Originally posted by Final BlaxicanI joined when I was 13. I win.
Wierdo.Though actually.. I turned 17 last October, and the 30th of January marked my third year here, so I was I think 15 or about to turn 15 when I first joined.
So, meh.
And I'm only ten days older than you? We're like... twins!
But how did you figure out that MC was 15?
Originally posted by Vengeful Koala
You, like other "pro-lifers" [the term always brings a smile to face] who support execution [the taking of life] are hypocrites.
Btw, when I say revenge and justice are the same thing, I mean the end result is the same, in most cases.
The court disagrees. First-degree murder =/= involuntary/criminally negligent manslaughter =/= self-defense.
Common sense disagrees too, but you've made it clear that that's a harder sell.
You're missing the [admittedly poorly-worded] point. Acknowledging responsibility does not negate the existence of a motivation.
Originally posted by Vengeful Koala
As defined by who, DS? I asked you this four hundred posts ago, and still haven't gotten an answer. Who establishes these "universal" rights and wrongs?
I went through this with you already. There is almost always a "justification" for an action, provided by either the perpetrator or an observer; that doesn't make it logical. The Nazis slaughtered Jews because [justification] Hitler wanted them to. People rape for [justification] personal satisfaction.
This is incorrect. See just about every homicide ever committed.Most societies "perceive" murder as wrong because of the emotional and socioeconomic toll it has on individuals and groups, not because it's a "universal wrong" according to... who, again?
I can't speak for all liberals, but I "resist" organized religion because I'd rather not be completely delusional.
I don't like the idea of sharing your ethics and morals, some of which operate on hypocrisy.
The legal system is all the "moral authority" that is needed, thanks. Jesus doesn't put people in jail or hand out tickets or
And this guy alone proves you wrong.
You should probably reread this question and make sure it's what you actually wanted to ask.
I'm pretty sure I know what i wanted to ask. So answer it. If everything is subjective, can you be passionate about something? Whether its sports, philosophy, etc? I find the whole "everything is subjective" idea hilarious. With that kind of logic, you don't need to think...Ever. Just say everything is subjective, nobody is right or wrong, and you're done.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I have a longer post that's gotta wait 'till tomorrow, but I couldn't ignore this;So slavery was moral under your 'Moral Absolutes' because it was legal? That makes baby Jesus cry under our own interpretation.
There's a reason certain issues are deemed unconstitutional after a certain period of time.
Furthermore, there are universal right or wrongs, regardless of the motivations behind them. If you SERIOUSLY believe everything is subjective, then you are contradicting yourself if you think the Nazis/holocaust/Stalin's murder of 25 million Russians/etc was justified.
Btw, under your "everything is subjective lolz!" logic, slavery was justified. I'm going to go outside and urinate on an animal because in my newfound religion, it tells me I have to urinate on a living thing once a day if I want to get to a skewed version of Valhalla.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
ROFL. This is why liberalism is the downfall of our society. Stupid shit like that. Liberals and their "compassion". Hate to tell you this but whether you do something on purpose or not, is irrelevant. Intent is irrelevant. There's a reason the majority of society CHOOSES not to break the law. People are personally responsible for their choices, period. The only justification is insanity.
So... it's wrong to see why someone did something, because that something is inherently evil? Here's a hint: something is evil based on why and for what reasons you did it. It's impossible to say 'Killing is wrong' without understanding that killing can be in self-defense or for another's defense.
Cold-blooded murder is perceived as wrong in our society, and that is relatively acceptable. However, I don't think that someone who murders for money should be seen as the same light as someone who murdered a person who, previously, murdered his whole family- the motivation and the psychological makeup define the action as good or bad. And even so, not everything falls into the average conserative's absolutist scale- the world isn't divided into good and evil. There is plenty of gray in between.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Hilarious. Leave it to MC to blame anybody but the responsible party. You're basically insinuating that humans are naturally good, so when they do something wrong, it's not their fault. And it is NOT degenerating to their standards. Stupid liberal garbage like this is what makes America an easy target. In fact, what you're saying makes no sense at all. Everyone in this country gets a fair trial, so everyone gets an equal chance at aquittal. We are not "Murdering" the convicts. We are punishing them for their crimes.
The human psyche is not pre-generated or forms of its own accord; rather, it is shaped by societal and external factors. People think the way they do because their mind was largely shaped by external factors. The same applies for killers- people who murder do so not because they randomly decided to, but rather because an external factor caused them. Even promises of a financial reward is an 'external factor'. This, however, does not eliminate their personal responsibility- ultimately, the chose to take that certain path. However, they were driven into making that choice as a result of society. And the individual cannot be forced to be changed- you can't reach within his brain and change him. However, society is a changeable factor: change society and you change the individual.
Also, clearly everyone gets an equal chance at being free, especially the impoverished dudes who can't afford to get a lawyer who gives a **** and are pushed into murder due to the desperation and that state of constant agitation that is created by statuses of poverty.
Which brings me to my next point: no one is fundamentally good or bad. Good and bad is a matter of morality, and no one is born with a morality- again, this is an external factor shaped by society. If you were born into a liberal household, you'd probably be a liberal today, and I would be a conservative if I was born into a conservative household. However, human beings are naturally survivalists. Causes which require extreme means for the purposes of survival are always external, and these are the ones that push the individual into acting a similar way.
I am NOT saying people are not responsible. Terrorists chose to be terrorists, after all. But they cannot be changed; rather, that causes that drove them into terrorism can be changed, and that will directly affect them.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
THis is more liberal bullshit at its finest. I'll give you a hint, it makes no sense, nor is this followed by any rational human being. There ARE universal right and wrongs. What you're saying is, the Holocaust was justified, the Russian massacres post world war 2 were justified, a rape could be considered art, and I can kill you and eat you because it's part of my "morals". Try again, this doesn't fly in the real world.
You are simply not going to get it, aren't you? The holocaust was, from my point of perspective and the general view of democratic states, an atrocity. However, from the Nazi's point of perspective? It was a favor to humanity. They're a legitimate culture with legitimate moral standards, simply moral standards I find to be disgusting and sadistic. The same applies for different things; it matters on who looks upon these laws.
You can't kill me and eat me because it is harming another human being. Our current society dictates 'harming' people as an evil. But outside of that? Cannibals aren't savages. They operate on more violent standards, to be sure, but that is because they perceive and dictate violence to be a positive thing, instead of the naturally negative connotation it is associated with in our culture.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Murder is perceived wrong everywhere. See, this is why liberals resist religion in general. They don't like the idea of having a moral authority. They don't like the idea of ethical monotheism. Without religion or a moral authority, any action is justified since everything is subjective.And there's no redemption or rehabilitation. You remind me of those hilarious people that sympathize with the murderer, rather than the victim.
1. I'm not sure about that. There are certain cultures that glorify killing and the taking of life.
2. Liberals resist organized religion because we endorse science, logic, and enlightenment over blindly following a book that was written over 3000 years ago by a perfectly fallible, ordinary human being. We're capable of thinking for ourselves and understand that morality extends beyond the 'Bible', which is simply an overly glorified book.
3. From a universal, cosmic perspective, every action is equal. However, actions as perceived as positive and negative based upon each society's set norms and standards, and that is perfectly acceptable.
Also, killing the murderer will not help the victim. It will not bring them back to life. They're too dead to care- they're vanished from the world, gone, never to come back. They get no benefits, as does society in large, from killing someone over imprisoning him. Even from a pragmatic, instead of an ideological point of perspective (society has laws that define good and evil, these laws are absolute within the society and the authority figures must uphold it in order to maintain societal identity), there is no point to the death penalty.
Also, since you're clearly a moral absolutist because of the Bible, here are some questions for you:
1. Prove that the Bible is not the delusions of a fallible human being, capable of making mistakes and lapses in judgment just like the rest of us. A human being incapable of dictating what universally applies for every other individual.
2. Prove that the Bible was written by God.
3. Prove that you know exactly what God says.
4. Explain why your God is truer than all of the other Gods, who teach different ideals and different 'absolute truths'.
5. Explain why your religion, which is a matter of personal faith and has nothing to do with reality, should have its ideals forced upon people who view the world differently. Morality is a matter of subjectivity- everybody develops their own morality and creates their own standards of ethics. A democratic society prevents people from forcing their naturally subjective morals upon others, because these morals cannot be substantiated as being universally true. Keep to yourself with your absolutist morals.
Oh, yeah, Faunus, we're possibly twins (with a 10 day delay), which is awesome. Except I've already said Nemesis was my brother.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]So... it's wrong to see why someone did something, because that something is inherently evil? Here's a hint: something is evil based on why and for what reasons you did it. It's impossible to say 'Killing is wrong' without understanding that killing can be in self-defense or for another's defense.
Cold-blooded murder is perceived as wrong in our society, and that is relatively acceptable. However, I don't think that someone who murders for money should be seen as the same light as someone who murdered a person who, previously, murdered his whole family- the motivation and the psychological makeup define the action as good or bad. And even so, not everything falls into the average conserative's absolutist scale- the world isn't divided into good and evil. There is plenty of gray in between.
The human psyche is not pre-generated or forms of its own accord; rather, it is shaped by societal and external factors. People think the way they do because their mind was largely shaped by external factors. The same applies for killers- people who murder do so not because they randomly decided to, but rather because an external factor caused them. Even promises of a financial reward is an 'external factor'. This, however, does not eliminate their personal responsibility- ultimately, the chose to take that certain path. However, they were driven into making that choice as a result of society. And the individual cannot be forced to be changed- you can't reach within his brain and change him. However, society is a changeable factor: change society and you change the individual.
Also, clearly everyone gets an equal chance at being free, especially the impoverished dudes who can't afford to get a lawyer who gives a **** and are pushed into murder due to the desperation and that state of constant agitation that is created by statuses of poverty.
Which brings me to my next point: no one is fundamentally good or bad. Good and bad is a matter of morality, and no one is born with a morality- again, this is an external factor shaped by society. If you were born into a liberal household, you'd probably be a liberal today, and I would be a conservative if I was born into a conservative household. However, human beings are naturally survivalists. Causes which require extreme means for the purposes of survival are always external, and these are the ones that push the individual into acting a similar way.
I am NOT saying people are not responsible. Terrorists chose to be terrorists, after all. But they cannot be changed; rather, that causes that drove them into terrorism can be changed, and that will directly affect them.
You are simply not going to get it, aren't you? The holocaust was, from my point of perspective and the general view of democratic states, an atrocity. However, from the Nazi's point of perspective? It was a favor to humanity. They're a legitimate culture with legitimate moral standards, simply moral standards I find to be disgusting and sadistic. The same applies for different things; it matters on who looks upon these laws.
You can't kill me and eat me because it is harming another human being. Our current society dictates 'harming' people as an evil. But outside of that? Cannibals aren't savages. They operate on more violent standards, to be sure, but that is because they perceive and dictate violence to be a positive thing, instead of the naturally negative connotation it is associated with in our culture.
1. I'm not sure about that. There are certain cultures that glorify killing and the taking of life.
2. Liberals resist organized religion because we endorse science, logic, and enlightenment over blindly following a book that was written over 3000 years ago by a perfectly fallible, ordinary human being. We're capable of thinking for ourselves and understand that morality extends beyond the 'Bible', which is simply an overly glorified book.
3. From a universal, cosmic perspective, every action is equal. However, actions as perceived as positive and negative based upon each society's set norms and standards, and that is perfectly acceptable.
Also, killing the murderer will not help the victim. It will not bring them back to life. They're too dead to care- they're vanished from the world, gone, never to come back. They get no benefits, as does society in large, from killing someone over imprisoning him. Even from a pragmatic, instead of an ideological point of perspective (society has laws that define good and evil, these laws are absolute within the society and the authority figures must uphold it in order to maintain societal identity), there is no point to the death penalty.
1. Prove that the Bible is not the delusions of a fallible human being, capable of making mistakes and lapses in judgment just like the rest of us. A human being incapable of dictating what universally applies for every other individual.
2. Prove that the Bible was written by God.
3. Prove that you know exactly what God says.
5. Explain why your religion, which is a matter of personal faith and has nothing to do with reality, should have its ideals forced upon people who view the world differently. Morality is a matter of subjectivity- everybody develops their own morality and creates their own standards of ethics. A democratic society prevents people from forcing their naturally subjective morals upon others, because these morals cannot be substantiated as being universally true. Keep to yourself with your absolutist morals.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Except Murder is wrong and murder ceases to be murder when it self defense. Again you're back to the extreme examples or more of the exception than the rule, to try and prove your point for everybody.
I'm simply insinuating that not all murders have a same degree of moral ruin behind them. It's impossible to make a blanket statement like 'murder is evil' without inspecting the motivations, causes, and psychological makeup of the person who committed the act.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
This is hilarious. I don't even know how to respond to this. They're both murders. The 2nd example would be considered revenge. Justice would be to see the original killer behind bars. The jury might sympathize with the 2nd case because a lawyer could argue distress, mental anguish, etc. However, to allow something like that to go unpunished would be to excuse and allow vigilantism.
I'm completely opposed to vigilantism, and I agree with you that that second case should be punished, too- but is it possible to say that the two men have the same moral makeup and deserve the same punishment? Life exists beyond the mere absolutes.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Again with the external factors. How about the people that choose NOT to kill? Your logic is hilarious. Don't blame the people responsible, but blame society. Wrong as usual. We as humans have free choice, and for every person that chooses the path to evil, to murder, you have 9 that don't. What do you say about them? Stop blaming society. While I'm not a diehard right wing, you make me realize why the left wing has to go.
People do not kill because they randomly decide to, of their own accord. There are always external causes which cause an individual to murder another. This does NOT eliminate personal responsibility- after all, it is still the individual, and not society, who decided to commit the crime. On the other hand, though, society was the one who spurred the individual into committing it.
Has it occurred to you that people are driven to murder due to particularly extreme circumstances, circumstances that few else have to experience?
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
This is an issue that plagues the legal profession and is being worked on. I've met a lot of public defenders and they're douchebags. I've met some that care. Can money buy a verdict? This is a hard question to answer. Tough to argue against OJ's first trial. However, your excuse for murder is hilarious.
Money can certainly buy a verdict, which is why you do not see a multi-billionaire being sentenced to death row if he commits a murder. My excuse for murder is hilarious? You have to at least admit that the external factors involved in poverty are a definitive factor in leading them to violent crime- it's merely human nature. This is not an excuse. This is simple logic. When will you understand that giving an external and societal explanation for murder does NOT eliminate the responsibility, my God?
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Bullshit. If you blame society for EVERYTHING, then you are saying people are essentially good and when they do evil, it's not their fault because people are good, it's society's.
Why, exactly, do you think that the impoverished are more likely to commit crimes than the not? Because of the survival instinct, and the fact that it is far more difficult to maintain a morality under extreme circumstances. This does not, for Christ's sake, mean that they aren't responsible for the choice- however, it does mean that societal factors brought them to that choice as it stands.
Conservatives think people are born with a pre-made personality and that society has zero influence upon people's actions. This is moronic. It is a mixture of the two. The different is, societal factors can be controlled and changed, while individual cannot be; thus, it is only logical to control the societal factors.
Here's another example: a man kills his wife for infidelity. Is she to blame or is he to blame? Of COURSE he is to blame. He chose to commit the murder. However, without the wife's infidelity, he would not have been driven to the murder. Going back in reverse, would you prevent her from cheating on him or will you arrest him before he can do it? I'd take the former action. Any evil can be avoided by controlling the external factors, you see.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No, you are saying EXACTLY that. People aren't responsible, society is.
Right.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Unfortunately for you, the majority of the world deems genocide a universal wrong. I don't care about the Nazi's perspective. They were wrong and they paid the price. Would you want the leaders rehabilitated in prison? Or would you want them hanged, like the Nuremberg trials? I would seriously hope you would want them hanged. "Oh they committed mass genocide, killed 6 millions Jews, but they can still be saved!" My only regret was that we didn't find them all, and others killed themselves before we could get to them.
I don't think the Nazi leaders should have been hanged. The humiliation of being thrown into a prison that is built upon ideals they are opposed to would be far, far worse than simply killing them and letting them die as martyrs for their cause.
Also, the majority of society elects murder and genocide as an evil; this, however, does not make that a universal truth. Rather, it is a common truth within the world. The Nazi's society was as legitimate as any other- however, their standards of good and evil were simply not agreed upon and were seen as evil for the world in general.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Irrelevant. Everything is subjective, there is no good or evil, it's my culture to eat people, therefore I can eat you.
From a universal point of perspective, there is nothing wrong with you eating me. Too bad.
However, you would be violating the general standards of a culture and forcing your ideology upon me. Also, do you understand that attempting to force your religious standards in politics upon people is also forcing your ideology upon other people, right?
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Name one, then ask yourself if they are hated by the rest of the world.
Probably some 'savage' cultures, who are deemed as primitive by the rest of the world. However, I don't think this hatred is justified or fair.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No, liberalism endorses arrogance. For some reason liberals believe they are smart because they refuse to follow organized religion. It goes both ways. If religious people are delusional, liberals are morons because if they can't see it, it doesn't exist! Furthermore, science doesn't violate Judaism. I'm not sure about Christianity. Logic and enlightenment? Hilarious. I've sat through philosophy courses. It's for people who lack any kind of self esteem and want to make sure others hear their quasi intellectual ramble.
1. I don't believe what has no logical substantiation to it. I can't 'see' evolution, but I believe in it- it is based on more than delusional ramblings and fantasies. Religion is blindly following ideals simply because they are traditions and are written in a 5,000 year old book without thought or reason. Why? It's oh-so-easy to attempt to self-glorify yourself as being a child of God who has an inherent purpose within the universe, and there is, of course, the factor of explaining everything so easily without making the slightest effort- simply making up a fairy tale and expecting people to endorse it as an absolute reality.
You understand, I believe a giant invisible salamander exists within my brain that has omniscent force and directly controls Arabic terrorism. You can't prove it's not true. Thus, if you deny it, you simply believe only what you can see!
We liberals believe what has logical and intellectual indication to suggest it, instead of blindly following a fairy tale that makes us feel morally righteous, with a definitive purpose in life.
2. Multiple acts within the Bible defy scientific logic, although I suppose we can bypass that if we accept the existence of an entity that exists beyond the mere laws of physics.
3. Something that is above your thinking capability is not 'quasi intellectual'.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
no
Yes. Morality is a relative thing; it is impossible to prove that an almighty moral force exists within the universe that dictates to people the way they should act.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Yet it gives the victim's family a peace of mind. The death penalty serves as punishment. People have the choice to follow the rules, or reap the consequences.
Yes, clearly the victims' families 'peace of mind' is more important than the similar 'peace of mind' of the offender's family (who are equally innocent) and, of course, the right to life. The death penalty does not have any pragmatic help in enforcing the law. Instead, it is a completely unnecessary violation of a society's defining laws and morals; we are defined by the way we cling to ourselves and our defining as a society. We should never be reduced to enforcing our ideology in the same manner as people we deem as 'evil' do.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Prove that they are delusions? Don't ask me to prove a negative.
Fact: the Bible exists. If you cannot prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that it is factual and the ultimate word of God, you have no right to declare it to be the absolute and divine truth everyone else must follow.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I would have to ask a rabbi to do for you seeing as how he can explain it better than me.
So do you admit you blindly follow an ideal?
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Translated in the Torah. There's something called oral law, and there are interpretations by the sages.
Oral law has been created by perfectly fallible human beings with a relativist morality. The same applies for the sages. They are still human and endorse a morality that cannot be trusted to be universal.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Nothing to do with reality? Do you know the concept of mussar/personal development? I suggest you research my "religion" before making ridiculous statements.
Religious beliefs have nothing at all to do with the basic aspects of reality.
Morality is a matter of subjectivity. Everyone develops their own morality based on what they ultimately feel is right and wrong; because of that, it is wrong to directly treat your morality as an absolutely universal law that should be forced upon others.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]I'm simply insinuating that not all murders have a same degree of moral ruin behind them. It's impossible to make a blanket statement like 'murder is evil' without inspecting the motivations, causes, and psychological makeup of the person who committed the act.
And yes, there are degrees of murder. Murder 1 Murder 2, manslaughter, etc.
I'm completely opposed to vigilantism, and I agree with you that that second case should be punished, too- but is it possible to say that the two men have the same moral makeup and deserve the same punishment? Life exists beyond the mere absolutes.
People do not kill because they randomly decide to, of their own accord. There are always external causes which cause an individual to murder another. This does NOT eliminate personal responsibility- after all, it is still the individual, and not society, who decided to commit the crime. On the other hand, though, society was the one who spurred the individual into committing it.
Has it occurred to you that people are driven to murder due to particularly extreme circumstances, circumstances that few else have to experience?
Money can certainly buy a verdict, which is why you do not see a multi-billionaire being sentenced to death row if he commits a murder. My excuse for murder is hilarious? You have to at least admit that the external factors involved in poverty are a definitive factor in leading them to violent crime- it's merely human nature. This is not an excuse. This is simple logic. When will you understand that giving an external and societal explanation for murder does NOT eliminate the responsibility, my God?
Why, exactly, do you think that the impoverished are more likely to commit crimes than the not? Because of the survival instinct, and the fact that it is far more difficult to maintain a morality under extreme circumstances. This does not, for Christ's sake, mean that they aren't responsible for the choice- however, it does mean that societal factors brought them to that choice as it stands.
Conservatives think people are born with a pre-made personality and that society has zero influence upon people's actions. This is moronic. It is a mixture of the two. The different is, societal factors can be controlled and changed, while individual cannot be; thus, it is only logical to control the societal factors.
Here's another example: a man kills his wife for infidelity. Is she to blame or is he to blame? Of COURSE he is to blame. He chose to commit the murder. However, without the wife's infidelity, he would not have been driven to the murder. Going back in reverse, would you prevent her from cheating on him or will you arrest him before he can do it? I'd take the former action. Any evil can be avoided by controlling the external factors, you see.
I don't think the Nazi leaders should have been hanged. The humiliation of being thrown into a prison that is built upon ideals they are opposed to would be far, far worse than simply killing them and letting them die as martyrs for their cause.
Also, the majority of society elects murder and genocide as an evil; this, however, does not make that a universal truth. Rather, it is a common truth within the world. The Nazi's society was as legitimate as any other- however, their standards of good and evil were simply not agreed upon and were seen as evil for the world in general.
The Nazi's society wasn't legitimate like anybody else. Their standards were universally despised. If you take a look at their beliefs, you'd question their sanity. And please don't come back with the hilarious "who are you to..." argument. I follow G-d's laws and man's laws, which for the most part are the same. The Nazi's didn't, they got what was coming to them.
From a universal point of perspective, there is nothing wrong with you eating me. Too bad.
However, you would be violating the general standards of a culture and forcing your ideology upon me. Also, do you understand that attempting to force your religious standards in politics upon people is also forcing your ideology upon other people, right?
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
1. I don't believe what has no logical substantiation to it. I can't 'see' evolution, but I believe in it- it is based on more than delusional ramblings and fantasies. Religion is blindly following ideals simply because they are traditions and are written in a 5,000 year old book without thought or reason. Why? It's oh-so-easy to attempt to self-glorify yourself as being a child of God who has an inherent purpose within the universe, and there is, of course, the factor of explaining everything so easily without making the slightest effort- simply making up a fairy tale and expecting people to endorse it as an absolute reality.
You understand, I believe a giant invisible salamander exists within my brain that has omniscent force and directly controls Arabic terrorism. You can't prove it's not true. Thus, if you deny it, you simply believe only what you can see!
We liberals believe what has logical and intellectual indication to suggest it, instead of blindly following a fairy tale that makes us feel morally righteous, with a definitive purpose in life.
2. Multiple acts within the Bible defy scientific logic, although I suppose we can bypass that if we accept the existence of an entity that exists beyond the mere laws of physics.
3. Something that is above your thinking capability is not 'quasi intellectual'.
Yes. Morality is a relative thing; it is impossible to prove that an almighty moral force exists within the universe that dictates to people the way they should act.
Yes, clearly the victims' families 'peace of mind' is more important than the similar 'peace of mind' of the offender's family (who are equally innocent) and, of course, the right to life. The death penalty does not have any pragmatic help in enforcing the law. Instead, it is a completely unnecessary violation of a society's defining laws and morals; we are defined by the way we cling to ourselves and our defining as a society. We should never be reduced to enforcing our ideology in the same manner as people we deem as 'evil' do.
Fact: the Bible exists. If you cannot prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that it is factual and the ultimate word of God, you have no right to declare it to be the absolute and divine truth everyone else must follow.
So do you admit you blindly follow an ideal?
Oral law has been created by perfectly fallible human beings with a relativist morality. The same applies for the sages. They are still human and endorse a morality that cannot be trusted to be universal.
Religious beliefs have nothing at all to do with the basic aspects of reality.
Morality is a matter of subjectivity. Everyone develops their own morality based on what they ultimately feel is right and wrong; because of that, it is wrong to directly treat your morality as an absolutely universal law that should be forced upon others.
I'm not ready to go point by point yet- I will post the list of topics that you want addressed and the points that I want to cover and let you use that as a baseline for your next response. The point by point seems formulaic, shortsighted and forced, and I don't like it. (The points you challenged are are in red, my ranting is in blue.) Admittedly, it will remove opportunities to insult you or point out flaws and mistakes, but I think it might bring this closer to civil discourse.
[list]
[*]Revenge in relation to Justice
[*]Lawfulness and Fear[*]Responsibility for wrongdoing
[*]Insanity and Homicide
[*]Human Fallibility
[*]Cultural Relativism and Nihilism
[*]The rift between political ideologies
[/list]
Revenge as it pertains to Justice
Faunus phrased this simply and (almost) accurately, "Revenge is personal, it's about making yourself feel better. Justice is about what's fair." I would modify that a little; Revenge need not be personal. Leaders of nations and policymakers as a group can be just as petty and immature as individuals. When justice degenerates into petty revenge then we open ourselves to a whole host of problems- racism, elitism, and preferential treatment are all risks in a revenge based system. The justice system would become the powerful class' tool. That isn't right. In an ideal world justice would be composed entirely of restitution or fees. Sadly, no amount of restitution can return a loved one from the grave or repair a traumatized psyche. In these cases the only option is to punish the offender with prison. Taking this one step further, an ideal prison would attempt to rehabilitate inmates and condition them to life on the outside as contributing, responsible members of society. If that isn't possible then they must be isolated in order to protect the society as a whole, not in a petty retributive fit.
Jail would tend to be a much more terrible punishment than death anyway, in my estimation. Death is an end. Convicts can't feel regret if we kill them. They are free. Which is worse- 5-35 minutes excruciating pain (lethal injection) or 35-50 years of self-loathing and despair. Part of me is ashamed to admit it, but I see death as too good for murderers and rapists.
Lawfulness and Fear
You mentioned that the reason most people follow laws is because they are afraid of the punishment for breaking them. This concept scares me. The only reason that you don't rob banks, rape and pillage your brains out and kill people is because you're afraid of Jail? This seems like a bad state of affairs. In my experience, people don't commit crimes because they don't want to and have other ways to provide for themselves and their families. If the only reason that you follow your religion is to avoid hell then I wonder how devoted you really are. Quite frankly, I don't think that I would want to associate with someone who only restrains himself out of fear of the repercussions of his actions.
Responsibility for Wrongdoing
This is a constant point of contention between the two of us. You want to isolate the individual and its actions, ignoring any motivation or reasoning behind its decisions. Actions are inherently good or bad for you. For me and MC, motivation is much more important. No one grows up in a vacuum, each decision is the product of other influences.
Making a value judgment on this dichotomy is impossible. It results from a difference in upbringing. We think differently. All that I want from this discussion is for you to acknowledge that your way is not necessarily superior.
Insanity and Homicide
[crawling Google]
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2n04n59vb9pu4mlj/The stigma associated with mental illness is a major concern for patients, families, and providers of health services. One reason for the stigmatization of the mentally ill is the public perception that they are violent and dangerous. Although, traditionally, mental health advocates have argued against this public belief, a recent body of research evidence suggests that patients who suffer from serious mental conditions are more prone to violent behaviour than persons who are not mentally ill.
On the other hand:
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2009/02/the-intricate-link-between-vio.html
Casual connection between a mental condition and a crime cannot be assumed.
I didn't find much to suggest that mental illness causes crime other than the above passage. I think I will concede this point. So you don't have to be crazy to murder somebody. What I will not concede though is the idea that murder is an isolated choice- there is always a reason for this act, even if it isn't always a very good one.
Human Fallibility
You have asserted, with near fanatical certainty that humans are not inherently good. In fact, you argue the opposite. I have to say, this is one of your most depressing positions. If humans are all fundamentally slimebags then there isn't much hope for the world.
I think that we have to stop expecting people to act like saints. Our legal code is designed to be broken, and it simply isn't working. We expect people to break the law, and punish them for it even though we knew it would happen. It is silly. We need to accept that people are not angels and not demons. They are people. There is nothing wrong with humanity. It just is.
Cultural Relativism and Nihilism
You asked, 'if nothing is better than anything else, why be passionate?' I would answer that everything is better than everything else. Whatever one does should be the best thing that one could possibly do. My own personal goal is that the world should be better off (ecologically, intellectually, morally or ethically) for my being here. Regardless of what happens in an 'afterlife' I am here now. Even if everything is going to wind down (entropy) I am here now. In such a bafflingly complex world that should be enough. We are privileged to be on this planet at this time and I would feel greedy to ignore this in the hope of something else later. You know the story about the dog with a bone that dropped it in the water because he saw another dog with a bone. It was his reflection. By wanting what he didn't have he lost what he did have. That is my fear for religion.
Even though things are relative, that doesn't mean that in my own opinion the things I do are the best.
The rift between political ideologies
YouTube video
...
Edit: in regards to your usage of 'pseudo' and 'quasi' intellectual:
It is wrong. Just becuase someone says something intelligent does not make it pseudointellectualism. It might make them pretentious, (that's me!) but it doesn't make them wrong. So drop the ad homenims. plz.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
[B]I'm not ready to go point by point yet- I will post the list of topics that you want addressed and the points that I want to cover and let you use that as a baseline for your next response. The point by point seems formulaic, shortsighted and forced, and I don't like it. (The points you challenged are are in red, my ranting is in blue.) Admittedly, it will remove opportunities to insult you or point out flaws and mistakes, but I think it might bring this closer to civil discourse.[list]
[*]Revenge in relation to Justice
[*]Lawfulness and Fear[*]Responsibility for wrongdoing
[*]Insanity and Homicide
[*]Human Fallibility
[*]Cultural Relativism and Nihilism
[*]The rift between political ideologies
[/list]
Revenge as it pertains to Justice
Faunus phrased this simply and (almost) accurately, "Revenge is personal, it's about making yourself feel better. Justice is about what's fair." I would modify that a little; Revenge need not be personal. Leaders of nations and policymakers as a group can be just as petty and immature as individuals. When justice degenerates into petty revenge then we open ourselves to a whole host of problems- racism, elitism, and preferential treatment are all risks in a revenge based system. The justice system would become the powerful class' tool. That isn't right. In an ideal world justice would be composed entirely of restitution or fees. Sadly, no amount of restitution can return a loved one from the grave or repair a traumatized psyche. In these cases the only option is to punish the offender with prison. Taking this one step further, an ideal prison would attempt to rehabilitate inmates and condition them to life on the outside as contributing, responsible members of society. If that isn't possible then they must be isolated in order to protect the society as a whole, not in a petty retributive fit.
Jail would tend to be a much more terrible punishment than death anyway, in my estimation. Death is an end. Convicts can't feel regret if we kill them. They are free. Which is worse- 5-35 minutes excruciating pain (lethal injection) or 35-50 years of self-loathing and despair. Part of me is ashamed to admit it, but I see death as too good for murderers and rapists.
Lawfulness and Fear
You mentioned that the reason most people follow laws is because they are afraid of the punishment for breaking them. This concept scares me. The only reason that you don't rob banks, rape and pillage your brains out and kill people is because you're afraid of Jail? This seems like a bad state of affairs. In my experience, people don't commit crimes because they don't want to and have other ways to provide for themselves and their families. If the only reason that you follow your religion is to avoid hell then I wonder how devoted you really are. Quite frankly, I don't think that I would want to associate with someone who only restrains himself out of fear of the repercussions of his actions.
This is a constant point of contention between the two of us. You want to isolate the individual and its actions, ignoring any motivation or reasoning behind its decisions. Actions are inherently good or bad for you. For me and MC, motivation is much more important. No one grows up in a vacuum, each decision is the product of other influences.
Making a value judgment on this dichotomy is impossible. It results from a difference in upbringing. We think differently. All that I want from this discussion is for you to acknowledge that your way is not necessarily superior.
Insanity and Homicide
[crawling Google]On the other hand:
I didn't find much to suggest that mental illness causes crime other than the above passage. I think I will concede this point. So you don't have to be crazy to murder somebody. What I will not concede though is the idea that murder is an isolated choice- there is always a reason for this act, even if it isn't always a very good one.
Human Fallibility
You have asserted, with near fanatical certainty that humans are not inherently good. In fact, you argue the opposite. I have to say, this is one of your most depressing positions. If humans are all fundamentally slimebags then there isn't much hope for the world.
I think that we have to stop expecting people to act like saints. Our legal code is designed to be broken, and it simply isn't working. We expect people to break the law, and punish them for it even though we knew it would happen. It is silly. We need to accept that people are not angels and not demons. They are people. There is nothing wrong with humanity. It just is.
Cultural Relativism and Nihilism
You asked, 'if nothing is better than anything else, why be passionate?' I would answer that everything is better than everything else. Whatever one does should be the best thing that one could possibly do. My own personal goal is that the world should be better off (ecologically, intellectually, morally or ethically) for my being here. Regardless of what happens in an 'afterlife' I am here now. Even if everything is going to wind down (entropy) I am here now. In such a bafflingly complex world that should be enough. We are privileged to be on this planet at this time and I would feel greedy to ignore this in the hope of something else later. You know the story about the dog with a bone that dropped it in the water because he saw another dog with a bone. It was his reflection. By wanting what he didn't have he lost what he did have. That is my fear for religion.
Edit: in regards to your usage of 'pseudo' and 'quasi' intellectual:
It is wrong. Just becuase someone says something intelligent does not make it pseudointellectualism. It might make them pretentious, (that's me!) but it doesn't make them wrong. So drop the ad homenims. plz. [/B]