quote:Now this is interesting...so if torturing to death a single rapist ended rape forever (the perfect deterrent) you still wouldn't do it?
As this has been pointed out to be ridiculous, I do not need to belabour that point. That said, if we're talking ridiculous extremes with no reference to reality... yes, I do think that.
I do not think the state should torture.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm sorry my opinion on a hypothetical situation offended your delacate sensibilities.
Your ignorant, arrogant, and deeply stupid argument offended my not-so-delicate sensibilities. And your cowardice disgusted me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is something a little different to think about. These women were taken over 10 years ago. Think about all the changes that have taken place in the world, and in your lives, that you would have missed in the past 10 years.
I-Phones.
President Obama.
The Tea Party Movement.
The Gulf Oil Spill.
Battlestar Galactica--the good one.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Being "playful" about torture is offensive.
To me as well, and that as much if not more than anything else is what prompted my observations about bloodlust versus justice or vengeance.
To an extent I can see why Stone_Wolf might bow out now, as there are quite a few people disagreeing at once (although truthfully, on this subject, those same people could be expected to disagree with anyone who was cheerfully advocating torture). So I don't think a response is likely to the points I (repeatedly) raised, but I'll echo you here: it's not a joke. We're not in a sitcom. Human beings mutilating one another isn't supposed to be funny.
ETA: Another observation: I don't have much patience for the outlook that says 'I get to be as vicious and vengeful about punishing a crime, even if I wasn't the victim'. See, we understand why a victim or their family may want-genuinely want-a rapist to have their penis torn off and then be killed. We're human beings, and when something such as that happens to us or our loved ones well it's only natural that we want some really serious payback.
But for some reason it's acceptable to sort of piggyback on that emotion for completely unrelated third parties.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can't have it both ways-that is, you can't claim to be in favor of prison reform and then use prison conditions (which you would reform) as a reason why we should torture.
.... how so?
Of course you can do both. I *would* reform prison conditions, if I could, but I know it can't be done.
In the absense of such reform, I would e.g. much greatly prefer for lashings to replace the current much more horrible prison sentences.
And even in the presence of prison reform, I would still consider lashings to be potentially a better option than prison sentences.
(And of course I know that won't be done either.)
Where in the name of Cthulhu do you see a contradiction in anything of the above here?
quote:
quote:Now this is interesting...so if torturing to death a single rapist ended rape forever (the perfect deterrent) you still wouldn't do it?
That is a false analogy, and an ugly, ugly form of argument. I wish you knew better.
It's called a hypothetical, and they're an absolute necessity for people to be able to discuss things in a sane fashion.
In this particular case such a hypothetical can serve to distinguish between someone who e.g. derives his anti-torture idea from consequentalistic metaethics vs someone who derives his anti-torture principles from deontological metaethics.
I find Stone_Wolf's question perfectly appropriate. That you didn't find the hypothetical tasteful, or that you didn't find the hypothesis plausible are two different issues, but someone who doesn't want to answer such a hypothetical has no business making statement like "I would oppose torture even if it was the perfect deterrent".
Here's my own answer: I believe I should torture even an *innocent* (and certainly a rapist), in the bizarre hypothetical that such a torture would eradicate rape from the world forever. I consider myself a consequentialist.
Note that I said "should torture" not "would torture" -- I evaluate it'd be my moral obligation, but I don't know if I'd have the stomach to go through with it.
But I can't see how I would ever be convinced of the validity of such a hypothetical. So though the hypothetical is an appropriate response to Tenshi's mention of "perfect deterrent", it's not really relevant to the actual discussion.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course you can do both. I *would* reform prison conditions, if I could, but I know it can't be done.
Err...why can't it be done, exactly?
If things such as prison violence weren't most often a punchline as opposed to a valid social issue to most people, and if we adopted a sane drug policy in this country...well, I think you see my point. At least one of these is already happening.
quote:And even in the presence of prison reform, I would still consider lashings to be potentially a better option than prison sentences.
First, we weren't discussing lashing, we were discussing-in these hypotheticals-genital mutilation and execution, or serial torture and then execution (by robots or something, ugh). Second, the reason neither he nor you can have it both ways is that it simply avoids a problem entirely, rather than even attempting to solve it.
In this case, prison violence is a problem. Stone_Wolf thinks so, and so do you. In fact, it's so bad that we ought to consider whipping and/or torture as an alternative, because prison conditions are so bad as to be torturous. Do you not see the 'wait, what?' moment there? In this line of reasoning there is a problem-prison violence. Well if it's a problem, shouldn't we actually at least attempt to solve it...or should we instead use the problem (which we won't try to solve) as a pretext to do anothing thing (torture or whipping) that we wanted to do anyway?
quote:Where in the name of Cthulhu do you see a contradiction in anything of the above here?
I think I've answered this question, but to go a step further about death or torture being preferable to long term imprisonment...if this is the case, isn't it strange how very, very hard death row inmates contest their sentencing, often until the very hour of execution? It would seem that from the comfort of our comfy chairs in front of our computers, we don't actually understand a human being's outlook in such circumstances after all.
quote:I find Stone_Wolf's question perfectly appropriate. That you didn't find the hypothetical tasteful, or that you didn't find the hypothesis plausible are two different issues, but someone who doesn't want to answer such a hypothetical has no business making statement like "I would oppose torture even if it was the perfect deterrent".
That wasn't the discussion he was having, first of all. Second, there are more than just problems of taste with the absurd hypothetical. Third, the reason it was a false analogy was because nothing Teshi said or suggested was on the level of 'single instance of torture, a permanent worldwide end to rape, period'. I'm not even sure where that bizarre equivalence came from.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Because it's politically inconvenient for politicians to look as if they care about wanting to make the lives of criminals better.
quote:Well if it's a problem, shouldn't we actually at least attempt to solve it...or should we instead use the problem (which we won't try to solve) as a pretext to do another thing (torture or whipping) that we wanted to do anyway
First of all, don't assume it's a pretext. Give me the courtesy of treating my opinions as honest ones.
Secondly I don't "want" to whip anyone -- if I could give absolute paradise to every person, criminal or innocent, I would do so at a heartbeat. Whether I endorse whippings or prison sentences they'd *both* be just means to an end -- namely the protection of society in general.
Thirdly, even if you eliminate prison violence completely what about all the *other* negative elements of prison, like having criminals socialize with other criminals? That seems a problem inherent to the whole "prison" concept.
Prison rape and prison violence in general are ludicrously easy to solve as "problems"-- just install cameras everywhere that record everything. You don't need human watchers, just have the cameras record everything to ensure you have iron proof for any crime occurring.
It's not being done because politicians don't find it politically useful to solve the prison violence/prison rape problem, and people don't care enough about prisoners to so have them solve it.
In fact any politician that attempted to do so would be accused of being soft on crime.
quote:Do you not see the 'wait, what?'
Prison violence is a system where you allow the strongest of the convicts to perform violence on the weaker ones.
Judicially-mandated lashings would be a system where the court decides the due punishment based on the severity of the crime -- you wouldn't be punished for being physically weaker or not having as many allies as other convicts.
So, no, there's a kinda big difference between the one violence and the other. With the latter, you know you're done with your penalty when you're done with your penalty. With the former, the violence is a random component.
quote:if this is the case, isn't it strange how very, very hard death row inmates contest their sentencing, often until the very hour of execution?
I would allow the choice to the convict between lashings and a prison sentence for most crimes that aren't murder and/or rape.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Golly everyone is wound up so tight.
I wish you had a shred of intellectual honesty in your body. Then it might be like "the old days," because it takes people having something to contribute other than the sound of keystrokes being wasted.
quote: I guess I just don't enjoy a kerfufle as much as I used to.
You are a coward. And now that you have lost all measure of standing in this discussion, you are trivializing it. That is what you have always, *always* done.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
even as one of the people who was pretty offended and done with sw's descent into "if everyone on earth got a pony if we tortured one rapist's tinky-winkler to death would you do it then" angles, i don't understand the megahate
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
