Kid gets his hand crushed in China.

[Battlecow]

Just hurting the guy solves nothing. Psychological evaluation and rehabilitation actually has a tangible positive effect on society. The only thing to be gained from the form of punishment you are talking about is the consolation of sadism. Reaching out to all, even those who do unbelievably heinous things, puts yourself above them. Simply indulging in sadistic pleasures to makes us just as low as the people who committed the crime in the first place.

I'm not really going to get into a debate about our differing subjective definitions of "justice" though.

So first you completely ignore what I said about it being a kind of justice you don't like by again implying (foolishly) that the "best" or most morally responsible course of action must be the only just one, and then you say that you're not going to debate definitions, when the entire argument that we've just had has essentially been about differing definitions of justice (and by the way, it's not all that subjective. There's an agreed-upon, if somewhat inexact, definition that most people adhere to, and it much more closely resembles mine than yours; virtually no one would agree that justice consists of "reaching out to all, even those who do unbelievably heinous things.")

Good job, man.

Justice is entirely relative, to them they're dealing out justice to the thief. Not only that, but I'm pretty sure justice as a humanitarian concept isn't the type of justice handed out by a lynch mob of savages, again this is why vigilantism isn't allowed. People are exceptionally violent and bloodthirsty, it seems that they're just waiting for someone to excuse their lust for such activity. Oh he's a paedophile, oh he beat up a woman HE NEEDS JUSTICE.

Yes, they probably think that they're acting justly. They think wrong, though, because they're causing harm to a child who's too young to bear moral culpability for his actions. Their actions are therefore unjust, to a degree where it would be just for me to exact a punishment in the form of a beating. Jail time would also be just, of course.

I'm not sure quite what to say to the second part there, except that if someone's acting out of bloodlust rather than a sincere desire for justice, they're probably exacting unjust penalties and generally acting unjustly. There's even a case to be made that all violent justice should be stopped; I'm only saying that it is, in fact, just.

Justice isn't about satiating your individual anger at a person, but the problem is most plebs aren't capable of understanding this which is why we have such a complex legal system.

I never said it was. You seem to be reading a lot into what I wrote.

Oh and it is repeating the cycle. Violence > violence > (if someone from say their family finds out) more violence > keep going[/COLOR]

I fail to see a cycle here. If they took revenge on me, then yes, that would be the start of a cycle. But you could say that about any administration of justice; throwing people in jail is a kind of violence as well. Are judges perpetuating a cycle of violence because the friends of those they put away might kidnap them and lock them up in a cellar somewhere? The difference between me and the thugs would be that I would be acting justly, and they'd be acting unjustly.

Because eye for an eye is a primitive method that has no place in western society, that is what we are told. Honestly the type of justice you believe in is being employed on that kid, which is EXACTLY why it is not justice, because you are doing nothing but emulating the people who were beating down that child. There are a myriad of other punitive actions (some of them arguably more cruel) that could be employed, but again it's always "let's beat him down", "kill him", because the mind of a savage doesn't seem to extend far beyond.

That "because" had so much promise, so much potential, before you followed it up with yet another spectacular misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of justice. Do you really think that crushing a 6-year-old's hand because he's been taught to pick pockets is just? And for the last time, I AM NOT SAYING THAT BEATING THEM WOULD BE MORALLY RIGHT. I'M SAYING IT WOULD BE JUST. Please stop talking about what a savage I am and how primitive my idea of justice is.

Because revenge can be blow way out of proportion. Let me tell you how I would take revenge if someone say assaulted the person I love. I'd probably tie them up in a basement somewhere and torture them to death, and I'm very very creative, so it would be extremely painful. The point is, that's not justice, that's just cold blooded revenge to satisfy my desire to cause harm. That is not justice.

Again, that first word is good, but after that it all falls apart. Obviously not all revenge is just; I'm merely saying that one can administer justice and take revenge in the same action. When Osama got capped, the special forces soldier in question may have been avenging a loved one who died on 9/11. Does that make the shooting unjust?

It is to them, and you're not going to CHANGE that fact by administering violent "justice", it's through education and through less emphasis on violence, but obv that's not gonna happen so looking forward to episode 2.

Thank you and have a nice day.

OK. Perhaps we'd do more good by rehabilitating them or whatever. But whacking them a couple of times would still be justice, regardless of whether it was the best path.

And my day was lovely; thanks for wishing it on me

 

[Raidex]

This was just cruel. I'm ashamed to live in the same world with people like this.

Even though they're beating someone up, they beat up a helpless child, that guy is seriously a coward.

 

[Luigitoilet]

So first you completely ignore what I said about it being a kind of justice you don't like by again implying (foolishly) that the "best" or most morally responsible course of action must be the only just one, and then you say that you're not going to debate definitions, when the entire argument that we've just had has essentially been about differing definitions of justice (and by the way, it's not all that subjective. There's an agreed-upon, if somewhat inexact, definition that most people adhere to, and it much more closely resembles mine than yours; virtually no one would agree that justice consists of "reaching out to all, even those who do unbelievably heinous things.")

Good job, man.

I didn't read a lot of that, but I wholeheartedly believe that justice is subjective. "Somewhat agreed upon" is usually not the same thing as "truth", in my experience. I don't believe anything is the best, least of all my own belief and definitions of anything. Nothing is the best, nothing is anything to me. I don't care how many people agree with me or not. I'm explaining my viewpoint. Why are you attacking me? You didn't even really respond to my post at all.

This doesn't just apply to you, but a lot of people on the internet: You are not your beliefs, you don't have to get so defensive over them when someone has a viewpoint that clashes with yours.

 

[Teran]

Yes, they probably think that they're acting justly. They think wrong, though, because they're causing harm to a child who's too young to bear moral culpability for his actions. Their actions are therefore unjust, to a degree where it would be just for me to exact a punishment in the form of a beating. Jail time would also be just, of course.

I'm not sure quite what to say to the second part there, except that if someone's acting out of bloodlust rather than a sincere desire for justice, they're probably exacting unjust penalties and generally acting unjustly. There's even a case to be made that all violent justice should be stopped; I'm only saying that it is, in fact, just.

The reason why I'm really really cynical about everything that comes to childrens rights etc is because I firmly believe children past like the age of 7 are fully ****ing aware of what they're doing. They may not understand some complex social constructs or perhaps the mechanics of some of the more risqué things in life, but they are fully aware of actions and consequences. You know what? I was, all the kids around me were, and a large majority of them abused their social standing as "an innocent and naive child" to get away with pretty much anything. I'm not saying crushing some kid's hand is how you teach him a lesson (although it totally does teach a ****ing lesson), but the reality is that children are more than morally culpable and aware of their actions, especially in developing countries where they don't have a blanket of innocence thrown over them even after they start sprouting pubic hairs. That kid is most likely very "mature" so to speak, and so yes he knows what he's doing.

I never said it was. You seem to be reading a lot into what I wrote.

I tend to do that.

I fail to see a cycle here. If they took revenge on me, then yes, that would be the start of a cycle. But you could say that about any administration of justice; throwing people in jail is a kind of violence as well. Are judges perpetuating a cycle of violence because the friends of those they put away might kidnap them and lock them up in a cellar somewhere? The difference between me and the thugs would be that I would be acting justly, and they'd be acting unjustly.

Jail has much better control, plus the fact that an iron clad legal system means that people generally aren't that resentful if they're put away legitimately. Yes it's not nice to go to jail, but they broke the rules of society and they know it, so they deal with it. Someone beating the **** out of you or killing you isn't part of the script, and killing and physically hurting people causes a much stronger knee jerk reaction, and it will very likely cause a cycle of violence. All you have to do is look at gangs. Gangs administer their justice by killing one of theirs for killing one of their own, all that achieves is a gang war. I'm not really a pacifist since I don't really like people and don't care if they all kill each other (unless they're attractive guys), but the fact is that I also don't like hypocrisy and administering violent justice for a violent crime is the most hypocritical thing I can possibly think of. Personally I would sentence criminals to slave labour but whatever.

That "because" had so much promise, so much potential, before you followed it up with yet another spectacular misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of justice. Do you really think that crushing a 6-year-old's hand because he's been taught to pick pockets is just? And for the last time, I AM NOT SAYING THAT BEATING THEM WOULD BE MORALLY RIGHT. I'M SAYING IT WOULD BE JUST. Please stop talking about what a savage I am and how primitive my idea of justice is.

Theft is a hell of a crime. Also, even though justice is relative, all I'm saying is punishing a person by doing exactly what they're doing is majorly hypocritical and just wtf I don't get it I don't know how people have such a fixation with being self righteously violent. Nothing is just and nothing is unjust because ultimately justice doesn't even exist but if it did I'm pretty sure eye for an eye is a hypocritical form of administering it.

Again, that first word is good, but after that it all falls apart. Obviously not all revenge is just; I'm merely saying that one can administer justice and take revenge in the same action. When Osama got capped, the special forces soldier in question may have been avenging a loved one who died on 9/11. Does that make the shooting unjust?

Yes it was unjust because apparenty
a) He was unarmed
b) He could have been "persuaded" to give up a whole bunch of information and have Al Qaeda destroyed at the root, which would have brought true justice to the victims of his attacks. Instead they just put a bullet in his head which didn't really do anything except anger the terrorists and still have us unsure as to the exact nature of the entire operation.

OK. Perhaps we'd do more good by rehabilitating them or whatever. But whacking them a couple of times would still be justice, regardless of whether it was the best path.

Well if you say so, but just know this is why you aren't allowed to take the law into your own hands, and seemingly the legal system FAVOURS CRIMINALS BUT WHAT ABOUT GOOD HONEST AMURRRRICANS?

And my day was lovely; thanks for wishing it on me

Glad to hear it, so was mine. :D

 

[Battlecow]

I didn't read a lot of that,

That being the case, I feel content not only ignoring the rest of your (no doubt fascinating) post, but also not reading any responses you may give or posts you may make in the future.

Seriously though, it was like two sentences. Kind of a **** move to respond after not reading the equivalent of a tweet.

The reason why I'm really really cynical about everything that comes to childrens rights etc is because I firmly believe children past like the age of 7 are fully ****ing aware of what they're doing. They may not understand some complex social constructs or perhaps the mechanics of some of the more risqué things in life, but they are fully aware of actions and consequences. You know what? I was, all the kids around me were, and a large majority of them abused their social standing as "an innocent and naive child" to get away with pretty much anything. I'm not saying crushing some kid's hand is how you teach him a lesson (although it totally does teach a ****ing lesson), but the reality is that children are more than morally culpable and aware of their actions, especially in developing countries where they don't have a blanket of innocence thrown over them even after they start sprouting pubic hairs. That kid is most likely very "mature" so to speak, and so yes he knows what he's doing.

I remember being a kid as well. None of that post is right. Kids are just stupid, not malicious.

I tend to do that.

Maybe you should stop? It leads to you saying silly things, and you don't strike me as the kind of guy who likes to be viewed as foolish.

Jail has much better control, plus the fact that an iron clad legal system means that people generally aren't that resentful if they're put away legitimately. Yes it's not nice to go to jail, but they broke the rules of society and they know it, so they deal with it. Someone beating the **** out of you or killing you isn't part of the script, and killing and physically hurting people causes a much stronger knee jerk reaction, and it will very likely cause a cycle of violence. All you have to do is look at gangs. Gangs administer their justice by killing one of theirs for killing one of their own, all that achieves is a gang war. I'm not really a pacifist since I don't really like people and don't care if they all kill each other (unless they're attractive guys), but the fact is that I also don't like hypocrisy and administering violent justice for a violent crime is the most hypocritical thing I can possibly think of. Personally I would sentence criminals to slave labour but whatever.

I didn't say that beatings were "better" than jail. I said that they wouldn't necessarily start a cycle. Judges have more power than criminals, so they can administer justice without fear of retribution. All I have to do to make it non-cyclical is to have some kind of power over the thugs. Also way to be classy with the guys thing.

Theft is a hell of a crime. Also, even though justice is relative, all I'm saying is punishing a person by doing exactly what they're doing is majorly hypocritical and just wtf I don't get it I don't know how people have such a fixation with being self righteously violent. Nothing is just and nothing is unjust because ultimately justice doesn't even exist but if it did I'm pretty sure eye for an eye is a hypocritical form of administering it.

1. You still haven't responded to my point about why justice is not relative

2. It's not hypocritical. Is giving the electric chair to a serial killer hypocritical? You see the world in such simplistic terms.

3. If justice is relative, morality is relative and there's nothing morally wrong with me having a good time beating on dudes who "deserve" it if it appeals to some vestige of empathy in my soul.

Yes it was unjust because apparenty
a) He was unarmed
b) He could have been "persuaded" to give up a whole bunch of information and have Al Qaeda destroyed at the root, which would have brought true justice to the victims of his attacks. Instead they just put a bullet in his head which didn't really do anything except anger the terrorists and still have us unsure as to the exact nature of the entire operation.

Don't wiggle. Both of those points are (obviously) beside the point. What if he'd been unarmed and informationless? To make an acceptable rebuttal here, you have to somehow offer evidence for your apparent position- that is, that justice and revenge can't be taken in the same action.

Well if you say so, but just know this is why you aren't allowed to take the law into your own hands, and seemingly the legal system FAVOURS CRIMINALS BUT WHAT ABOUT GOOD HONEST AMURRRRICANS?

So you're conceding the argument? You do realize that the argument has been about whether whacking guys could be just all along, right?

Glad to hear it, so was mine. :D[/COLOR

Yay!

 

[frotaz37]

lol, I would argue that kids don't know what the hell they're doing until age 25+.

 

[Luigitoilet]

I know it wasn't directed at me, but dear god YES, the death sentence/electric chair is the definition of hypocrisy.

and this

"3. If justice is relative, morality is relative and there's nothing morally wrong with me having a good time beating on dudes who "deserve" it if it appeals to some vestige of empathy in my soul."

this is all true. I think painting this statement with the word "justice" is where people are taking issue with your arguments. Technically, there is nothing morally wrong with anything because morals don't exist. They are defined by the society you live in.

This argument in general is kinda weird...it keeps coming back to "justice"...which is just a word, one that means just as little as "morality" does. that's why I'm not really keen on having a serious debate about it because at its root it's just fundamental differences in beliefs. "This is wrong!" "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" "Wrong/right doesn't exist" "yeah well you're still wrong" "no, actually, you are."

 

[Teran]

What you don't get is while I always fully endorse the idea that justice is relative, violent justice for a violent act is the definition of hypocrisy and should not be practiced by any sane individual with half a brain.

Also I would quote all the bits and pieces but I took out the part where you seem to be misunderstanding me, the others it's just a case of agree to disagree.

Thing is, I dunno about you American kids, but over here we grow up a bit faster, and trust me a lot of us were bad to the bone. The irony is I was one of the good ones.

 

[Atomic Yoshi]

So... what about the people that got robbed? They got screwed over and did nothing wrong. Innocent people were victimized. Someone has to be punished.

 

[Luigitoilet]

So... what about the people that got robbed? They got screwed over and did nothing wrong. Innocent people were victimized. Someone has to be punished.

Indeed, that will surely cause the stolen money to returned back to its rightful owners!

 

[Teran]

Well actually beating a kid who stole your cash senseless usually enables you to get it back.

Not saying it isn't extreme but just saying you probably would get the money back.

 

[Flutter NiTE]

*Starts Thread

*Pays attention for a day

*Comes back with 50+ posts.



No matter what the reason for the beating, still cruel.

 

[Teran]

Life is cruel, deal with it.

 

[El Nino]

So... what about the people that got robbed? They got screwed over and did nothing wrong. Innocent people were victimized. Someone has to be punished.

The possibility of underlying ethnic hatred makes me unwilling to accept that accusation without evidence. If they had caught him and handed him over to the authorities, that would be one thing. But this looks like racial/ethnic violence, in particular how the other observers simply accept the explanation that the kid is a thief without question and never attempt to ask further questions, to intervene, or to suggest that the police be notified.

China's legal system has severe human rights issues, but that does not make this attempt at "justice" any better.

 

[Vinylic.]

Life is cruel, deal with it.

Life does not need to be defined. It's too much.

 

[1048576]

I think that criminals should have to create wealth equal to the harm they caused

*slinks away

 

[Orboknown]

Oh look people are being violent and cruel.

I want to be violent and cruel to them to teach them a lesson! Yes cos you know perpetuating the cycle is the way to cause change. Right.

+12 awesomeness

That was a crazy vid..wow..

 

[Battlecow]

I know it wasn't directed at me, but dear god YES, the death sentence/electric chair is the definition of hypocrisy.

and this

"3. If justice is relative, morality is relative and there's nothing morally wrong with me having a good time beating on dudes who "deserve" it if it appeals to some vestige of empathy in my soul."

this is all true. I think painting this statement with the word "justice" is where people are taking issue with your arguments. Technically, there is nothing morally wrong with anything because morals don't exist. They are defined by the society you live in.

This argument in general is kinda weird...it keeps coming back to "justice"...which is just a word, one that means just as little as "morality" does. that's why I'm not really keen on having a serious debate about it because at its root it's just fundamental differences in beliefs. "This is wrong!" "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" "Wrong/right doesn't exist" "yeah well you're still wrong" "no, actually, you are."

I had a great time not reading this.

What you don't get is while I always fully endorse the idea that justice is relative, violent justice for a violent act is the definition of hypocrisy and should not be practiced by any sane individual with half a brain.

Also I would quote all the bits and pieces but I took out the part where you seem to be misunderstanding me, the others it's just a case of agree to disagree.

Thing is, I dunno about you American kids, but over here we grow up a bit faster, and trust me a lot of us were bad to the bone. The irony is I was one of the good ones.

You would quote all the bits and pieces, but you'd rather answer two of the more opinion-based ones and then act like the others don't exist so that it looks like you still have a leg to stand on. It's cool, I get that a lot.

 

[Teran]

No you're wrong about absolutely everything and the only reason I haven't been expressing myself as clearly as I wanted to is because I'm a moderator and have certain professional boundaries.

If those boundaries weren't there, I'd have put my insignia on your scrotum with a blowtorch, and made sure to make you feel completely and utterly wrong about everything just like you are.

 

[Spelt]

Teran ... boundaries?

 

[Teran]

Trust me if you see my posts in private rooms, you'd understand how much I keep myself in check on public boards. >.>

 

[Spelt]

Yeah but I was around before you got modded.
I've seen some stuff.

 

[Pluvia]

Trust me if you see my posts in private rooms, you'd understand how much I keep myself in check on public boards. >.>

This explains the love you get from a lot of people who are public rooms only.

 

[Luigitoilet]

I had a great time not reading this.



You would quote all the bits and pieces, but you'd rather answer two of the more opinion-based ones and then act like the others don't exist so that it looks like you still have a leg to stand on. It's cool, I get that a lot.

Noooo, my own tactics flipped upon me! Now I know the pain I inflicted upon you. I'm very sorry, Battlecow. I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me.

...hey, this is kind of like the debate we were having! You were right all along! I'm gonna just flip flop on all that crap I said before, actually.

 

[Teran]

This explains the love you get from a lot of people who are public rooms only.

I keep myself in check in Disco Room too, smartarse.

 

[Pluvia]

You're not doing a very good job of it then.

 

[Vinylic.]

I keep myself in check in Disco Room too, smartarse.

At what time exactly? I was looking around there when i joined last year.

 

[Battlecow]

No you're wrong about absolutely everything and the only reason I haven't been expressing myself as clearly as I wanted to is because I'm a moderator and have certain professional boundaries.

If those boundaries weren't there, I'd have put my insignia on your scrotum with a blowtorch, and made sure to make you feel completely and utterly wrong about everything just like you are.

I'm gonna take that as an unconditional surrender to my superior intellect. Thanks.

Noooo, my own tactics flipped upon me! Now I know the pain I inflicted upon you. I'm very sorry, Battlecow. I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me.

...hey, this is kind of like the debate we were having! You were right all along! I'm gonna just flip flop on all that crap I said before, actually.

I didn't read this, but I can extrapolate from what I've learned about your character from previous posts and say that it's an admission of defeat and a congratulations on my flawless victory in the argument. Thank you.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Mark it down! Remember this day for the rest of your life.

Man, this thread is down the tubes and I can't close it :<

 

[frotaz37]

Who the hell quotes something they didn't read and then responds to it?
That's like the worst way of posting imaginable.

Good for some laughs though, I guess?

 

[Vinylic.]

So like what? We're done here? Teran still hasn't responded though.

Who the hell quotes something they didn't read and then responds to it?
That's like the worst way of posting imaginable.

Um, Yeah. That would be someone over here.

Close Ninja.

 

[Pluvia]

I didn't read the agument because I don't care, but Battlecow sounds like that delusional Mekuri guy from that post.

 

[frotaz37]

I actually agree with most of Battlecows points...
I might not agree with his tactics but at least he doesn't change his entire point in the middle of the argument

By the way, jail time is violent justice the majority of the time. Stop pretending it's not.

 

[Spelt]

Changing my point in the middle of the argument is my favorite pastime.

 

[Teran]

I'm gonna take that as an unconditional surrender to my superior intellect. Thanks.

You just keep telling yourself that because you're the only one that believes it.

Also you're American, your intellect being superior is an impossibility.

Oh and frotaz, jail time isn't violent justice if prisons are run how they should be. Oh well guess they aren't and that's a flaw in the justice system, but it's still technically meant to be a safe incarceration in theory.

 

[Spelt]

...At least we have clean teeth?

 

[Kuraudo]

 

[Vinylic.]

You're American, your intellect being superior is an impossibility.

Hey so is yours. We're already even on that. Now we gotta know how many people brush their teeth daily.

 

[Teran]

We have fluoridated water, even if we didn't brush our teeth they wouldn't decay.

Miracles of modern science.

 

[Sucumbio]

Trust me if you see my posts in private rooms, you'd understand how much I keep myself in check on public boards. >.>

This.

10selfrestraints