Jump to content

Eye for an eye


Zierro

Recommended Posts

So then prove that capital punishment works. Prove it, we've given you evidence that shows otherwise, now let's see why you say it works. "Well only a small amount of people commit murder" isn't proof.

 

There isn't really proof that capital punishment works any better than traditional punishment. But the difference is I don't use stray correlations and extrapolate into firmly believing something as silly as people never fearing to lose their life/freedom.

 

The main reason to have it is because it prevents a second crime, and if there is at least one person who fears that punishment enough to not to go murder someone, it has prevented that crime. The funny thing is though, we act based on self-interest so often. Why is crime and punishment an abnormal exception but staying away from beehives or fire are not? I hear people admit they would do certain things if it wasn't for the law. Are you telling me everyone who does that is a liar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

The main reason to have it is because it prevents a second crime, and if there is at least one person who fears that punishment enough to not to go murder someone, it has prevented that crime. The funny thing is though, we act based on self-interest so often. Why is crime and punishment an abnormal exception but staying away from beehives or fire are not? I hear people admit they would do certain things if it wasn't for the law. Are you telling me everyone who does that is a liar?

 

But you haven't proved it prevents the second crime? I'm sure it does, on occasion, but in general the statistics don't support that conclusion.

 

I agree, it's great - if someone who fears the punishment doesn't murder someone, it's prevented that crime, and that's great.

 

Here's the thing.

 

If using rehabilitative methods and pro-active treatment can prevent hundreds of crimes(which they can) then it's a far better solution.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you PROVE it's effective? No? So then I guess you're the one who firmly believes something silly like murdering people is supposed to keep crime down without even having ANY studies that come even near confirming it. What if I told you I could show studies where murders INCREASED in the month/months immediately following an execution? Would you change your belief or would you think of some other way to avoid bringing up counter evidence and trying your hardest to try to render the study invalid? Are you just going to plug your ears every time some brings you studies like you did last thread, and say "LALALALALALALALAL I CANT HEAR YOUUU".

 

 

But you haven't proved it prevents the second crime? I'm sure it does, on occasion, but in general the statistics don't support that conclusion.

 

He means that killing the murderer prevents them from committing another crime. WELL NO [cabbage] GENIUS! YOU THINK MAYBE KILLING SOMEONE WILL MAKE THEM NOT BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING?! I WONDER!

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we just kill everyone who makes mistakes? We'd have a world full of perfect people.

Sarcasm, I hope? (Page one won't load for me, so I can't tell if you're replying to someone or not >.>)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you haven't proved it prevents the second crime? I'm sure it does, on occasion, but in general the statistics don't support that conclusion.

 

It does prevent a second crime - it makes it impossible for it to happen. Whether it would have or wouldn't have cannot be proven, but the fact is, now it simply can't.

 

We can't find statistics for that, because they are dead. Why do you guys worship statistics so much though? Especially in a subject where they aren't of much help?

 

If using rehabilitative methods and pro-active treatment can prevent hundreds of crimes(which they can) then it's a far better solution.

 

But there is no "proof" that they have prevented crimes. How can we even discover, or "prove", which crimes have been shot down and by which causes? Prevented crimes never took place, so they cannot be measured. Only inferred.

 

What if I told you I could show studies where murders INCREASED in the month/months immediately following an execution? Would you change your belief or would you think of some other way to avoid bringing up counter evidence and trying your hardest to try to render the study invalid? Are you just going to plug your ears every time some brings you studies like you did last thread, and say "LALALALALALALALAL I CANT HEAR YOUUU".

 

Ahh, okay so you do believe every single person who says, "It's not worth it," is just lying. You are just upset that I question the argument you held so dear as your "objective proof that people don't care about their own self-interest". Interesting opinions, you dog-worshiping revenge-seeking pseudo scientist you. Maybe if you'd learn to be a little less biased instead of believing what you believe and having that be the end-all of the debate, you'd actually learn to criticize my arguments instead of revealing to me that you simply have nothing better to say but get retribution on me. I enjoy seeing how far you're willing to dig your hole though. My friends and I love reading your material, man. We would even recommend becoming the next Doctor Seuss. But seriously, if you're not even going to attempt to reason with me then go do something else, because if you're just here for the flamewar you got a lot of catching up to do dude. I'm spitting mad logic at yo ass.

 

YOU THINK MAYBE KILLING SOMEONE WILL MAKE THEM NOT BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING?! I WONDER!

 

I know, a lot of my points are painfully obvious. It's funny how you dismiss them. "PEOPLE TRY TO AVOID GOING TO JAIL!!!" Lol. What are you even doing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It does prevent a second crime - it makes it impossible for it to happen. Whether it would have or wouldn't have cannot be proven, but the fact is, now it simply can't.

 

We can't find statistics for that, because they are dead. Why do you guys worship statistics so much though? Especially in a subject where they aren't of much help?

 

Ok, missed that...

 

How are statistics not much help in this case? Statistics are of limited use, I agree...but in this case if capital punishment was nearly as effective as you claim it is countries employing it as a method of justice should be seeing significant decrease in crime per capita. This is not the case, plain and simple.

 

But there is no "proof" that they have prevented crimes. How can we even discover, or "prove", which crimes have been shot down and by which causes? Prevented crimes never took place, so they cannot be measured.

 

 

We can't. But we can look at statistics. Sweden, for example, practices a fairly progressive justice system focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Their crime rate per capita is extremely low. (if my memory serves me correctly, I don't remember where I saw that)

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We can't find statistics for that, because they are dead. Why do you guys worship statistics so much though? Especially in a subject where they aren't of much help?

 

 

But there is no "proof" that they have prevented crimes. How can we even discover, or "prove", which crimes have been shot down and by which causes? Prevented crimes never took place, so they cannot be measured. Only inferred.

 

You are just upset that I question the argument you held so dear as your "objective proof that people don't care about their own self-interest". Interesting opinions, you dog-worshiping revenge-seeking pseudo scientist you. Maybe if you'd learn to be a little less biased instead of believing what you believe and having that be the end-all of the debate, you'd actually learn to criticize my arguments instead of revealing to me that you simply have nothing better to say but get retribution on me. I enjoy seeing how far you're willing to dig your hole though. My friends and I love reading your material, man. We would even recommend becoming the next Doctor Seuss.

 

Seriously, if you're not going to attempt to reason with me then go do something else, because if you're just here for the flamewar you got a lot of catching up to do dude. I'm spitting mad logic at yo ass.

 

1. Statistics are very much useful in criminal justice

2. You can measure the effectiveness of preventative programs and crime prevention by seeing a notable decrease in the type of crime and area you are trying to prevent.

3. I used to believe that eye for an eye was awesome, but then I started looking at the EVIDENCE and actually learning about criminal justice.

4. Most murders are not planned and deliberate, so their own self-interest isn't considered. But hey, I guess you know everything and your idea that all murderers are cold blooded and kill intentionally supersedes empirical evidence and backing up from pretty much every scholar in the field.

 

So far you just keep saying that punishment works because ____, or capital punishment works because ______. Care to ever back any of that up, or are you just going to keep on blindly believing your schema about criminals?

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I can't understand you.

 

You are saying that a certain punishment deters crime.

I show statistics that say that areas where this certain punishment is in effect actually have the same crime rates, if not higher.

You say that those aren't right because the "facts" (which have just been called into question by the statistics I just showed) say that criminals are deterred by harsher punishments.

 

Same [cabbage], different thread. He's just going to try to dismiss any evidence you bring to him

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An eye for an eye is perfectly fair for an individual person, but it doesn't work as an absolute system.

 

ex.

 

Steve kills Bob's family. An eye for an eye would give Bob the right to kill Steve's family, and that's not fair. After all, it was Steve that committed the crime, not his family. So sure, Steve will feel the same thing Bob felt, but the punishment extends to people that don't deserve it.

 

Tbh, I have no idea how to punish people for minor offenses. But look at all the people that are serving life sentences. Living for free with taxpayer money, and the government has no intention of ever releasing them. Why? I say kill them and harvest the organs to be given to people on waiting lists. If we actually end up with a surplus of organs, export.

LOTRjokesigedition-1.png

Get back here so I can rub your butt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But look at all the people that are serving life sentences. Living for free with taxpayer money, and the government has no intention of ever releasing them. Why? I say kill them and harvest the organs to be given to people on waiting lists. If we actually end up with a surplus of organs, export.

 

I'd like to see a break down of the charges people are serving life for.

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, missed that...

 

How are statistics not much help in this case? Statistics are of limited use, I agree...but in this case if capital punishment was nearly as effective as you claim it is countries employing it as a method of justice should be seeing significant decrease in crime per capita. This is not the case, plain and simple.

 

Statistics can be skewed. Statistics can be coincidental. Statistics can have too small of a sample size. Statistics can be misleading. Statistics don't account for other underlying factors (such as the culture, religions, politics, time period, specific events, media, etc.). The only way to prove a crime has been prevented would be to measure that crime, not patterns of crime which are swayed by a multitude of other factors and sometimes just random. http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/notverygoodatstatistics.html

http://www.truthpizza.org/logic/stats.htm The simplest way to put this is to say correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Yet all of you here seem to think this trend proves that people aren't budged when it comes to punishments, and regard it as photographic evidence or something.

 

And here is my evidence: I've heard, and I'm sure many of you have too, of people claiming to want to commit an action, but not going through with it because of the punishment, specifically being their freedom. Also, it has been observed that living things tend to try to avoid negative consequences. However, I never tried to give off the impression this correlation "proves" something, just that it sounds more logically reasonable.

 

1. Statistics are very much useful in criminal justice

 

Maybe so, but not in the way you're using them. Trying to measure crimes that have been prevented compared to those that have not been prevented and treating it as fool-proof facts.

 

2. You can measure the effectiveness of preventative programs and crime prevention by seeing a notable decrease in the type of crime and area you are trying to prevent.

 

If you want to disregard all of those factors I listed, by all means, go ahead. The statistics aren't completely useless, but not helpful enough to show us whether this guy and that guy didn't go through with their bad thoughts for that reason. You are jumping to a convenient conclusion.

 

3. I used to believe that eye for an eye was awesome, but then I started looking at the EVIDENCE and actually learning about criminal justice.

 

I used to believe Jesus's and Ghandi's philosophies were awesome, until I started looking at the EVIDENCE and actually learning about how psychology and society works in reality.

 

4. Most murders are not planned and deliberate, so their own self-interest isn't considered. But hey, I guess you know everything and your idea that all murderers are cold blooded and kill intentionally supersedes empirical evidence and backing up from pretty much every scholar in the field.

 

When murders are thought out thoroughly, they are in all probability less likely to occur and therefore to not exist, making them unmeasurable. By the way, unmeasurable =/= nonexistent. We don't know how many aliens exist, but that doesn't mean we know zero exist.

 

Same [cabbage], different thread. He's just going to try to dismiss any evidence you bring to him

 

You keep making logical fallacies, I point them out, and you accuse me of ignoring your "solid infallible proof". Quit crying about how you think you are correct. Next time you say I'm dismissing your "proof", you're going to tempt me to use the "lalaa not listenin cuz im rite!" card. It looks much easier. :wink:

 

I show statistics that say that areas where this certain punishment is in effect actually have the same crime rates, if not higher.

 

Not every country is going to have the same exact crime rate, so what are you comparing your stats to? It can't be prevented crimes because you can't physically find that out.

 

Here's some "evidence" I found:

 

When I flip a coin with my eyes closed, it is heads 30 times and tails 70. When I flip a coin with my eyes open, it is heads 70 times and tails 30 times. This is proof that closing your eyes gives you better chance of scoring tails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can't. But we can look at statistics. Sweden, for example, practices a fairly progressive justice system focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Their crime rate per capita is extremely low. (if my memory serves me correctly, I don't remember where I saw that)

Well i don't know about that, i'm not gonna bother looking. But we seem to release everyone after 5 min inside the house.

You'll get a longer prison sentence for economic crimes than physically harming ones. Hooray!

Anyway, i'm not gonna add more than this. My views stay the same since the last thread about this subject.

J'adore aussi le sexe et les snuff movies

Je trouve que ce sont des purs moments de vie

Je ne me reconnais plus dans les gens

Je suis juste un cas désespérant

Et comme personne ne viendra me réclamer

Je terminerai comme un objet retrouvé

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An eye for an eye is perfectly fair for an individual person, but it doesn't work as an absolute system.

 

ex.

 

Steve kills Bob's family. An eye for an eye would give Bob the right to kill Steve's family, and that's not fair. After all, it was Steve that committed the crime, not his family. So sure, Steve will feel the same thing Bob felt, but the punishment extends to people that don't deserve it.

 

Tbh, I have no idea how to punish people for minor offenses. But look at all the people that are serving life sentences. Living for free with taxpayer money, and the government has no intention of ever releasing them. Why? I say kill them and harvest the organs to be given to people on waiting lists. If we actually end up with a surplus of organs, export.

I'd be all for that except that because of the appeal processes, the cost of keeping someone in prison for life is actually less than sentencing them to death, and sometimes an execution costs more than twice as much.

That is only logical if a person does enough work to pay off their food,guard,keeping the prison in good condition,rent of use,lighting,heat and paychecks.

 

Hanging someone costs less than a Dollar.

 

It also depends on the crime.

 

 

 

Eye for an Eye can work but were talking more of a trading card for a trading card type deal:

 

It's meant to solve trivial problems not politics and law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An eye for an eye is a rather poor system. As the overly cliche' Khalil Gibran quote says "An eye for an eye, and the whole world would be blind. " It is very true as it only perpetuates hatred. That is why responses must be unproportional to the crime. There can only be two options: (1) we live in a world where we attempt to rehabilitate all criminals which I personally don't think would ever work or (2) examples are made out of them which utterly devastate them so they cannot do the action against, as well as deter others. If one acts in a limbo between the two like the American justice system the government ends up spending lots of money pampering criminals compared to how they should be treated, i.e. TV is not an necessity of life, and also most of us must pay for what we use. As soon as criminals get out of jail, they return to old habits, having made connections in jail (that is, if they haven't been sentenced to life in which they will take up space and $22,650 per year [according to FBP]).

kaisershami.png

He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked... Your daily life is your temple and your religion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are missing a huge point, Zierro. You can't simply say "correlation doesn't imply causation" and then disregard all statistics someone can give to you. Comparing real studies with your heads/tails experiment is only ridiculing the work of plenty of social scientists and statisticians.

 

Correlation doesn't imply causation, but causation necessarily implies correlation, and that's what you are missing to see. If stronger punishments were a deterrent, we would necessarily see it correlating to some extent or another to less crime. If there is no such correlation, we can know that stronger punishments aren't a deterrent.

 

 

-On a side not, I removed quite some posts from the first pages. Flamewars and name calling won't do any good to anyone.

This signature is intentionally left blank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. They try to take that into account when doing the studies. When you've got an inner city neighborhood that has been having steadily increased criminal activity for years and years, and then you add something preventative (more street lights, cameras, after school programs) and crime immediately decreases drastically and stays low for years after that (with environmental design changes still present), then it's safe to say that it was the preventative measures. Researchers would notice something drastic that would affect their study, like suddenly everyone isn't poor anymore in the neighborhood (lol). You can further collect data by talking to the residents. If your goal is to reduce the amount of inner city kids joining gangs, then implement sports programs and see a drastic reduction in kids joining gangs, then it's fairly obvious what is causing that. After you've ruled out other variables from being responsible for the decrease in crime, you're safe in saying it was your change that reduced it.

 

Speed cameras/traffic cameras are crap, everyone knows they are for the government to make money. The only thing they're good at is reducing the speeds drivers are going RIGHT where the camera is, then speeding up when they get past. I skimmed the link you posted, and one thing I have to say: If the place had an accident in 1998, and 3 in 1999, and 1/2/0 the years before that then: after cameras are installed, and if they were effective (which they aren't no matter what people say - which is that they aren't effective anyway), then the accidents should be 0 for many consecutive years, and NOT return to the general trend. If it returns to the general trend, then not effective. But that's a bad example, speed cameras are EFFICIENT, but they aren't effective (unless you count getting more money effective). You couldn't have found criticisms of actual criminal code violations/crime reductions?

 

ALSO, one of your link's biggest gripes is no comparing to non camera locations. You can easily compare neighborhood crime stats or even city stats, and studies do compare stats like that. Eg. For more to the original point of the topic, studies have compared murder rates of states with capital punishment to those immediately adjacent to them geographically.

 

2.

Also, it has been observed that living things tend to try to avoid negative consequences. However, I never tried to give off the impression this correlation "proves" something, just that it sounds more logically reasonable.

 

Two requirements for punishment to be even effective is:

A) It needs to be immediate

B) It needs to occur after each unwanted action (crime)

 

A) Being charged/convicted with a crime is rarely immediate. Instead of learning not to commit the crime, they learn that they should do X to avoid being caught by police.

 

B) Criminals don't get caught for every crime they commit.

Negative consequences don't even mean jack when you think you won't get caught

 

Maybe so, but not in the way you're using them. Trying to measure crimes that have been prevented compared to those that have not been prevented and treating it as fool-proof facts.

Crime reduction is a visible and measurable thing

The statistics aren't completely useless, but not helpful enough to show us whether this guy and that guy didn't go through with their bad thoughts for that reason.

See first bit of post

 

 

 

 

I used to believe Jesus's and Ghandi's philosophies were awesome, until I started looking at the EVIDENCE and actually learning about how psychology and society works in reality.

 

Do tell us about that psychology and workings of society. I'm also a minor in psychology and taking sociology. I don't see how psychology or sociology has more weight over actual criminal justice studies.

 

 

 

 

When murders are thought out thoroughly, they are in all probability less likely to occur and therefore to not exist, making them unmeasurable. By the way, unmeasurable =/= nonexistent. We don't know how many aliens exist, but that doesn't mean we know zero exist.

What I'm saying is most murders are in the heat of the moment/when drunk/on drugs/etc. People don't murder primarily because it is morally wrong.

 

 

 

You keep making logical fallacies, I point them out, and you accuse me of ignoring your "solid infallible proof". Quit crying about how you think you are correct. Next time you say I'm dismissing your "proof", you're going to tempt me to use the "lalaa not listenin cuz im rite!" card. It looks much easier. :wink:

 

You still have given 0 evidence for any of your stances or claims, while trying to attack my character (from previous threads even) and my sources because of your lack of.

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how you all are making the extrapolation that nobody ever decided not to murder somebody based on their punishment, or that there has never been a case where a murderer would have continued his ways. That capital punishment has not prevented any further conflict against the innocent. Even if one innocent person's life has been saved, I believe it is a worthy cause.

 

You are just arguing that capital punishment isn't as effective of a deterrent as you would like it to be. This is completely agreeable. But what none of us know is what the specific crime rates would have been if there was no capital punishment to fear in specific areas/time periods:

 

Let's say in the year 2005 Country A has the death penalty and country B does not. Country A has 100 murders and Country B has 80 that year. What you are doing is jumping to conclusions and treating this as photographic evidence that "nobody is swayed by punishment". From as far as you can tell, IF in 2005 Country A did not have the death penalty and Country B did, the statistics could be that Country A has 100 murders and Country B has 60, in which case 20 murders have been prevented and we actually know this because this would be proof.

 

But again, there is no way to measure prevented crimes, because they do not exist. (Unless you were to use time travel.) Statistics can be immensely suggestive in certain cases, but the ones here are being used to prove something in which they simply cannot. It does not prove that "people don't care about severity of punishment". The approach I prefer is evident amongst human nature altogether: we have plenty of evidence that humans act based off of self-interest.

 

All Blood and Rocco have been doing is ignoring this point and regarding the statistics as indisputable proof anyways, instead of countering my point. So if you still want to go by the statistics, tell me, has it been proven that 0 crimes have been prevented or has it been proven that simply "not enough" crimes have been prevented? What exactly would the statistics look like if one crime has been prevented by the death penalty? I believe I have even heard the claim that prison has never deterred a single crime either, which really says a lot about this whole debate. This is just one of those strange cases where people are going to think they are "right" and "true" because they slap the label of "proof" onto a faulty hypothesis, and don't dare to reconsider their beliefs regardless of the logical fallacies that skeptical scrutiny and mere commonsense point out. I've specifically shown people in real life these arguments and specifically heard them say they would do things if they weren't specifically going to be punished for it, and to say that anyone who does that is just a liar is like me saying your statisticians are just liars. Even if there were solid statistics that punishment significantly deters crime, I get the feeling the same couple of people would be arguing the same exact point about correlations I am making right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're like a Christian who's only remaining argument is, "well you can't disprove god exists with 10000% certainty". Ignoring the fact that the evidence points to nothing BUT the absence of god, and that there isn't any empirical evidence for their claim. And you keep falling onto hypothetical situations and anecdotes. Yet they still keep on believing. Except your argument is more hypocritical

 

Murder is the ultimate evil and a morallly reprehensible crime, unless the state does it on my behalf, then it's all just hunky dory.

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're like a Christian who's only remaining argument is, "well you can't disprove god exists with 10000% certainty". Ignoring the fact that the evidence points to nothing BUT the absence of god, and that there isn't any empirical evidence for their claim.

 

There is no evidence suggesting god's nonexistence. What kind of rebuttal is that? I give you a logical explanation for my stance, and the only thing you can say is, "NAW UR STIL RONG!" without even attempting to point out how or why. Typical.

 

And you keep falling onto hypothetical situations and anecdotes. Yet they still keep on believing. Except your argument is more hypocritical

 

Murder is the ultimate evil and a morallly reprehensible crime, unless the state does it on my behalf, then it's all just hunky dory

 

It's "hypocritical" to prevent an innocent little girl from being killed by killing an immoral sadist? Okay... Are policemen and judges hypocrites? Sorry but I care more about the innocent little girl's life, whereas you just love giving people who like chopping people's heads off and eating them for fun the benefit of the doubt with every single chance you get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove he exists. Also prove that evolution is wrong. Also prove that the earth is 6000 years old. Also prove that we were around at the same time as the dinosaurs. In spite of all the evidence we have that says otherwise.

 

 

 

 

So it's "hypocritical" to prevent an innocent little girl from being killed by killing an immoral sadist? Okay... Sorry, but I care more about the innocent little girl's life, whereas you just love giving people who like chopping people's heads off and eating them the benefit of the doubt.

Because death penalty is the only option right?

yes.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove he exists.

 

I never claimed he does, only that you do not know whether he does or not. Nobody knows whether god exists. I suggest reading up on Negative Proof. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

Also prove that evolution is wrong. Also prove that the earth is 6000 years old. Also prove that we were around at the same time as the dinosaurs. In spite of all the evidence we have that says otherwise.

 

Those are all pretty irrelevant to god's (even the Christian one's) existence.

 

Because death penalty is the only option right?

 

Nope, but it is the specific reason that prevents certain people from doing certain things. Let's stop beating around the bush and make it nice and simple for you. I know of people who would kill others if there was nothing holding them back.

 

Question: Why does the phrase "not worth going to jail over" exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For people who don't want to do something, but want to pretend that they're "cool enough" to do it if there was no penalty in place.

"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security."

Support transparency... and by extension, freedom and democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For people who don't want to do something, but want to pretend that they're "cool enough" to do it if there was no penalty in place.

 

And all the statisticians are liars paid by the government. ;)

 

Obviously there are going to be exaggerations out there, but to think every single time that's been said it was always just a blatant lie, wow. Reminds me of the times when people threaten to commit suicide, and people say, "lol ya right u wouldnt do it", but then they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, there are absolute truths concerning morality. Yes, counter-intuitive, but allow me to attempt to explain. Now, imagine the worst life possible: it will involve, murder, rape, loneliness, disease, short-lifespan, pain, death and assorted unpleasantness. Now, imagine the best: it will involve a long, healthy life, financial and social success, etc. Those are absolutes. There is not a single, mentally stable person on the planet that would choose the former over the latter.

 

That's the beauty behind an eye for an eye. A man who thinks stealing is not wrong should not be bothered if others want to steal from him, but this is not the case, therefore he does believe said action is wrong and you are showing that to him. The reason he steals is not because he doesn't consider it immoral - he does it because he lacks the empathy to care.

 

Since it's so fun to quote the Bible in this thread: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

(I'll never understand why some people think an eye for an eye is just masked sadism. It's an educational strategy if you ask me.)

 

I actually think to the contrary. The 'eye for an eye' method is largely unsuccessful in what punishments are designed to do -- keep people from performing crimes. You would need an equal number of people willing to perform crimes on criminals, in ratio to the criminals themselves. Wouldn't that cause an issue?

So, basically Earthysun is Jesus's only son.

earthysig3.jpg

earthynorris.jpg

awwwwuo6.jpg

wootsiggiedagainhw5.jpg

algftw.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'eye for an eye' method is largely unsuccessful in what punishments are designed to do -- keep people from performing crimes.

 

It is a much more successful method than the alternative of doing absolutely nothing to discourage crimes and evils. Children who get grounded or spanked or a firm talk usually learn from it and don't repeat the offense. Biologically, animals stay away from activities that lead to negative consequences. People want to reap the benefits of stealing, raping, fighting, etc. but they don't think it's worth getting into the trouble. People act based on self-interest all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.