Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

does anyone agree with this quote by Maximilean Robespierre.
"Liberty cannot be served until criminals lose their heads."

i dunno there are still some countries that are based on this math problem
steal + food/money= cut ur arm off.
i dunno i kinda agree with this. some people like the system that if u do the crime u pay the time. i dont think jail helps criminals. i actually like the old system. but not too harsh. Robespierre would send criminals too the giljotiini http://www.killermovies.com/forums/images/moresmilies/giljotiini.gif
later on he was overthrown, arrested and sent to the gilijotin.

I think it's positively absurd. I don't believe in capital punishment. There is no penance for the wrongdoer - just extermination for the "innocent." I feel that anything which would permanently harm a criminal is wrong, as we are not telepathic and incapable of judging the mindset of the accused, regardless of the circumstances.

I for one agree with Robespierre but not with the massacre that he was the cause of. Society needs punishment in order to exist. Without it there is no order and chaos ensues, but what kind of punishment. The law forbids "cruel and unusual punishment" but punishment by definition must be "unusual" and even "cruel" to a degree, so it's my belief that for punishment to be effective it must be HARSH! But also precise as possible, now of course no system is perfect so mistakes will be made but if lead by people who truly believe in fairness and justice (BIG if) capital punishment would be a great benefit to society.

do you guyz think there ever will be a perfect system? i honestly dont.

What do you do with a kid that steals bread to feed? Cutting his head would be wrong. I say, amputate his left leg - this way he can't run away if he steals again.

true true. but were their any witnesses when he stole the bread?

Perfection is such a subjective thing that it's impossible for everyone to agree when or if it is achieved.

if nothing is perfect in the world, then y do people say practice makes it perfect...even if it doesn't... hmmm

I didn't say it doesn't exist, I said that it is subjective and people have different opinions on what is perfect.

yes i know hegemon but i just made a statement.

O, ok I got ya
EDIT: BTW they probably say it to motivate you because who doesn't want to be perfect.

k...

I think that if there are no witnesses and we can't prove the kid is guilty, we should only cut his leg to the knee down. Just to make sure an injustice isn't commited...

rofl

I'd never agree to any kind of mutalation (sp) as a punishment. Don't believe in it,

as for a perfect system, NO like Hege said, Perfection is relative and subjective. and if it weren't for the perfect system in Practice we'd need Perfect people. Perfect in theory well personally I think Communism is almost perfect IN THEORY

/\Agreed

its funny around my neighborhood, they let a prisoner out since he's been in the jail for about 20 years. once he came out he killed like 2 people. hmmm what u guyz think. does jail really help?

and yea fire is right. communism is ALMOST perfect.

I don't see how it would, I mean you hold a criminal for a number of years and then let him go hoping he's changed. It doesn't make sense, I guess it must work enough of the time for it to still be in use but it is a huge drain on the economy and I don't think it's worth the cost.

Depends
Prison can help, however in most countries it only makes things worse, you need to give counsil to your criminals -don't just rob them of their freedom- try to find the source of their problem and deal with it. Also make sure that the ones that need Psychiatric help are NOT put in prison but in special Psychiatric facilities.

ok next question (this is fun lol)

communism vs capitalism.

my parents lived during the time of communism near RUssia. They said it was perfect except for the fact you cant believe in ur religion. At the schools they would ask u everyday the same question, "do you believe in God". and u had to answer "no". if u answered "yes" (which dads best friend did as a kid) you would get punished. what u guyz think..

well first of all the "communism"in russia wasn't "communism like Marx deviced it, it was "leninism" and "stalinism"
there are a few differences

but just the basic communism against the capitalism

communism wins capitalism is all about competition, which frees mimethical craving (no idea wether or not this is written right, free translation) and communism tries to negate mimethical craving by making everyone equal. same stuff, same pay, same religion (none), same idea's and so on.


(mimethical craving means that you want something just cause someone else has it. like your neighboor has two cars so you feel jealous and want two cars as well, but when you have two cars you look at your other neighboor who also has a boat, so you want a boat aswell.... and so forth)

true^
anyone else?

Capitalism for me. With communism competition is wiped out, but competition is what forces us to grow and hopefully better ourselves. It is the driving force of evolution and with capitalism we are forced to compete in order to survive, evolving economically as well as socially. I admit it does promote a certain level of greed but sometimes greed isn't such a bad thing.

I agree , finally a thread with an intelligent conversation

too much competition will lead to too much unhealthy feelings

But NO competition will lead to social/economical stagnation and eventual decline because of an inability to adapt.
I guess what would be best is a semi-controlled capitilism.

I couldn't allow this to just drop into history...

There's a whole other level to consider. Why is that kid resorting to theft in order to feed himself? Is he a junkie, living on the streets? Is he a runaway? Was he kicked out of his home by his parents, incapable of finding a church or homeless shelter that could help him out? Were there any special reasons why the victim of his theft was chosen? Did he take time to consider who would suffer the least from his wrongdoing?

Nothing's so clear-cut, but there's certainly a likelihood that his theft would be the indirect result of a previous transgression.



*mimetical



I presume that we're envisioning a global government here? Of course, a kind of Russia/USA-type situation, wherein the communist state still has a powerful adversary, allows a great deal of driving competition.

I feel that, as things are now, even a single, unified socialist or communist government would still find ample reason for advancement. With oil getting used up, the hole in the o-zone growing again, and our planet on the whole just going to shit, we have at least one goal - fixing it all.

Complicated, when I read your reply, I kind of get why you chose that for your user...

Complicated> I was thinking globally when I posted that

Friend, you're right, and Hege, that makes sense.

Next topic anyone?

... Genesis?

Genesis or Pop Corn... Anyone?

How about stem cell research do you support or oppose?

i love science. as u can see im very interested in all types of science/medicine. (check under my username lol). i dont have any problems with science except cloning. Cloning is the only thing i disagree with in science. sorry im typing fast cuz i g23g eat piz9zza. bye

depends on what you want to do with that cell research:

cell research to clone body parts or to cure some heraditairy (sp) diseases sounds good. also the cloning of endangered animals is something I would allow

cloning of humans is over the top.

Why is cloning humans over the top, Fire?

(Sorry, I feel like playing Socrates for a while)

(no problem-in a philosophical mood today anyway, tho more a modern day fan-)

Because, from the moment of creation you break the clones' human right of free choice. It ain't because the person that is being cloned is in favor of cloning that the clone will be in favore of it.

Lets say the clone is totaly opposed to cloning and he ever finds out he is cloned, I wouldn't want anyone to having to live with that feeling.

Wether or not a clone can differe on opinion with the original can be debatted. But can never be proven until we try this. Unless we find some very very very intelligent animal to clone, don't think there is one. And also our opinions are formed by our past experiences in life, not only our genetic structure

no i dont.

Okay, Socratic method would take too long...

But, this decision about creating the clone is no different than those involved in the birthing process. What if the infant is homosexual, and disgusted by what his or her parents did (even more than the rest of us are re: our parents)? What if the child is artificially inseminated, and will ultimately be against that? What if the child is artificially inseminated into a lesbian marriage? Never are the rights of the newborn/clone taken into consideration, unless it's a matter of abortion...

I'd say that a clone would indeed have a personality unique to that of his or her original "copy." Look at identical twins - they start life out the exact same, but situations can never be the same, so the twins/clones will never be either.

well then I must explain my views a bit further

A) I don't consider something alive until it is actualy born- I know it sounds harsh but that's how I feel, so I don't care for unborn their rights when it comes to abortion.

B) I am against trying to have child, like doing it 20-25 times a day or something like that, it should happen in a natural way- ofcourse I know some ppl need some technological help. well I am not gonna say I am against that, but I have my doubts.

Yeah, but there's no real difference in decisions between a would-be clone and a would-be infant - there are none. If you're against, erm, working for the baby then that's a bit different...

Honestly, I don't think I have a view one way or the other; same as abortion. I'd like to see the technology there, and if for some reason the human race because infertile I'd prefer cloning to extinction, but I'd rather a genuine son as opposed to a little Boba Fett...

Hrm...

it is a very delicate issue and I believe the human race is not ready for it

next question: Plato vs Socrates vs Aristotle.

who do you think was the most influential. i know its hard cuz they were all great IMO. Socrates was teacher of Plato and Plato was the teacher of Aristotle. Now some or most of u might say Socrates but we'll see.

ur thoughts...from my research on all of them i think Plato was most influential.

The problem is that all 3 of them influenced future philosophers and even common people through their beliefs, teachings, and writings.

true you can consider all of them important. Plato has been the most influential to Europe, but then again Plato will probably have gotten a lot from Socrates

Aristotle then again was very important to Arabia, the Jews and the Orthodox church

It's really an impossible discussion. The influence of Aristotle was also that of Plato and Socrates, and the influence of Plato was also that of Socrates. Certainly, a giant standing on the shoulders of a giant who is also being supported by a giant will see farther than the one on the bottom.

But yeah, if Aristotle hadn't tutored Alexander the Great, who knows what Greece would have done?

hmm i guess discussion is over. next question

This is one of my favorite topic.
Nicolo Machiaveli said that it is better to feared than loved...but he also said try to be loving.
if u were a leader. do you think its better to be feared or loved?

well lets see

RObespierre- feared leader- was later arrested and killed
Napoloen- used a little bit of both. but IMO he was loved by most his people and was feared by other countries.
what u guyz think..

The best is to be loved by your people but feared by everyone else.

i disagree. i think more feared. cuz too much love will equel too much freedom. someone might backstab u...

But why would they backstab you if they love you?

Actually come to think of it they are both different means to the same end, people who are loyal to you, so I don't think there's much of a difference.

hmmm but cmon do u think ur whole country is gonna love u? some will try to overthrow u. its always been like that in history....

I'd say that, based upon what I've read of The Prince, you're distorting his meanings a bit. Machiavelli said that a prince needs to maintain an appearance of being generous, but that to do so he would greatly reduce his own wealth as the expectations of those under his rule would increase. He then said that any generosity should be courtesy of the spoils of their victories.

Basically, his stance was that a monarch's rule should be devoid of emotional and moral considerations - that there must be a logical, minimalist order to all of his actions. If something needs doing, regardless of whether it's "right" or "wrong" or if it will hurt someone's feelings, it still needs doing.

very nice^

ok i guess we should start next discussion.
next question

anyone have anything to say about Genocides? there have been many in history.

There has? I thought that there have been only attempted genocides.

Thanks.

And they're bad.

lol


hegemon yes there have been genocides. for one example the Armenian Genocide. there have been many. There have been some that haven't been written down in history....brb

hege. personaly I think an attempted genocide is worse enough already

UMMMMMMMM I guess we're through with that topic any ideas for the mext one?

BTW I think a debate forum could be interesting, thought I think it will be seldom visited by many members.

indeed, we had a political debate forum a few months ago
but itwas closed because of the tons of bashing on it

Yeah I can imagine

good idea. good thing i made this thread lol
it went from one quote to becoming a debate thread.

Yeah I know

It's a good thing we don't lower ourselves to arguing.

lol yea.

should i make a thread about this in Question Forum?
do we need a philosophical/debate/discussion forum lol

Not really but it would be cool, and no harm in trying.

lol. ill think about it. i think we should start next topic. ok fellow thinkers...heres the next question lol

technology helping us or destroying us...sorry i could write more but its late i g2g. good night

Both really. While technology improves our overall quality of life it makes us more and more dependent on it by causing us to lose the ability to survive without it. We are and always will be dependent on it, I believe that it is the one thing that defines us and the level at which we utilize it is what sets us apart from every other life form on this planet.

computers make people lazy in my opinion. agreed^

Just take me for example

lol

well technology makes us advance and helps us to stay alive no doubt there. Technology in itself isn't bad, I never met a car or a machine that wanted to kill me -except microsoft that's evil- It is us who use technology to kill eachother. But what's also funny is that we need wars, or almost wars, to make gigantic technological break-throughs

someone paid attention in class

lol class, which class?

Greek history

ooh, well I knew that before I went to 3ed grade but still

next question.

Do you belive in all this ZOdiac SIgns etc etc...
simple question.

Hard to say. Astrology was believed all over the world from ancient times, and among the believers there were and are eminent scientists.

It may be noted that in the 14th century a number of universities in Western Europe, among them Paris, Bologna and Florence, had chairs of astrology. Astrology is regaining a large popular following. Astrological literature is flourishing as never before. It is difficult to deny the fact that there are many scientists and investigators who are quietly gathering astrological data and testing them in various fields. And the possibility that astrology may as well undergo a transformation from the traditional view to the modern empirical one cannot be ruled out. There was never a scientific attempt made to substantiate the statement that astrology is an exploded superstition. Before astrology can be condemned, its validity or otherwise should be empirically tested.

In the eyes of positivist scientists this lack of empirical evidence is a proof that the assumptions of astrology are wrong. In my opinion this conclusion is equally short-sighted as the conclusion that God does not exist because nobody succeeded so far to prove his/her existence in a way which is acceptable for the positivist scientific community. God exists as a real force/energy for those people who believe in him. Does it matter, whether he/she has a physical existence, or whether he exists just as a symbol, guiding the lives of the people believing in this symbol.

The complex psychology of astrology, explained by means of the astrological symbol system, for many centuries has been considered as a very useful tool for understanding the development of the personality of human persons. Even if the assumptions of astrology are wrong, the astrological symbol system remains a valuable tool for astrologers to understand the character of persons and the development of their personality.

Although I think it's very unlikely that astrology is accurate I have to say that I cannot completely rule it out of my mind.

same here hege

The characteristics attributed to the scorpio are pretty accurate in my case.

hehe

lol agree with hege^

ok next question...ummmm ill post one later if anyone wants make a question.

you are wrong those scumballs have no place in our socioty and should all be killed.