Manga News: Check out these new manga (5/18/15 - 5/24/15).
New Forums: Visit the new forums for Boku no Hero Academia!
Forum News: Cast your votes to determine the best parent in the Anime Showdown.
And there are limits to simplification, reducing judge decision to a binary choice between death and "turn the other cheek" is just crazy.
And slavery isn't objectively bad only in perspective, like the eating of meat, or so many cultures throughout history wouldn't have practiced slavery.
Whereas cannibalism only exists in ritual contexts (and instances of survival), like the eating of other large predators such as lions. There is probably a basis to the taboo in biology, because its universal. It might help avoid the ingestion of prions (ie kuru kuru in New Guinea) or it might just be a spandrel related to 'social brain' functioning. Predatory species displaying true pack hunting such as spotted hyenas are far less likely to engage in cannibalism, or the eating of other species that are ecological competitors, than are solitary species such as leopards and tigers.
All human emotions are good, and evolved naturally for a reason. There is a beast within man that ought to be exercised not exorcised!Quote:
In 19th century America, the slaves in the south had better health and living conditions on average than the 'free' industrial workers in the north. If I had to choose then I'd be a legal slave in the healthy environments of the south rather than living in an urban slum and dying earlier.
Slavery exists everywhere. It's neither good nor bad, it's reality, just as mathematics is reality, so too is Slavery, as Slavery is the result of Inequality, another reality, just like mathematics. Remove mathematics and there's no existence, remove inequality and there's no existence, remove slavery and there's no existence. Slavery and Inequality might as well be mathematics for all we know. As all three are absolutes, that allow for existence of everything, our universes, our muliversii, our reality, etc. Asking if Slavery-Inequality is bad is like asking if 1+1=2 is bad... it makes no sense.... If fairness existed, then nothing else exists. If 1+1=75, then nothing else exists. There's only one answer that gives existence: 1+1 must = 2, there must be Inequality, there must be Slavery.
SLAVERY THRIVES ONWARD:
Parent (slave master) to child (slave), employer (slave master) to employee (slave), male (slave master) to female (slave), government (slave master) to the people (slaves), rich people/nations (slave master) to poor people/nations (slave), leader (slave master) to follower (slave), "Mr./Ms. Popular/Sexy" to "Mr./Ms. Loner/Ugly", tall/smart/athletic male (slave master) to short/stupid/nerdy male (slave), Heathy (Slave Master) to Sick (Slave), and etc inequalities. Slave Master = Leader/Better/Special/Rich/Privileged/Important/Winner/Popular/Parent-Adult/Healthy/Beautiful to Slave = Follower/Worser/Non-special/Poor/Non-privileged/Non-important/Loser/Loner/Child/Sick/Ugly.
Justice = "Crime and Punishment" = Crime = Punishment = Retribution = Retaliation = Revenge = Eye for an Eye
I could use an explanation of how Justice is different from Revenge, as I don't understand at all right now how one can think that Revenge is not Justice and that Justice is not Revenge. They are one and the same. Justice is Revenge and Revenge is Justice.
and... a system is a system...
Justice-Revenge is a concept, you never told me what justice-revenge is. all you talked about was a system. a system has nothing to do with the topic-concept of justice-revenge, a concept that is understood and believed in by everyone.
what do you mean by animal vision?
we are all "animals", we are all organisms... we all die, we all kill and get killed. virii, bacteria, parasites, fungii, worms, insects, fish, amphibeans, reptiles, birds, mammals (that's us), and etc. We are all life, all organisms, all "animals". there's nothing special about us, we're animals like all other animals. we all behave exactly the same. we all understand and know the same things, ownership-property, socialization, thinking, emotions, logic, rationale, war, violence, hunger, anger, love, lust, frustration, economics, tools, strategy and tactics, teamwork, cooperation, stealth, Mind-Awareness of Self-Identity, deception, revenge, and etc.
the question is why do we feel closure, why do we feel this satisfied sense of justice-revenge when a wrong-crime is punished, why do we even have this concept of justice-revenge, of wrong and right, of ethics-moral ??? why do we have emotions? what's so important about emotions? why do we so reject emotions? why do we favor "logic, rationale, and calmness" when such logic and rational can always justify the unjustifiable, whereas where does this emotion come from, why and how does every cell and fiber of my being tell me that child rape is wrong, and when I hear of some one even just acused of it, I want to tear him to shreds, why and where does this feeling come from, this certainty of feeling of wrongness in child rape, are we really so smart in denouncing our emotions, when our worshipped logic and rational can justify the unjustifiable, when logic and rationale actually thus have ZERO significance, ZERO truth, ZERO authenticity, when logic and rationale are so utterly empty and hollow.
Last edited by HegemonKhan; November 30, 2011 at 07:07 PM.
HK is right, humans evolved emotions for a reason, reason must be used within the framework of furthering instinct. Webs of logic that are not guided by evolved instincts are potentially harmful, indeed lower IQ people who function more on gut instincts tend to behave in ways that make more Darwinian sense. What Darwinian sense do things such as multiculturalism and pro-choice serve? These abstract ideas may make sense on paper and therefore look intelligent, but applied they work-against impersonal self interest. And yet such dysgenic ideas have the most currency among high IQ people.
"But the awakened one, the knowing one, saith: "Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body.
The body is a big sagacity, a plurality with one sense, a war and a peace, a flock and a shepherd.
An instrument of thy body is also thy little sagacity, my brother, which thou callest "spirit"—a little instrument and plaything of thy big sagacity.
"Ego," sayest thou, and art proud of that word. But the greater thing—in which thou art unwilling to believe—is thy body with its big sagacity; it saith not "ego," but doeth it.
What the sense feeleth, what the spirit discerneth, hath never its end in itself. But sense and spirit would fain persuade thee that they are the end of all things: so vain are they.
Instruments and playthings are sense and spirit: behind them there is still the Self. The Self seeketh with the eyes of the senses, it hearkeneth also with the ears of the spirit.
Ever hearkeneth the Self, and seeketh; it compareth, mastereth, conquereth, and destroyeth. It ruleth, and is also the ego's ruler.
Behind thy thoughts and feelings, my brother, there is a mighty lord, an unknown sage—it is called Self; it dwelleth in thy body, it is thy body.
There is more sagacity in thy body than in thy best wisdom. And who then knoweth why thy body requireth just thy best wisdom?" - Freidrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Last edited by faintsmile1992; November 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM.
Hegemonkhan, i had the impression that you considered Justice-Revenge like the truth but it is rather your personal concept.
Justice = "Crime and Punishment" = Crime = Punishment = Retribution = Retaliation = Revenge = Eye for an Eye
If I may say, that's lot of equal after claiming that inequality rules our existence
So here are the difference I see between Justice and Revenge.
Justice main role is to apply the law. If I drive without driving licence and I'm caught, then I will be sanctioned by Justice. Where is the revenge here ? To have revenge, you need to be at least 2.
To be fair with the topic, let's take the part of justice where Revenge and Justice may have common points : the resolution of conflicts and crimes. To me, there are 2 points where I think that Justice differs greatly from Revenge, in Justice there is :
1 : a third person called judge (theoretically impartial) which will take the decision
2 : a trial followed by a verdict, which means that the result of the trial is not known until the end
Now let's talk about the system. Our justice system is full of procedure, code and rituals. They are here for a reason : get rid of the emotion. Contrary to what you say, emotion have nothing to do with Justice. Emotions deals with the instantaneous, today you want to kill the rapist, tomorrow you will have forget about him and talk about the new newspaper headlines. A judge decides on his convictions not his emotions. The latter would make a terrible judge. If police makes a procedure error during the investigation of a crime, then the judge must cancel the procedure whatever is emotions toward the criminal are. Despite is name, justice is not always just.
I had another debate with Hegemonkhan about evolution. I don't think that human societies follow darwinism anymore because there is no more selection. I don't remember exactly which thread but it's in the general section.
Last edited by k-dom; December 01, 2011 at 02:42 PM.
I still stand firmly on my position that it is the system that is unsure and uncertain that is goes to the extreme of death to ensure someone is gone. The concept of a prison is really a strange one in different countries, those that are more democratically advanced have lower prison penalty years, those that are not have death penalties.
Still strange how the US a democratically advanced country has them? And yet they say China is wrong for having so many? It does not matter of the social and political order, both function on the majority and both are very keen on imposing ideas on the majority. It really is the fault of society that made up this really strange way of delivering JUSTICE. A term as old as war. A term that really has no meaning at all. Do you feel this thing? Does it flow in your blood?
There is no justice once a crime is done it is impossible to revert it and the only way for the criminal to be punished is if he punishes himself like in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, there really is no other way someone can make another person pay for their crimes. It is pointless and useless, we really have not changed much we still function under and Eye for an Eye when we fail to grasp the real problems that lead to that, we try to solve something after it is done.
what determines law? our sense-concept of justice-revenge. Murder is a crime, because it is WRONG, not because it causes disruption to society. Child Rape is a crime because it is WRONG, not because it causes disruption to society. Lying is a crime, because it is WRONG, not because it causes disruption to society. Theft is a crime, because it is WRONG, not because it causes disruption to society. Etc Etc Etc. And if you really want to argue that the basis of law is to prevent disruption to society, then I will ask, and why do you need to prevent disuption to society? And the only answer that you can give me, falls right back to... because, it is WRONG. I rest my case. Law wouldn't exist without morality, law is based entirely upon morality. And morality is one with our concept of Justice-Revenge. You can't have morality without justice-revenge, and you can't have justice-revenge without morality. Law is merely an ORDERLY SYSTEM of morality, of Justice-Revenge.
oh, you certainly can't undo a crime, but that doesn't mean you can't punish them for what they've done. Of course, you can't bring back your raped and murdered wife, and two daughters, but you can make that FILTH, PAY !!!!
Punishment has value, violence DOES teach, even "stupid" animals, so it certainly teaches "smart" Humans:
a Wolf that attacks from the front, gets violently gored by the horns of the caraboo, and should the wolf live, it has leanred from that violent goring: don't attack the caraboo from the front!
a Wolf that attacks from the rear, gets violently kicked by the hard-sharp hooves of the deer, and should the wolf live, it has learned from that violent kick: don't attack the dear from the rear!
A human that approaches a horse from the rear, gets violently kicked in the head by the horse's hooves, and should the human survive (and not have brain damage), he has learned from that violent kick, to never get behind a horse!
same thing taught in the lion king, remember how that monkey-sage swung his staff and smacked Simba in the head, well what happened the second time he swung his staff? Simba ducks, as the violent first staff swung, had educated Simba, to know he should duck, with the 2nd staff swing.
violence is extremely educating, for humans and animals alike.
A boy who reaches for a cookie, and his mom violently slaps his hand, has been taught by that violence, not to take any cookies.
a kid who touches fire, gets violently burned, being taught by that violent burn, not to touch fire again.
a wolf pup that clings to a wolf's tail, gets bitten on their senstive ears, causing a sharp pain to the wolf pup, teaching it to not cilng to a wolf's tail. It's no different than when a parent spanks their child for doing something they shouldn't. The human child learns positively from the spank, just as the wolf pup does from having its ear bitten by its parent or adult wolf (wolves have a stronger family structure than humans, all adult wolves of a pack are the parents, all pups of a pack, are all of the adult wolves' pups. And of course, one need not be a wolf, to be part of their pack, as even humans can be part of a wolf pack. That can hardly be said for humans, rarely seeing each other as "part of the pack", let alone another species as a "part of the pack").
both animals and humans can learn from others' misfortune, too.
if another wolf sees the 1st wolf being kicked by the deer, it too has learned to not attack the deer from the rear.
if I see someone else being arrested and/or executed for a crime, I've learned to not commit that crime.
violent punishment has real and positive value, to preventing 1st crime and re-crime.
the mind-set that simply having a system, a proceedure, a routine, having a "due process through a court", is somehow JUSTICE, is such an absurdity!
the Germany Holocaust and the U.S. Slavery were both quite the orderly systems, proceedures, routines, "due process", and so they were models of JUSTICE, eh?
We've become literally robots, worshipping the order of systems, and somehow stupidly in disillusionment, thinking that a system=JUSTICE. how utterly sad humans have become!
and... courts are RULED by emotions! you seriously think emotions have been evicted from courts, the jurors/judges, and their decisions?
what's the number one thing juror after juror always says?
he never showed any emotions or sadness or regret over the death and pain he has caused. he just sat their emotionless, like a psychopath-sociopath, as we watched his horrible actions upon the victim on the video screen.
Emotions and Bias, rules our thinking and decision making.
every single judge, can't help himself, to be righteous and indignant, as he reads off his response to the convicted person, just because he can, he's in a position of power, and the convicted person is in a position of weakness and helplsssness.
there's no Justice in a court, it's rife with emotions and bias, and corruption.
seriously, you have two laywers competing with each other, in who can lie their rear off the most, while still getting you to believe them!
really, is such a system of competing liers, really a system that produces justice? what a myth! what a farce! what propaganda!
revenge is 100% justice. some one murders your child or wife right in front of you, and you kill him. where's the lack of justice?
oh, I'm well aware, that emotions can lead to INjustice, you revenge against the wrong person, or you falsely believe a crime occured, when there is no crime.
vigilantism has huge issues, I'm not denying that, but I AM trying to convey that the so called "justice system" is not a system of justice at all, being rife with the EXACT same problems as there is with vigilantism. The only difference between a criminal mob with their "pitchforks and torches", and a court room, is that the prey is free to run (chased outside by the mob) vs being surrounded and trapped (in a court room), by the predators (mob outside or the mob that is the court) seeking to punish him.
in both cases, vigiliantism and courts, the problem lies in, what is the truth? did a crime actually occur?, did this person actually commit this crime (if there is a crime)?
Law IS (suppose to be anyways) A SYSTEM *of* Justice.
Law, a system, is *NOT* Justice.
A system is a system.
Justice is what the system of law tries to achieve.
don't mesh Law with Justice, there are two completely differnt things, Justice is a CONCEPT, Law is a System. A system is NOT a concept! Law is NOT Justice!
how is self-blame-guilt or "cutting oneself" punishment, but punishment by someone else such as the extreme of execution or life imprisonment, is not punishment too?
isn't punishment, punishment?
who cares whether you're punishing yourself, of if someone else is punishing you, it's punishment... I'm really confused...
punishment = suffer
if you blame yourself and feel guilt and/or are "cutting yourself", you make yourself suffer, you are punishing yourself, there's punishment.
if someone else imprisons, executes, or tortures you, that's suffering upon you as well, you're being punished, there's punishment.
I don't understand your distinction of self-guilt-blame or "cutting oneself" being punishment, but punishishment by some one else, isn't punishment. I'm very confused with this.
when a wolf or gorilla deviates from their group, they're literally torn to shreds by their group, or "branded as an exile".
when a human deviates from their group (our society), the humans of that group (society) tears that human to shreds too: "branding them as an exile" - a "criminal" (a type of torture, psychological), imprisonment (a type of torture, physical+psychological), execution, other types (more direct, physical) of torture, violence, and etc.
when you're driving without a license, you're endangering the public-others, as the lack of a license, means you haven't proved you're a capable-fit (SAFE) driver.
how is this any different, then pretending to be a surgeon and operating on people? You're harming and/or creating potential (endangerment) to harm others. the state thus punishes you, either with a fine or imprisonment or execution, for this crime of harm to others or potential harm (endangerment) to others.
or how about having and/or owning a gun, without a licence to carry concealed gun and/or to own a gun? The dumb immature kid who is playing around with a real (and loaded) gun, thinking it is just a toy, accidentally fires it, and kills his siblings, friends, parents, others, or himself too.
all of these things are directly: "crime and punishment", justice-revenge. be it manifested (actual harm occured) or potential harm to occur (endangerment).
and law is a system to deal with or deal out this Justice-Revenge or "crime and punishment" or "eye for an eye" or "retribution" (the official legalese word for justice-revenge, as their euphenism for the "taboo" word of revenge. the prosecutor seeks "retribution" upon the defendant for his accused crimes of the victim, in other words, revenge, but we don't like saying revenge for some reason I don't think I'll ever understand or be explained efficiently as to the difference between revenge and justice, as I still don't see any difference yet)
Last edited by HegemonKhan; December 02, 2011 at 12:20 AM.
It can not be proven though, how are we sure it works? I mean sure these moral stories are a good example but all of them are an ethics cliché, I argue that society has got it wrong from the start. Violent Punishment IS the crime. A true crime against highly civilized humans, I thought we were superior to animals due to the conscious mind?
And to us when we look deep into it, do we want to face the death sentence? Of course not! So why do we still inflict that pain on others when there is no universal law that granted us with such power? All people are born innocent, none bare guilt nor crime, no one is born a rapist, no one is born a murderer, nature does not create them, society does and it basically punishes them so it can hide the bad work it did on the human previously. Society can not punish itself it picks the weak individuals to satisfy it's own sense of denial.
Les Miserables is a perfect example for this, so they punished him for a loaf of bread ... 19 YEARS! Did Valjean change? No, he still hated society, he still stole, he tried to survive, it is not when he came face to face with good (I forgot but I think it was a priest that provided him with food and such, not to make religion a good guy here) from his fellow man did he change. We have been fighting evil with evil, time to change tactics. All it has lead to is more suffering.
it's like the saying, it's not the gun that is the crime (good or evil), it's how you use the gun. It's not violence, including death-killing, that is good or evil, it's how you use it. violence can be good or bad, as I've shown above. violence, including death-killing, is merely a tool, a tool is neither good or bad, rather it's how you use that tool, which makes it good or bad.
why is there violence? because we live, and because we live, we compete. But, violence goes way beyond life. two hydrogen atoms smash into each other creating helium atoms. in other words, from this violence, this violent impact, we have our stars, like our sun. The most violent phenominon in the universe, the Big Bang, gave us the universe! A violent and destructive Volcano's eruption ALSO creates life, enriching the ground with nutrient rich soil, just like at how green, full of life, Hawaii or other volcanoes become (years after their initial devastation). "From Destruction, Violence, comes Creation" and "From Death, Killing, comes Life". An old dying plant, becomes nutrients for a new young plant. A killed human, becomes nutrients for other organisms. A dead-killed human holding a knife to your wife's neck, becomes life for your wife! Or, the reverse, your wife's death-killing, becomes life for the person who had slit her throat. Who do you want to die and who do you want to live? You have a single piece of food, and a million starving people. reality = limited resources. one person is going to live, the one who out-competes, the one who gets the food. And if no one competes-fights-kills for that piece of food, then everyone is going to die, which is worse than having the 1 person not dying, obviously.
everyone can't win, everyone can't live, everyone can't be rich, everyone can't hold a specific social status, and who is selected to win, to live, is determined by competition, by fighitng, by violence, by death, by killing.
not every guy is tall, handsome, smart, rich, socially adapt, humorous, and etc things that women desire in their mate.
the world is full of inequalities, and the only equalizer, is action, is violence. for an extreme and provocative example: An ugly, non-desired guy, won't ever get chosen by a woman, he'll never get to mate. however, through violence, rape, he can over-ride his inequality of being born undesirable to the opposite sex. This is provocative, I know, but it is a very good example to explain my point. Yes, rape, sex via force, is very wrong, very criminal, but what is that guy to do otherwise? simply accept that through the unluckiness of his parents, that he's born undesirable, that he's born into celibracy, that he's born being denied the right to have kids, to reproduce? it's the same for females too, being born undesirable-unattractive, being born denied reproduction. Violence, and death-killing, is the great equalizer, to get what you can't otherwise get or have.
if a lion can't successfully hunt for food, there's always the crime, of stealing food from another lion. if a person is starving to death, and unable to get food in the legal way, he can always steal food, and live another day. if you want to end slavery, action works, be it violent protests or non-violant protests, as a protest, is an action, and actions get or create results. Violence is merely the one extreme of action. if stuff isn't given to you, then you take stuff. force-violence is how the world operates, military action, the solution of politics. Do what we want, or be destroyed! it's also how gov. works with the people. Policeman: Do what I say or be destroyed! Do what I say, or be assaulted, shot-killed, kidnapped and held hostaged and/or tortured (imprisonment - arrest). Gov: pay your taxes! You: No! Policeman: Pay you taxes! You: no! Policeman: put your hands behind your back, you're being arrested! You: No, you resist! Policeman pulls out his gun, and holds it to your head, stop or die! You: no! Policeman: die! he blows your brains out. that's how gov. works, by force-violence. You obey the gov. or they send their violent policeman to "enforce" you to do what they want. And if the police isn't enough, then its SWAT. if swat isn't enough, then its the military! our entire system of government is based upon physical violence, you do what the gov. says, or die! ~"A State is sovereign, when it has a monopoly on violence within its borders, and enough violence to at least attempt to defend themselves for outside forces". The governments of the world, are the SLAVE MASTERS, their countries are their PLANTATIONS, and the people are their SLAVES. Our entire society of humanity is that of slave masters, plantations, and slaves. rule of bullying, of physical force. Our structure of government of our entire human race: BULLYING=VIOLENCE, ya, we humans are so advanced compared to other animals... HAHA! When push comes to shove, the gov SHOOTS-KILLS!
of course we fear pain, pain hurts, lol. And death, depending on how you die, can be quite painful, and thus death is quite fearful (as well as the fear of the unknown... do I cease to exist - what the in the world is this like for their to be no like no awareness-mind-thoughts-no me anymore to even think like this-it boggles our mind-ceasing to exist, and so we reject it, and instead think: do I go to hell-eternal suffering, do I go to some other place-heaven-valhala, or do I get reborn as some one or some thing else on the earth - reincarnation, and etc etc).Originally Posted by Josef K
why? because they DESERVE it !!! if you've earned rewards, you deserve those rewards, and thus you should get those rewards, right? Yes! well, if you've earned punishments, you also deserved those punishments, and thus you should get those punishments, eh? (the correct answer: yes!)
why do we compete? why do we hurt others? because it's neccessary and/or advantageous for us to do so. You bully a loser, people now think you're cool or powerful, and you become popular or feared, and thus your social status rises. a lion kills and eats a deer. the lion gets to live another day, at the expense of the deer. the person who bullied, becomes popular, at the expense of the person he bullied. "Pros and Cons", as sad as that might be, it's reality.
Life creates the neccessity of selfishness, due to being mortal, being able to die. One must work to not die, one must compete with others to not die. that creates competition, that creates abuse, that creates violence and wronging of others at their expense for your benefit. Again, you have a single piece of meat, and two lions. that piece of meat can only feed 1 lion. having only half of the meat, still means death. thus, we have competition, the lions are going to violently fight, one's going to get the meat, and live, and the other lion isn't going to get the meat and die-starve. if both lions get a half of the meat, they both die-starve. if neither lion gets the meat, they both die-starve.
Due to being an organism, being alive, and thus being able to die, and due to their being finite resources or stuff, thus "winners and losses" must be selected, and that occurs via competition, via action, via violence.
~"no one is born a bad person (Josef K.)":
EXACTLY, and so you're CHOOSING-DECIDING to be a bad person, to do bad things, thus you ARE GUILTY, you are responsible, you are accountable, you DESERVE punishment for the bad stuff you done to others or for the bad person you've become! If you don't like the punishment, you shouldn't have CHOOSEN-DECIDED and ACTED UPON or CARRIED-OUT, what you had done!! You have no right to receiving any sympathy or compassion, you CHOSE-DECIDED to be a criminal, to do wrong, to be a bad person, to be punished!
yes, is a perfect example, but of society commiting the crime, denying him the right to life, not of him committing a crime, as he has the right to not starve. If society is oppressing, violatating, abusing, or commiting crimes against you, has is that any different from an individual criminal committing a crime against you?Originally Posted by Josef K.
Does the African-Black Slave have a right to kill European-White people, who have created the society where the African-black is a Slave of European-White people, or is it murder to do so?
was Nat Turner and his posse, simply going on a "killing-murder spree", or were they lawfully resisting society's crime (enslavement) against them?
here's about Nat Turner and his posse, and their actions if you don't know about this U.S. History reference:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h500t.html (do note that this is extremely biased and inaccurate, as Gray, a white lawyer*-I think and physician, was not favorable to Turner, wrote this, changing up what Nat Turner had told to him in their interview ot make it sell better amongst whites, as Gray would publish this as book to make money- see the immediate following link) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h500.html and more bias and misunderstanding by the white society http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h499.html
*Or, am I confusing Gray, with the guy (whatever his name) who interviewed Mary Rowlandson upon her return (she was captured by the Native Americans). meh.
Last edited by HegemonKhan; December 02, 2011 at 03:49 AM.
it is WRONG, because it causes disruption to society. Because it makes the society more violent and insecure, because it costs it economical and psychological damages... If a thing is wrong it's for a reason and the reason the society has learned that it is bad for itself. So the society creates a system because concepts are theoretical, simplification of reality and therefore unapplicable
And violence only teach you violence. Children taught with violence have great chance of becoming criminals.
"it is WRONG, because it causes disruption to society. (k-dom)"
why is disruption to society wrong? why did you use the moral argument of WRONG towards disruption to society as being WRONG?
again, I rest my case:
It is wrong to disrupt society, because it is WRONG to do so, you're making a moral argument, or you're lacking an argument as you're missing telling what or why it is wrong to disrupt society.
ah so society can do stuff for its own benefit and safety, yet you think there's nothing wrong with society, telling the individual that they can't do the same stuff for their own benefit and safety...
a society can be criminal, but its wrong for an indivudal to be criminal?
a society can disrupt an individual, but an individual can't "disrupt" (I'd like to see society being disrupted or threatened... it's "too powerful to be disrupted or threatened" by anything or anyone) society?
wow, that's quite the machavellion belief and attitude you've got....
if you're going to preach about violence being wrong, then you can't ignore society's and government's violence against individuals while continuing to preach how wrong violence is... total hypocrisy... right there.. and as such it falls on deaf ears.
that's like Bill Clinton being outraged by Wiener or the Italian PM (can't remember his name at the moment) 's infidelity...
or it's like the police prattling about how wrong violence is, when violence is what they use all the time!
so, what Nat Turner and his posse did was criminal ???
he and his posse should just remain a good obedient slave, staying peaceful, as their white slave masters whip their backs open, for not working so hard that they die from exhaustion... uh... huh.... yes, the peasants, peons, serfs, subjects, need to be taught to be good obedient slaves, to know their place, to know who's their master, uh... huh...
HOW DARE AN INDIVIDUAL PROTESTS AGAINST SOCIETIES' AND GOVERNMENTS" OPPRESSION AND ABUSE !!!!!
those "criminals" need to be taught a lesson !!!! at who's the boss, who's the master here !!!
If Nat Turner, his posse, and other Black-African Slaves, didn't violently resist, there would never have been any civil rights movement in our country.... we'd still have slavery... if we went by your pacifism... your pacifism would have kept African-Blacks as slaves in the southern U.S., would have allowed hitler to genocide all jews, homosexual, gypsies, and your country, france (as well as the rest of europe), would not exist today, as it would be a part of germany. it wouldn't be the EU, instead it would be Germany, as the "EU".
violence can be positive or negative.... is this really hard to understand ??
Was your French Revolution a crime? should your french revolution have never occured? should their never have been your french declaration of the rights of man (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h1577.html) ???
the french revolution was quite a violent protest against french society and government....
yet here you are saying how criminal and wrong violence is....
how about Slave Colony Haiti, should they have not violently rebelled too ????
how about the Arab Spring, do you denounce and condemn their violence against the gov.'s of the Middle East?
how about Palistinians, do you denounce and condemn their violence to create a state-home for themselves?
how about the Middle East, do you denounce and condemn their violence against the abuses of the western world (which includes both your France and my U.S.) ???
how about the violent and vandalizing arsonists of european protestors in europe (and now here, in the U.S., too), greece, U.K., and etc., do you denounce and condemn your european protestors ??? (Was it your France, which had the protestors to a hike in retirement age, or another European country?, and if so, were these protestor violent? my memory is failing me, sighs)
if "violence only breed violence", then we need to eliminate the justice system, and the very concept of justice itself, so that we don't retaliate anymore against people commiting crimes, as that certainly just breeds morre and more hostility and resentment.
Last edited by HegemonKhan; December 02, 2011 at 03:44 AM.
I can just take your own examples: revolutions, wars...Quote:
I don't deny that violence exist. I just say that it is not the better system to solve things.Quote:
A boy who reaches for a cookie, and his mom violently slaps his hand, has been taught by that violence, not to take any cookies., that will work but you can also teach the kid without using violence and with better result on the kid behaviour.
French revolution was very violent and it took us 100 years to reach a stable politic system. Our decolonisation was also violent (2 wars), as a result we have very bad relation with Algeria although 50 years have passed. The English did it more peacefully and were more clever on that aspect.
Violence breed violence indeed, as such it is inefficient. Suppressing death penalty, is a step that allow to diminish the society and government violence level.
Last edited by k-dom; December 02, 2011 at 12:41 PM.