Corporal Punishment

[1048576]

Like I said, if you gain more from having the XBox than the other person loses from having it taken away, I have no problem with you robbing them. That won't happen often, because being robbed tends to make people chronically depressed, and XBox 360s tend to make people somewhat less bored.

Measuring happiness is nigh impossible, because you would periodically have to ask people how happy they are. I would only take action on this principle if there was an obvious increase or decrease in society's happiness.

Killing your mom may decrease your happiness, but it would increase the happiness of everyone who no longer has to pay for her medical care. If society is better off (your sadness is less than everyone elses collective happiness) with her dead, then she should die.

Just because I make you unhappy doesn't mean I make society unhappy. I could be an engineer who decreases the complexity of people's lives, for example. On the whole, keeping me alive benefits society. Besides, I wouldn't be responsible for killing your mom. The state would.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

So for example, I could get me and my friends to go rob someones house, and the people living there. We could take everything they own and sell it for money, and then we could use that money, and the money we took from them, to buy whatever luxuries we wanted. Therefore me, and those other 20 people who robbed them, would be extraordinarily happy due to the fact that we have loads of money. Also, the people who we bought the stuff from would also be happy. Our happiness would outweigh that family of 4.

Also, the family wouldn't give anything to society, due to the fact that they'd have to take things and get loans so they could rebuild their lives. So all they would start to do is take things from society and not be able to give anything back, therefore they'd be killed.

So not only could I rob someone and get away with it, the people who I robbed would get killed by the government.

 

[Devil7]

PNWED

Pluvia wins.

What 1048576 is talking about is called triage. However triage should only be used if the amount of needs exceeds the amount of wants. Example you have two sick people who will die, you can only cure one. Which of the two do you cure?

Another very large hole in your logic is "There are a limited number of resources and an unlimited number of needs". Peeze basically hit it on the head when he said there is plenty just unevenly distributed, but lets dig deeper into the meaning.

Unlimited means boundless or infinite. So what you basically said is that the current population of earth being almost 7 billion people needs equal infinite.
And that some number less than 7 billion is going to somehow produce less than infinite needs.

People are limited beings and create limited products which include needs and wants.

Also more effiecently could you spend the resouces at hand to equal them out, thus creating more happy people than your way. Your way might produce 3 million happy people (I stress MIGHT). This way creates 7 billion happy people and thus the happiness of the world is greater in out weighing your flawed logic.

Also your logic is very pardoxical at best. This way would inevitably cause a war. The war would make people unhappy and you would then be killing perfecftly good people who help society. You try and better society but instead destroy it, and ruin it in the process and thus is not better.

 

[1048576]

Each of you would only get 1/20 of their stuff, less if you got ripped off by the buyer (and if you didn't get ripped off, then the buyer doesn't gain happiness) That will make you a bit happier, but it doesn't make your collective happiness greater than the sadness suffered by that family of four. If it did, then yes, you are allowed to rob those people. I can't imagine how it would though.

Erm, the people you robbed obviously had money, which means they obviously had valuable skills that they could give to society. Otherwise nobody would pay them.

It makes more sense for the government to kill the people who aren't contributing to society and instead just stealing the things that they want.

There are an unlimited number of wants, not needs. Wants make people happier. Needs keep them alive. I need air. I want candy. I agree that there is plenty of air to satisfy everybody's need for air. There is not enough candy to satisfy everyone's desire for candy. That's why you have to pay for it.

I can name four needs. Food, water, air, and shelter. There aren't infinite needs.

My way would produce 7 billion extremely happy people (we just have to breed/clone the really good ones). Your way produces 7 billion people who run the gamut.

How would my actions cause a war? If people would become sad because they care about the people I'm killing, then it wouldn't improve society's happiness to kill them, so I wouldn't do it. If you looked at my original criteria I say that we should start out with unloved, unproductive people. How would killing unloved, unproductive people start a war? It wouldn't.

You need to think this through a little more instead of relying on your instincts to form your argument.

 

[Devil7]

Really so no one out there cares if the government goes on mass genocide. I agree certain criminals should be put to death, thats what death row is for. But unproductive old people, and down sydrome vistims. I would definintly say people would start to care, even if they weren't related or even knew each other. I promise that if the government started killing people based on the productivity or love of a person I would take up arms against them and so would others, thus a war would be inevitable. Just because you don't believe in a basic right to live, doesn't mean other people don't.

And my arguement still stands I'll just repharse it for you.

If 7 billion people create unlimited amount of wants, exaclty how does a number less than 7 billion not create the same infinite wants as you so put it.

And you stated my point exaclty. What you say will not bring happiness to anyone, so it is completely pointless to even bring up in the first place.

 

[Red Exodus]

The death penalty costs more money than incarceration, so if you think it's going to save money, it won't. There's a lot of paperwork than goes into it and by the time it's done it's a lot more time and money than simply incarcerating the criminals.

Not only that but they just die and that does not make them suffer much at all. I'm sure a lot of people would rather die than sit in prison for the rest of their lives, knowing they would never get out and knowing what goes on in prison. That being said, being forced to live in those conditions is probably far worse than just dying.

This thread has gotten a bit too off-topic for me. I don't really care to argue for whether or not certain people deserve to live or die because it's not my place. If 1048 thinks he can handle killing a human being then that's on his shoulders but I sure as hell won't pretend I can justify killing someone over something so foolish and subjective.

 

[Livvers]

(we just have to breed/clone the really good ones).

Ignoring everything else ridiculous you've been saying that shows you really aren't considering human nature into the equation, I'll point this part out.

There is no way to breed and/or clone someone and be sure they'll be productive for society. A clone of someone does not mean they will act the same way as the person they were cloned from. They will have similar traits, but their upbringing and life experiences will be different. The closest example we have to this could be twins. I've known twins who were vastly different from each other. They share pretty much the same genetics, but their experiences growing up were different, and they had different personalities, despite being raised in the same family and going to the same school.

Breeding is another ridiculous idea, pretty much for the same reason I stated above. You can't tell what kind of kid two good, productive people will have(not to mention you won't be able to tell if they'll be good parents or not). You can't always predict mental disorders. Jeffrey Dahmer lived a pretty normal life and didn't live in an abusive family, yet he grew up to kill and eat people. Rich people often times don't spend time with their kids, and spoil them to make up for it. These kids grow up to depend on their parents and are bratty and sometimes don't do anything productive for society because they don't have to. They waste needs and wants that others couldn't dream of having.

 

[1048576]

If there were fewer appeals the death penalty would cost less. This is how it should be.

How do you decide who to punish and who to forgive. I think free will violates causality, one of the fundamental axioms of logic. Free will cannot exist assuming effects have causes. Therefore, death row is just as good for serial killers as it is for *******.

Your argument that we should do dumb things because other people support doing dumb things is kind of preposterous. If everyone jumped off a bridge...

1 person would still have infinite wants, but if you breed good people, you can have seven billion people who either can produce more, be equally happy with less, or both.

Edit: @ Livvers: we can abort feti showing signs of mental ***********. Chances are, if a person has good genes, their offspring will have good genes as well. Social environment does play a role in a person's happiness and productivity, but genes play a larger role. I don't equate good with rich.

 

[Livvers]

Edit: @ Livvers: we can abort feti showing signs of mental ***********. Chances are, if a person has good genes, their offspring will have good genes as well. Social environment does play a role in a person's happiness and productivity, but genes play a larger role. I don't equate good with rich.

=|

Mental *********** does not equal mental disorder. You can't always tell that someone will have a mental disorder just by looking at their brain.

Genes do not always play a larger role in how a child will be productive. This isn't even something you can prove, so it's hilarious that you're arguing it. Also, there are families who are poor, or who aren't very productive, and their kid(s) grow up to do amazing things. Again, an argument with genes: twins will develop different personalities and do different things. Families will have kids, and you have the one son/daughter who is a lay-a-bout and doesn't go on to amount to anything.

On top of that, how a parent raises their kid makes all the difference in the world on how their kid will be productive. Ask any teacher.

I assumed you equalled rich to good when you said:

Erm, the people you robbed obviously had money, which means they obviously had valuable skills that they could give to society. Otherwise nobody would pay them.

Or I should say I assumed you would allow those kind of people to "breed".

I'm pretty much done with this, though. I'm not going to argue this anymore because I think it's hilarious and on par with people who think socialism can work for a big population.

 

[Omis]

@1048
On this board your causing more annoyance than happiness, thus you should die.
But seriously your logic is horribly flawed. Which "govenment" gets to decide who is worth saving and who is worth killing. Let's say our friends up North have a great criteria for whom should live. This is hypothetical of course because there is no good criteria for killing inocent people. Well maybe some european country, lets say Spain, doesnt like there ideas and they instead think only people above six feet tall should be alive. Well they then kindly go over to Canada and kill everyone under six feet tall. They then respond that this is okay because they are enjoying their taller world. Well then the Canadians attack the Spaniards thus starting a war.

Any criteria for the perfect race will always without a doubt fail. Any plan for the perfect person will inevitably end in war. This is possibly the easiest concept to grasp. You can't just say the govenment will decide because not every government is a democracy. also your responce to Pluvia was extremely flawed. Maby the people he robbed won the lottery.

 

[Devil7]

How do you decide who to punish and who to forgive. I think free will violates causality, one of the fundamental axioms of logic. Free will cannot exist assuming effects have causes. Therefore, death row is just as good for serial killers as it is for *******.

I smell an Incompatibilist Neo-Nazi. (or someone listening to Good Charlotte too much. )

Either this guy is jacking with us, or he is very mentally ill and there is no way we can convince him otherwise. Even if we debate until our faces turn blue and punch more holes in his theories than a wheel of swiss cheese, I doubt we would even make a dent.

I'm with Livvers, don't even bother with this guy anymore.

P.S. I'm seriously considering siging that quote.

 

[1048576]

The criteria is simple. If society gained happiness from looking at tall people and misery from looking at short people, short people should die. Since only a small fraction of society operates this way, short people can live.

What causes an effective parent? I say the parent's genes and social environment. I can't believe you are arguing that genes don't matter. They do. They play a significant role. Why would you not want good genes in your society's children? Good genes are ones that predispose children to productivity and happiness.

I agree that I cause more unhappiness than happiness and deserve to die under my system. Big deal.

How do any of you reconcile free will with the concept that effects have causes? You can't.

Sorry for responding out of order and haphazardly. There are a lot of responses. Which is good. I like to argue.

They won the lottery because they were good at picking numbers. If you take it back far enough you'll realize that anything can be reduced to luck.

 

[GoldShadow]

Alright, so I've decided that 1048576 is either 14 years old (making him an idiot by default), or older than that but an idiot anyway.

I would like to suggest that we all start ignoring his posts so that maybe this discussion can get back on track and become productive.

 

[Thrillhouse-vh.]

Fascism ftl

 

[Peeze]

So corporal punishment...
In places like Australia their parliament made a document called "the rights of the child" and they outlined rules for how, and where a child can be punished, because i think the problem with cp is that it can be abused.
video documentary!
sure this post had no point, but it got us back on track

 

[Pluvia's other account]

You're allowed to hit kids over here as long as it doesn't leave any visible marking. Though not alot of people know that, everyone thinks it's completely banned. Also it's generally looked down upon to smack your kids.

 

[Peeze]

Yeah thats what the vid says. It made a good point that kids associate with cp with danger. Meaning they wont lets say play with the stove, because they know what will happen if they do.

 

[1048576]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how free will is possible? Perhaps instead of calling me an idiot for no reason (like children,) one of you can answer that. If you don't, I'll assume I've won and that killing ******* and serial killers is justified.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

It's not an "argument to win", you don't win anything, it was a debate of points. The only way you'd win is if you manage to change the other persons view on things, but you never, everyone just decided that we were going off-topic and there was no way we were going to change your views.

Your philosophy wouldn't work, the world doesn't work that way. The End.

 

[Omis]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how free will is possible? Perhaps instead of calling me an idiot for no reason (like children,) one of you can answer that. If you don't, I'll assume I've won and that killing ******* and serial killers is justified.

Like Pluvia said you can't win an arguement without changing the debaters minds.

 

[1048576]

The way to win an argument is to show that your opponent is acting illogically. That's the whole point of a debate. You try to show why my view is irrational, and I try to show why your view is irrational. I feel like I have shown your view to be irrational by stating a premise which none of you have disagreed with (effects have causes) and using that premise to claim that free will doesn't exist. (logic allows me to take that step). Thus I claim that serial killers and ******* are equally at fault for the negative consequences they have imposed on society. I have premised that ******* make a lot of people kind of unhappy, while serial killers make a few people very unhappy. I claim that if you are willing to kill serial killers, then you should be willing to kill ******* and anyone else who makes society as unhappy as serial killers.

The only counter you have offered is that nobody makes people unhappier than serial killers. Killing someone makes their happiness drop to zero. There are many crimes that make people miserable (i.e. negative happiness.) I am allowed to assume the victim of the murder was unloved because I assume you would want to sentence the killer to death regardless of whether they murdered a prostitute or the mother of a family of five.

 

[Devil7]

The way you win a debate is also by knowing what you are talking about. Its quite clear you have no concept of quantum mechanics, and until you do your research there is no debate, GTFO.

Ignore him and let him think he has won, it won't really matter anyways.

On Topic: I agree with Peeze, if they know what they do is wrong and connect it with danger they might not do it. I also believe this power should not be abused, and that at a certain age cp has no real affect.

 

[Livvers]

The way you win a debate is also by knowing what you are talking about. Its quite clear you have no concept of quantum mechanics

Or basic psychology and biology.

On Topic: I agree with Peeze, if they know what they do is wrong and connect it with danger they might not do it. I also believe this power should not be abused, and that at a certain age cp has no real affect.

I agree with this, too. Once a kid is in their early teens, I don't think cp should be used. A kid's brain is at the point where he understands language and rights and wrongs much more clearly, and using cp will be too much of an insult and demeaning.

 

[Devil7]

Or basic psychology and biology.

I was more focused on the compatabilist versus incompatabilist point, but your also right.

I agree with this, too. Once a kid is in their early teens, I don't think cp should be used. A kid's brain is at the point where he understands language and rights and wrongs much more clearly, and using cp will be too much of an insult and demeaning.

Thats about when it stop working for me. IDK about other kids maybe they are different.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Stopped working for me about 11. I just dodged one day.

 

[Devil7]

Stopped working for me about 11. I just dodged one day.

SPOT DODGE, PUNISH. Who said SBB tatics didn't work IRL.

 

[Hyper_Ridley]

SPOT DODGE, PUNISH. Who said SBB tatics didn't work IRL.

But what if your Dad is Metaknight?

 

[Devil7]

But what if your Dad is Metaknight?

Now thats an image MK flailing around a paddle at children.

THE NEW CP, METAKNIGHT. He should be instated in everyschool across the world.

 

[1048576]

The way you win a debate is also by knowing what you are talking about. Its quite clear you have no concept of quantum mechanics, and until you do your research there is no debate, GTFO.

Ignore him and let him think he has won, it won't really matter anyways.

On Topic: I agree with Peeze, if they know what they do is wrong and connect it with danger they might not do it. I also believe this power should not be abused, and that at a certain age cp has no real affect.

The fact that a particle cannot have both a determinate position and a determinate velocity at the same time has no bearing on this discussion. All that says is that we cannot predict our future actions, not that we can choose what actions we implement.

It's quite clear you don't want to argue, but you do want the last word. That's too bad.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I only read the OP, but I would like to contribute.

I have a 14 month-old son. There's no bargaining with him, no reasoning with him. Yesterday, I saw him unplug the lamp, and then he went to plug it back in. So I slapped him on the arm and yelled "No" at him. He cried, of course.

I already know what some of you are going to say: "You could have just taken the cord from him" or "You can put the lamp somewhere he can't reach it". Those things don't work. You take the cord from him, and five minutes later (or less), it's right back in his hands. And you'd really be surprised at the places a baby can get to.

That's only the second time I've ever hit him, but I'm sure it won't be the last. Children aren't capable of reasoning out situations, or foreseeing the consequences of their actions, which is where the parent comes in. Babies don't understand concepts like "Time-out", and they want to know what happens when you put something into an electrical outlet. So what I do as a parent is instill fear into him, because he does understand that. That might sound cruel or barbaric, but guess what: He didn't grab the plug for the lamp again. A tender arm is a hell of a lot better than being electrocuted.

 

[Devil7]

It is a shame more parents aren't like this. Now I see kids in the grocery store hitting and cursing at their parents because they want something and the parents give in, WTF.

Man when that generation grows up this will be one F***ed world.

And I'm sure you get told this all of the time, but congrats on having a kid. I'm married and want kids, just not yet. Maybe in a couple of years.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Thanks. I don't like to see my son cry, and I wish he could be happy and smiling every minute of every day. But sometimes, the parent has to hurt the kid a little to prevent the kid from hurting themselves alot.

 

[Devil7]

Thanks. I don't like to see my son cry, and I wish he could be happy and smiling every minute of every day. But sometimes, the parent has to hurt the kid a little to prevent the kid from hurting themselves alot.

I've always had a question so maybe you can anwser. Is it hard to not spoil your kid? You said you wish you see him smile and happy all of the time. So is it more of a willpower issue, and thats why parents suck these days. IDK I don't have kids yet so I can't speak from experience, but I always wondered why parents let their kids walk all over them.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I admit that sometimes I let my son do things that he probably shouldn't (like chew gum ). But this is pretty much where gender roles come in: my wife is the one that spoils him in general, and I'm the stern one usually. I think it balances out pretty well.

 

[Devil7]

My wife is probably the stern one between us. I'de like to say I wouldn't spoil my kid(s) but I'm not sure. Guess I'll find out when I get there.

You know its kind of refreshing to talk to a grown married smasher rather than the usual teenager.

Maybe there should a married smashers thread.

 

[Jam Stunna]

There have been two attempts at a married Smasher's thread, but it never lasts. There just aren't that many of us around.

 

[Devil7]

::CRIES LOUDLY:: I feel so alone ::CRIES SOME MORE::

Your probably right, which sucks very much.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

I only read the OP, but I would like to contribute.

I have a 14 month-old son. There's no bargaining with him, no reasoning with him. Yesterday, I saw him unplug the lamp, and then he went to plug it back in. So I slapped him on the arm and yelled "No" at him. He cried, of course.

I already know what some of you are going to say: "You could have just taken the cord from him" or "You can put the lamp somewhere he can't reach it". Those things don't work. You take the cord from him, and five minutes later (or less), it's right back in his hands. And you'd really be surprised at the places a baby can get to.

That's only the second time I've ever hit him, but I'm sure it won't be the last. Children aren't capable of reasoning out situations, or foreseeing the consequences of their actions, which is where the parent comes in. Babies don't understand concepts like "Time-out", and they want to know what happens when you put something into an electrical outlet. So what I do as a parent is instill fear into him, because he does understand that. That might sound cruel or barbaric, but guess what: He didn't grab the plug for the lamp again. A tender arm is a hell of a lot better than being electrocuted.

This here is fine. I have nothing against this kind of stuff. What I do have a problem against is people who smack their kids across the face in a rage.

 

[Peeze]

Thats not cp though. Thats called abuse.
Thats why australia is genius for having concrete rules of what and what isnt abuse. The world should do the rest.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

Though if cp was allowed, many people will start to do that. Things like that is the reason for our strict rules on it too I think.