The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: thomasjack on June 28, 2008, 04:45:40 PM
-
An eye for an eye.
:shock:
Why are you shocked? It should be up to the family to decide whatever the punishment is...death, castration, solitary confinement for life, whatever...
Are you serious?
That's insane.
I'm sorry that you feel that way. I think that the families should always have the final say in the matter. Are you anti-family?
You've got to be shitting me.
Nope, and I think a lot of people here would agree with me.
If someone murdered me, I would hope that my parents would hunt the fucker down and destroy him.
-
The idea that a victim or a victims family should be able to do whatever they want to the perpetrator is insane.
Just because you feel like you should take revenge, doesn't mean its right to.
Inflicting physical harm on someone who is not a direct threat to your person is immoral, end of story.
Now if a guy takes out one of your eyes, and you would like restitution in the form of having the guys eye taken out, and both victim and victee agree to it, I'm fine with that, but unbridled physical violence is not justice, and its not moral.
-
The idea that a victim or a victims family should be able to do whatever they want to the perpetrator is insane.
Just because you feel like you should take revenge, doesn't mean its right to.
Inflicting physical harm on someone who is not a direct threat to your person is immoral, end of story.
Now if a guy takes out one of your eyes, and you would like restitution in the form of having the guys eye taken out, and both victim and victee agree to it, I'm fine with that, but unbridled physical violence is not justice, and its not moral.
Why should the victee have a say in anything? That's what's insane to me.
-
Why should the victee have a say in anything? That's what's insane to me.
So if someone steals a penny from me I can decide to have him infected with aids and keep him prisoner in my basement for the rest of his life?
Thats why the victee has a say, and also, if they were to agree to such a ludicrous punishment out of some twisted sense of guilt then people should be free to do that.
I don't think there can be any objectively definable absolute justice, however, a system I would support would be to have a default restitutive act set up by the court for a certain crime, and if both parties can't agree to any other form of restitution, whether it be violence, money, sexual favors, whatever, then it goes to the court default.
A victim has a right to be made whole for the crimes committed against them, this isn't the same as the right to do whatever they want or feel is just.
-
Why should the victee have a say in anything? That's what's insane to me.
So if someone steals a penny from me I can decide to have him infected with aids and keep him prisoner in my basement for the rest of his life?
Thats why the victee has a say, and also, if they were to agree to such a ludicrous punishment out of some twisted sense of guilt then people should be free to do that.
I don't think there can be any objectively definable absolute justice, however, a system I would support would be to have a default restitutive act set up by the court for a certain crime, and if both parties can't agree to any other form of restitution, whether it be violence, money, sexual favors, whatever, then it goes to the court default.
A victim has a right to be made whole for the crimes committed against them, this isn't the same as the right to do whatever they want or feel is just.
We're talking about murder. Just murder.
-
If its murder does that mean you can then do whatever you want?
Eye for an eye is just another specious premise like money is the root of all evil.
If I rape your daughter do you get to rape mine? Do you get to rape me?
A better system is to work out what rights can be objectively defined for a human and then work a justice system based around that.
I can make a strong case for voluntary interaction and self defense, whats the case for eye for an eye? Not to mention in many cases it would invalidate rights you don't have the right to.
Logically mirroring a situation doesn't make your choices logical.
You never have the right to end another persons life against their will. Now you have a right to kill someone to defend your life, but thats because your rights overlap them when they decide to act or threaten to kill you. Your freedoms end where anothers begin, and the freedom not to be murdered is innate to all humans no matter how they act, making the distinction between murder and self defense.
Under the eye for an eye system, do I get to kill you if you kill my brother in a car accident you were responsible for?
It's not logically congruent to OK murder just because death is involved in the situation.
What right is being infringed by not being able to murder someone who murders someone you know? You have the right to be made whole, but how can that right invalidate anothers right to life?
If someone takes your life then there is a massive debt owed to you, and to that extent anyone you designated your post humous will to, but that debt does not encompass their own life unless they agree to it. Its their right and they keep it for so long as they do not make it necessary for another to kill in self defense.
Morals are objective constants, or they do not exist at all. Murder does not suddenly become moral just because something bad happened.
You can argue that a murderer should have to repay the monetary value of the life, or pay in the freedoms and time that they took, but how can you ever justify killing someone when it is not to defend your own life?
By logical extension, in some instances, theft could warrant the death of the thief, say if the thief stole money needed for medicines/food that then lead someone to die. They were responsible for anothers death, now their life is up for grabs.
Even if an objectively definable human morality does not exist, I believe it to be the best choice to base any system of morals that we make up to have objective criteria that are consistent with the nature of man and personal freedom.
-
Sounds great in theory, but I'll stick with my system.
-
Sounds great in theory, but I'll stick with my system.
care to fill me in as to why its better?
I'm sure you have done some in depth talk about it, but all I've seen from you is generalistic, anyone who hurts me and mine is gonna pay style stuff, and I'm too lazy to trawl posts to read up on your reasons.
edit: ^^^^^^ not meant to sound sarcastic
-
then there is the turn the other cheek. The whole idea of forgiveness.
-
I think figuratively it's a good concept, so my vote was yes. Literally, "an eye for an eye", wouldn't sort things out for me.
Take the rape question above.. I don't like the idea of rape, so I would have no interest in raping a rapists daughter. She might not even be my type anyway.
So- I would side with common sense. A particularly heinous crime against me or my loved ones is cause for me to seek revenge- in a more elaborate, degrading and painful way than what was dealt my way to begin with.
-
Sounds great in theory, but I'll stick with my system.
care to fill me in as to why its better?
I'm sure you have done some in depth talk about it, but all I've seen from you is generalistic, anyone who hurts me and mine is gonna pay style stuff, and I'm too lazy to trawl posts to read up on your reasons.
edit: ^^^^^^ not meant to sound sarcastic
My reasoning is that there is NO form of restitution for the crime of murder. None, whatsoever. You can't put value on a human life...so, what is equal to a human life? Another human life.
-
then there is the turn the other cheek. The whole idea of forgiveness.
-
Sounds great in theory, but I'll stick with my system.
care to fill me in as to why its better?
I'm sure you have done some in depth talk about it, but all I've seen from you is generalistic, anyone who hurts me and mine is gonna pay style stuff, and I'm too lazy to trawl posts to read up on your reasons.
edit: ^^^^^^ not meant to sound sarcastic
My reasoning is that there is NO form of restitution for the crime of murder. None, whatsoever. You can't put value on a human life...so, what is equal to a human life? Another human life.
I agree.
I don't think it's always necessary, or always desireable. But it seems clear to me that if someone murders someone else, it is absolutely just for their life to be taken.
The alternative? For poor murderers to be stuck in jail while rich ones just pay the restitution.
"I say Jeeves, what shall we do for tonight's entertainment?"
"Well sir, there are some vagabonds over on the West Side; if you get caught, it's merely a million dollars to satisfy the courts."
Yeah. Nice alternative.
That said... I'd still be against a government making use of a death penatly, simply because they're so untrustworthy. But individuals? Particularly people who were there and witnessed their loved one's murder? Sure, it's probably best they forgive, seek restitution and move on, but if they choose justice over money, I'll back them.
-
then there is the turn the other cheek. The whole idea of forgiveness.
Yeah, that worked with Ramirez(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ramirez), Dahmer(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer), Manson(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson), Gacy(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gacy), Capone(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_capone), Mugabe(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe), The Bush/Clinton Narcotics And Weapons Dynasty(http://www.dldewey.com/columns/jul02f.htm), ETC...
place barrel to temple...
squeeze...
-randwasright-
-
I voted no. It should be "An eye for an eye plus interest and court costs."
-
If its murder does that mean you can then do whatever you want?
A person who violates the rights of another forfeits their own rights to the extent that the victim was violated. Ergo, a murderer has no justly enforceable rights - assuming that guilt has been proven beyond doubt.
That's what I believe, morally. Practically, however, it is rare that guilt can be so firmly established. I'd stick to indentured servitude.
-
then there is the turn the other cheek. The whole idea of forgiveness.
That is and should remain a matter of individual conscience, not law.
-
Say I commit a crime and it's decided I must pay the victim $200,000 in damages. If some rich guys gives me $200,000 to give to the victim, has justice been served? What if the rich guy gives the money directly to the victim in my name?
What's the purpose of justice?
-
I've heard it said that the trouble with "an eye for an eye" is that eventually everyone is blind.
-
I've heard it said that the trouble with "an eye for an eye" is that eventually everyone is blind.
Gandhi was a faggot.
-
I've heard it said that the trouble with "an eye for an eye" is that eventually everyone is blind.
I've heard that as well. But I prefer to think that if enough people get gouged then those with remaining sight will "see the light".
-
Let's look at an example of empowering Individual Sovereign Human Beings to be equipped and responsible for their own security and safety...
When Florida first enacted their concealed carry law the MSM was awash with dire predictions of a "return to the wild west"...which never occurred...of course...
Then the thieves and robbers turned to the tourists and out-of-town visitors because they were easier "marks" and were thought to be unarmed...
So Florida made it very easy to get a non-resident permit and also they changed the license plates for rental cars to make them inconspicuous...
The success in Florida paved the way for dozens of states to enact CCW in the following years and, in doing so, facilitated the empowerment and potential empowerment of millions against the common criminal(looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...not so much)...
So...
We can see, witness, and easily prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the empowerment of the Individual Sovereign Human Being is paramount to both a significant reduction in victims and an overall reduction in the criminal element...
The most effective "justice" is the immediate repelling, destruction, and elimination of all the variations of perpetrators...
Better to be judged by 12...than carried by 6...
Rape victims who arm themselves after the first rape...and then repell, destroy, and eliminate a second rapist...don't consider the second outcome more traumatic than the first...
-randwasright-
-
So...
We can see, witness, and easily prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the empowerment of the Individual Sovereign Human Being is paramount to both a significant reduction in victims and an overall reduction in the criminal element...
The most effective "justice" is the immediate repelling, destruction, and elimination of all the variations of perpetrators...
Better to be judged by 12...than carried by 6...
Rape victims who arm themselves after the first rape...and then repell, destroy, and eliminate a second rapist...don't consider the second outcome more traumatic than the first...
What's that got to do with eye for an eye? Self defense is completely non comparable to actively seeking to revenge kill when it would not help save or protect anyones life.
Moral relativism is a sham, killing someone is always wrong unless its in self defense. Even if they rape and murder you're whole family, its not okay to track the murderer down and shoot them in the head in the middle of the night.
Now you'd still be a hell of alot more moral than the murderer, but who wants to live a life merely at the relativity of others actions. Either an action is immoral or its not, whats going on around and what happened before doesn't change that (except for in your head).
Killing becomes moral in self defense because your rights are being directly infringed and the only way to reinforce your right to life is to expel the infringer, from life or from your general vicinity. As long as someone is directly threatening your life then it stays in the self defense zone, as soon as they put their weapon down and walk away it becomes plain murder if you want to kill them.
Revenge murders/death penalty takes away all our rights to life. If its okay to murder a man in cold blood, then certainly it can be okay to kill 1 man to save 10 men, or invade a small country to save the world. If eye for an eye is based on doing bad things means its okay for bad things to be done to you, then doing "good" things is always preferable to the "bad", and then it is left entirely to the person in question to decide who gets to die and who gets to live.
Either there are an objective set of morals and rights that don't change on the circumstance or there are non, and it is merely what you, me, "society", religion, or whoever decides it is. Self defense is not a case of murder being okay in a different situation. Its a defense of your rights, murder is any time when you kill when it wasn't to defend your (or anothers) life from direct aggression.
Self defense = moral. Restitution = moral. murder = always immoral
-
Even if they rape and murder you're whole family, its not okay to track the murderer down and shoot them in the head in the middle of the night.
Ignored.
-
For the record, here's the Gandhi quote as I recall it, and found it via Google:
"If we practice and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, soon the whole world will be blind and toothless."-Mahatma Gandhi.
The point is that an "eye for an eye" has the same negative effect as crime itself. It destroys wealth and/or well-being, and propagates hatred. A better policy is just compensation. Since it always costs more than the proceeds of wrongdoing to fully compensate those harmed, there is a built-in "punishment." In the case of "just taking of life" there can be no benefit.
-
Even if they rape and murder you're whole family, its not okay to track the murderer down and shoot them in the head in the middle of the night.
Ignored.
oh boo hoo, if you want to act like an ignorant brute and think just because someone does something that makes you feel bad or feel angry its okay to kill them, fine, but don't ever think you're using reason over emotion.
why don't you go out killing pedarists if you're so convinced murdering bad people is good? those kiddy rapers make me so mad! I'm a man, hear me roar! :x
you're not even gonna engage in discussion cause i wont beat my chest and loudly proclaim anyone who touches "my blood" is going to "pay"? thats pretty fucking pathetic.
If someone was trying to kill me or someone i liked (incidentally not my family) then i'd kill them in a heartbeat, but going past that point I actually keep my thinking cap on and work out whether just because I feel like doing something should I actually do it.
don't kid yourself you're any better than the kind of savages who actually commit murder, you're no different, at least in ethics
-
Even if they rape and murder you're whole family, its not okay to track the murderer down and shoot them in the head in the middle of the night.
Ignored.
straight from the horses mouth, spoken by the fatcat raping murderer of someone's whole family...
and since it's not okay to shoot him in the head in the middle of the night...
we'll do it in the middle of the day...
Dear Fatcat...
I don't care who you are, where you are, or what you are...
If you rape and/or murder me and/or any of "mine"...
You WILL be hunted down and humanely extinguished...
If they don't put you down during the perpetration...
Don't care what you think about it...
What your friends and family think...
Or anyone else for that matter...
Food for thought...
Indeed...
-randwasright-
-
Self defense = moral. Restitution = moral. murder = always immoral
I agree. I wouldn't patronize any justice system which allowed revenge murder.
A person who violates the rights of another forfeits their own rights to the extent that the victim was violated. Ergo, a murderer has no justly enforceable rights - assuming that guilt has been proven beyond doubt.
That's what I believe, morally. Practically, however, it is rare that guilt can be so firmly established. I'd stick to indentured servitude.
I agree that a person who violates the rights of another forfeits their own rights, but only so that the original violation may be repaired as much as possible.
Imagine I burn down your house, causing $200,000 in damages. You take me to court and the court orders that my house be burnt down so that I too suffer $200,000 in damages, and that's it—you get no retribution. Wouldn't this be totally insane? Why is murder any different? If someone seriously wounds me, do I have a right to seriously wound them later in revenge?
It occurs to me that if the only heir of a murdered person murders the murderer in revenge, everybody would be even under a justice system based on restitution. So, I guess if you want to murder the person who murdered your father, the justice system I envision wouldn't punish you. You'd just be giving up a whole lot of money.
-
You wouldn't need to patronize such a system. If you don't want to go after the murderer that killed your family, don't. But don't fucking stop me from doing it, because I will.
-
You wouldn't need to patronize such a system. If you don't want to go after the murderer that killed your family, don't. But don't fucking stop me from doing it, because I will.
chime
-
You wouldn't need to patronize such a system. If you don't want to go after the murderer that killed your family, don't. But don't fucking stop me from doing it, because I will.
If the murderer is me or one of my family members, I will attempt to stop you in self-defense.
Anyway, say you successfully kill my father the murderer in revenge. Now I sue you. What happens then? You think I have no right to restitution for my father's death simply because he committed murder before you killed him?
(A more general problem occurs to me: if someone goes to a free-market jail/work camp type thing to pay off his criminal debt, does he have a right to have some of his earnings diverted towards the livelihood of his children? Or should all his earnings, less the cost of room and board, go towards paying off the debt?)
Also, what if the murderer lives on my property? You break into my house to murder him in revenge. Don't I have a right to kill you? If you instead politely inform me that you'd like to murder him in revenge and ask permission to enter, and I refuse, do you have a right to use force against me to enter and kill the dude? Maybe you think that in harboring a murderer I have violated your right to revenge, and so force against me isn't aggression? This seems insane to me.
Just to clarify: You think that you have an ethical right to kill the murderer in revenge and that a just legal system should uphold your right to murder in revenge? Do you think that murder is the only crime which generates a right to revenge?
This seems like a very important issue for a free-market justice system to deal with. I'm stunned that a good many here at FTL, who are among the most liberty-minded in the world, think this way about it. Worries me a bit.
-
You wouldn't need to patronize such a system. If you don't want to go after the murderer that killed your family, don't. But don't fucking stop me from doing it, because I will.
If the murderer is me or one of my family members, I will attempt to stop you in self-defense.
Anyway, say you successfully kill my father the murderer in revenge. Now I sue you. What happens then? You think I have no right to restitution for my father's death simply because he committed murder before you killed him?
(A more general problem occurs to me: if someone goes to a free-market jail/work camp type thing to pay off his criminal debt, does he have a right to have some of his earnings diverted towards the livelihood of his children? Or should all his earnings, less the cost of room and board, go towards paying off the debt?)
Also, what if the murderer lives on my property? You break into my house to murder him in revenge. Don't I have a right to kill you? If you instead politely inform me that you'd like to murder him in revenge and ask permission to enter, and I refuse, do you have a right to use force against me to enter and kill the dude? Maybe you think that in harboring a murderer I have violated your right to revenge, and so force against me isn't aggression? This seems insane to me.
Just to clarify: You think that you have an ethical right to kill the murderer in revenge and that a just legal system should uphold your right to murder in revenge? Do you think that murder is the only crime which generates a right to revenge?
This seems like a very important issue for a free-market justice system to deal with. I'm stunned that a good many here at FTL, who are among the most liberty-minded in the world, think this way about it. Worries me a bit.
Ignored.
I swear to God, the new posters here are dumbshits.
-
Haha, I went reading Rothbard expecting to find an excellent argument against capital punishment, only to find that he agrees with you people. E.g:
In the question of bodily assault, where restitution does not even apply, we can again employ our criterion of proportionate punishment; so that if A has beaten up B in a certain way, then B has the right to beat up A (or have him beaten up by judicial employees) to rather more than the same extent.
Ignored.
I swear to God, the new posters here are dumbshits.
I started this thread to argue about this. Fuck off if you don't want to.
-
Dear Fatcat...
I don't care who you are, where you are, or what you are...
If you rape and/or murder me and/or any of "mine"...
You WILL be hunted down and humanely extinguished...
If they don't put you down during the perpetration...
Don't care what you think about it...
What your friends and family think...
Or anyone else for that matter...
Food for thought...
Right.........
food for thought that doesn't involve thinking?
"I don't care what you think about it" is another way of saying shut up. You can drag out the sentiment as long as you want, but if you're only argument is because I want to and shut up, its not going to persuade me or any other rational thinking person.
I never put into question whether there are people who would murder, why would you go to the lengths of dragging it out like you where spoon feeding an obvious conclusion to a retard when I never contested the point in the first place?
If you don't care what I think why even mention me? If discussion of ideas and beliefs isn't what you're after, why even bother posting. Surely writing on a piece of paper would serve the same purpose.
The issue of murder, rights and justice is a hard one, and its hard to define what would be a system consonant with the nature of being and objective truth, especially when you have to deal with free market justice AND abstract human morality at the same time, but if you're not even going to make a meager attempt at discussing it above a level of personal preference and emotion, why bother talking about it? its significantly easier to say what ISN'T a good or logically consistent system.
Through this whole thread I've seen no argument on the side for revenge killing/eye for an eye above:
-If you kill then you deserve to be killed
-If you kill one of my family I'm going to kill you.
-If you don't agree with this you're inferior/beneath talking to
-Nothing you can say will change my mind/no other reason is needed
If murder is suddenly okay in the right circumstances, it can be right in any circumstance, so long as you think you have the right justification. If you don't believe there is any objective backing to people having a fundamental right not to be murdered then make that case, but then be consistent.
Its a very satisfying and self sealed logical package to say if you kill then you lose the right not to be killed, especially seeing as it satisfies a near universal emotional thirst for revenge, but its shallow logic. Why does the right to life encompass the right to kill those who take it?
Murder does nothing to defend your rights, and if you get to murder because murder is wrong, its self defeating logic. You're permitted to do whatever is in your rights that harms no one else, and of restitution to restore what was lost during those rights violation.
When someone kills someone you know, you haven't lost anything that can be reclaimed by murder, except maybe a feeling, but even if feeling is basis for anything, can I make a girl sleep with me cause I felt bad when she turned me down? Can I not be fired because I will feel bad? Morality is not a zero sum game, you don't get murder points when someone murders your mother, either its immoral, or its not.
If you [blank] one of my family members, I WILL [blank] you.
This statement is logically void, put any word you like in there, marry, fuck, touch, you need something more otherwise its just a specious catchphrase that means shit. Eye for an eye relies on an earnest emotional conviction from the person who believes it to glaze over the lack of founding in reality and the logical contradictions that come from it, and merely be satisfied with the appearance of reason, and a tidy justification for the satiation of your urge for revenge.
Tired now, but will come back and edit any meaningless waffle I let slip in.
-
I've heard it said that the trouble with "an eye for an eye" is that eventually everyone is blind.
I've heard that as well. But I prefer to think that if enough people get gouged then those with remaining sight will "see the light".
That's what I've always believed, besides the incentive towards us types who would have a distinct advantage against those who were blinded because of their own deeds.
-
If you are harboring murderers on your property, you deserve what's coming to you.
-
If you are harboring murderers on your property, you deserve what's coming to you.
-
If you are harboring murderers on your property, you deserve what's coming to you.
I'd like to see their property go up in flames, Waco-style.
-
If you are harboring murderers on your property, you deserve what's coming to you.
I'd like to see their property go up in flames, Waco-style.
I'd like to see Washington DC go up in flames, Waco-style--but I refuse to take part because it prolly wouldn't be productive.
-
If you are harboring murderers on your property, you deserve what's coming to you.
I'd like to see their property go up in flames, Waco-style.
I'd like to see Washington DC go up in flames, Waco-style--but I refuse to take part because it prolly wouldn't be productive.
You'd have to find the datacenters first.
-
Now if a guy takes out one of your eyes, and you would like restitution in the form of having the guys eye taken out
Take my eye out, I take your head off.
-
If I rape your daughter do you get to rape mine?
No, I get to kill you and hide the body.
I don't need a system to help me.
My logic: Making the world a better place.
-
If I rape your daughter do you get to rape mine?
No, I get to kill you and hide the body.
I don't need a system to help me.
My logic: Making the world a better place.
So the same logic of welfare, the holocaust, lynching, forced sterilization and a bunch of other really shitty ideas?
For everyone who's so sure that they'll do the right thing in revenge murdering, no ones said much beyond their will to revenge kill and how right it is.
I'm sure some of you might have some good reasons, but all I've seen so far is emotion, blood lust, "I will" and "I'm going to" which is not enough reason for any belief. Unless you think morals are purely subjective you need bigger basis for a belief other than "its whats right" and "eye for an eye". If you can justify murder for rape, why not 10 brutal assaults? Subjective morals are a dangerous thing.
-
If I rape your daughter do you get to rape mine?
No, I get to kill you and hide the body.
I don't need a system to help me.
My logic: Making the world a better place.
So the same logic of welfare, the holocaust, lynching, forced sterilization and a bunch of other really shitty ideas?
For everyone who's so sure that they'll do the right thing in revenge murdering, no ones said much beyond their will to revenge kill and how right it is.
I'm sure some of you might have some good reasons, but all I've seen so far is emotion, blood lust, "I will" and "I'm going to" which is not enough reason for any belief. Unless you think morals are purely subjective you need bigger basis for a belief other than "its whats right" and "eye for an eye". If you can justify murder for rape, why not 10 brutal assaults? Subjective morals are a dangerous thing.
I'm not only justifying revenge killing for rape, I'm justifying torture. Am I a sick mother fucker? Sure. I've never denied it.
-
If I rape your daughter do you get to rape mine?
No, I get to kill you and hide the body.
I don't need a system to help me.
My logic: Making the world a better place.
So the same logic of welfare, the holocaust, lynching, forced sterilization and a bunch of other really shitty ideas?
For everyone who's so sure that they'll do the right thing in revenge murdering, no ones said much beyond their will to revenge kill and how right it is.
I'm sure some of you might have some good reasons, but all I've seen so far is emotion, blood lust, "I will" and "I'm going to" which is not enough reason for any belief. Unless you think morals are purely subjective you need bigger basis for a belief other than "its whats right" and "eye for an eye". If you can justify murder for rape, why not 10 brutal assaults? Subjective morals are a dangerous thing.
I'm not only justifying revenge killing for rape, I'm justifying torture. Am I a sick mother fucker? Sure. I've never denied it.
There's a good reason I put fatcat on ignore.
-
I'm not only justifying revenge killing for rape, I'm justifying torture. Am I a sick mother fucker? Sure. I've never denied it.
Still not seeming like a whole lot of reason on the side of aggressive revenge.
If someone kills/rapes then its okay to kill them is a non sequitur, any assumed logic doesn't mean shit unless you can back it up.
taking pride in mindless violence is no good thing
-
I'm not only justifying revenge killing for rape, I'm justifying torture. Am I a sick mother fucker? Sure. I've never denied it.
Still not seeming like a whole lot of reason on the side of aggressive revenge.
If someone kills/rapes then its okay to kill them is a non sequitur, any assumed logic doesn't mean shit unless you can back it up.
taking pride in mindless violence is no good thing
What has to be done, has to be done.
-
I'm totally with In The Light on this.
Violent offenders should be dealt with severely.
Executioners probably don't always like what they do, but it's a service we all benefit from.
I think earlier in the thread someone mentioned their dad being the offender whom was then killed with revenge as the motive.. if my dad was revealed as being without a doubt a rapist or murderer, it would be extremely difficult for me to stick to my guns on this one, but I would. A useless human is just that- kill the unprovoked violent offenders as long as their is no doubt regarding their guilt.
-
Now if a guy takes out one of your eyes, and you would like restitution in the form of having the guys eye taken out
Take my eye out, I take your head off.
Do it Flinter style
(reference to An Enemy of the State by F. Paul Wilson)
-
If I rape your daughter do you get to rape mine?
No, I get to kill you and hide the body.
I don't need a system to help me.
My logic: Making the world a better place.
So the same logic of welfare, the holocaust, lynching, forced sterilization and a bunch of other really shitty ideas?
For everyone who's so sure that they'll do the right thing in revenge murdering, no ones said much beyond their will to revenge kill and how right it is.
I'm sure some of you might have some good reasons, but all I've seen so far is emotion, blood lust, "I will" and "I'm going to" which is not enough reason for any belief. Unless you think morals are purely subjective you need bigger basis for a belief other than "its whats right" and "eye for an eye". If you can justify murder for rape, why not 10 brutal assaults? Subjective morals are a dangerous thing.
Are you seriously as insane as to suggest that the Holocaust was caused because of "An Eye for an Eye"? What in the hell did the millions of Jews and others do to deserve going to concentration camps for? If it had really been "An Eye for an Eye" the Nazi government would have collapsed before it ever was able to invade half of Europe!
-
What in the hell did the millions of Jews and others do to deserve going to concentration camps for?
Being smarter than the goyim with money.
-
Are you seriously as insane as to suggest that the Holocaust was caused because of "An Eye for an Eye"? What in the hell did the millions of Jews and others do to deserve going to concentration camps for? If it had really been "An Eye for an Eye" the Nazi government would have collapsed before it ever was able to invade half of Europe!
Nope, you completely missed my point.
Blackie said his logic for revenge killing was making the world a better place. So was the holocaust.
Now there are other reasons that make an action good or bad, obviously what you consider making the world a better place has has alot to do with it.
My whole point was that everyone on the pro side of revenge killing is keeping in these fringe pools of logic, "its right" "try and stop me" etc, without going into any deeper moral reasoning.
Way to make my point on people not putting enough effort into the discussion to make it worthwhile though.
-
I'm not only justifying revenge killing for rape, I'm justifying torture. Am I a sick mother fucker? Sure. I've never denied it.
Still not seeming like a whole lot of reason on the side of aggressive revenge.
If someone kills/rapes then its okay to kill them is a non sequitur, any assumed logic doesn't mean shit unless you can back it up.
taking pride in mindless violence is no good thing
What has to be done, has to be done.
Sure....
Is anyone actually listening to what I'm saying here?
I AM FULLY AWARE SOME PEOPLE THINK ITS THE RIGHT THING.
I'm not asking for clarification, I'm not asking for you to berate anyone not in favor of your viewpoint as weak or spineless. I'm not asking for you to point out how manly you are and if anyone ever touched your family in a split second, you'd cut his balls off and take out his eyes and all kinds of stuff!
I'm asking for some deeper logical basis for murder being okay as revenge (not talking about killing in self defense).
Take out your thinking caps, re read the parts of this thread where I actually make points for you to defend, then come back to the table. All your justifications can be made for nearly anything, because they are merely logical window dressing on assumptions that it is correct, without any deeper reasoned discussion, my whole point with the holocaust analogy.
The belief of murdering in revenge, is usually emotionally/biologically driven, and inherited through parents/local culture, if by the age you accepted the belief you knew you hadn't done the thinking necessary to back it, then I'd be worried that you're so sure and so unwilling/unable to give any higher justification than [blank] and you deserve to be [blanked].
The people saying they kill over rape are near the edge of full blown mindless psychopathy. 2 brutal assaults are far worse than 1 quick rape, so by that logic its now okay to kill over assault. Now I'm sure some of you feel really badly about getting raped, personally i'd rather get raped than break an arm, so is your right to revenge purely a subjective drive to how you feel?
None of this really matters because none of you have said anything for me to actually think about or discuss.
If you think just reiterating your will to kill and how right it is without a how or why is justifying your belief, then you're fucking insane. Take Mr emotion off the wheel of your brain ship and do some thinking.
-
Is anyone actually listening to what I'm saying here?
NO.
Logic almost never applies to the real world. Start living outside of your head.
-
Is anyone actually listening to what I'm saying here?
NO.
Logic almost never applies to the real world. Start living outside of your head.
What happened to ignoring me?
If you're going to take the ballsy approach that anyone who disagrees with you is so obviously wrong you don't need to address the point in any way, and you're not even going to see what they have to say, you might as well follow it through.
"Logic almost never applies to the real world. Start living outside of your head."
If this is your justification, you have no justification. Blood lust and emotion are never a replacement for logic and thought.
Most of the justifications here are no better than what I hear from people wanting to kill gays, blacks, or any other group that inherits hate from old worlds and old cultures. Just because the person you seek to harm is immoral, doesn't automatically make what you do moral. If you think you're being moral just by virtue of your will and certainty then you make me sick.
-
What in the hell did the millions of Jews and others do to deserve going to concentration camps for?
Being smarter than the goyim with money.
People find it easy to use some group as a scape goat for their problems. In Germany (and much of Europe) it was the Jews. In America, we have a wide variety of groups from which to choose. "It's the blacks." "No, it's the Mexicans." "Hey, everyone knows it's the gays."
That's what I like about America. Diversity.
-
Interesting article against proportional punishment: http://www.geocities.com/libertarian_press/noncoercive.html (http://www.geocities.com/libertarian_press/noncoercive.html)
tl,dr:
1. Proportionality is based on utility measurements and is thus invalid (e.g. fatcat's "i'd rather get raped than break an arm").
2. Proportional punishment violates the absolute rights of criminals.
3. Non-coercive punishment works anyway, so there's no reason for proportional punishment.
I'm not saying I agree with the dude's argument, but it's interesting, anyway.
-
Is anyone actually listening to what I'm saying here?
NO.
Logic almost never applies to the real world. Start living outside of your head.
If you think you're being moral just by virtue of your will and certainty then you make me sick.
I don't live or act to please you. I have my own set of morals and values, and obviously they differ from yours.
-
*Long fucking post warning*
If you think you're being moral just by virtue of your will and certainty then you make me sick.
I don't live or act to please you. I have my own set of morals and values, and obviously they differ from yours.
Hey thats cool, theres place for all sorts of mindsets, and I'm of one who wants objectively verifiable logic and fact to back my belief, especially if it pertains to ending lives. If you don't want to have an exchange on the merits and reasons for morals thats okay to, just seems odd to come on a discussion forum to not discuss.
If all I had for a belief was I think its right for some unnamed reason and I have a strong emotional response to do it, I wouldn't bother reiterating that point multiple times in the same thread.
Either way I have no grudge or dislike of those who hold the opinion its okay to kill as revenge, thats just your misguided belief, and the base reality is that most people will never take part in revenge murder, if not only for the fact most people don't get murdered, yet I'd still prefer if you could provide deeper backing for your belief, and even more so that you would care about doing so.
To vosti, I wasn't saying that a crime should be have anything to do with a persons opinion of the crime. Obviously if you steal a penny from me and I want you to die for it, it doesn't matter what i think.
During restitution neither party should have control over the nature of the restitution. A victim cannot demand more than is owed, and the criminal cannot refuse less than he owes. What is owed is defined by the objective nature of the crime. If a man steals $50 then the victim has a right to get back the $50 plus what it cost him to get it back and what it cost him during the time between theft and restitution. How much the rest will be will be determined largely by how effective the arbitration is at defining the harder to define costs. In the case of murder, a huge amount of value has been destroyed, I believe in most cases criminals would agree with their victims to trade amounts of financial restitution for amounts of time spent in jail, or even physical violence. In any case as long as the criminal is being non violent and is willing to restitute for his crimes then he still retains the right to life.
All the arguments for why killing people is bad still maintain when the person has killed, apart from, that they have violated a persons right, but I don't see any logical system for one violation of rights leading to no rights for the criminal. You are only liable for the rights you have violated, and to the extent of repairing the damage you caused.
You don't get to take a power drill to someones ribcage just because they broke your nose, you don't get to take someones house just because they stole a dollar from you.
In the same way, you don't get to kill someone just because they killed someone you liked. You killing them not only does nothing to repair what you have lost, but it actively ends any possible manner of restitution in future, and at the same time you are violating one of their basic rights for no benefit to healing your own rights violation.
You don't have a right to feel satisfied at the death of someone. You don't have the right to feel or think anything. If that where true I could make people fuck me just to . If you're allowed to kill to make yourself feel better, why can't you beat someone to make yourself feel better from a robbery?
The logic that killers should lose their right to life because they violated another person, has a very logical aesthetic, but it would only be logical if by killing someone you could bring back another, and killing was the only way to do it.
We accept killing as just in self defense because the victims rights are under direct violation and the only way to defend their rights is to use aggression against the aggressor. If you initiate violence then you have no right to not have violence used against you. This does not mean it suddenly becomes moral to kill anyone who has ever been violent , you have the right to do whatever you want so long as you harm no one else, if someone harms you then you have the right to do whatever you need to do to be restituted for the harm done to you. As soon as you do MORE than what is necessary to restitute you, then it becomes harm again. Much like if someone steals my candy bar, and I steal their house, I have passed the point of restitution long ago, and now it is the original criminal who is the victim. The same goes for murder.
Morality is not up for opinion, it does not respond or relate to your emotions. Killing any man when you didn't have to is always immoral. Theres no zero sum, no points to lose or gain, every action you make is either moral, amoral or moral. Killing a bad man is still killing a man. They may have a much lower sense of compassion, they may be mindless and violent, but they are still a sentient being and them being bad doesn't make you killing them good. Don't fool yourself that killing a "bad person" is doing good. You do good by helping, by trading, by producing, by defending yourself and others. Killing and being violent when it doesn't save lives isn't good, its not just or noble. Don't pull out the "well killing a bad person will stop deaths in the future" bullshit, keep that thought crime shit in the drug war and fiction.
The only real argument I've seen for revenge killing is that its okay to kill a bad person. If you don't accept relativism in your right to use drugs and guns or invading a nation, why accept it in your right to be unharmed and the right to restitution?
This is a huge issue, and I'm trying my best not to overwrite without getting feedback, but if no one on the side of revenge cares any more about defending their beliefs than to just repeat a few basic platitudes with a whole heap of machismo and emotion, its just gonna look like mindless violence, which is swell and all, but you're not benefiting nothing but your pride when you tell people how you don't care what they think and you don't need to discuss it to be right.
-
You cannot win by using more sentances.
-
You cannot win by using more sentances.
I'm not trying to win anything. I'm trying to have a discussion on rights and morals that interests me. Obviously you're more content to pump off one liners and know that you're right without discussing it. I enjoy discussing the merits and value of ideas (hence the long posts), if you don't, thats dandy by me.
Sounds great in theory, but I'll stick with my system.
Ignored.
Dear Fatcat...
I don't care who you are, where you are, or what you are...
If you rape and/or murder me and/or any of "mine"...
You WILL be hunted down and humanely extinguished...
If they don't put you down during the perpetration...
Don't care what you think about it...
What your friends and family think...
Or anyone else for that matter...
You wouldn't need to patronize such a system. If you don't want to go after the murderer that killed your family, don't. But don't fucking stop me from doing it, because I will.
Ignored.
I swear to God, the new posters here are dumbshits.
If you are harboring murderers on your property, you deserve what's coming to you.
I'd like to see their property go up in flames, Waco-style.
Take my eye out, I take your head off.
No, I get to kill you and hide the body.
I don't need a system to help me.
My logic: Making the world a better place.
I'm not only justifying revenge killing for rape, I'm justifying torture. Am I a sick mother fucker? Sure. I've never denied it.
There's a good reason I put fatcat on ignore.
What has to be done, has to be done.
I think earlier in the thread someone mentioned their dad being the offender whom was then killed with revenge as the motive.. if my dad was revealed as being without a doubt a rapist or murderer, it would be extremely difficult for me to stick to my guns on this one, but I would. A useless human is just that- kill the unprovoked violent offenders as long as their is no doubt regarding their guilt.
NO.
Logic almost never applies to the real world. Start living outside of your head.
You cannot win by using more sentances.
Now you're probably being blinded by the light of your own greatness, but it looks to me like most people are just detailing how strongly their beliefs are held, insulting those they disagree with, and making blanket statements without backing them up. You don't get to take the position of insulting and mindless repetition of what you believe AND take the position of intellectual superiority at the same time.
I'm not trying to win, I want to talk over my beliefs with people who hold opposing views so I can enjoy myself and change my beliefs to the most correct possible.
And this is fine, I'm not trying to be a superior dick here, I want to discuss things in my way, you want to in your way. I don't hold the illusion that everyone here cares desperately what I think and what I want. You're not winning any prizes by pointing out the fact I can't control how you feel and how you feel might not be what I want.
I give a shit whether my ideas are correct or not, I try to detail my beliefs and the reasoning as honestly as possible and I hope to get some intelligent responses and challenges.
In short, make some proper points or get the fuck out and go play in the kiddy pool if all you want to do is call names and swing your e-penis. There are plenty of go nowhere threads on this board, I hear you can even make your own.
Or just put me on ignore again.
-
You cannot win by quoting.
-
You cannot win by quoting.
.......... okay
Can you give me a list of things I can do to win?
Is there a prize?
Will you stop being a pretentious asshole if I win?
Will you be my best friend if I win?
-
I'll be your friend if you stop infringing on my rights.
-
I'll be your friend if you stop infringing on my rights.
wots that then?
Its pretty impressive at how well you can cling to the intellectual high ground and simultaneously fail to address or even acknowledge any points of the people you disagree with.
-
and simultaneously fail to address or even acknowledge any points of the people you disagree with.
I don't have to.
You want to infringe on my natural right to seek revenge.
Go fuck yourself.
-
and simultaneously fail to address or even acknowledge any points of the people you disagree with.
I don't have to.
You want to infringe on my natural right to seek revenge.
Go fuck yourself.
No I don't. And you told me to stop infringing your rights, not that I wanted to.
I don't propose any system that would control your actions, however, if I raped one of your family members I would support my right to self defense if you tried to kill me, although thats not anything I would ever try to do, so I would never be or choose to be in a position to infringe one of your rights.
If you can't or won't defend your beliefs, how would you have the gall to even assume their correctness, let alone expect other people to assume that you were correct.
No one says you HAVE to defend your beliefs, it just makes you a retard if you insult people for being unintelligent yet don't actually expose any of your beliefs to scrutiny. Stating you are correct does not make you correct.
You fail at discussion.
-
and simultaneously fail to address or even acknowledge any points of the people you disagree with.
I don't have to.
You want to infringe on my natural right to seek revenge.
Go fuck yourself.
No I don't. And you told me to stop infringing your rights bright spark. Do you only ever write a few words at a time to so you have best chance at "winning". Cause I gotta tell you its pretty hard to discuss things with someone who just makes blanket statements of intent sprinkled with insults.
I don't propose any system that would control your actions, however, if I raped one of your family members I would support my right to self defense if you tried to kill me, although thats not anything I would ever try to do, so I would never be or choose to be in a position to infringe one of your rights.
If you can't or won't defend your beliefs, how would you have the gall to even assume their correctness, let alone expect other people to assume that you were correct.
No one says you HAVE to defend your beliefs, it just makes you a retard if you insult people for being unintelligent yet don't actually expose any of your beliefs to scrutiny. Stating you are correct does not make you correct.
You fail at discussion.
You make no sense.
-
You fail at discussion.
I'd like just as much as you to hear a justification for proportional punishment, but it's clear that the revengers here simply aren't interested in discussing it.
-
You make no sense.
What the fuck am I supposed to do with that?
Am I supposed to blindly agree with you and believe what you believe because you tell me you're right? You can't/won't actually put any ideas forward, but I should just trust you're right?
I give up, you win.
-
I give up, you win.
Cool.
-
I didn't want, nor feel the need to discuss this subject. Vosti posted this thread looking for a legitimate debate, and I wasn't going to bite. I don't need to debate this issue. My views on this issue cannot be changed.
-
Are you seriously as insane as to suggest that the Holocaust was caused because of "An Eye for an Eye"? What in the hell did the millions of Jews and others do to deserve going to concentration camps for? If it had really been "An Eye for an Eye" the Nazi government would have collapsed before it ever was able to invade half of Europe!
Nope, you completely missed my point.
Blackie said his logic for revenge killing was making the world a better place. So was the holocaust.
Now there are other reasons that make an action good or bad, obviously what you consider making the world a better place has has alot to do with it.
My whole point was that everyone on the pro side of revenge killing is keeping in these fringe pools of logic, "its right" "try and stop me" etc, without going into any deeper moral reasoning.
Way to make my point on people not putting enough effort into the discussion to make it worthwhile though.
What I'm saying is that if "An eye for an eye" was actually put into practice, there would have been no holocaust!
-
I don't need to debate this issue. My views on this issue cannot be changed.
dangerous words. since when was dogmatism a badge of pride?
as soon as you accept a belief as above question or reproach you instantly lose smart points and the ability to improve yourself
I'm sure there may be some higher reasoning behind the belief revenge killing is okay, but all I've seen so far is emotion and blanket "I know I'm right, just try and stop me" statements. As far as I can perceive none of you have any better reasoning than religious believers who say I know god is real and there's nothing you can say to change my mind. There always has to be something to change your mind or you're not believing on facts and logic, you're believing on faith.
What will change my mind is evidence and reasoned logic that shows how my ideas are false. To say that no evidence or ideas could EVER exist that disproves what you believe shutters your mind and places emotion as ruler over thought. Absolute knowledge is impossible, and if you are confident that your beliefs are correct and well thought out then you should not avoid the opportunity to test them and test your mind, and at the same time helping others trade faulty ideas for correct ones.
What age did you first believe revenge killings to be okay? How long had you held the belief before you knew you no longer needed to question it?
-
I'm sure there may be some higher reasoning behind the belief revenge killing is okay,
A homo sapien that rapes and kills humans isn't a human/person. So the revenge killing of that homo sapien isn't murder.
If an animal(wild or domestic) attacks a human, you find that animal and get rid of it so that those types of attacks don't happen again.
-
I'm sure there may be some higher reasoning behind the belief revenge killing is okay,
A homo sapien that rapes and kills humans isn't a human/person.
This is what needs to be justified. Why does someone who commits a crime forfeit their own rights proportionally (or, in your case, even disproportionally, since apparently rapists forfeit their right to life)?
Sure, it makes a bit of intuitive sense, but what's the justification?
-
Fatcat-let me continue this even though i totally disagree with your point. Is an eye for an eye justified under having no government or under anarcho-capitalism? Ill try and make some points regarding both sides. Just let me know me know because in our current system the government is doing an atrocious job at bringing perpetrators up on trial, prosecuting, sentencing them, as well as everything else in the current U.S. criminal justice system.
-
Why does someone who commits a crime forfeit their own rights proportionally (or, in your case, even disproportionally, since apparently rapists forfeit their right to life)?
The "someone" never had any rights. That is the problem with assuming every homo sapien is a human, and has human rights.
-
Why does someone who commits a crime forfeit their own rights proportionally (or, in your case, even disproportionally, since apparently rapists forfeit their right to life)?
The "someone" never had any rights. That is the problem with assuming every homo sapien is a human, and has human rights.
So, any homo sapiens who (which?) will commit rape or murder in the future is currently not a human? Then there's no way for me to know if someone's human until they're dead, right? Heck, I might not be a human! :shock:
Anyway, please explain why only a homo sapiens which never will commit murder has human rights. And how that's even a useful distinction, since we can't ever tell whether a living homo sapiens will commit murder in the future.
-
Anyway, please explain why only a homo sapiens which never will commit murder has human rights.
Human rights only exist on paper, and in your head. They are made up. Have a nice day.
-
Anyway, please explain why only a homo sapiens which never will commit murder has human rights.
Human rights only exist on paper, and in your head. They are made up. Have a nice day.
Alright, rights don't exist. That's not an unjustifiable position, but your political philosophy and mine are totally incommensurable. I was looking rather for a justification from those who believe that crime causes proportional forfeiture of rights, e.g.:
We have advanced the view that the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights: the theory of "proportionality."
-
Fatcat-let me continue this even though i totally disagree with your point. Is an eye for an eye justified under having no government or under anarcho-capitalism? Ill try and make some points regarding both sides. Just let me know me know because in our current system the government is doing an atrocious job at bringing perpetrators up on trial, prosecuting, sentencing them, as well as everything else in the current U.S. criminal justice system.
I don't see what government has got to do with eye for an eye.
I don't think you have the right to kill someone unless its in self defense. Now there are plenty of reasons behind why I believe this, and if you read through this thread you can see a bunch of them.
I don't disagree that most governments, including the U.S. have a really ineffective justice system, but I never made that point.
I'm not really sure what you're asking here.
A lot of the eye for an eye proponents seem to take it as, if someone harms you, they lose all their rights and you can do whatever the fuck you want with them with a clear conscience. killing someone over rape? really? How many brutal assaults equal a rape? what if I paralyze 2 guys? that makes their life a lot harder than simply getting raped. what if i break 20 peoples legs? does that deserve murder?
No one on the pro side for revenge killings seems to make much of an argument beyond, I think its right, break rights and you lose rights. I can see that its coming from an emotional place in people, and maybe there is a blindingly obvious reason why its okay, but 90% of the points I've made have not been addressed, and I can't help but reach the conclusion that most people are just letting their emotional attachment to their beliefs remove the need for reason and evidence.
A lot of the, I don't need to talk about it, I know I'm right, nothing you can say will change my mind backs this up, I get a lot of the same shit from religious folks and they almost exclusive try to use emotion as a reasoning tool.
-
A lot of the eye for an eye proponents seem to take it as, if someone harms you, they lose all their rights and you can do whatever the fuck you want with them with a clear conscience.
Uh, yeah, no shit. If someone initiates force against another they are throwing their rights out the window.
-
A lot of the, I don't need to talk about it, I know I'm right, nothing you can say will change my mind backs this up, I get a lot of the same shit from religious folks and they almost exclusive try to use emotion as a reasoning tool.
I feel the same way about the people who talk about the existence of "rights".
-
A lot of the eye for an eye proponents seem to take it as, if someone harms you, they lose all their rights and you can do whatever the fuck you want with them with a clear conscience.
Uh, yeah, no shit. If someone initiates force against another they are throwing their rights out the window.
I don't have a problem with the point per say, I have a problem with that in this thread it has been made and largely unbacked, and any points made about it have been ignored in a wave of emotion.
Some people here are saying its okay to kill over a rape. If you can make that connection then you can span it to fit murder for assault, or murder for theft. No other case has been made except, I think its right/okay or I'm going to do that no matter what. If that is your justification then you can square slicing a guys face open for looking at you funny.
Point is those people only support the losing rights if you violate rights in a specific number of cases, i.e. whenever they feel like they should be able to take revenge. When questioned on logical parallels that they don't follow the points have been largely ignored.
I take the stance that you only lose rights to the degree that the right to restitution of the victim. For reasons I've mentioned before, I don't think murdering someone counts as restitution in any way, except how you feel, but I also talk about how you feel doesn't have anything to do with the restitutive process. Also from a purely moral standpoint I've made some points on how its never moral to kill except in self defense. I've written some really lengthy ass boring posts on this shit. I'd like to talk about the basis for these claims but most people seem to be fine with just accepting they are correct without talking about it.
-
Okay I was going to make a longer reply but you pretty much answered my question. I was going to say that most people have a line in the sand that they draw on this sort of topic-how bad can the initial act of violence be for retaliation to occur. Porportionality is also important. I dont think most people would permanently injure or kill someone over stealing something but if rape occured or if that initial act was murder then they might justify it. I was then going to ask you where your line in the sand is, if you had one. If you say that killing in self defense is justified then thats fine but "what self defense is" can be a hairy topic in itself.
-
Is killing approximately equivalent to rape? If not, then it wouldn't fall under "An eye for an eye" which means the punishment should be equivalent to the crime (perhaps plus interest). It doesn't necessarily mean that if someone rapes your mother, you get to rape their mother. It means that if someone rapes your mother, she is entitled to reciprocation up to the point of equivalence (and perhaps plus interest).
-
If you say that killing in self defense is justified then thats fine but "what self defense is" can be a hairy topic in itself.
I agree its a huge hazy area of moral, rights and epistemology, and its sometimes quite difficult to define a real logical basis when the question, how do we know what we know has to be answered on so many levels.
At the highest level, I would say my belief in killing only justified in self defense comes from a mixture of the NAP, for which there are lots of reasons for, some of which I don't think our valid, and the nature of self ownership.
Basically someones right to life no longer matters as long as that person is attempting to end your life. Assuming people have the right not to be killed, or don't have the right to murder, however you want to look at it, as soon as you attempt to murder someone else, you make it necessary for them to injure or kill you to protect their own life and their own rights.
I don't believe that you gain the right to kill because someone violated your rights. As soon as someone stops being a threat to you, I don't think that you have the right to kill just because they once tried to kill/rape/injure you. Your right to kill comes from the right to protect your life against aggressors. As such that right to kill only applies if it is in self defense. Killing someone in cold blood as punishment does nothing to protect your life, it can only satiate some primal urge for violence and revenge, and in the long run I think it is a self destructive path to take, even ignoring the morals and rights of the issue.
Get restitution for harm done to you, by all means, but keeping all that hate inside you is only damaging your own life, and while killing someone you want to might make you feel better temporarily, its not going to bring anyone back, its not going to fix anything in your life, and it certainly doesn't make you a better person.
There are obviously alot of deeper reasons that the ideas I mentioned are correct, and I try to cover some of them earlier in this thread, though for half it I have been trying to convince people to actually debate the issue, so my position and the legitimacy of my beliefs is pretty blurred at the moment, though as long as people want to debate based on reasoned discussion rather than emotion or what they desire, then I'll keep my hat in the ring and debate with anyone who still has points to make.
-
Right on well put. I know that I say i would kill, or permanently injure, someone in a different situation but like I said given certain situations with emotions, adrenaline, anger, etc I would like to be able to act in the most rational way but Ive never been put in a situation like that.
-
Right on well put. I know that I say i would kill, or permanently injure, someone in a different situation but like I said given certain situations with emotions, adrenaline, anger, etc I would like to be able to act in the most rational way but Ive never been put in a situation like that.
Sure, I totally understand the sentiment of wanting to get revenge. Someone fucks with you its only natural to want to get them back.
There's situations where I would probably try to kill someone, but I'd never try to twist my perception of reality to make me think its right.
Killing someone won't really make your life better. A dead person can't feel pain, they can't feel remorse, they can't make amends for the harm they have caused.
-
they can't make amends for the harm they have caused.
Yeah, I'd much rather have the dude locked up in a work camp sending me a paycheck every month than have him dead.
-
they can't make amends for the harm they have caused.
Yeah, I'd much rather have the dude locked up in a work camp sending me a paycheck every month than have him dead.
Well that opinion is compatible with an eye for an eye.
-
they can't make amends for the harm they have caused.
Yeah, I'd much rather have the dude locked up in a work camp sending me a paycheck every month than have him dead.
Well that opinion is compatible with an eye for an eye.
Unless the crime is murder...which there is no justifiable payment for.
-
they can't make amends for the harm they have caused.
Yeah, I'd much rather have the dude locked up in a work camp sending me a paycheck every month than have him dead.
Well that opinion is compatible with an eye for an eye.
Unless the crime is murder...which there is no justifiable payment for.
Whys that then?
If you can get restitution for being paralyzed, or being infected with HIV, surely a few of those extremely damaging actions will near the value of a human life.
Restitution isn't about getting a pay out cause someone fucked your shit up, its about repairing the harm done to you. You in no way need the permission from the aggressor to be restituted, this DOESN'T mean you are free to do whatever you want to the aggressor.
I believe under a free market justice system, most people would be reasonable and agree to a 3rd party arbitration, but if they don't agree to arbitration you still retain your right to restitution. Someone burnt your house down? Arm yourself, go track them down, and take back wealth till what you lost was restored + what it cost ya. If someone violently resists restitution then they're STILL the aggressor, so you can still pull self defense if they use force in order to prevent your restitution.
Also in the case of murder, the restitutional damages are so huge, that I believe most people would arrange to exchange some of the vast amounts of wealth equal to a mans life in the form of jail time or torture.
I'm still undecided whether restitution can encompass the right to imprison people against their will, although even if it didn't then I do think alot of people would do jail time. However there is a case to be made for imprisonment in the sense of, if a person who is threatening your life, they don't actually have to be in the process of killing you in order for you to defend yourself, likewise if someone is a constant threat, i.e. violent murderer, it may be within the rights of the victim + associates to keep the person in confinement, and this would still combo with the right to restitution.
I pump out alot of bullshit in threads like these, and by no means do I think I've cracked anything. Fuck, I'm still struggling to find basis real rock fucking solid backing for the idea of ownership (not self ownership), and a lot of this shit relies on other assumptions that I haven't proved 100%, but I would go so far to say that at least some of my beliefs are provably better than others, whether they are completely true I could not make that claim.
I still haven't had a decent rebuttal on it being okay to aggress on anyone. Anyone just reading this jump back a few pages if you want to debate me on it. Short version : Initiating force = never okay. Self defense = always okay. restitution = always okay. revenge violence = initiation of force.
I mean, some people here are so off base its hard to know whether they're being serious. If you think its okay to kill someone for rape, then you don't even have the pretense of reciprocal rights anymore. You're violating MORE rights than the aggressor did. If its okay to kill for rape, then is it okay to rape for assault? how about assault for theft?
This shit seems completely arbitrary and mostly based on the violent emotions of the people involved, and the lack of debate above "you're wrong, I'm right, try and stop me" backs this way up.
-
Come up with something as equally valuable as a human life, and I may listen.
Protip: you won't be able to do it.
-
Many values which can be destroyed or damaged by aggression are not only irreplaceable, they are also non-exchangeable—that is, they can't be exchanged in the market, so no monetary value can be placed on them. Examples of non-exchangeable values are life, a hand or eye, the life of a loved one, the safety of a kidnapped child, etc. When confronted with the problem of fixing the amount of reparations for a non-exchangeable value, many people immediately ask, "But how can you set a price on a human life?" The answer is that when an arbitration agency sets the reparations for a loss of life it isn't trying to put a monetary price on that life, any more than is an insurance company when it sells a $20,000 life insurance policy. It is merely trying to compensate the victim (or his survivors) to the fullest extent possible under the circumstances.
The problem in fixing reparations for loss of life or limb is that the loss occured in one kind of value (non-exchangeable) and repayment must be made in another kind (money). These two kinds of values are incommensurable—neither can be measured in terms of the other. The value which has been destroyed not only can't be replaced with a similar value, it can't even be replaced with an equivalent sum of money, since there is no way to determine what is equivalent. And yet, monetary payment is the practical way to make reparations.
It is useful to remember here that justice consists of requiring the aggressor to compensate his victims for their losses insofar as is humanly possible, since no one can be expected to do the impossible. Even a destroyed item which has a market value can't always be replaced (e.g., the Mona Lisa). To demand that justice require the impossible is to make justice impossible. To reject the reparations system because it can't always replace the destroyed value with an equivalent value is like rejecting medicine because the patient can't always be restored to as good a state of health as he enjoyed before his illness. Justice, like medicine, must be contextual—it must not demand what is impossible in any given context. The question, then, is not how arbiters can set a price on life and limb; it is, rather, "How can they see that the victim is fairly compensated, insofar as is humanly possible, without doing injustice to the aggressor by requiring overcompensation?"
Also, I agree that there is no sufficient payment for murder. But, by itself, the fact that full reparations cannot be made in this case is not a justification for killing the murderer. Suppose someone destroys an item of great sentimental value to me. No monetary payment is sufficient in this case. For no amount of money could I replace the object—even an exact replica would not be suitable. But of course it's crazy to say that capital punishment is then justified (or maybe in this case 'an eye for an eye' would dictate that an object of great sentimental value to the criminal be found and destroyed? lol..). I can see how the fact that life is non-exchangable might suggest intuitively that something else be done besides reparations, but I don't think it's a good justification per se.
-
Many values which can be destroyed or damaged by aggression are not only irreplaceable, they are also non-exchangeable—that is, they can't be exchanged in the market, so no monetary value can be placed on them. Examples of non-exchangeable values are life, a hand or eye, the life of a loved one, the safety of a kidnapped child, etc. When confronted with the problem of fixing the amount of reparations for a non-exchangeable value, many people immediately ask, "But how can you set a price on a human life?" The answer is that when an arbitration agency sets the reparations for a loss of life it isn't trying to put a monetary price on that life, any more than is an insurance company when it sells a $20,000 life insurance policy. It is merely trying to compensate the victim (or his survivors) to the fullest extent possible under the circumstances.
The problem in fixing reparations for loss of life or limb is that the loss occured in one kind of value (non-exchangeable) and repayment must be made in another kind (money). These two kinds of values are incommensurable—neither can be measured in terms of the other. The value which has been destroyed not only can't be replaced with a similar value, it can't even be replaced with an equivalent sum of money, since there is no way to determine what is equivalent. And yet, monetary payment is the practical way to make reparations.
It is useful to remember here that justice consists of requiring the aggressor to compensate his victims for their losses insofar as is humanly possible, since no one can be expected to do the impossible. Even a destroyed item which has a market value can't always be replaced (e.g., the Mona Lisa). To demand that justice require the impossible is to make justice impossible. To reject the reparations system because it can't always replace the destroyed value with an equivalent value is like rejecting medicine because the patient can't always be restored to as good a state of health as he enjoyed before his illness. Justice, like medicine, must be contextual—it must not demand what is impossible in any given context. The question, then, is not how arbiters can set a price on life and limb; it is, rather, "How can they see that the victim is fairly compensated, insofar as is humanly possible, without doing injustice to the aggressor by requiring overcompensation?"
Also, I agree that there is no sufficient payment for murder. But, by itself, the fact that full reparations cannot be made in this case is not a justification for killing the murderer. Suppose someone destroys an item of great sentimental value to me. No monetary payment is sufficient in this case. For no amount of money could I replace the object—even an exact replica would not be suitable. But of course it's crazy to say that capital punishment is then justified (or maybe in this case 'an eye for an eye' would dictate that an object of great sentimental value to the criminal be found and destroyed? lol..). I can see how the fact that life is non-exchangable might suggest intuitively that something else be done besides reparations, but I don't think it's a good justification per se.
You're talking about the destruction of an inanimate object. I'm talking about the destruction of consciousness.
-
Also, I agree that there is no sufficient payment for murder. But, by itself, the fact that full reparations cannot be made in this case is not a justification for killing the murderer. Suppose someone destroys an item of great sentimental value to me. No monetary payment is sufficient in this case. For no amount of money could I replace the object—even an exact replica would not be suitable. But of course it's crazy to say that capital punishment is then justified (or maybe in this case 'an eye for an eye' would dictate that an object of great sentimental value to the criminal be found and destroyed? lol..). I can see how the fact that life is non-exchangable might suggest intuitively that something else be done besides reparations, but I don't think it's a good justification per se.
You're talking about the destruction of an inanimate object. I'm talking about the destruction of consciousness.
Yeah, and I probably agree that consciousness is infinitely more valuable than any inanimate object, but I don't see how that justifies revenge. I can see how that could be an argument against restitution (though not a valid argument in my opinion), but not an argument for revenge.
-
Also, I agree that there is no sufficient payment for murder. But, by itself, the fact that full reparations cannot be made in this case is not a justification for killing the murderer. Suppose someone destroys an item of great sentimental value to me. No monetary payment is sufficient in this case. For no amount of money could I replace the object—even an exact replica would not be suitable. But of course it's crazy to say that capital punishment is then justified (or maybe in this case 'an eye for an eye' would dictate that an object of great sentimental value to the criminal be found and destroyed? lol..). I can see how the fact that life is non-exchangable might suggest intuitively that something else be done besides reparations, but I don't think it's a good justification per se.
You're talking about the destruction of an inanimate object. I'm talking about the destruction of consciousness.
Yeah, and I probably agree that consciousness is infinitely more valuable than any inanimate object, but I don't see how that justifies revenge. I can see how that could be an argument against restitution (though not a valid argument in my opinion), but not an argument for revenge.
But we're talking restitution here, correct? How can a murderer pay RESTITUTION for a crime that has no set value or punishment? There's only one solution necessary in the case of cold-blooded, no-holds-barred murder - and that's the liquidation of the person who committed the act(s), and their possessions and property sold to the highest bidders, and that money given to the victim or the victim's family.
-
I don't understand not doing something out of revenge, for serious offenses. Money isn't shit- it comes, it goes, I personally don't care much for it.
To those who disagree with "an eye for an eye" (which I do not take in the "literal" sense), what is it that is acceptable? Money, jail?
How much money would cover murder?
How many years would cover murder?
How about rape?
Assault.. maybe I'd take some cash in exchange for having been beaten, I dunno. But for rape, let me cut the balls from the offender, and then the penis. Murder? I could do it, take the life of the person who took the life of one of my loved ones, especially on the spot as the offense took place.
-
Also, I agree that there is no sufficient payment for murder. But, by itself, the fact that full reparations cannot be made in this case is not a justification for killing the murderer. Suppose someone destroys an item of great sentimental value to me. No monetary payment is sufficient in this case. For no amount of money could I replace the object—even an exact replica would not be suitable. But of course it's crazy to say that capital punishment is then justified (or maybe in this case 'an eye for an eye' would dictate that an object of great sentimental value to the criminal be found and destroyed? lol..). I can see how the fact that life is non-exchangable might suggest intuitively that something else be done besides reparations, but I don't think it's a good justification per se.
You're talking about the destruction of an inanimate object. I'm talking about the destruction of consciousness.
Yeah, and I probably agree that consciousness is infinitely more valuable than any inanimate object, but I don't see how that justifies revenge. I can see how that could be an argument against restitution (though not a valid argument in my opinion), but not an argument for revenge.
But we're talking restitution here, correct? How can a murderer pay RESTITUTION for a crime that has no set value or punishment? There's only one solution necessary in the case of cold-blooded, no-holds-barred murder - and that's the liquidation of the person who committed the act(s), and their possessions and property sold to the highest bidders, and that money given to the victim or the victim's family.
I thought we were talking about justifying revenge murder. I agree with the excerpt from The Market for Liberty on why restitution is a good solution even though actual complete restitution is not always possible.
But let's say I accept that restitution doesn't work. Are you saying that this is a justification for revenge murder because there are no other options?
I'm all for having the criminal sell off his possessions and giving the proceeds to the victims, I just don't see why we should kill him. In other words, I can understand transferring the criminal's property to the victims, but I don't understand why we should destroy any of the criminal's property (e.g. his life). I think he should either voluntarily enter a work camp, where a fixed amount of his earnings goes to the living victims (so if he doesn't work, he doesn't eat), or, if he refuses, be forced into hermitage by ostracism.
I guess what I don't understand is: what's the purpose of revenge? The purpose of restitution is to try to make the victims whole again as nearly as is possible and reasonable. This I can understand. I'm now somewhat open to the idea of proportional punishment (I don't think it's totally crazy), but I just can't figure out why we should do it. Rothbard sort of sneaks it in without really justifying it.
-
Also, I agree that there is no sufficient payment for murder. But, by itself, the fact that full reparations cannot be made in this case is not a justification for killing the murderer. Suppose someone destroys an item of great sentimental value to me. No monetary payment is sufficient in this case. For no amount of money could I replace the object—even an exact replica would not be suitable. But of course it's crazy to say that capital punishment is then justified (or maybe in this case 'an eye for an eye' would dictate that an object of great sentimental value to the criminal be found and destroyed? lol..). I can see how the fact that life is non-exchangable might suggest intuitively that something else be done besides reparations, but I don't think it's a good justification per se.
You're talking about the destruction of an inanimate object. I'm talking about the destruction of consciousness.
Yeah, and I probably agree that consciousness is infinitely more valuable than any inanimate object, but I don't see how that justifies revenge. I can see how that could be an argument against restitution (though not a valid argument in my opinion), but not an argument for revenge.
But we're talking restitution here, correct? How can a murderer pay RESTITUTION for a crime that has no set value or punishment? There's only one solution necessary in the case of cold-blooded, no-holds-barred murder - and that's the liquidation of the person who committed the act(s), and their possessions and property sold to the highest bidders, and that money given to the victim or the victim's family.
But let's say I accept that restitution doesn't work. Are you saying that this is a justification for revenge murder because there are no other options?
Yes. This is EXACTLY what I am saying.
-
Thinking from the perspective of an habitual offender...
"Gee, I can rape as long as I sell my stuff! Let me go rob some people to get some stuff to sell!"
Or from a wealthy offender...
"Gee, I have lots of cash! Let me kill some people!"
-
Thinking from the perspective of an habitual offender...
"Gee, I can rape as long as I sell my stuff! Let me go rob some people to get some stuff to sell!"
Or from a wealthy offender...
"Gee, I have lots of cash! Let me kill some people!"
Exactly. This is one of my many problems with a completely free market justice system. People NEED to be punished for wrongdoing.
-
Thinking from the perspective of an habitual offender...
"Gee, I can rape as long as I sell my stuff! Let me go rob some people to get some stuff to sell!"
Or from a wealthy offender...
"Gee, I have lots of cash! Let me kill some people!"
Exactly. This is one of my many problems with a completely free market justice system. People NEED to be punished for wrongdoing.
Though I know neither of you care, this doesn't help Rothbard at all since he argues that deterrent is not a valid justification (by itself) for a punishment system.
Now, rape is no small crime. The amount of restitution demanded would be very great. He'd have to steal a whole lot of stuff to have enough to pay off a rape. If he didn't get killed while robbing dozens (or more?) of people of all their possessions (which is unlikely), and then committed the rape, he'd still be fucked. He couldn't pay off the rape with the stolen wealth, since he'd have to pay all of that back and more (for inconvenience, threat to safety, psychological trauma, etc.) to those robbed. Robbing to fund rape would just get him into far more debt. Sure, some people will not understand this and will act irrationally. But people will act irrationally under any system of punishment.
For those that are ridiculously rich and can somehow afford to pay off murders and rapes, they still suffer a terrible reputation loss. Someone who spends his amassed wealth on a crime hobby would be quickly recognized for what he was and ostracized. Anyone who saw him would be on their guard and ready to shoot him. He wouldn't have the services of a protection agency. He wouldn't have the services of any insurance companies. He wouldn't even be able to go to the grocery store. He'd have to live on his own property as a hermit, with no business dealings with anyone.
-
Thinking from the perspective of an habitual offender...
"Gee, I can rape as long as I sell my stuff! Let me go rob some people to get some stuff to sell!"
Or from a wealthy offender...
"Gee, I have lots of cash! Let me kill some people!"
Exactly. This is one of my many problems with a completely free market justice system. People NEED to be punished for wrongdoing.
Though I know neither of you care, this doesn't help Rothbard at all since he argues that deterrent is not a valid justification (by itself) for a punishment system.
Now, rape is no small crime. The amount of restitution demanded would be very great. He'd have to steal a whole lot of stuff to have enough to pay off a rape. If he didn't get killed while robbing dozens (or more?) of people of all their possessions (which is unlikely), and then committed the rape, he'd still be fucked. He couldn't pay off the rape with the stolen wealth, since he'd have to pay all of that back and more (for inconvenience, threat to safety, psychological trauma, etc.) to those robbed. Robbing to fund rape would just get him into far more debt. Sure, some people will not understand this and will act irrationally. But people will act irrationally under any system of punishment.
For those that are ridiculously rich and can somehow afford to pay off murders and rapes, they still suffer a terrible reputation loss. Someone who spends his amassed wealth on a crime hobby would be quickly recognized for what he was and ostracized. Anyone who saw him would be on their guard and ready to shoot him. He wouldn't have the services of a protection agency. He wouldn't have the services of any insurance companies. He wouldn't even be able to go to the grocery store. He'd have to live on his own property as a hermit, with no business dealings with anyone.
Stop licking Rothbard's ass. When you do, come back.
-
Thinking from the perspective of an habitual offender...
"Gee, I can rape as long as I sell my stuff! Let me go rob some people to get some stuff to sell!"
Or from a wealthy offender...
"Gee, I have lots of cash! Let me kill some people!"
Exactly. This is one of my many problems with a completely free market justice system. People NEED to be punished for wrongdoing.
Though I know neither of you care, this doesn't help Rothbard at all since he argues that deterrent is not a valid justification (by itself) for a punishment system.
Now, rape is no small crime. The amount of restitution demanded would be very great. He'd have to steal a whole lot of stuff to have enough to pay off a rape. If he didn't get killed while robbing dozens (or more?) of people of all their possessions (which is unlikely), and then committed the rape, he'd still be fucked. He couldn't pay off the rape with the stolen wealth, since he'd have to pay all of that back and more (for inconvenience, threat to safety, psychological trauma, etc.) to those robbed. Robbing to fund rape would just get him into far more debt. Sure, some people will not understand this and will act irrationally. But people will act irrationally under any system of punishment.
For those that are ridiculously rich and can somehow afford to pay off murders and rapes, they still suffer a terrible reputation loss. Someone who spends his amassed wealth on a crime hobby would be quickly recognized for what he was and ostracized. Anyone who saw him would be on their guard and ready to shoot him. He wouldn't have the services of a protection agency. He wouldn't have the services of any insurance companies. He wouldn't even be able to go to the grocery store. He'd have to live on his own property as a hermit, with no business dealings with anyone.
I wasn't even considering deterrence- some people are gonna do what they will no matter what.
There are too many holes in your theory- this whole discussion is full of loopholes on both ends, realistically.
On your end, on rape, what if he decides he simply won't pay up? Or he is offered a ton of cash to commit the rape in the first place by someone with a sick fetish? Cash won't cut it, for me, neither does jail time. But I don't expect to ever see a society that offers anything other than jail.
As for the "rich" side- I don't think anyone would ever fully be ostracized. No matter how twisted, someone else can relate to that human condition. Plus, greed will take care of that in many instances.
-
Thinking from the perspective of an habitual offender...
"Gee, I can rape as long as I sell my stuff! Let me go rob some people to get some stuff to sell!"
Or from a wealthy offender...
"Gee, I have lots of cash! Let me kill some people!"
Exactly. This is one of my many problems with a completely free market justice system. People NEED to be punished for wrongdoing.
Though I know neither of you care, this doesn't help Rothbard at all since he argues that deterrent is not a valid justification (by itself) for a punishment system.
Now, rape is no small crime. The amount of restitution demanded would be very great. He'd have to steal a whole lot of stuff to have enough to pay off a rape. If he didn't get killed while robbing dozens (or more?) of people of all their possessions (which is unlikely), and then committed the rape, he'd still be fucked. He couldn't pay off the rape with the stolen wealth, since he'd have to pay all of that back and more (for inconvenience, threat to safety, psychological trauma, etc.) to those robbed. Robbing to fund rape would just get him into far more debt. Sure, some people will not understand this and will act irrationally. But people will act irrationally under any system of punishment.
For those that are ridiculously rich and can somehow afford to pay off murders and rapes, they still suffer a terrible reputation loss. Someone who spends his amassed wealth on a crime hobby would be quickly recognized for what he was and ostracized. Anyone who saw him would be on their guard and ready to shoot him. He wouldn't have the services of a protection agency. He wouldn't have the services of any insurance companies. He wouldn't even be able to go to the grocery store. He'd have to live on his own property as a hermit, with no business dealings with anyone.
I wasn't even considering deterrence- some people are gonna do what they will no matter what.
There are too many holes in your theory- this whole discussion is full of loopholes on both ends, realistically.
On your end, on rape, what if he decides he simply won't pay up? Or he is offered a ton of cash to commit the rape in the first place by someone with a sick fetish? Cash won't cut it, for me, neither does jail time. But I don't expect to ever see a society that offers anything other than jail.
As for the "rich" side- I don't think anyone would ever fully be ostracized. No matter how twisted, someone else can relate to that human condition. Plus, greed will take care of that in many instances.
I say kill 'em all.