems more likely, given what you know, that you are right. However if you spend so little time defining your own position and your own reasons that you have little to say besides "you're clearly wrong, and I'm very put off by it," then you are really not any more aware of the legitimacy of your own point of view than you are of others. There's nothing wrong with being confident that you're right, but confidence under such circumstances is not rational.
Perhaps you should take this new diversity of outside opinions you've discovered as an opportunity to hone your own, since now you know you can't always depend on just being able to state your opinion for its face value and have people aknowledge your intelligence automatically. You have to work harder than that to convince most strangers that you know what you're talking about, as you should have to work harder to convince yourself.
|
That's got nothing to do with it though, I have no problems myself. I'm merely disappointed to see that Canadians are like this.
I could also write an essay dismantling their position using my moral standards and it'd be great, especially if I could write it in French, but then very few would read it - and many people would dismiss it as it's subjective in that having a government which murders people is perfectly acceptable if you're a beast.
Obviously I'm being blunt and I'm not building the argument here, but you know what I mean.
|
And I feel sad when I go into a local university discothek, and see young people (the future of the nation, the ones in whom we are "investing" billions in public funds, the agents of progress) behaving like Neanderthals and badly-strung marionettes. I am certain that not a few of them profess enlightened views on justice, abortion, torture, and nationalism, and perhaps some of them even share those views on tl.net
So you see, the real barbarian at the gates is not out there in Iran or Texas. If you want to vent at him, you need go no further than look in the mirror.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
It's funny how westerners think non-western ways of doing things are "barbaric" or inferior. Non-westerners probably think the same way about how westerners handle certain things.
|
On May 15 2011 08:24 MoltkeWarding wrote:
behave like Neanderthals and badly-strung marionettes.
you sound so incredibly bitter. it's literally leaking through my computer screen.
|
On May 15 2011 08:31 apalemorning wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 08:24 MoltkeWarding wrote:
behave like Neanderthals and badly-strung marionettes. you sound so incredibly bitter. it's literally leaking through my computer screen.
I'll append it with one of these next time.  It seems to make people feel better about me.
|
On May 15 2011 06:21 Djzapz wrote:
I live in Quebec, Canada, and I've been on Teamliquid.net for a little bit. In "real life", I haven't really had the chance to argue about many important topics with people as my friends and most of the people I talk to agree with me. If we're to bring up topics like abortion, almost everyone is pro-choice as apparently we're morally superior (sorry!).
I know that the rest of Canada, and even the rest of Quebec, can be very different from the values most have in this town. There have been many topics about capital punishment and even torture and I was surprised to see how many TL users seem to be very much in favor of capital punishment and even physical torture to criminals.
Currently, there's a thread on general forums about a man who defaced a woman with acid. Today, he's supposed to get blinded by the government of Iran. An absolutely frightening number of teamliquid users are in support of that disgusting punishment. But what was even worse to me is that I always thought of "my country" as an advanced society - one beyond that kind of barbaric BS. However, I notice that many, many Canadians are in favor of this. The thread is absolutely clogged with comments from people from Canada saying "I like that legal system" and "he should suffer more".
I'm not into nationalism, I don't care for it one bit. I don't relate to Canadians more than I relate to Australians or Zimbabweans or people from any other country. However, I'll admit that I feel a bit of shame. I shouldn't since we merely share a landmass, but part of me is ashamed anyway - or at the very least I'm incredibly disappointed.
A part of me still believes and hopes that people who are posting on those threads don't represent the opinion of TL. I guess the more civilized people kind of gave up.
Regardless, I'm posting this because in recent years, I've been discovering that Canada is not what I imagined it to be. Funny that I made so many assumptions about my own country and I was so awfully wrong... It's weird.
I'm very sad about it. Oh well. Just wanted to vent a little.
Were you not paying attention in the last election? Quebec is NDP dominated but most of Canada has Conservative support. Quebec has always been somewhat isolated from the rest of Canada.
|
On May 15 2011 06:21 Djzapz wrote:
Regardless, I'm posting this because in recent years, I've been discovering that Canada is not what I imagined it to be. Funny that I made so many assumptions about my own country and I was so awfully wrong... It's weird. You should be happy instead of being sad. You just started to realize you're a citizen of the world and not only a citizen of Canada And start to realize a citizen of anywhere isn't different any other. It's just people, people are the same anywhere.
Instead of being sad because Canada isn't as nice as you thought. You should be happy to realize that Canada isn't different from anywhere else. This should open your mind to understand the world. Knowledge empowers you. You should be smiling in joy ^^
|
On May 15 2011 08:24 MoltkeWarding wrote:
And I feel sad when I go into a local university discothek, and see young people (the future of the nation, the ones in whom we are "investing" billions in public funds, the agents of progress) behaving like Neanderthals and badly-strung marionettes. I am certain that not a few of them profess enlightened views on justice, abortion, torture, and nationalism, and perhaps some of them even share those views on tl.net
So you see, the real barbarian at the gates is not out there in Iran or Texas. If you want to vent at him, you need go no further than look in the mirror.
Blows my mind that you'd use so many words to say something that doesn't make any sense. Calling me a barbarian? Hah.
It's pitiful what kind of poorly thought arguments come out of those guys. If they think they can convince people with that, it's no wonder they're so easily fooled into ridiculous ideologies.
On May 15 2011 08:41 sikyon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 06:21 Djzapz wrote:
I live in Quebec, Canada, and I've been on Teamliquid.net for a little bit. In "real life", I haven't really had the chance to argue about many important topics with people as my friends and most of the people I talk to agree with me. If we're to bring up topics like abortion, almost everyone is pro-choice as apparently we're morally superior (sorry!).
I know that the rest of Canada, and even the rest of Quebec, can be very different from the values most have in this town. There have been many topics about capital punishment and even torture and I was surprised to see how many TL users seem to be very much in favor of capital punishment and even physical torture to criminals.
Currently, there's a thread on general forums about a man who defaced a woman with acid. Today, he's supposed to get blinded by the government of Iran. An absolutely frightening number of teamliquid users are in support of that disgusting punishment. But what was even worse to me is that I always thought of "my country" as an advanced society - one beyond that kind of barbaric BS. However, I notice that many, many Canadians are in favor of this. The thread is absolutely clogged with comments from people from Canada saying "I like that legal system" and "he should suffer more".
I'm not into nationalism, I don't care for it one bit. I don't relate to Canadians more than I relate to Australians or Zimbabweans or people from any other country. However, I'll admit that I feel a bit of shame. I shouldn't since we merely share a landmass, but part of me is ashamed anyway - or at the very least I'm incredibly disappointed.
A part of me still believes and hopes that people who are posting on those threads don't represent the opinion of TL. I guess the more civilized people kind of gave up.
Regardless, I'm posting this because in recent years, I've been discovering that Canada is not what I imagined it to be. Funny that I made so many assumptions about my own country and I was so awfully wrong... It's weird.
I'm very sad about it. Oh well. Just wanted to vent a little. Were you not paying attention in the last election? Quebec is NDP dominated but most of Canada has Conservative support. Quebec has always been somewhat isolated from the rest of Canada.
I was paying attention, yes. As much as I dislike the conservative government (I despise it), I like to think that even someone as unlikable as Harper wouldn't go so far as to say "he should suffer more". Stephen Harper is better than that -- and trust me I don't say a lot of good things about him.
On May 15 2011 08:41 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 06:21 Djzapz wrote:
Regardless, I'm posting this because in recent years, I've been discovering that Canada is not what I imagined it to be. Funny that I made so many assumptions about my own country and I was so awfully wrong... It's weird. You should be happy instead of being sad. You just started to realize you're a citizen of the world and not only a citizen of Canada And start to realize a citizen of anywhere isn't different any other. It's just people, people are the same anywhere. Instead of being sad because Canada isn't as nice as you thought. You should be happy to realize that Canada isn't different from anywhere else. This should open your mind to understand the world. Knowledge empowers you. You should be smiling in joy ^^
Well I guess there's a positive side, but in the end, I'm sad because people are like that... I could have written the same OP without mentioning Canada, and it would have been about how I'm disappointed with the world.
That wouldn't be "new" though.
|
I have to say OP, morality is a sticky subject, but please don't pretend to know the answer. I don't really think any of us can say we even know what the proper "punishment" to such a crime is. Shouldn't punishment be tailored to each and every person? We are all unique and to some people prison is a superficial punishment. I'm sure it's a rough environment but there's also a bed and 3 square meals (depending on which prison -__-). Let's think about the woman whom if you clinked the link she is pretty damn disfigured. That man has singlehandedly taken away 1/2 her vision and potentially any kind of male/female companionship (I dont discriminate whatever you like is cool). I'm not a shallow POS but I can pretty much tell you I wouldn't be taking passes at her in public. How would that impact your life to know that some employment opportunities (require 20/20 vision) as well as romantic possibilities have straight up been taken from you.
My words might sound like I'm taking a stance, but really I can't. I do know the definition of right and wrong is dynamic depending on who you are talking to. My problem with the situation is that if this man were to serve a prison sentence and lived through it, he'd start his life again like nothing had happened. Maybe a little more challenging to find a job? After he starts his life again she will still be disfigured and (possibly) alone. Tell me again how its disgusting to want to punish that man in some way other then a prison sentence.
|
side note, I'm upset as someone completely removed from the situation. I'm not particularly violent in any way. However, I would be had this happened to any of my family/friends. Take your moral high ground, I'm quite comfortable where I am.
|
On May 15 2011 07:06 n.DieJokes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 06:50 VPCursed wrote:On May 15 2011 06:36 FeiLing wrote:
I'm pretty sure that attitude is an American problem, swapping over to Canada obviously. Inhuman behavior towards criminals, enemies or minorities never seems to have been even debatable there, where it's standard in more (insert word that would get me warned for sure) parts of the world. Pretty much hit the nail on the head. Some people just cant imagine them selfs in another persons shoes. It really isn't hard to become a criminal in the u.s.. uncle had sex with a woman who was 4 years younger.. Bam 2 years in prison and a registered sex offender for life. oh and she lied about her age. wut can u do What? I don't understand how the anecdote has anything to do with the quoted post
well, i was replying to the "that attitude is an american problem" more so then anything else he wrote.
the "eye for an eye" retribution type thinking... with no compassion for the criminal.
|
On May 15 2011 09:36 Pathology wrote:
My problem with the situation is that if this man were to serve a prison sentence and lived through it, he'd start his life again like nothing had happened.
Not the case. He'd have lost years of his life and more importantly he'd be removed from the society where he can harm people.
Now he'll be in society, he could possibly still hurt people, and might very well adapt to not having his sight. Also, importantly, the government committed an disgusting act of vengeance, accomplishing nothing unless you value retribution over justice. In my mind, this is not justice - not at all.
On May 15 2011 09:39 Pathology wrote:
side note, I'm upset as someone completely removed from the situation. I'm not particularly violent in any way. However, I would be had this happened to any of my family/friends. Take your moral high ground, I'm quite comfortable where I am.
You're perfectly allowed to feel that way, except IMO it's not the government's place to execute people's personal vendettas.
When you bring up that if it happened to your family you would be angry, you kind of admit that the position is an emotional one, and IMO it's purely irrational. People can be irrational, governments shouldn't be.
|
Blows my mind that you'd use so many words to say something that doesn't make any sense. Calling me a barbarian? Hah.
And as an anti-choice, pro-execution, pro-torture fellow who comes from an "advanced country," I am equally saddened by you, and contemptuous of your calling me a barbarian.
Hah.
P.S.
|
|
|
On May 15 2011 10:09 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Blows my mind that you'd use so many words to say something that doesn't make any sense. Calling me a barbarian? Hah. And as an anti-choice, pro-execution, pro-torture fellow who comes from an "advanced country," I am equally saddened by you, and contemptuous of your calling me a barbarian. Hah. P.S.
You missed the point of this thread! I didn't mean for it to be a name-calling contest. I didn't call you a douchebag - I said you're barbaric which is defined by cruelty and brutality. Those certainly don't define me or our country. My stance is completely against those things! When people commit those crimes, we remove them from society so that they can't do it anymore. Unfortunately an imperfect system, but with the advantage of being modern and humane. Also, it doesn't get out of its way to satisfy people's need for blood - which is a good thing because satisfying people's blood thirst is an inefficient way to to handle problems. It's an emotional response, and the State shouldn't handle your emotions.
That's the basic position I take, obviously it could be much deeper but I wanted to give you an overview. The idea that you could be saddened by me seems absurd though. You're for doing horrible things to human beings, I'm not. I simply can't be offensive, unless I made you sad by criticizing you - which is a minor offense at worst =)
|
It's a government's responsibility to protect and support the people that have appointed it. Is it irrational to assume that if man doesn't give a shit about forever changing someones life that he won't do so again without remorse? This is getting much broader then the topic at hand. My point is, I don't think you can look down on a form of punishment when our own correction system is completely flawed. By no means am I saying pouring acid on some dudes face is the way to go.
Roughly a year ago in Vancouver British Columbia a woman left a bar fairly drunk. She had admitted this to an undercover policeman in later investigation so there was no doubt to her intoxication (can't remember if she was breathalized at the scene). Either way she grazed a park car went over a speed bump and outright killed a young girl and paralyzed her aunt. This woman cried and put on a show in court and I believe was convicted for 3 years but I believe appealed and her sentence was reduced. This was a hot topic for quite some time as other cases going on in the same month regarding animal cruelty and drug possession had gotten LARGER sentences. (apologies this might as well be anecdotal since I can't find the article regarding it but if anyone else has read this from Van feel free to pipe up)
A little girl is dead, and her Aunt paralyzed for life. I don't know what's more barbaric. The acid poured over the man's face to reflect his own heinous actions? Or, this woman who has killed a little girl and paralyzed her aunt who will receive maybe a year or two in prison? When you know the appropriate punishment and the quantitative value to assign to certain crimes, I'll gladly accept your judgement on how your fellow Canadian's have barbaric opinions on the topic. I really don't know the answer, I'm just frustrated that you can call it wrong so easily when we as a country have no grasp on what is right. Oh and those that have the money for better lawyers have a better chance of reduced sentences or none at all. Sounds like justice to me.
|
On May 15 2011 10:36 Pathology wrote:
My point is, I don't think you can look down on a form of punishment when our own correction system is completely flawed.
I don't see how that statement makes any sense. I don't base my ideology on the Canadian correction system. I think I'm perfectly entitled to look down on a form of punishment regardless of the status of our current system. I could live in North Korea and it would still be legitimate for me to look down on Iran's practices. Similarly if the punishment was killing the guy's entire family, I'd be opposed to it regardless of my local correction system.
A little girl is dead, and her Aunt paralyzed for life. I don't know what's more barbaric. The acid poured over the man's face to reflect his own heinous actions? Or, this woman who has killed a little girl and paralyzed her aunt who will receive maybe a year or two in prison?
I wouldn't use the term barbaric in that case but that's just me. English is my second language so maybe I'm just wrong, but the direct translation in French wouldn't really work. But like I said, I won't defend Canada's "justice system" as I don't believe it's just. Iran's is just worse - much, much worse IMO.
I'm just frustrated that you can call it wrong so easily when we as a country have no grasp on what is right.
I am not my country, neither are you.
|
On May 15 2011 10:25 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 10:09 MoltkeWarding wrote:Blows my mind that you'd use so many words to say something that doesn't make any sense. Calling me a barbarian? Hah. And as an anti-choice, pro-execution, pro-torture fellow who comes from an "advanced country," I am equally saddened by you, and contemptuous of your calling me a barbarian. Hah. P.S. I said you're barbaric which is defined by cruelty and brutality. Those certainly don't define me or our country. My stance is completely against those things! When people commit those crimes, we remove them from society so that they can't do it anymore. Unfortunately an imperfect system, but with the advantage of being modern and humane.
I don't know that I would call the prison system humane. Modern? Certainly. Humane? I suppose that depends on your definition of humane. The prison experiences of many inmates, however, include decades of abuse, anxiety, mistreatment, fear, and neglect—all directly or indirectly sanctioned by the society from which they have been "removed."
Justice is a difficult issue. Different civilizations have approached this difficult issue in different ways. But I don't know that I would be quick to award the Western penal system a gold star or anything.
The one thing that it does do is keep the vile and heinous mistreatment of imprisoned individuals out of the sight of the public so that the citizenry doesn't have to see what their tax dollars are funding.
|
As anywhere else on the internet (or in the world), TL is full of dumbs. It's inescapable.
Not to mention that a large number of TLers are sixteen and under.
On May 15 2011 09:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 09:36 Pathology wrote:
My problem with the situation is that if this man were to serve a prison sentence and lived through it, he'd start his life again like nothing had happened. Not the case. He'd have lost years of his life and more importantly he'd be removed from the society where he can harm people. Now he'll be in society, he could possibly still hurt people, and might very well adapt to not having his sight. Also, importantly, the government committed an disgusting act of vengeance, accomplishing nothing unless you value retribution over justice. In my mind, this is not justice - not at all.
He is also going to prison.
|
On May 15 2011 11:04 EmeraldSparks wrote:As anywhere else on the internet (or in the world), TL is full of dumbs. It's inescapable. Not to mention that a large number of TLers are sixteen and under. Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 09:57 Djzapz wrote:On May 15 2011 09:36 Pathology wrote:
My problem with the situation is that if this man were to serve a prison sentence and lived through it, he'd start his life again like nothing had happened. Not the case. He'd have lost years of his life and more importantly he'd be removed from the society where he can harm people. Now he'll be in society, he could possibly still hurt people, and might very well adapt to not having his sight. Also, importantly, the government committed an disgusting act of vengeance, accomplishing nothing unless you value retribution over justice. In my mind, this is not justice - not at all. He is also going to prison.
Is that so? I guess I'll take your word for now - I should read a proper article on it. I thought it was either jail OR blinding him.
|
I'm horrible at this quoting thing. Every time I click it and try to format properly I mangle it somehow. Herp derp. Totally fair, I jumped ahead of myself and just spat out some words, my comment isn't on the mark. Then I ask you how would you remedy it, within your set of ideals what fair punishment does this man deserve? If you can tell me what is wrong, then you should just as easily be able to tell me what would be right? More or less I agree with you, I don't want to see some dude disfigured for life, but that would just circle back around to I never wanted to see the woman hurt either. Really what I want is no one to be hurt, but I, nor anyone else can have that absolute.
On your second point I would agree in a way. Barbaric doesn't quite fit because it seems more civilized since everyone in the court room is wearing a suit and there is proper legal discourse. But I still feel the same outrage as you seem to feel about this man's acid punishment. I also am not going to really comment on Iran's legal system because I know jack all about it. Really I shouldn't be opening my mouth at all. This is a complicated topic to say the least. I guess all I really wanted to say is I don't know the proper way to prevent tragedies from happening. Burning off that man's face would be wrong, but if you could prevent violence from ever happening again, would you do it? I'm pretty damn sure I would make that trade.
As to your third point
coun·try/ˈkəntrē/Noun
1. A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.
2. The people of a nation.
Neither of us can comprise a country, but nonetheless we are a part of it. So sure, we aren't a country by ourselves. What I was trying to say am is collectively (all of us) we don't have it right. I sure wish we could figure it out though.
*edit* I also was under the impression he had a choice between jail and acidfacewash.
|
I guess I'll need to get my obs as a spotter cause we definitely have someone jumping on a moral high ground here. 
..especially with the whole "non-western = barbaric" and "my views are so enlightened" statements, lol. "True" enlightenment would be engaging in debate and discourse and avoiding unjustified assumptions.
Here's a list of assumptions/questions that need to first be answered before you can even approach your view:
-what's the function of the legal system? As a deterrent? As a mechanism of retributivism? Or as a restorative system?
-what is the relation of ideal justice in relation to said legal system? Are they equivalent? Does the practical necessity of real-world action create some gray area of permissibility?
-how do you gauge proportionality? to what extent would you draw the line in violating proportionality, and relate this case to that?
-what's "barbarian" or "uncivilized"? I'd just like to note that this kind of dichotomy in thinking is the exact same vein of thinking in the logic of exclusion, where people separate "us" from "them" and thereby commit violence against others. It's also the rhetoric of colonialism, obviously.
-how on earth are you connecting the disparate comments of a few people in a specialized forum [starcraft-specific] to a representation of the people from your country, let alone any region?
|
Pathology, my point is that you don't need to be better than something or perfect to criticize it.
You seem to be hesitant to criticize Iran's practices because Canada's far from perfect, but would you say that we can't criticize Kim Jong Il because Stephen Harper has his flaws too? The reason why I said I'm not my country is I'm not accountable for what it does anyway so when I criticize other countries, I compare them to an ideal situation (a fictitious country, if you will, that seems reasonably plausible). I don't compare them to Canada.
I used to say I hate George Bush. I just did. I didn't have to compare him to the PM of Canada.
For the rest, you're going for an ideal... I wish the woman had never been defaced in the first place, but we're not that lucky. I would obviously go for that, but given the current state of things, I have to settle for putting people in jail. Like I said, it's imperfect, but as far as I can tell it's the best we've got.
|
On May 15 2011 11:18 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:I guess I'll need to get my obs as a spotter cause we definitely have someone jumping on a moral high ground here. ..especially with the whole "non-western = barbaric" and "my views are so enlightened" statements, lol. "True" enlightenment would be engaging in debate and discourse and avoiding unjustified assumptions. Here's a list of assumptions/questions that need to first be answered before you can even approach your view: -what's the function of the legal system? As a deterrent? As a mechanism of retributivism? -what is the relation of ideal justice in relation to said legal system? Are they equivalent? Does the practical necessity of real-world action create some gray area of permissibility? -how do you gauge proportionality? to what extent would you draw the line in violating proportionality, and relate this case to that? -what's "barbarian" or "uncivilized"? I'd just like to note that this kind of dichotomy in thinking is the exact same vein of thinking in the logic of exclusion, where people separate "us" from "them" and thereby commit violence against others. It's also the rhetoric of colonialism, obviously. -how on earth are you connecting the disparate comments of a few people in a specialized forum [starcraft-specific] to a representation of the people from your country, let alone any region?
"non-western" and "enlightened" are words I would never use for this conversation. This is my point of view and that's it. If you want to give my point of view a geographical location on earth and title it it's your thing but I won't support it.
My opinion (quickly):
-The legal system prevents criminals from preventing future crimes. It has somewhat of an element of deterrence, but its main point is to remove "bad" people from the population to reduce the amount of harm done to human beings.
-When you talk about "ideal justice", I think you're kind of getting outside of the realm of actual possibilities. Grey areas are unavoidable and difficult to gauge.
-I don't quite understand the question. I think it kind of leads no where, otherwise pardon my frenchness.
-I use barbaric as an adjective, not necessarily saying that the people are barbarians. I don't think there's any kind of dichotomy involved. Barbaric people support cruel "solutions". As for "uncivilized", I guess I tend to compare modern societies to dark ages societies. Perhaps it's not the perfect terminology to use, but we have a tendency to be less barbaric, obviously. Many practices from the dark ages should have been left in the dark ages - like torture.
-My bad!
|
-deterrent
-That is over my head not even going there hahahah
-no idea I am not omniscient
-Acting exactly how you want to without any conscious thought or care to the consequences of your actions(this behavior may be just fine depending on the person haha so I guess I'm not saying it right)
- I meant Canada. Canada in general. His original comment was aimed at fellow Canadians on TL and I meant my comment in regard to EVERY Canadian citizen although I might as well point my finger in every direction. Why would I hope JUST Canada could figure out a proper justice system, I would hope that everyone would 
I think I am going to step out of this conversation. I don't think I have the education or focus of mind to properly express myself (or even have something decent to express in the first place)
To put everything simply, I'm sad that woman got burned, and I'm also sad the man is going to get burned. I would prefer everyone just kick back and have a good time, but I have no idea to accomplish that. That and I'm confused at how anyone can come to an answer of what someone does or does not deserve as punishment for their crimes. I want to say this is unknowable but I am not a knowledgeable person.
|
I think the reason so many support is that they don't think prison is a good enough punishment for what they did. And they are probably right, prison really isn't that big of a deal (relatively speaking) they get nice meals, even a gym! In fact they are living better than most people in third world countries.
On top of that, since prisons are so overcrowded in the US a lot of criminals get out early and go right back into crime.
I know the woman is not from America, but the reason so many support her is because of what they know about our prisons.
If they made prison punishment actually meaningful, I doubt as many people would support her.
|
On May 15 2011 11:23 Djzapz wrote:For the rest, you're going for an ideal... I wish the woman had never been defaced in the first place, but we're not that lucky. I would obviously go for that, but given the current state of things, I have to settle for putting people in jail. Like I said, it's imperfect, but as far as I can tell it's the best we've got.
I think that there are many good reasons to consider the possibility that "imperfect" is a genuinely misleading euphemism.
|
On May 15 2011 12:52 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 11:23 Djzapz wrote:For the rest, you're going for an ideal... I wish the woman had never been defaced in the first place, but we're not that lucky. I would obviously go for that, but given the current state of things, I have to settle for putting people in jail. Like I said, it's imperfect, but as far as I can tell it's the best we've got. I think that there are many good reasons to consider the possibility that "imperfect" is a genuinely misleading euphemism.
1- Prison rape is unfortunate and the number of occurrences can certainly be lowered if prisons take the proper steps. Regardless of that issue, it's better than having the government do even worse.
2- Prisons are overcrowded because people go to jail for drug-related BS and other silly stuff.
3- Obviously prisons need to be controlled better.
I say imperfect because we won't get anything better. I really wish we didn't have to.
|
On May 15 2011 11:35 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 11:18 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:I guess I'll need to get my obs as a spotter cause we definitely have someone jumping on a moral high ground here. ..especially with the whole "non-western = barbaric" and "my views are so enlightened" statements, lol. "True" enlightenment would be engaging in debate and discourse and avoiding unjustified assumptions. Here's a list of assumptions/questions that need to first be answered before you can even approach your view: -what's the function of the legal system? As a deterrent? As a mechanism of retributivism? -what is the relation of ideal justice in relation to said legal system? Are they equivalent? Does the practical necessity of real-world action create some gray area of permissibility? -how do you gauge proportionality? to what extent would you draw the line in violating proportionality, and relate this case to that? -what's "barbarian" or "uncivilized"? I'd just like to note that this kind of dichotomy in thinking is the exact same vein of thinking in the logic of exclusion, where people separate "us" from "them" and thereby commit violence against others. It's also the rhetoric of colonialism, obviously. -how on earth are you connecting the disparate comments of a few people in a specialized forum [starcraft-specific] to a representation of the people from your country, let alone any region? "non-western" and "enlightened" are words I would never use for this conversation. This is my point of view and that's it. If you want to give my point of view a geographical location on earth and title it it's your thing but I won't support it. My opinion (quickly): -The legal system prevents criminals from preventing future crimes. It has somewhat of an element of deterrence, but its main point is to remove "bad" people from the population to reduce the amount of harm done to human beings. -When you talk about "ideal justice", I think you're kind of getting outside of the realm of actual possibilities. Grey areas are unavoidable and difficult to gauge. -I don't quite understand the question. I think it kind of leads no where, otherwise pardon my frenchness. -I use barbaric as an adjective, not necessarily saying that the people are barbarians. I don't think there's any kind of dichotomy involved. Barbaric people support cruel "solutions". As for "uncivilized", I guess I tend to compare modern societies to dark ages societies. Perhaps it's not the perfect terminology to use, but we have a tendency to be less barbaric, obviously. Many practices from the dark ages should have been left in the dark ages - like torture. -My bad!
The whole "enlightened" aspect seemed to be a part of the original rhetoric of the OP [although now it's edited], and I'm perfectly sure that that was just a quick careless choice of words that can be overlooked.
The whole "barbaric" concept, though, still resonates in the etymology of the term, regardless of whether or not its an adjective or noun. IE, the sedentary civilizations casting nomadic groups as cruel, violent, inhumane monsters when they often possessed degrees of culture comparable, or simply did actions that those same criticizing civilizations had committed in the past. I just think the term carries baggage with it. Anyways:
[I should probably revert to numbers to keep it more organized, so just look at it as corresponding to the dashes in order]:
1. "to reduce the amount of harm done to human beings" - a utilitarian outlook on the law, then. However, your response seems to be more of the deontological approach, since it's more of a gut-reaction to this incident as "stepping over the line." That implies things like absolute side-constraints, ie things the government cannot do, but if you were to be utilitarian, the means would justify the ends so the harshness of the act would be irrelevant to the larger concern of whether or not this more cruel punishment could deter more crimes to reduce more harm.
2. That's the point. Your reactions of "inhumane, cruel, and barbaric" are appeals to more ideal thoughts of justice, rather than the actual practicality of whether or not this policy will work as a legal system. IE, cruelty and inhumanity [which you define barbarism as] are nothing but references to a violation of some notion of human dignity, which is this kind of ideal concept.
3. I don't see how you can't understand this, this is one of the most direct factors for a proper punishment, that it is proportional to the crime. For instance, burglary might net someone 5 years in prison, whereas murder would get a life sentence. The severity of punishments must correspond to the severity of the crime, so if you gave someone the life sentence for petty theft, that'd clearly be excessive and fall under notions of "cruel" punishment.
|
On May 15 2011 13:36 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 11:35 Djzapz wrote:On May 15 2011 11:18 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:I guess I'll need to get my obs as a spotter cause we definitely have someone jumping on a moral high ground here. ..especially with the whole "non-western = barbaric" and "my views are so enlightened" statements, lol. "True" enlightenment would be engaging in debate and discourse and avoiding unjustified assumptions. Here's a list of assumptions/questions that need to first be answered before you can even approach your view: -what's the function of the legal system? As a deterrent? As a mechanism of retributivism? -what is the relation of ideal justice in relation to said legal system? Are they equivalent? Does the practical necessity of real-world action create some gray area of permissibility? -how do you gauge proportionality? to what extent would you draw the line in violating proportionality, and relate this case to that? -what's "barbarian" or "uncivilized"? I'd just like to note that this kind of dichotomy in thinking is the exact same vein of thinking in the logic of exclusion, where people separate "us" from "them" and thereby commit violence against others. It's also the rhetoric of colonialism, obviously. -how on earth are you connecting the disparate comments of a few people in a specialized forum [starcraft-specific] to a representation of the people from your country, let alone any region? "non-western" and "enlightened" are words I would never use for this conversation. This is my point of view and that's it. If you want to give my point of view a geographical location on earth and title it it's your thing but I won't support it. My opinion (quickly): -The legal system prevents criminals from preventing future crimes. It has somewhat of an element of deterrence, but its main point is to remove "bad" people from the population to reduce the amount of harm done to human beings. -When you talk about "ideal justice", I think you're kind of getting outside of the realm of actual possibilities. Grey areas are unavoidable and difficult to gauge. -I don't quite understand the question. I think it kind of leads no where, otherwise pardon my frenchness. -I use barbaric as an adjective, not necessarily saying that the people are barbarians. I don't think there's any kind of dichotomy involved. Barbaric people support cruel "solutions". As for "uncivilized", I guess I tend to compare modern societies to dark ages societies. Perhaps it's not the perfect terminology to use, but we have a tendency to be less barbaric, obviously. Many practices from the dark ages should have been left in the dark ages - like torture. -My bad! 1. "to reduce the amount of harm done to human beings" - a utilitarian outlook on the law, then. However, your response seems to be more of the deontological approach, since it's more of a gut-reaction to this incident as "stepping over the line." That implies things like absolute side-constraints, ie things the government cannot do, but if you were to be utilitarian, the means would justify the ends so the harshness of the act would be irrelevant to the larger concern of whether or not this more cruel punishment could deter more crimes to reduce more harm.
John Stuart Mill would be very proud of you, but I don't believe that the deterrence would be good enough to justify the harm done directly from those punishments. IMO, it leads to more harm.
2. That's the point. Your reactions of "inhumane, cruel, and barbaric" are appeals to more ideal thoughts of justice, rather than the actual practicality of whether or not this policy will work as a legal system. IE, cruelty and inhumanity [which you define barbarism as] are nothing but references to a violation of some notion of human dignity, which is this kind of ideal concept.
You seemed to talk about perfection which I can't provide.
3. I don't see how you can't understand this, this is one of the most direct factors for a proper punishment, that it is proportional to the crime. For instance, burglary might net someone 5 years in prison, whereas murder would get a life sentence. The severity of punishments must correspond to the severity of the crime, so if you gave someone the life sentence for petty theft, that'd clearly be excessive and fall under notions of "cruel" punishment.
Sorry, I genuinely didn't understand your wording. I don't care about "proportionality". I think that when you start saying the punishment must be as bad as the crime, you completely lose sight of the concept of rehabilitation. Also it looks like retribution/vengeance - and like I've been saying, that's just an emotional "need", so to speak. It doesn't need to be equal.
"Proportional" still applies in that murder != theft. Since the person is more dangerous, it's important to keep them out of the population.
|
On May 15 2011 13:08 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 12:52 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 15 2011 11:23 Djzapz wrote:For the rest, you're going for an ideal... I wish the woman had never been defaced in the first place, but we're not that lucky. I would obviously go for that, but given the current state of things, I have to settle for putting people in jail. Like I said, it's imperfect, but as far as I can tell it's the best we've got. I think that there are many good reasons to consider the possibility that "imperfect" is a genuinely misleading euphemism. 1- Prison rape is unfortunate and the number of occurrences can certainly be lowered if prisons take the proper steps. Regardless of that issue, it's better than having the government do even worse. 2- Prisons are overcrowded because people go to jail for drug-related BS and other silly stuff. 3- Obviously prisons need to be controlled better. I say imperfect because we won't get anything better. I really wish we didn't have to.
I dunno. I guess what this boils down to is that I tend to think getting acid dropped into one's eyes is a little more tolerable than being beaten to death by combination-lock stuffed in a sock because you refused to perform oral sex on one of the "bad people" society has sentenced you to coexist with. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
I mean ultimately I guess I don't have much of an opinion on whether "our" approach to justice or that of another culture is better in any absolute or final sense, nor do I have a very informed opinion on what an ideally just nation would look like. But in any case I think it's worth mentioning that the cruelty and brutality that you take to be indicative of barbarity are very much alive in our modern penal system (and have been for almost its entire career). It's just, again, that we don't have to see them. I don't know that we're "humane" so much as just squeamish.
It's also worth mentioning that building and maintaining prisons on a large scale is a luxury of wealthy nations. So you might wonder how much of our vaunted moral superiority to certain practices in different parts of the world is actually just financial superiority. Is it worth mentioning that Europeans in part attained said financial superiority through the colonization of some of those very countries in question here? Does the conquest of a sovereign nation constitute barbarity? I mean is the world we inhabit really amenable to being neatly laid out onto a single continuum with the enlightened and humane "us" on one end and the barbaric and backwards "them" on the other?
I'm with zobz on this one:
On May 15 2011 08:02 zobz wrote: Perhaps you should take this new diversity of outside opinions you've discovered as an opportunity to hone your own, since now you know you can't always depend on just being able to state your opinion for its face value and have people aknowledge your intelligence automatically. You have to work harder than that to convince most strangers that you know what you're talking about, as you should have to work harder to convince yourself.
I'm not saying that the disillusionment you feel is illegitimate. Just that maybe you should take it as an occasion to reevaluate and better understand your own beliefs on the subject (as well as the beliefs of others) rather than an occasion to express that you're upset because there are "still" so many people in the world who have not attained your level of moral advancement.
|
On May 15 2011 13:58 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 13:08 Djzapz wrote:On May 15 2011 12:52 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 15 2011 11:23 Djzapz wrote:For the rest, you're going for an ideal... I wish the woman had never been defaced in the first place, but we're not that lucky. I would obviously go for that, but given the current state of things, I have to settle for putting people in jail. Like I said, it's imperfect, but as far as I can tell it's the best we've got. I think that there are many good reasons to consider the possibility that "imperfect" is a genuinely misleading euphemism. 1- Prison rape is unfortunate and the number of occurrences can certainly be lowered if prisons take the proper steps. Regardless of that issue, it's better than having the government do even worse. 2- Prisons are overcrowded because people go to jail for drug-related BS and other silly stuff. 3- Obviously prisons need to be controlled better. I say imperfect because we won't get anything better. I really wish we didn't have to. I dunno. I guess what this boils down to is that I tend to think getting acid dropped into one's eyes is a little more tolerable than being beaten to death by combination-lock stuffed in a sock because you refused to perform oral sex on one of the "bad people" society has sentenced you to coexist with. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.
The government is only partially to blame for that event. Not entirely. You can argue that blinding someone is "more tolerable" but the government certainly isn't.
I mean ultimately I guess I don't have much of an opinion on whether "our" approach to justice or that of another culture is better in any absolute or final sense, nor do I have a very informed opinion on what an ideally just nation would look like. But in any case I think it's worth mentioning that the cruelty and brutality that you take to be indicative of barbarity are very much alive in our modern penal system (and have been for almost its entire career). It's just, again, that we don't have to see them. I don't know that we're "humane" so much as just squeamish.
I would qualify it as more humane regardless for the reason stated above. We make a genuine effort and it seems to work (at least partially). Obviously we can take some of our worst cases of violence between inmates and compare it to the less outrageous practices of Iran to declare that Canada is a totalitarian government, but in the end, our prisons suck and hopefully they get better --- yet bad things will always happen.
It's also worth mentioning that building and maintaining prisons on a large scale is a luxury of wealthy nations. So you might wonder how much of our vaunted moral superiority to certain practices in different parts of the world is actually just financial superiority. Is it worth mentioning that Europeans in part attained said financial superiority through the colonization of some of those very countries in question here? Does the conquest of a sovereign nation constitute barbarity? I mean is the world we inhabit really amenable to being neatly laid out onto a single continuum with the enlightened and humane "us" on one end and the barbaric and backwards "them" on the other?
The past is the past. I'm here because my ancestors mauled down "Indians". Can't condone that but I certainly can't change history.
Also, while our legal system costs a lot of money, it is, like you said, a luxury. I'm pretty sure we're much less likely to be wrongly accused here than in China, for instance. Let alone being wrongly executed.
I'm not saying that the disillusionment you feel is illegitimate. Just that maybe you should take it as an occasion to reevaluate and better understand your own beliefs on the subject (as well as the beliefs of others) rather than an occasion to express that you're upset because there are "still" so many people in the world who have not attained your level of moral advancement.
No I think there's a linear progression. As science progresses and people get smarter, weird practices go down. As countries mature, democracy comes up, women acquire rights, people gain freedoms, $$$, barbaric practices fade away... religion loses popularity.
This isn't a stance that I'm winging on the spot - I'm not a simpleton. Everything is constantly being reevaluated to generally fall back to the conclusion I had before, or a slightly modified one. I'm not closed to big changes, but since I've already given much thought to this and have considered most arguments from the opposite side and explored some grey areas, I would be surprised if someone completely changed my mind.
|
On May 15 2011 14:18 Djzapz wrote:No I think there's a linear progression. As science progresses and people get smarter, weird practices go down. As countries mature, democracy comes up, women acquire rights, people gain freedoms, $$$, barbaric practices fade away... religion loses popularity.
Well, if that's the case, if you believe that, then I'd just encourage you to be a little more sympathetic to today's barbarians as a nod, at least, to your common fate. The march of progress will leave you both in the dust of history. You'll be tomorrow's barbarian after all—and the proto-human of the day after that.
|
On May 15 2011 14:42 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 14:18 Djzapz wrote:No I think there's a linear progression. As science progresses and people get smarter, weird practices go down. As countries mature, democracy comes up, women acquire rights, people gain freedoms, $$$, barbaric practices fade away... religion loses popularity. Well, if that's the case, if you believe that, then I'd just encourage you to be a little more sympathetic to today's barbarians as a nod, at least, to your common fate. The march of progress will leave you both in the dust of history. You'll be tomorrow's barbarian after all—and the proto-human of the day after that.
If vegetarianism catches on (hopefully never) then I'll be tomorrow's barbarian... otherwise I'm pretty much a balls out pacifist
|
On May 15 2011 13:58 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 15 2011 13:36 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On May 15 2011 11:35 Djzapz wrote:On May 15 2011 11:18 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:I guess I'll need to get my obs as a spotter cause we definitely have someone jumping on a moral high ground here. ..especially with the whole "non-western = barbaric" and "my views are so enlightened" statements, lol. "True" enlightenment would be engaging in debate and discourse and avoiding unjustified assumptions. Here's a list of assumptions/questions that need to first be answered before you can even approach your view: -what's the function of the legal system? As a deterrent? As a mechanism of retributivism? -what is the relation of ideal justice in relation to said legal system? Are they equivalent? Does the practical necessity of real-world action create some gray area of permissibility? -how do you gauge proportionality? to what extent would you draw the line in violating proportionality, and relate this case to that? -what's "barbarian" or "uncivilized"? I'd just like to note that this kind of dichotomy in thinking is the exact same vein of thinking in the logic of exclusion, where people separate "us" from "them" and thereby commit violence against others. It's also the rhetoric of colonialism, obviously. -how on earth are you connecting the disparate comments of a few people in a specialized forum [starcraft-specific] to a representation of the people from your country, let alone any region? "non-western" and "enlightened" are words I would never use for this conversation. This is my point of view and that's it. If you want to give my point of view a geographical location on earth and title it it's your thing but I won't support it. My opinion (quickly): -The legal system prevents criminals from preventing future crimes. It has somewhat of an element of deterrence, but its main point is to remove "bad" people from the population to reduce the amount of harm done to human beings. -When you talk about "ideal justice", I think you're kind of getting outside of the realm of actual possibilities. Grey areas are unavoidable and difficult to gauge. -I don't quite understand the question. I think it kind of leads no where, otherwise pardon my frenchness. -I use barbaric as an adjective, not necessarily saying that the people are barbarians. I don't think there's any kind of dichotomy involved. Barbaric people support cruel "solutions". As for "uncivilized", I guess I tend to compare modern societies to dark ages societies. Perhaps it's not the perfect terminology to use, but we have a tendency to be less barbaric, obviously. Many practices from the dark ages should have been left in the dark ages - like torture. -My bad! 1. "to reduce the amount of harm done to human beings" - a utilitarian outlook on the law, then. However, your response seems to be more of the deontological approach, since it's more of a gut-reaction to this incident as "stepping over the line." That implies things like absolute side-constraints, ie things the government cannot do, but if you were to be utilitarian, the means would justify the ends so the harshness of the act would be irrelevant to the larger concern of whether or not this more cruel punishment could deter more crimes to reduce more harm. John Stuart Mill would be very proud of you, but I don't believe that the deterrence would be good enough to justify the harm done directly from those punishments. IMO, it leads to more harm. Show nested quote +2. That's the point. Your reactions of "inhumane, cruel, and barbaric" are appeals to more ideal thoughts of justice, rather than the actual practicality of whether or not this policy will work as a legal system. IE, cruelty and inhumanity [which you define barbarism as] are nothing but references to a violation of some notion of human dignity, which is this kind of ideal concept. You seemed to talk about perfection which I can't provide. Show nested quote +3. I don't see how you can't understand this, this is one of the most direct factors for a proper punishment, that it is proportional to the crime. For instance, burglary might net someone 5 years in prison, whereas murder would get a life sentence. The severity of punishments must correspond to the severity of the crime, so if you gave someone the life sentence for petty theft, that'd clearly be excessive and fall under notions of "cruel" punishment. Sorry, I genuinely didn't understand your wording. I don't care about "proportionality". I think that when you start saying the punishment must be as bad as the crime, you completely lose sight of the concept of rehabilitation. Also it looks like retribution/vengeance - and like I've been saying, that's just an emotional "need", so to speak. It doesn't need to be equal. "Proportional" still applies in that murder != theft. Since the person is more dangerous, it's important to keep them out of the population.
1. As would Bentham, Cummiskey, etc. I'm glad you have familiarity with the most basic of util authors, but you're not addressing the relevant implications of this. Your acceptance of this contradicts the initial claim "but it's cruel!" because the means don't matter if the ends justify the means, and labels of cruelty are only criticisms of means [ie it indicts intent/mindset and/or an act].
2. Which is another flaw in the initial claims of "cruelty," demonstrating that those claims may be unrealistic in their own right. After all, there is some degree of cruelty in methods of prisonment generally accepted by most people, but that is dismissed in the necessity of the legal punishment. Likewise, because the world is not perfect, perhaps it may be acceptable for them to reciprocate that etching of the eyes.
3. Sure, that clarifies your stance on punishment.
Basically, all these points boil down to: don't go calling things barbaric when that is a criticism of means, not ends, when you also saying that you consider this situation in a util approach. To maintain logical consistency, you really should be arguing that deterrence doesn't work and more policy-making arguments rather than "but it's so cruel and mean and bad!!"
Or imo, just make justifications/arguments, instead of ranting at people in general .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
