Derailed thread

[Vellos]

I almost agree with you. My issue with executing those who have committed crimes stated above, is that those executing them usually feel no guilt, which scares me. By those who feel no guilt, I mean the public. If your justice system executes a rapist, that blood is on the hands of all who abide by the justice system. I remember when Tookie Williams was executed, that execution is specifically on my hands because it took place in California, the state I have the power to vote in. If my state feels it's okay to execute people, then by all means, execute, but I feel that too often the public doesn't truly understand what is happening. They tend to not understand that they are just as guilty of taking a life as the man or woman administering the execution of the said criminal. When we as a society make the decision to murder, we can't simply walk away from it as if we're just administering punishment, we need to understand why we made that decision and accept that we and I, have just ended the life of a human being. So I don't think it's as easy as "Why let them rot and waste our money when we can use that money for the poor?" A society that is quick to kill and slow to think is just as dangerous, if not more dangerous than some serial murderer. I don't fear the boogieman living under my bed, I don't fear Ted Bundy crawling in through my window, I fear an out of control bloodthirsty society, because that often times leads to an iron fisted government. Reign of Terror?

Yes, perfectly. I fully agree with you. As much as I dislike Westboro, I appreciate their existence simply because they're allowed to exist. You know what I fear more than Westboro growing? A government or public that says they can no longer share their beliefs. If you take away their freedom of speech, you might as well burn the constitution. We need hate speech to be protected because if its not, how are we supposed to speak out against unjust laws that we hate? Who's to say they won't take away another form of speech after taking away hate speech? So once again, I very much agree with the quote above, very well put.

+1

[Jim]

Out of contol bloodthirsty society? I fail to see how executing a criminal, who has killed and raped any number of people, is being bloodthirsty. It is protecting society from a predator, someone who hears a woman crying and yelling for her release and, instead of filling deep hatred and outright condemnation for which he is doing, laughs and tells her: "You are my toy, and I will use you, my little object, for as much as I want. Once I'm done, I'll kill you, because your life, and all people's lifes in this planet, matters nothing for me when compared to my personal leisure".

If someone has ever thought even for a single second something similar to that, that someone deserves death. Period. I'm bloodthirsty? No, just protecting the rest of women and even men from such a murderer, someone with such an eroded empathy that can not feel the suffering of those around him. Of course, even worse is the case of those that feel the suffering, but actually enjoy it. They are abominations, plain and simple, and must be destroyed before they harm anyone else.

About hate speech, one thing is to allow disagreeing and open expression of ideas, which is fine, and another entirely different to see as benefitial the flaming and intentional verbal attack in order to incite unrest and, well, hatred. That is NOT right.

I never said you were bloodthirsty. I said I fear an out of control bloodthirsty society, one that kills quickly and thinks slowly. Will executing a rapist or murder make us bloodthirsty, probably not. What I'm saying is, we, as a society(Americans are my example), have chosen capital punishment as mean to an end for murderers and other types, so we should carefully think about each person we choose to execute. There is a difference between those who seek justice and those seek vengeance. To kill in the name of justice is seen as fine as long as the people have chosen this but few accept responsibility for it, to kill out of vengeance is not okay because that starts a cycle of hate and no good comes of it. People have a tendency to lose their cool when upset, history is a great example. When a society isn't shy to killing in the name of what they believe is justice, it is very easy for that society to go overboard and kill in the name of vengeance and outright bloodlust. So to look at it as if its black and white is dangerous, we must consider everything and think carefully before we take a life.

Imagine a man comes home from work, he's expecting to see his wife, the love of his life, mother of his children etc... And he comes home to some strange man railing his wife, and it's consensual. So his flips his !@#$ and murders them both. Yes, he committed a crime and should be punished, but at the same time none of us can really know what that individual really went through. Does he deserve death, no, he needs mental help and as well as a long stay in jail, because that man might be able to be reintroduced into society. Some people snap under extreme distress, perfectly good honest people. So to view it as black and white, it puts a lot of people in the same category as a serial murderer and really puts way too much blood on the hands of the people. To be frank, the serial murderers and child molesters are the only ones that make it black and white, the vast majority fall into the grey area and that is where we face the danger of becoming bloodthirsty.

As for hate speech, yeah, there is a difference in saying "We dream of the day when the blood of the white man flows in the rivers of this country." and saying "Let's make this dream a reality, take up arms and kill anyone who isn't like us." and then actually going through with it. Out here in Socal, there are a lot of Neo-Nazi rallies, and they do try to incite action, is it right? No. But as long as they don't actually act they should be protected. Plus I've witnessed some of these rallies from the counter rallies that pop up alongside of them. You know what I noticed, the counter rallies are the more violent and have hateful ideas that are equal to if not more ignorant than the Neo-Nazis ideas. "I hate fascist!" is just as hateful as "I hate Jews." Let's be real, it's the same thing, same outcome, hate. Hell, when I went to that counter rally, after being there, I realized that the two sides were one and the same and I've ignored every single one since then because both sides are equally stupid and hateful. This ties into the paragraphs above as well, we as humans, as a society, should be careful so we don't stoop to the level of serial murderers. Anti-Fascists should be careful to not stoop to the level of the Fascists, people don't realize how incredibly easy it is to do so. It isn't black and white, it's mostly grey.

So if we're going to execute someone, let's make sure it's worth it and truly is just. If we're going to oppose hate, let's make sure we're not doing it in a hateful way.

[Jim]

I really do not trust people generally to be able to have any reliability in how they distinguish between "speech that is hateful towards me" and "speech which is offensive towards me."

Many people are deeply offended by beliefs and statements which are not hateful. Sure, many of us can distinguish those to some of the time, but I think the damage from restricting speech too much is far greater than the damage from allowing too much hateful speech.

Regarding death penalty: I pretty strongly disagree with apparently all of ya'll. You have no right to kill a person who is no danger to you. Lock'em up, sure. I'm not even in principle opposed to the idea of non-rehabilitative imprisonment; i.e. I don't think that the "vengeance motive" is everywhere and always wrong.

But killing the person is too far. Even if they're guilty. Killing in defense is acceptable, and I'm even willing to countenance a pretty broad definition of defense– but the death penalty is socially worthless, and I don't know anybody who felt that the crimes committed were sufficiently paid for by an execution. You can't balance the scales of blood.

+1

[Vellos]

As for hate speech, yeah, there is a difference in saying "We dream of the day when the blood of the white man flows in the rivers of this country." and saying "Let's make this dream a reality, take up arms and kill anyone who isn't like us." and then actually going through with it. Out here in Socal, there are a lot of Neo-Nazi rallies, and they do try to incite action, is it right? No. But as long as they don't actually act they should be protected. Plus I've witnessed some of these rallies from the counter rallies that pop up alongside of them. You know what I noticed, the counter rallies are the more violent and have hateful ideas that are equal to if not more ignorant than the Neo-Nazis ideas. "I hate fascist!" is just as hateful as "I hate Jews." Let's be real, it's the same thing, same outcome, hate. Hell, when I went to that counter rally, after being there, I realized that the two sides were one and the same and I've ignored every single one since then because both sides are equally stupid and hateful. This ties into the paragraphs above as well, we as humans, as a society, should be careful so we don't stoop to the level of serial murderers. Anti-Fascists should be careful to not stoop to the level of the Fascists, people don't realize how incredibly easy it is to do so. It isn't black and white, it's mostly grey.

I would note that for many people, there is a big difference between Fascists (something you can easily not be) and Jews (something somewhat harder to not be, though that depends on whether you mean ethnic or religious identity).

Though, personally, I'm not really okay with hating people for even the things they choose; or at least I'm not in theory. Not enough horrible things have happened to me or mine to really understand the agony that motivates many peoples' hatreds, so maybe I'm just speaking from a position of privilege.

[Anaris]

Though, personally, I'm not really okay with hating people for even the things they choose; or at least I'm not in theory. Not enough horrible things have happened to me or mine to really understand the agony that motivates many peoples' hatreds, so maybe I'm just speaking from a position of privilege.

Even so, being OK with that sort of thing for that sort of reason requires believing in collective guilt. I don't. I believe people are responsible for their own actions, and to some extent responsible for the actions of those directly influenced by them.

[Jim]

I would note that for many people, there is a big difference between Fascists (something you can easily not be) and Jews (something somewhat harder to not be, though that depends on whether you mean ethnic or religious identity).

Though, personally, I'm not really okay with hating people for even the things they choose; or at least I'm not in theory. Not enough horrible things have happened to me or mine to really understand the agony that motivates many peoples' hatreds, so maybe I'm just speaking from a position of privilege.

You make a good point, but still, hate is hate. I guess a better example would be "I hate Fascists." and "I hate Anti-Fascists." that's the same thing. From my experience, I've noticed those that hate, usually hate themselves or some aspect of their life.

Judging by the fascists I've met, most have a deep seeded hatred for themselves and rather than facing their personal issues, they descend into spiraling hatred towards others because they have no other way to vent their personal hatred. I honestly feel the only way to combat hatred is with love, though I feel it's an up hill battle. To be honest, I think most fascists, racists, bigots etc etc just want to be loved but have no idea how love works, so revert to primal hatred.

Of course, every case is different. I'm sure there are people in the world that hate, simply to hate.

[Vellos]

Even so, being OK with that sort of thing for that sort of reason requires believing in collective guilt.

What do you mean by that?

I don't. I believe people are responsible for their own actions, and to some extent responsible for the actions of those directly influenced by them.

I agree, but I think action is a more difficult category than it seems. I always like the example of a kleptomaniac: how can you tell how much of a kleptomaniac's theft is because of his/her moral choices versus some kind of compulsive or non-volitional behavior? We might be willing to say that's an exceptional case; but I think that recent research into the brain suggests it probably isn't as exceptional as we might think.

Basically, I don't think we should let people off the hook for their guilt because someone or something heavily influenced them or conditioned their choices. At the same time, I don't think we should despise people for things we would only pity if it weren't their choice. I don't think a divide between choices and non-choices (nature and nurture?) is helpful.

[Vellos]

You make a good point, but still, hate is hate. I guess a better example would be "I hate Fascists." and "I hate Anti-Fascists." that's the same thing. From my experience, I've noticed those that hate, usually hate themselves or some aspect of their life.

That's probably a more appropriate point.

Still, as you note, often those hates come from some kind of personal injury: hence why I tried to qualify my statement that most of the deepest hatreds I've seen come from people who have suffered things I have not, and so I am hesitant to condemn it too much, as I'm not really sure if I can truly claim to understand the phenomena itself.

[Jim]

That's probably a more appropriate point.

Still, as you note, often those hates come from some kind of personal injury: hence why I tried to qualify my statement that most of the deepest hatreds I've seen come from people who have suffered things I have not, and so I am hesitant to condemn it too much, as I'm not really sure if I can truly claim to understand the phenomena itself.

I really feel like I see eye to eye with you. +1

[Gustav Kuriga]

I think we can all see that, seeing as you two are the only two really posting anymore...

[Jim]

I think we can all see that, seeing as you two are the only two really posting anymore...

Ehndras hasn't logged on yet...

[Vellos]

I think we can all see that, seeing as you two are the only two really posting anymore...

Don't be hatin' bro.

[Anaris]

What do you mean by that?

Collective guilt?

That's when you blame members of a group for actions taken by other members of that group. Like blaming modern Germans for WWII, or some random Israeli for the settlements in Palestinian territory.

[Vellos]

Collective guilt?

That's when you blame members of a group for actions taken by other members of that group. Like blaming modern Germans for WWII, or some random Israeli for the settlements in Palestinian territory.

Oh, yeah, I know; I just didn't see the connection– why is belief in collective guilt necessary for choosing not to distinguish between volitional or non-volitional factors? Or am I misreading you?

[Anaris]

Oh, yeah, I know; I just didn't see the connection– why is belief in collective guilt necessary for choosing not to distinguish between volitional or non-volitional factors? Or am I misreading you?

Hm. Actually, I think I may have been misreading you, at least partially. It was about the "I haven't suffered enough to understand such hatreds" thing, which I inferred to mean hating a group for the actions of some of its members.