BattleMaster Community
Community => General Talk => Topic started by: Ehndras on August 23, 2012, 02:24:45 AM
-
More like the pre-Sumerian flood that every subsequent religion stole, renamed, and re-attributed to their own time period and faith, but still. ;)
The beginning of the last Ice Age?
-
More like the pre-Sumerian flood that every subsequent religion stole, renamed, and re-attributed to their own time period and faith, but still. ;)
I find this to be true about many religious ideas. Christianity got its heaven and hell from Zoroastrianism.
-
More like the pre-Sumerian flood
Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to.
-
This... Don't get me started on how much I have to stifle laughing out loud whenever people refer to the flood in a religious sense.
Remember, this is a forum with lots of different views. Even if I am okay with you saying something like this, I could see someone easily taking this as an attack or a poke at someone else's religious belief.
-
Remember, this is a forum with lots of different views. Even if I am okay with you saying something like this, I could see someone easily taking this as an attack or a poke at someone else's religious belief.
My bad. Sorry.
-
My bad. Sorry.
No big deal. We just have to be aware as a community that we are diverse.
-
o_O Not sure how that's an attack on someone's beliefs but I agree its best not to even bring it up.
I enjoy theological conversations with those who are fully open-minded about the subject despite their own beliefs. Anyone who is unwilling to behave in that manner is not worth the time you'll take discussing it as all you'll do is be arguing with a brick wall rather than having a pleasant discussion with someone of a different faith. I learned long ago that its simply not worth bringing up if you can avoid it. :-P
Also, Shino, its not potato potahto when it comes to actual historical events, even though I still want to stab the annoying girl in 5th grade who use to use that expression to excuse nonsensical pronunciation of words and horrid grammar. I've yet to meet someone who actually says potahto, now that I think about it. :-P
-
o_O Not sure how that's an attack on someone's beliefs
You have obviously never lived in Southern America(Not South America, Southern America)!
But that's another topic entirely.
Note: Since I live in the South I think I have earned the right to poke at rednecks.
-
Not all of them are in the south! There's plenty in Ohio. Well, south western Ohio.
-
Heh. I've met plenty of them but I've never lived in the South myself. Aye, I know the Bible Belt's fame quite well. Like I said, I come from a hardcore Christian family that thinks dinosaur bones are a fabrication of scientists to sway people from Jesus' light into the arms of the Devil, the Sun revolves around the Earth, we are the center of the universe, the Earth is 6,000 years old, and every other religion on Earth is just the Devil in disguise, so on and so forth.
Oh dear gods. I learned loooooong ago not to bring up religion - period. It turns seemingly sensible individuals into raving animals as they rush to defend their pitifully-held beliefs against foreign invaders faster than East-German Gernztreuppen might reach for their assault rifles. <_<
Its best to just ignore anything even remotely related to religion when dealing with strangers, lol
-
My bad. Sorry.
Why must you apologise? A historian might find the idea of treating everything from religious texts as facts offensive... If there must be censorship for such things at all, let it be uniform at least. ::)
-
Hehehe, agreed.
If anyone has right to be offended its the Historians... :P
-
Heh. I've met plenty of them but I've never lived in the South myself. Aye, I know the Bible Belt's fame quite well. Like I said, I come from a hardcore Christian family that thinks dinosaur bones are a fabrication of scientists to sway people from Jesus' light into the arms of the Devil, the Sun revolves around the Earth, we are the center of the universe, the Earth is 6,000 years old, and every other religion on Earth is just the Devil in disguise, so on and so forth.
Oh god no....
I pity those people... they act like medieval people... I wonder what makes people believe in something without any evidences.
-
I'll explain it.
My Mother is Brazilian and my father was Dutch-American. My father was a genius-IQ CEO of some huge company who fell to depression and became an alcoholic, who then married my mother. My mother is the uneducated son of a farming mogul in Brazil who once owned half of the entire region where my mother's home city is before it became, well, a city. My grandfather was the first of 3 individuals to have telephones within 6 hours (by car, today) of the community in any direction. Back then all this modern scientific stuff was like a bad joke and all of it was vehemently opposed. Well, today the old farming community is a massive, well-funded, economically-booming city that commands our side of the state but many of the people still have the same mentality.
I swear to every God of Mankind that on my block, Rua Esmeralda in Governador Valadares, in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil, there are, I !@#$ YOU NOT, 12 bars and 17 churches. (Just keep in mind most countries don't have grid set-ups like America and a 'block' can be friggin huge)
Brazilians are fun-loving people who don't take anything seriously - except religion. We take religious REALLY seriously.
Then again, the Dutch are the same way... Either reckless abandon or super-traditional, heh.
-
Heh. I've met plenty of them but I've never lived in the South myself. Aye, I know the Bible Belt's fame quite well. Like I said, I come from a hardcore Christian family that thinks dinosaur bones are a fabrication of scientists to sway people from Jesus' light into the arms of the Devil, the Sun revolves around the Earth, we are the center of the universe, the Earth is 6,000 years old, and every other religion on Earth is just the Devil in disguise, so on and so forth.
The multi-million dollar museum dedicated to proving Young Earth Creationism (or YEC as I like to abbreviate it) is less than an hour from where I live. Have been several times. Very curious place. Neat petting zoo out back. Cool plastic dino's throughout. Amusing mural of St. George killing a T-Rex in the gift shop. Very unfriendly staff who kick you out if you try to discuss theology.
Such people are not usually geocentrists, however. YECers view geocentrists as crackpots. I do know a geocentrist, however. He wants a geocentricity museum. He views geocentrism as reasonable.
In my friend's opinion, Flat Earthers are crackpot pseudo-scientists. The Flat-Earthers, in my e-mail exchanges with them, reject those labels, and will cite a respected study endorsing their opinion: from 1650. Respected by discredited persons.
The Flat Earthers informed me that New Age mysticism is "absolutely discredited" and that astrology "doesn't hold water." I'm unsure what group of persons astrologers view as crackpots. Probably YECers.
All of this just goes to prove a fundamental law of nature: There's Always Someone Crazier Than You.
-
HAHAHAH!
Indeed. They all have their heads up their asses but good luck informing them without being lynched. Meh, let fools believe what they wish.
Me, I'll go on respecting the divine energy of creation and the beauty of the universe and my made-up pantheon of gods designed from Human traits that I use for philosophical purposes, lol. Much simpler that way.
When people stop appreciating life and start clinging to dogma, that's when you get trouble. I've had personally reasonable conversations with Christians, Muslims, pagans, Buddhists, Atheists, and all manner of in-betweens as an individual who's pretty much an Atheist with neo-pagan leanings. If all parties respect each other and go into the discussion for the sake of learning, fully aware no one's beliefs are in question and no one is trying to convert the other, then all you get is a pleasant conversation with another person. :)
-
Wow... I wonder who is considered to be the craziest among the crazies. ;)
-
HAHAHAH!
Indeed. They all have their heads up their asses but good luck informing them without being lynched. Meh, let fools believe what they wish.
...
If all parties respect each other and go into the discussion for the sake of learning, fully aware no one's beliefs are in question and no one is trying to convert the other, then all you get is a pleasant conversation with another person. :)
Errr.... eh?
-
Errr.... eh?
I too am confused. I mean, I am usually confused by the time Ehndras ends his forever long posts, but now I am especially confused.
-
Zaki commented about being the craziest among the crazies. I said They all have their heads equally up their asses.
Case closed?
-
This topic derailed sooooo fast!
-
In my friend's opinion, Flat Earthers are crackpot pseudo-scientists. The Flat-Earthers, in my e-mail exchanges with them, reject those labels, and will cite a respected study endorsing their opinion: from 1650. Respected by discredited persons.
Heresy! I'm a proud member of the Flat Earth Society. Apparently, someone forgot to tell all the people who've joined lately that the whole thing is supposed to be sarcasm aimed at other pseudo-sciences...
-
Heresy! I'm a proud member of the Flat Earth Society. Apparently, someone forgot to tell all the people who've joined lately that the whole thing is supposed to be sarcasm aimed at other pseudo-sciences...
The current leaders of FES may be parodying... maybe. I know Johnson wasn't. And many people take them seriously; real flat-earthers exist, and sincerely so: I know some.
Flat-Earthers didn't originate as sarcasm.
Zaki commented about being the craziest among the crazies. I said They all have their heads equally up their asses.
Case closed?
Which you followed by talking about a need for mutual respect... which you had just contradicted by your own words.
-
@Vellos
I mutually respect all people, even if they cling to outdated views that were disproved 500 years ago. My brain tells me they're complete and utter nutjobs (to put it lightly) while my upbringing tells me that even though I think they're a waste of genetic material they're just as worthy of respect and a place in this world as anyone else. There is a big difference between being intolerant toward blatant stupidity and adhering to the belief that all human beings are equal in their right to behave and believe in the manner they most feel comfortable. These are not mutually-exclusive. I respect those I dislike, those I don't agree with, and I even respect those who I utterly despise who have done unspeakable things to myself or my family. I shook the hand of the man who abused my mother and ruined her life 20 years ago despite wanting to pull out the weapon I carry and splatter him all over the pavement. Why, you ask? Because of something reasonable human beings have - the knowledge and belief that ALL individuals are worthy of at least a base level of respect - this does not mean my opinion is null and void. It simply means I will put aside my opinion for the sake of humanity and what I believe is right.
People can have differing opinions you know. Life is much more complex than black and white, good and evil, yes and no, and I am one individual who always looks at multiple sides of an argument or idea. EVERYONE's opinions differ from what they actually tell others - I'm just blatantly straight-forward and will tell you my exact thought process whereas others will give you the chewed-up bull!@#$ answer that came after the fact. *shrug* I feel its important to know *why* someone came to a decision, not just what the decision itself is.
If someone says "So-and-so is bat!@#$ crazy." Even though I might agree, I want to know why. If someone says, "So-and-so is a wonderful person." I want to know why. If someone tells me about some random bit of interesting technology (Did you know there's an American research company that's working on the technology necessary and specifically aimed at created a plasma cannon? Blew my mind when I found out, but sadly they're decades away from any meaningful results, so... No plasma cannon within this century.), I will spend hours researching how its manufactured all the way to what its supposed to do. Nothing to me is ever a yes or a no, a black or a white, a red or a blue. Nothing in life is that simple. Nothing is an absolute truth, and there is always more to it than meets the eye. It'd be wonderful if I could be naive enough to see life through such a simplistic worldview but I've seen, done, and been through enough crazy to know nothing is ever as it appears.
I am sorry that my opinions, views, actions, and decisions aren't being chewed up into an easily-digestible form for the public audience to enjoy. I see nothing controversial about having an opinion and then rebuking it for moral reasons - its called being a human being with various opinions and, oh my, a personal code of morality and honor that not even personal opinion can go against.
So yes, as it stands, I think (serious)Flat-Earthers and those who cling heavily to centuries-old disproved dogma are not only idiots but a waste of genetic material in the form of either individuals of such low-intellect or cultural bombardment in the face of vast ignorance that they're tainting the general order of thought, civilization, and society. This doesn't mean I would treat them in such a way, it doesn't mean I want them to be killed, harassed, demeaned, or mistreated in any way, it doesn't mean I would deny them the same rights as any other American or human being, it doesn't mean I wouldn't be their friends, it doesn't mean I wouldn't work with them, it just means that by the virtue of their beliefs having been disproved, its a fact that they are ignorantly clinging to something that is untrue on the basis of cultural value or faith and, while I personally feel that is as ridiculously idiotic as a human being can possibly be, I respect their right to choose, their right to believe, their right to be as they are, because they are human beings just as I am. We share the flesh and blood of our ancestors, the languages and cultures of our neighbors, and are stuck on a random planet together. The least we could do is learn to 'agree to disagree' and just go on our merry way with our lives.
-
Man.... srsly.... you need a one-line tl;dr on these posts...
-
TLDR:
People are dumbasses but I respect them anyway.
-
stuff
I'm not sure where the determined rant against Manichaeistic worldviews came from; I'm unclear on its relevance.
I'm just going to reiterate that when you call a person a "waste of genetic material," and any of the other insults you heaped on, you're not respecting them. Period. No matter what you say about not intervening in their life, you're definitely disrespecting them.
-
(TLDR version at bottom)
It is my right to dislike something that is completely and vehemently opposite to logic, reason, or common sense, or is abhorrent in its own right by virtue of its disrespect to others. Someone who demonizes others religious or scientifically-held beliefs because they're adamantly convinced the world is flat or revolves around the sun or some bloody bull is, to me, a flaming !@#$%^& and a waste of space who is giving nothing to society but a headache. For example, certain members of society, including a few in my Brazilian family, who beat and berate their children for believing what they're taught in Science class in school. This is not healthy, mature, human behavior to me - this is sick, abusive, ignorant, and the anti-thesis to civilization, culture, and society. I've seen churchgoers actually throw rocks at passersby who rejected their faith. The !@#$ is this? What are we in, 200 AD?
By all means, act and believe as you wish but keep it to yourself. I hold many opinions and beliefs that other folks won't agree with but I don't go around banding into societies and proselytizing about my beliefs to others. Frankly, what I do in my private life is no one's damn business, neither is it my business what others do or believe.
Believe what you will, but keep it to yourself. If I decided to go around trying to convince everyone to worship the universe and reject their faiths I'd be just as much of an !@#$%^& as them.
For example, I come from a Christian family. I respect Christian dogma and views, but wholeheartedly reject what some Christian's uphold as a perceived monopoly on morality - something that has existed long before Christianity and exists independently of Christianity. I have no problem with Christianity, I go to church with my Christian friends when I feel like it, I know the bible better than many Christians, and I find certain aspects of Christianity to be beautiful.
BUT, the moment someone of any faith starts dogging others who don't share their beliefs, start disrespecting, demonizing, and treating people differently because of what they believe - to me they are as a lethal infection that threatens the fabric of morality and society and must be purged. Perhaps I have a pretty dystopian view of things, coming from a region replete with corruption, violent police, politicking, rampant crime, racial wars, and all sorts of chaos, but I stand by my view that if you're doing everything in your power to make innocent peoples' lives a living hell, like the Westboro folk, you're a piece of !@#$ and don't deserve the air you breathe. End of story.
TLDR;
I find it a bit difficult to have the whole "The world is wonderful, fluffy fluffy innocent perfection" mindset, despite trying my hardest to be a kind, fair, and honest person. (and being disrespected for it, to boot!) I've been to various countries, witnessed multiple cultures, and am the product of a hilarious culture/socio-economic clash of my own. What I've learned is simple: everyone is different. Everyone believes and acts differently. I believe everyone has the right to live as they wish, believe as they wish, and do as they wish - within law and reason. The SECOND someone starts demonizing the rights and beliefs of others, they become a cancerous sore on the fabric of morality and society and are only ruining the lives of innocents with their abuse.
By all means, speak your mind - but if, for example, you say you hate blacks, gays, jews, atheists, Buddhists, or demonize someone's beliefs, you'd better be prepared for all hell to break loose because if you open your mouth and pollute the airways with your bigotry then by god are you going to suffer for it.
The only people in this world I hate are stupid, ignorant people who can't seem to grasp the basic precepts of respecting your fellow man - and sadly the world is full of them. If everyone would mind their own damn business and just live their lives then everyone would be much better.
-
Now then, is there a point to all this or are we just going to keep on discussing stupid people in their many incarnations?
-
TL;DR version of this whole thread:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion)
-
Ehndras. You're incredible.
That's the first time I've ever seen a tl;dr that was 3 paragraphs long and half as long as the full text. :o
-
Sorry. >_>
I find it sad that I have to TLDR in an RP game. :-| I'm so used to playing with people who have no problem exchanging a few dozen paragraphs a day, heh. I should really get involved in a serious RP community that's full-time...
Might just go back to Aelyria.com after all these years. Feels so bad though, knowing the entire kingdom I was a part of, all my friends, they're all gone :(
-
Sorry. >_>
I find it sad that I have to TLDR in an RP game.
Huh? This is the forum... an argument about religion... not RP?
-
Its still the forum of an RP game and therefore generally inhabited by those who type/read a lot more than usual. :P
-
Its still the forum of an RP game and therefore generally inhabited by those who type/read a lot more than usual. :P
Ah, but you have to remember it isn't just a RP game, its also a strategy game and not everyone likes to read giant texts of stuff about an arguement about religion
-
Its still the forum of an RP game and therefore generally inhabited by those who type/read a lot more than usual. :P
I love reading. And writing, but mostly reading. I read all the time. Right now I'm reading a book on Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
The thing is, the more I read, the more I value brevity. I deeply appreciate authors who can be concise; I struggle with that myself, but I appreciate it in others.
More to the point, I appreciate consistency. You're completely free to despise religious belief or religious people. I would never prevent you from doing that. You're not free to view yourself as a kind and respectful person if you view your neighbors as wastes of genetic material or unworthy of their own lives; or rather, you're not free to have that view without being challenged as to its veracity.
TL;DR version of this whole thread:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion)
I quite strongly disagree with that comic's point actually. I dislike few things more than people who smile and nod and say "That's nice" but actually are just bottling up all their thoughts. I'd vastly prefer my neighbors repeatedly tell me how much they despise my worldview, but at least be honest with me, than have them act like we're all buddy-buddy when secretly they loathe one of the fundamental components of my identity.
-
I quite strongly disagree with that comic's point actually. I dislike few things more than people who smile and nod and say "That's nice" but actually are just bottling up all their thoughts. I'd vastly prefer my neighbors repeatedly tell me how much they despise my worldview, but at least be honest with me, than have them act like we're all buddy-buddy when secretly they loathe one of the fundamental components of my identity.
Mm, I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I think I see what you're saying (at least, how I understand it) and what the comic says as somewhat different things.
The comic's message, as I read it, is more or less, "Don't aggressively promote your religion to others, and don't try to actually harm people because of religion."
What you're saying, as I read it, is, "Feel free to tell me you think I'm a terrible heathen who's going to hell because your religion says so."
Am I mistaken?
-
Meh, I see a significant difference between thinking someones a dumbass and not caring, and talking !@#$ about someone behind their back.
I think EVERYONE is a flaming dumbass for some reason or another - including me. We must all live with the knowledge that not a single one of us have an inkling of a bloody clue what the hell we're talking about. To that effect, I don't judge people based on their supposed idiocy - I expect it and don't even consciously acknowledge it. I prefer to let someone's attitudes and actions do the talking. If you believe exactly as I do but are a douche, you're a flaming !@#$. If you believe the exact opposite as me yet are a good person, then you're a good person and worthy of respect. Personal belief should never dictate how someone is treated - action and attitude should be the indicator of choice because you can believe a magical tree boned Santa and gave birth to the universe carried on the backs of unicorns across Space-Time for all I care as long as you're a good person.
On the other hand,
If you're a rapist, a violent murderer, or a manipulative, abusive monster hellbent on ruining everything you touch, it is my belief that you should not be allowed to live. Yes, its "extreme", but !@#$ it - I'm old-fashioned on the subject of capital punishment. If you live to make others' lives a living hell then you're an utter waste of space, air, time, and resources, are obviously contributing nothing to the Human species, and should be relinquished of your right to waste the time, air, and resources of those who actually try to, I don't know, not behave like monsters.
That guy who raped his own daughter and had 3 children with her while she was locked in the basement for 3 decades? Execution. Serial killers? Execution. Rapists? Execution. Child molesters? Execution. Corrupt politicians who swindle the public out of billions, thereby causing more death and suffering than we can begin to calculate? Execution.
Because I think allowing utter monsters to waste further time and resources by 'rotting in jail' is !@#$ing stupid when that same money we blow giving prisoners a better life than many Americans/whatever could instead go to, hmm, actually helping the honest, hard-working citizens?
That is the cynical side to balance my super nice, flowery, compassionate everyone-is-equal-and-wonderful-and-full-of-potential-and-special mentality I tote around. Maybe its a cultural thing but I was taught, and logic dictates, that if someone has killed a bunch of people, raped someone, or is so far gone off the deep end that they can't be rehabilitated, then there's nothing we can do to help or change them and the only thing we can do is purge them to prevent further harm - like a disease.
Like in Terran-Dwilight at the moment. I think Erasmus should be executed. Why? He will never change. He will never magically become a better person. He will never stop being the conniving, manipulative, violent, hateful bastard that he is and allowing him to live will only bite us in the ass sooner or later. The only way to ensure he does not cause any more chaos and death is to end his pathetic and traitorous existence.
Or, in the player's case, suicide him against the Zuma in an epic display of awesomeness because he also knows Erasmus can't live without causing all sorts of further bs. :P
Yeah, I have unconventional opinions. That's not going to change. I'm of the belief that the unfortunately-weak should be protected as it is not their fault they are that way, the gifted should be encouraged to excel and given incentive to improve our world with their unique abilities, and all emotional/physical/economic parasitism should be purged from the system - by violence if need be. And a bunch of other random crap that is purposely conflicted so as to establish a balanced system, but that's all that's pertinent to the discussion.
To me, every single opinion is on a case-by-case basis. Nothing is set in stone, nothing is absolute, nothing is unchangeable. Actions, however, can't be revoked once they've been done. Saying you've found god after killing 30 men and eating the corpses of children won't change my wanting to put a bullet in your brain to ensure whatever diseased carcass of amorality you portray is wiped clean from civilization forevermore.
If you have negative opinions of something or someone yet manage to be a respectful person, that isn't being two-faced - its being a mature human being who knows how to differentiate between what you think, what you feel, and what you want - and what must be done, what is right, and what is Just.
That is the difference between morality/respect and convenience/doctrine.
-
On the other hand,
If you're a rapist, a violent murderer, or a manipulative, abusive monster hellbent on ruining everything you touch, it is my belief that you should not be allowed to live. Yes, its "extreme", but !@#$ it - I'm old-fashioned on the subject of capital punishment. If you live to make others' lives a living hell then you're an utter waste of space, air, time, and resources, are obviously contributing nothing to the Human species, and should be relinquished of your right to waste the time, air, and resources of those who actually try to, I don't know, not behave like monsters.
That guy who raped his own daughter and had 3 children with her while she was locked in the basement for 3 decades? Execution. Serial killers? Execution. Rapists? Execution. Child molesters? Execution. Corrupt politicians who swindle the public out of billions, thereby causing more death and suffering than we can begin to calculate? Execution.
Because I think allowing utter monsters to waste further time and resources by 'rotting in jail' is !@#$ing stupid when that same money we blow giving prisoners a better life than many Americans/whatever could instead go to, hmm, actually helping the honest, hard-working citizens?
I know I have joined the topic late, but I have logged in just to state my complete and utmost agreement with these paragraphs.
-
I kind of think executing people like that lets them off kind of easy. Stick them in a dark cell and let them rot away every last minute of their life, and then die. That is making them forfeit their life for what they have done.
-
Mm, I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I think I see what you're saying (at least, how I understand it) and what the comic says as somewhat different things.
The comic's message, as I read it, is more or less, "Don't aggressively promote your religion to others, and don't try to actually harm people because of religion."
What you're saying, as I read it, is, "Feel free to tell me you think I'm a terrible heathen who's going to hell because your religion says so."
Am I mistaken?
No, you're right.
If someone believes that my beliefs or actions are harmful, or if they believe them to be erroneous, or if they want to reveal themselves as a bigot or an otherwise offensive person, they're free to express themselves. Not on my lawn maybe but, still, I'd rather they share than not.
And at the same time, I'm a big believer that Beliefs Have Consequences. Decide to view me as heathen scum if you like, and if you do think that I'm condemned to the Nine Hells do tell because I'd like to hear your position because, hey, maybe I am, it's good to know which Hells you're condemning yourself to, but don't be surprised when I sucker-punch you when you come on my lawn. Or when I stop inviting you to my Really Fun Dinner Parties.
Though, that said, I tend to like offensive people anyways, so I probably would still invite them to my Really Fun Dinner Parties. But you get the point.
Basically, I think that we as a society have a duty to act as if speech is harmless (with the obvious exception of yelling "fire" in a crowded building, and equivalents), even though we obviously know it isn't. And, furthermore, I think it's better for us to force bigots into the public. I'd rather have Westboro protesting than not, if they're going to have those beliefs, because at least protesting they establish a social understanding of How Bad It Can Get. They force us to have those conversations about whether those beliefs are acceptable or not. I'd rather know my neighbor is evil, even if it offends me, and thus make sure not to send my child to a sleepover with his child, than be ignorant of the depth of his depravity.
Does that make sense? I think we're better off with peoples' beliefs being public, and with a maximum socially possible arena for free speech.
-
My mother is the uneducated son of a farming mogul in Brazil
I CANNOT BE THE ONLY ONE .
-
On the other hand,
If you're a rapist, a violent murderer, or a manipulative, abusive monster hellbent on ruining everything you touch, it is my belief that you should not be allowed to live. Yes, its "extreme", but !@#$ it - I'm old-fashioned on the subject of capital punishment. If you live to make others' lives a living hell then you're an utter waste of space, air, time, and resources, are obviously contributing nothing to the Human species, and should be relinquished of your right to waste the time, air, and resources of those who actually try to, I don't know, not behave like monsters.
That guy who raped his own daughter and had 3 children with her while she was locked in the basement for 3 decades? Execution. Serial killers? Execution. Rapists? Execution. Child molesters? Execution. Corrupt politicians who swindle the public out of billions, thereby causing more death and suffering than we can begin to calculate? Execution.
Because I think allowing utter monsters to waste further time and resources by 'rotting in jail' is !@#$ing stupid when that same money we blow giving prisoners a better life than many Americans/whatever could instead go to, hmm, actually helping the honest, hard-working citizens?
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?
Does that make sense? I think we're better off with peoples' beliefs being public, and with a maximum socially possible arena for free speech.
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
I think we can all see that, seeing as you two are the only two really posting anymore...
-
I think we can all see that, seeing as you two are the only two really posting anymore...
Ehndras hasn't logged on yet...
-
I think we can all see that, seeing as you two are the only two really posting anymore...
Don't be hatin' bro.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
Ah, okay.
YEah, I generally don't really endorse any hatreds; that's what I was trying to say. I was just also noting that though I can't endorse them, I try to be careful in condemning them too easily; I try (though often fail) to not simply ideologize my own privilege. So for example: Israelis and Palestinians. Many of them hate each other. They'd probably be better off not hating each other. I cannot endorse that hatred. At the same time, I don't feel it is acceptable for me to judge either side too harshly for their hatreds, given the long history both sides have suffered. Which isn't an extremely productive moral position, I know.
-
Ah, okay.
YEah, I generally don't really endorse any hatreds; that's what I was trying to say. I was just also noting that though I can't endorse them, I try to be careful in condemning them too easily; I try (though often fail) to not simply ideologize my own privilege. So for example: Israelis and Palestinians. Many of them hate each other. They'd probably be better off not hating each other. I cannot endorse that hatred. At the same time, I don't feel it is acceptable for me to judge either side too harshly for their hatreds, given the long history both sides have suffered. Which isn't an extremely productive moral position, I know.
Hm. My position is more along the lines of:
Hatred is unhealthy. Always. That doesn't mean it's always the most unhealthy option, and sometimes it can be...almost necessary, at least for the psyche.
However, hating one person for something another person has done is never right. If bad things have been done to you, or your loved ones, hate the ones who actually did the bad things. Not the people who just happen, through birth, culture, or social affiliation, to be associated with them.
It's sometimes understandable to hate beyond those who actually caused the hate—sometimes what's been done is so terrible, there's too much hate for it to fit in one target, and it spills over. That doesn't make it right.
-
Hm. My position is more along the lines of:
Hatred is unhealthy. Always. That doesn't mean it's always the most unhealthy option, and sometimes it can be...almost necessary, at least for the psyche.
However, hating one person for something another person has done is never right. If bad things have been done to you, or your loved ones, hate the ones who actually did the bad things. Not the people who just happen, through birth, culture, or social affiliation, to be associated with them.
It's sometimes understandable to hate beyond those who actually caused the hate—sometimes what's been done is so terrible, there's too much hate for it to fit in one target, and it spills over. That doesn't make it right.
I would agree. I just don't want my words to bite me in the ass when something terrible is done to me or mine.
Though I do actually recognize some limited form of collective guilt. I think it's fair to hold me responsible for the actions of my church, or my political party, or my nation: I would hope that the hater gives me a chance to explain, and it may be that though I am responsible I have worked to discharge that responsibility, but I don't see anything necessarily wrong or foolish in, say, an Iraqi being pissed at me because I'm an American.
-
Though I do actually recognize some limited form of collective guilt. I think it's fair to hold me responsible for the actions of my church, or my political party, or my nation: I would hope that the hater gives me a chance to explain, and it may be that though I am responsible I have worked to discharge that responsibility, but I don't see anything necessarily wrong or foolish in, say, an Iraqi being pissed at me because I'm an American.
That's how more Americans should think, considering how many of our tax dollars went into the war in Iraq, we share responsibility because we supported it with our taxes. A society that thinks things through carefully is less likely to piss in other peoples' Cheerios, at least I would hope so. I feel like less of the world would hate us as people if we thought that way, but then again I understand to a point why so many hate us, because many of us see nothing wrong in the actions of our country.
Haters gonna hate.
-
I CANNOT BE THE ONLY ONE .
LOOOOL
That's why one should not type long TLDR;s at night!
-
DAMN!
I was talking about my beliefs in a philosophical sense, not my applied beliefs. :-P I have my personal, internal beliefs and then I have my real-world applied beliefs that go into play with others.
For example, I somehow manage to hate yet love every Human being on Earth for vastly different reasons, and its the balance of my complex beliefs that dictate my behavior toward others.
I might support certain ideals philosophically/internally but I know damn well I would not want them applied because I do NOT have faith that our governments/People are competent enough to really determine who's worthy of what.
I DO believe in the death penalty, but it should only be for people who, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, committed heinous serial-crimes. Supposedly kill 1-2 people? Rot. Mass-murder? Burn/Hang/Inject/Die, because keeping you alive is just allowing you to laugh at those who you destroyed.
A mass murderer/rapist/cannibal/Etc will not 'rot' in prison. He'll replay his murders and rapes to himself and get his jollies off knowing they're dead and he's not.
If you believe in God, send the !@#$er off to be Judged as he deserves. If you don't, banish the piece of filth to the void of nothingness so that at least in death his flesh shall have been of some use to the soil.
-
I DO believe in the death penalty, but it should only be for people who, BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, committed heinous serial-crimes. Supposedly kill 1-2 people? Rot. Mass-murder? Burn/Hang/Inject/Die, because keeping you alive is just allowing you to laugh at those who you destroyed.
Personally, I only believe the death penalty is warranted in cases where someone is likely to either commit further crimes from within prison, or escape prison to commit further crimes. But then, I'm a pragmatist at heart, and punishment for the sake of punishment or vengeance really has no place in that. It's only useful if it accomplishes some worthwhile goal in the wider world.
-
Personally, I only believe the death penalty is warranted in cases where someone is likely to either commit further crimes from within prison, or escape prison to commit further crimes. But then, I'm a pragmatist at heart, and punishment for the sake of punishment or vengeance really has no place in that. It's only useful if it accomplishes some worthwhile goal in the wider world.
The issue with any criminal who is violent for psychopathic reasons, as in like anyone who does this, looks like this, etc of them killing/harming for no personal vendetta against the person but other reasons that cause them to dislike the person might have that reason come up while in prison and hurt/kill other prisoners.
Short version:If they are in prison for life, what reason do they have to not do bad things in prison? They are already in prison with no hopes of getting out so what else can you do to them but death, which might not be that important to them since they have to rot away in prison, anyways.
-
I'm also pragmatic, but my biggest concern is resources.
Why waste valuable resources on someone who contributes nothing to civilization for the sake of some arbitrary form of psychological punishment? All we're really doing is draining our own pockets to keep 'em alive. Me, I'd rather bury them and move onto the next problem than worry about containment, security, food, logistics, etc.
American justice and prison systems are an absolute joke - we have more prisoners than any other country in the world.
-
Why waste valuable resources on someone who contributes nothing to civilization for the sake of some arbitrary form of psychological punishment? All we're really doing is draining our own pockets to keep 'em alive. Me, I'd rather bury them and move onto the next problem than worry about containment, security, food, logistics, etc.
How in any way is it arbitrary?
And I would say expending government resources to imprison those truly deserving to be there is not a waste... it's exactly one of those things government is there for.
American justice and prison systems are an absolute joke - we have more prisoners than any other country in the world.
Prison system is a problem, but this is not because of the types of violent/psycho individuals we have been discussing. This is largely due to the "War on Drugs" and the criminalization of what would probably be more appropriately handled in many cases as a health and/or psychological problem.
-
Meh, the "War on Drugs" is a whole other bad joke.
Urgh, don't even get me started on the American medical system. I've met enough biochemists (they're common around here due to local industry, the region used to be all factories and chemical plants - which explains why the ground is seriously polluted... How they managed to get clearance to build in some of these places simply amazes me.) to know the FDA is a corrupt morass of financial exploitation based upon the suffering of those unfortunate enough to require medicine and treatment - not to mention all the flawed and ineffectual garbage they sling that serve only to perpetuate an endless cycle of gradual self-destruction at the hands of costly treatments that do little less than cause a whole new slew of side-effects. The simple truth is, curing you isn't profitable - treating you is.
As my friend John and I were discussing this weekend (researcher at Bristol-Myers Squibb), the state of modern dependency on flawed medicine is a disgrace. Rather than cure an illness in 7 easy steps we create treatments - accompanied by a slew of experimental drugs - never truly eliminating disease in order to maximize long-term profits. Its something everyone in the industry knows yet is powerless to stand against because those who speak out lose their jobs and those who stand against it lose their funding. When faced with the choice between having a job and doing what's right, everyone chooses to keep working.
The supposed "War on Drugs" is a joke when our own government is perpetuating a cycle of domestic drug-dependency on the basis of monetary gain. I mean, hell, its bloody genius - I'll give 'em that. Its so simple and quite logical. Why cure diseases? Why stop death and suffering at all if you can profit on the natural (or artificial...) degradation of human life? There is no end to the people out there. People get sick and they die - boo-hoo. Treatment creates a long-term system that guarantees profitability, not to mention ensuring productive stability by virtue of adversity. If you're unhealthy you need drugs to keep working to make enough money to treat your conditions because without treatment you're even worse off, but the amount of money spent on treatment tends to limit your income enough that it becomes a sole driving factor behind what I'd like to call medical enslavement. I know plenty of people who are stuck paying tens to an astonishing hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills because of any number of health issues. They are in a perpetual state of debt and sickness that simply cannot end, ensuring they continue to work and pour money into the medical system despite receiving little tangible result.
You've just got to love the love of money - it really drives a stake into the heart of respect for the human race.
-
Got to give you that, Ehndras. It's not usual that I find someone who I can agree with in this sort of issues.
-
D'espana, I've unfortunately had plenty of experience with the American (and Brazilian) medical systems. My father went through experimental drug treatment in the 90s when he was dying from lung cancer, after undergoing treatment due to exposure to Agent Orange/Etc during Vietnam, and so forth. Mother has a slew of diseases and I grew up having to drag her to the hospital 3-4 times a week. Not counting my own birth defect and health issues.
I've spent most of my life in hospitals, doctors, and clinics and I'm truly saddened by the general state of our medical system.
Screw health insurance reforms, what we need is to rework the medical system, not do the equivalent of bailing it out by authorizing all sorts of health insurance projects that'll just throw government money at a corrupt system.
That's all the government seems to do these days.
"Hey, the People are complaining this isn't working well. Do you know how to fix it? No? Anyone have any ideas? !@#$. Maybe if we throw money at the problem, it'll fix itself..."
...Right... Like it worked with banking, big business, the real estate market, and the EU? >_>
-
I'm also pragmatic, but my biggest concern is resources.
Why waste valuable resources on someone who contributes nothing to civilization for the sake of some arbitrary form of psychological punishment? All we're really doing is draining our own pockets to keep 'em alive. Me, I'd rather bury them and move onto the next problem than worry about containment, security, food, logistics, etc.
American justice and prison systems are an absolute joke - we have more prisoners than any other country in the world.
In the US at least, the death penalty is often costlier than life imprisonment, as you have to pay for all those pesky appeals.
And about the War on Drugs... all you damn hippies need to quit smokin' weed and get jobs already!
*wanders off grumbling about kids these days*
-
I seriously doubt its more expensive than 3 meals a day, boarding, security systems, guards, injuries, and extreme stress for all involved for anywhere between 15 to 50 years.
Meh, the Justice system is just as flawed. The whole system itself is full of holes. I wish it wasn't true but unfortunately it is.
*shrug*
-
Well, at least here in Spain the medical system could work well, if everyone uses it wisely. In fact, that's the reason why it's just "could" and not an actual statement: many don't use it as they should, and it has also many flaws and a lot of corruption in it. But it has potential, that for sure.
And about the death penalty, even if it is more expensive, it really eliminates problems. Really. And of course, if it is more expensive, then make it cheaper. They do it each day for things that really deserve what is being paid for them, then why not for something that just affects criminals? It's not as if every needle had to be sterilized, or even use them at all. I'm sure a bullet well placed can do the same effect.
-
I seriously doubt its more expensive than 3 meals a day, boarding, security systems, guards, injuries, and extreme stress for all involved for anywhere between 15 to 50 years.
lol, yes. Yes it actually often is. Pursuing the death penalty in appeals courts can (depending on the exact state and case) cost millions of dollars.
-
lol, yes. Yes it actually often is. Pursuing the death penalty in appeals courts can (depending on the exact state and case) cost millions of dollars.
So do meals and medical
-
Medical is harder to come up with for an easy number, but I came up with $383,250 if you have 3 meals a day for 50 years with the meals costing $7 on average each.
-
Medical is harder to come up with for an easy number, but I came up with $383,250 if you have 3 meals a day for 50 years with the meals costing $7 on average each.
There was a Prison Warden for a youth jail in America that boosted he could feed each inmate for a day for less that the cost you place on a single meal.
-
Medical is harder to come up with for an easy number, but I came up with $383,250 if you have 3 meals a day for 50 years with the meals costing $7 on average each.
You obviously are completely oblivious to the kind of food served in prison.
And about the death penalty, even if it is more expensive, it really eliminates problems. Really. And of course, if it is more expensive, then make it cheaper. They do it each day for things that really deserve what is being paid for them, then why not for something that just affects criminals? It's not as if every needle had to be sterilized, or even use them at all. I'm sure a bullet well placed can do the same effect.
I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with tasking my government with "hey, go find the most cheap and efficient way to eliminate human beings."
-
Well, at least here in Spain the medical system could work well, if everyone uses it wisely. In fact, that's the reason why it's just "could" and not an actual statement: many don't use it as they should, and it has also many flaws and a lot of corruption in it. But it has potential, that for sure.
And about the death penalty, even if it is more expensive, it really eliminates problems. Really. And of course, if it is more expensive, then make it cheaper. They do it each day for things that really deserve what is being paid for them, then why not for something that just affects criminals? It's not as if every needle had to be sterilized, or even use them at all. I'm sure a bullet well placed can do the same effect.
The largest cost for the death penalty isn't the cost of the execution, its the cost that the appeals system generates. Remove the appeals system and the end result will be faster time to execution, but without that protection how many wrongly convicted people are going to end up executed? I'm completely against the death penalty. That but then I also live in a country that doesn't have it. It is my understanding that even with the years and years of appeals, mistakes have been made. No need to add more mistaken executions to that problem. Nearly every country has cases of miscarriages of justice that resulted in innocent people serving sometimes DECADES in prision before ultimately being found innocent. Find a fool proof way to determine someone's guilt in a timely manner, and then maybe the death penalty can be effective. I'd still be against it since I don't believe that anyone has the right to condemn another to death, but then at least you would remove the potential for mistakes.
-
Obviously I'm not asking for the government to execute every thieve caught, but there are cases where the culprit can be charged almost in no time because, you know, they have proved they are guilty even before entering the court room. A good example: many members from ETA, a terrorist group from País Vasco, in Spain. They are now mostly inactive due to the disarm that the police forces from both France and Spain have forced upon them, but they have done terrible things. Terrible. Nearly a thousand people killed, many more kidnapped. And know what? They are mostly in prison, being released some years after committing their heinous crimes.
I will point out a single case from the hundreds we have had: several years ago, they kidnapped someone, I don't exactly recall who but I think he was a politician. They said that, if a number of ETA prisoners weren't released the next day, they'll kill him.
You don't know the civil unrest that such statement caused. All Spain went to the streets, claiming for his liberty and the end of madness. During the whole day, people stood there, showing their empathy and their reject to violence. I still tremble when remembering how emotive it was. And know what? They killed him. Once the day ended, they called and said: we've killed the bastard. Go and pick the corpse in this place.
Now we know who they were. Don't you think that they deserve inmediate execution? Catch them, throw them like rats to the lowliest hellhole ever while you prepare their execution, and kill them in the cheapest way to be found. Because they don't deserve anything else. In fact, you're being pretty humanitarian, compared to what they did to people.
I don't speak about every case, and agree that if you aren't sure about someone's guilt, then it's better not to apply death penalty. But sometimes, it is really the best choice, much better than wasting resources on scum that obviously don't deserve them, and even might try to escape on a regular basis.
-
There was a Prison Warden for a youth jail in America that boosted he could feed each inmate for a day for less that the cost you place on a single meal.
Please don't use specific examples to try and paint an overall picture.
-
You obviously are completely oblivious to the kind of food served in prison.
There was a Prison Warden for a youth jail in America that boosted he could feed each inmate for a day for less that the cost you place on a single meal.
I don't actually think the meal price would be $7 on average but I didn't want others saying the number was too low. If you did it for $7 a day for 50 years, its $127,750. For a nice in between $250000 spent on food for 50 years.
-
Aye, execution should be solely for those who have been proven BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT to be not only guilty but guilty of utter atrocity. Hitler and Hussein are great examples but your typical serial killer is quite good. For someone to have 5-10+ murders pinned on them while being innocent. If someone is proven guilty of having killed a bunch of people, not a barfight gone wrong or some bull!@#$ but an actual serial/mass-murder, and they show no/little remorse, they should be executed.
-
The death penalty is wrong in its essence itself. A state killing its subjects, even when committed crimes, spreads the underlying message that killing someone who is guilty is okay. I would dig up some numbers to show you that the death penalty has absolutely no effect on the reduction of murder - which is, after all, your ultimate goal - but I'm too lazy to do that right now. I had done so several days ago but decided not to post, since this thread jumps from topic to topic every second. It's even interesting that I read somewhere that the death penalty is about 2.3 million USD more expensive than locking up the criminal for the rest of his (or her) life. No idea how that's possible though, but I assume killing someone is not cheap (you cannot simply let them starve to death).
A state should at no point sanction killing, not even if it does the killing itself. I am happy that Europe (except for Belarus) has abolished capital punishment and I believe that ultimately the abolishment of capital punishment is part of the progress of human kind. Yes, I am saying that we are more "civilized" than countries that still have capital punishment. If you condemn murder done by the criminal, condemn it when it is done by the state. Who's to say a murderer cannot change his ways? It is ironic that some southern American states, like Texas, which I consider to be rather religious ones, forget that a fundamental part of Christianity is being able to forgive someone who has wronged you. But I guess religion is only used to the extend it favours you - that's why it's a joke.
-
Because killing someone who is guilty is okay. It removes the need to worry about his maintenance or further crimes, thus making easier to focus resources on those things that are really important. And I don't see why you can't let them starve to death. I would have done that with those starting hunger strikes in order to get some benefit or freedom.
And there are murderers who can't change their ways. As I said before, someone able to see the eyes of a woman they are about to rape, hear her cries and not feel the strongest repulse ever, doesn't deserve life, because that man is a monster. And even in some cases of those that may be able to rehabilitate, the risk of them killing another person is too much high to deserve consideration. I prefer to kill someone whose guilt I know and that PERHAPS can be rehabilitated than setting him free after some years to see he is killing or raping once again.
There is a sentence which sums pretty good my feelings on this: if you stab me once, the fault is yours. If you do it twice, the fault is mine. And whereas I agree that religion is a joke, it's not the same to forgive a random wrong that an assassination or rape to someone you love. Nobody should be made to undergo such suffering, provided he has not done it to someone else before. Nobody.
-
It's even interesting that I read somewhere that the death penalty is about 2.3 million USD more expensive than locking up the criminal for the rest of his (or her) life. No idea how that's possible though, but I assume killing someone is not cheap (you cannot simply let them starve to death).
It's because of the appeals process. In the US, the death penalty cannot be administered until the defendant has either declined to appeal further, or completely exhausted the appeals process. The legal process in the US is intensely expensive, and nobody facing the death penalty ever gets their sentence and just says, "Well, guess that's that, I'm convicted, why bother appealing?" The appeals process takes years, and thus adds years to their life expectancy. And personally, I'm glad the appeals system is so intense; I'm opposed to the death penalty to begin with – but if we're going to have it, I at least want to make sure that he have given people every reasonable chance we can to prove innocence or mitigating factors.
It is ironic that some southern American states, like Texas, which I consider to be rather religious ones, forget that a fundamental part of Christianity is being able to forgive someone who has wronged you. But I guess religion is only used to the extend it favours you - that's why it's a joke.
While it is true that religious sentiment in the US correlates with support for the death penalty (which is regrettable), within religious communities, amount of time spent in religious service (either laity or in vocational ministry), as well as knowledge of church doctrine, correlates negatively with support for the death penalty. Also, Christian support for the death penalty, thankfully, has declined somewhat in recent years.
i.e. people of a certain disposition tend to be religious and also tend to favor the death penalty. But heavy involvement in religion or in-depth exposure to doctrine tends to mitigate that effect, though not necessarily completely eliminate it.
-
It's because of the appeals process. In the US, the death penalty cannot be administered until the defendant has either declined to appeal further, or completely exhausted the appeals process. The legal process in the US is intensely expensive, and nobody facing the death penalty ever gets their sentence and just says, "Well, guess that's that, I'm convicted, why bother appealing?" The appeals process takes years, and thus adds years to their life expectancy. And personally, I'm glad the appeals system is so intense; I'm opposed to the death penalty to begin with – but if we're going to have it, I at least want to make sure that he have given people every reasonable chance we can to prove innocence or mitigating factors.
While it is true that religious sentiment in the US correlates with support for the death penalty (which is regrettable), within religious communities, amount of time spent in religious service (either laity or in vocational ministry), as well as knowledge of church doctrine, correlates negatively with support for the death penalty. Also, Christian support for the death penalty, thankfully, has declined somewhat in recent years.
i.e. people of a certain disposition tend to be religious and also tend to favor the death penalty. But heavy involvement in religion or in-depth exposure to doctrine tends to mitigate that effect, though not necessarily completely eliminate it.
Proof please, let's not just bring these 'facts' to air without supporting evidence.
-
Proof please, let's not just bring these 'facts' to air without supporting evidence.
I haven't seen other people citing sources, but as you insist, I've tried to dig up the articles I was thinking of. Mostly they come from things I read in print editions of Christianity Today. Which, as regards issues of opinions and beliefs among Christians, seems reasonably reliable to me.
A bit dated here, but regarding declining support for capital punishment:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/march/6.20.html
I'm trying to hunt for the info about opinions within Christian groups. Problem is it wasn't in an article about the death penalty, but was in a section of the print magazine where they cover, in brief, lots of odds and ends. So finding that might take me a while.
And regarding the appeals process... really, I don't think I need to cite sources on that. It's common knowledge. You can look that up for yourself very easily.
-
Actually, nah, sure, I'll look that one up for ya too. Here ya go:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
-
Give me a few seconds to see if they actually list where they got their numbers rather than just producing them from nowhere.
-
http://www.apatheticvoter.com/DeathPenalty.htm (http://www.apatheticvoter.com/DeathPenalty.htm)
Found this while I was looking at it. The cost of the death penalty is nothing compared to the War on Drugs.
-
http://www.apatheticvoter.com/DeathPenalty.htm (http://www.apatheticvoter.com/DeathPenalty.htm)
Found this while I was looking at it. The cost of the death penalty is nothing compared to the War on Drugs.
You're going to harp on my for sources... then cite that?
:o
Though, yes, the war on drugs is much more expensive. Yet another reason it should end, besides, you know, the stupidity of trying to prevent people from doing something so easily concealable, or the moral issue of restricting peoples' private choices.
Of course, I still think all you damn kids need to quit smokin' weed and playin' your loud music and go get a job.
-
You're going to harp on my for sources... then cite that?
:o
Though, yes, the war on drugs is much more expensive. Yet another reason it should end, besides, you know, the stupidity of trying to prevent people from doing something so easily concealable, or the moral issue of restricting peoples' private choices.
Of course, I still think all you damn kids need to quit smokin' weed and playin' your loud music and go get a job.
I didn't say it was unbiased or accurate. Just that I found it.