|
On December 30 2008 00:44 brambolius wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2008 23:07 Kwark wrote:On December 29 2008 20:16 brambolius wrote:On December 29 2008 10:32 Kwark wrote:
HamerD, silent inaction is consent.
Also, the choice isn't one between protecting society by torturing them to death and not protecting society by arming them, funding them and letting them loose. There are options between the two, like prison. nobody said they should be tortured to death. more like tortured untill their dead, but not letting them die from it. You're an idiot. I might be an idiot but at least i'm not a monkey that considers himself an owl.
Touche?
|
"Now landing in Dnepropetrovsk"
- Welcome to Ukraine, enjoy your stay. Oh.. and if you feel lonely don't hesitate, give us a call we will introduce you to our lovely youths.
All jokes aside, this is actually a mirror image of the youth nowadays, the apathy for everything.
"They were bored and thus started killing people whilst filming it all on their mobile phones" What can I say... killing them wouldn't be enough, leaving them in prison to rot and be raped multiple times daily - Yes.
|
WTF...i can't say that i've seen or heard of a lot of messed up stuff, but that has got to be one of the worst i've ever heard of...WTF
|
On December 29 2008 15:50 Lucktar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2008 10:01 qrs wrote:On December 29 2008 09:39 Lucktar wrote:
But whether they deserve the care isn't the point. I don't see how it's not. The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. The moral obligations that are owed in this case are owed regardless of what the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did. It's not even directly owed to them. The obligation is by the government to the people, because that is what the government was created to do. You're talking in circles here. The government either owes them, in particular, something, or it does not, because no one else of the people gains from it. At the end of the day, you are saying that murderers are owed something, something which they deserve by virtue of being part of "the people". To which I would respond that if someone severs their connection to society, they have cut the bond both ways. It's like any other breach of contract, if you want to think of it that way. If I join a club and flout its rules, they have every right to kick me out. Talking of "the obligations they owe me" at that point is simply immaterial. So if someone 'severs their connection to society,' as you put it, the government doesn't owe them anything, including food, protection, etc, etc. Yes, precisely that. What exactly does one have to do in order to sever that connection? Does murder do it? Just especially heinous murders? Or maybe just heinous crimes in general? Should we just declare open season on everybody we think has 'breached his contract?'
To sever that connection, one has to ignore his obligations implied by that connection. Society owes nothing to a man who acts as if he owes nothing to society.
If you want a more nuanced view than all-or-nothing, I'll allow that there are different mutual obligations in an organized society, each of which can be independently severed. If someone does not pay his taxes, he forfeits the right to any benefit that is paid for by tax money. If someone murders, he forfeits his right to life. Especially heinous murders? Well, if by heinous, you mean that the murderer has violated some further right than the right to life, then that is what he has forfeited. If, for instance, I torture someone, than I forfeit the right to not-be-tortured.
It's a simple view of things, but an eminently just one, in my opinion. I don't see why you seem to hold of "rights" that cannot be forfeited.
|
On December 30 2008 02:46 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2008 15:50 Lucktar wrote:On December 29 2008 10:01 qrs wrote:On December 29 2008 09:39 Lucktar wrote:
But whether they deserve the care isn't the point. I don't see how it's not. The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. The moral obligations that are owed in this case are owed regardless of what the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did. It's not even directly owed to them. The obligation is by the government to the people, because that is what the government was created to do. You're talking in circles here. The government either owes them, in particular, something, or it does not, because no one else of the people gains from it. At the end of the day, you are saying that murderers are owed something, something which they deserve by virtue of being part of "the people". To which I would respond that if someone severs their connection to society, they have cut the bond both ways. It's like any other breach of contract, if you want to think of it that way. If I join a club and flout its rules, they have every right to kick me out. Talking of "the obligations they owe me" at that point is simply immaterial. So if someone 'severs their connection to society,' as you put it, the government doesn't owe them anything, including food, protection, etc, etc. Yes, precisely that. Show nested quote +What exactly does one have to do in order to sever that connection? Does murder do it? Just especially heinous murders? Or maybe just heinous crimes in general? Should we just declare open season on everybody we think has 'breached his contract?' To sever that connection, one has to ignore his obligations implied by that connection. Society owes nothing to a man who acts as if he owes nothing to society. If you want a more nuanced view than all-or-nothing, I'll allow that there are different mutual obligations in an organized society, each of which can be independently severed. If someone does not pay his taxes, he forfeits the right to any benefit that is paid for by tax money. If someone murders, he forfeits his right to life. Especially heinous murders? Well, if by heinous, you mean that the murderer has violated some further right than the right to life, then that is what he has forfeited. If, for instance, I torture someone, than I forfeit the right to not-be-tortured. It's a simple view of things, but an eminently just one, in my opinion. I don't see why you seem to hold of "rights" that cannot be forfeited.
Simply put, a society that functions as you propose would cease to function rather quickly. Anyone who steals forfeits the right to own property? Anyone who cheats on his taxes can no longer use any publicly funded service? Seriously? How far are you willing to take this view? Anyone who looks in somebody else's mailbox forfeits the right to privacy?
I don't care how 'just' this idea is, it just doesn't work. At the risk of sounding cliche, Gandhi had a pretty good point when he said, 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.'
|
If, for instance, I torture someone, than I forfeit the right to not-be-tortured.
People in Guatonimo Bay who torture people don't get tortured. Explain that.
|
On December 30 2008 04:35 Dgtl wrote:Show nested quote +If, for instance, I torture someone, than I forfeit the right to not-be-tortured. People in Guatonimo Bay who torture people don't get tortured. Explain that.
The people being tortured forfeited their right to not be tortured?
|
On December 30 2008 04:37 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2008 04:35 Dgtl wrote:If, for instance, I torture someone, than I forfeit the right to not-be-tortured. People in Guatonimo Bay who torture people don't get tortured. Explain that. The people being tortured forfeited their right to not be tortured?
KA-CHING
|
On December 30 2008 04:06 Lucktar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2008 02:46 qrs wrote:On December 29 2008 15:50 Lucktar wrote:On December 29 2008 10:01 qrs wrote:On December 29 2008 09:39 Lucktar wrote:
But whether they deserve the care isn't the point. I don't see how it's not. The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. The moral obligations that are owed in this case are owed regardless of what the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did. It's not even directly owed to them. The obligation is by the government to the people, because that is what the government was created to do. You're talking in circles here. The government either owes them, in particular, something, or it does not, because no one else of the people gains from it. At the end of the day, you are saying that murderers are owed something, something which they deserve by virtue of being part of "the people". To which I would respond that if someone severs their connection to society, they have cut the bond both ways. It's like any other breach of contract, if you want to think of it that way. If I join a club and flout its rules, they have every right to kick me out. Talking of "the obligations they owe me" at that point is simply immaterial. So if someone 'severs their connection to society,' as you put it, the government doesn't owe them anything, including food, protection, etc, etc. Yes, precisely that. What exactly does one have to do in order to sever that connection? Does murder do it? Just especially heinous murders? Or maybe just heinous crimes in general? Should we just declare open season on everybody we think has 'breached his contract?' To sever that connection, one has to ignore his obligations implied by that connection. Society owes nothing to a man who acts as if he owes nothing to society. If you want a more nuanced view than all-or-nothing, I'll allow that there are different mutual obligations in an organized society, each of which can be independently severed. If someone does not pay his taxes, he forfeits the right to any benefit that is paid for by tax money. If someone murders, he forfeits his right to life. Especially heinous murders? Well, if by heinous, you mean that the murderer has violated some further right than the right to life, then that is what he has forfeited. If, for instance, I torture someone, than I forfeit the right to not-be-tortured. It's a simple view of things, but an eminently just one, in my opinion. I don't see why you seem to hold of "rights" that cannot be forfeited. Simply put, a society that functions as you propose would cease to function rather quickly. Anyone who steals forfeits the right to own property? Anyone who cheats on his taxes can no longer use any publicly funded service? Seriously? How far are you willing to take this view? Anyone who looks in somebody else's mailbox forfeits the right to privacy? I don't care how 'just' this idea is, it just doesn't work. At the risk of sounding cliche, Gandhi had a pretty good point when he said, 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.' I'll grant that taken to the extreme, strict justice may not be a good way to run a society. Still, from the point of view of ethics and what you might call "natural" human rights, I maintain that someone who doesn't respect a particular right of others loses the ability to claim it for himself.
As for society-established human rights, in accordance with your point, obviously there must be some middle ground. I concede that a society where one theft makes you a lifelong felon would be unworkable; on the other hand, one where murder is punished by a fine would be just as bad. The precise details of the law are for society (via its legislators) to write. Presumably its guidelines are pragmatic: what law will benefit society as a whole the most. But even if pragmatism is the rule, I am not convinced that society as a whole stands to benefit from keeping murderers alive.
|
On December 31 2008 12:25 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2008 04:06 Lucktar wrote:On December 30 2008 02:46 qrs wrote:On December 29 2008 15:50 Lucktar wrote:On December 29 2008 10:01 qrs wrote:On December 29 2008 09:39 Lucktar wrote:
But whether they deserve the care isn't the point. I don't see how it's not. The point is that the government has an obligation to provide it, because that's what the criminal justice system is for. The moral obligations that are owed in this case are owed regardless of what the Dnepropetrovsk Maniacs did. It's not even directly owed to them. The obligation is by the government to the people, because that is what the government was created to do. You're talking in circles here. The government either owes them, in particular, something, or it does not, because no one else of the people gains from it. At the end of the day, you are saying that murderers are owed something, something which they deserve by virtue of being part of "the people". To which I would respond that if someone severs their connection to society, they have cut the bond both ways. It's like any other breach of contract, if you want to think of it that way. If I join a club and flout its rules, they have every right to kick me out. Talking of "the obligations they owe me" at that point is simply immaterial. So if someone 'severs their connection to society,' as you put it, the government doesn't owe them anything, including food, protection, etc, etc. Yes, precisely that. What exactly does one have to do in order to sever that connection? Does murder do it? Just especially heinous murders? Or maybe just heinous crimes in general? Should we just declare open season on everybody we think has 'breached his contract?' To sever that connection, one has to ignore his obligations implied by that connection. Society owes nothing to a man who acts as if he owes nothing to society. If you want a more nuanced view than all-or-nothing, I'll allow that there are different mutual obligations in an organized society, each of which can be independently severed. If someone does not pay his taxes, he forfeits the right to any benefit that is paid for by tax money. If someone murders, he forfeits his right to life. Especially heinous murders? Well, if by heinous, you mean that the murderer has violated some further right than the right to life, then that is what he has forfeited. If, for instance, I torture someone, than I forfeit the right to not-be-tortured. It's a simple view of things, but an eminently just one, in my opinion. I don't see why you seem to hold of "rights" that cannot be forfeited. Simply put, a society that functions as you propose would cease to function rather quickly. Anyone who steals forfeits the right to own property? Anyone who cheats on his taxes can no longer use any publicly funded service? Seriously? How far are you willing to take this view? Anyone who looks in somebody else's mailbox forfeits the right to privacy? I don't care how 'just' this idea is, it just doesn't work. At the risk of sounding cliche, Gandhi had a pretty good point when he said, 'an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.' I'll grant that taken to the extreme, strict justice may not be a good way to run a society. Still, from the point of view of ethics and what you might call "natural" human rights, I maintain that someone who doesn't respect a particular right of others loses the ability to claim it for himself. As for society-established human rights, in accordance with your point, obviously there must be some middle ground. I concede that a society where one theft makes you a lifelong felon would be unworkable; on the other hand, one where murder is punished by a fine would be just as bad. The precise details of the law are for society (via its legislators) to write. Presumably its guidelines are pragmatic: what law will benefit society as a whole the most. But even if pragmatism is the rule, I am not convinced that society as a whole stands to benefit from keeping murderers alive.
Well, I guess that's where we just have a fundamental disagreement. Human rights are something I see as intrinsic, owed absolutely independent of one's behavior or conduct. I understand your view, I just can't agree with a view that thinks of rights as something to be earned. *shrug*
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
