Bleeding heart liberals

[DArtagnan]

My time away from the thread was too great, I see

Just as it was getting interesting.... Damn.

 

[fatBastard()]

This is a topic that can very quickly become very emotional so I initially intended to stay out of it but I must confess that I'm seeing some really shocking comments from my Scandinavian neighbors. I'll try not to become personal but here goes:

Ubereil: You're making one fundamental mistake that undermines your entire position - you're superimposing your own world view on everyone else. This simply isn't viable. If I were to try to superimpose my own political views on dteowner the result would be that he is utterly batshit crazy because that is the only explanation for how completely different his view on the political world is to mine ... except he's not batshit crazy. I may not agree with him on most points but that doesn't make him crazy or his voice/vote invalid.

You're assuming that if people don't share your views on right or wrong it must simply be because they don't know any better. That is NOT the case. Some people, as Rithrandil said, just don't care. There is no way in hell you can convince me that a rapist doesn't know that what he is doing is wrong when his victim is screaming, crying, struggling, begging to be let go throughout the ordeal. He KNOWS, he just doesn't CARE and with that distinction your arguments for not punishing him falls flat on the ground.

JemyM: What you're suggesting might actually work if not for the one element you left out of the equation: Homo Sapiens. As with most academic theories, the attempted application in the real world screws it up, be it in physics with the multitude of assumptions (e.g. no friction, no gravity, no wind, etc.) or behavioral studies on a meticulously selected study group. You are not only assuming that everyone would have the same view on the world (which clearly isn't the case or there would be no need for more than a single political party in Sweden and no need for laws/police) but also that everyone would have the same educational facilities to teach these views ... but that requires a complete world revolution with unified equality for all as a result and that's not really in the cards anytime soon.

As much as I normally disagree with dteowner I find myself in complete agreement with him on this point. I have NO tolerance for criminals. NONE.

 

[DArtagnan]

Having no tolerance for criminals is having no tolerance for any human being in the world.

I can appreciate that, but I don't think it will help us live together.

The first step is to acknowledge that you're a criminal yourself. If the first reaction is some kind of excuse for the crimes you've commited, then you're in denial.

You're a criminal - and we're all criminals. The label represents the truth without revealing the whole truth. That's a weakness of the human mind. We can't replace a label with the whole truth - so we'll be wrong when we use it to generalise.

Essentially, being a criminal is rarely what it seems.

 

[JemyM]

JemyM: What you're suggesting might actually work if not for the one element you left out of the equation: Homo Sapiens. As with most academic theories, the attempted application in the real world screws it up, be it in physics with the multitude of assumptions (e.g. no friction, no gravity, no wind, etc.) or behavioral studies on a meticulously selected study group. You are not only assuming that everyone would have the same view on the world (which clearly isn't the case or there would be no need for more than a single political party in Sweden and no need for laws/police) but also that everyone would have the same educational facilities to teach these views … but that requires a complete world revolution with unified equality for all as a result and that's not really in the cards anytime soon.

I believe I addressed these problems in my second paragraph in post #117.
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1061112556&postcount=117

Also note that cognitive differences and their impact on politics is pretty much my field of research.

As much as I normally disagree with dteowner I find myself in complete agreement with him on this point. I have NO tolerance for criminals. NONE.

Undeveloped morality are based on simple premises such as jackass-theories ("everything boils down to punishment/reward") where as most adults eventually understand how social relations build morality as well as understanding the value of following the law.

Now why a human brain is capable of morality and a computer is not, is the capacity for comprehension. A human brain is able to understand context, to gather data, analyze data and then build a conclusion that includes such things as a rational understanding of consequences, why we have principles and why emotions such as empathy, jealousness, grief matter. In law, justice is based on comprehension, like awareness of context and mitigating factors.

A higher understanding of human morality comprehends "justice" and why the word "criminal" have no content if the label is the product of unjust laws and an unjust system.

Western justice are built on such comprehension and the cultural agreement that unjust systems are meant to be dragged down rather than followed.

Luckily people with irrational ideas about justice tend to make a fool out of themselves;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VyUPBY5jwY

 

[Ubereil]

You're assuming that if people don't share your views on right or wrong it must simply be because they don't know any better.

If I'm right, which I believe I am (otherwise I wouldn't believe it, would I?), then it follows that those who don't believe what I believe are wrong. And thus it follows that I know better than them.

I could, of course, be wrong. But I don't think I am (because if I did I'd change beliefs to what I believed what the correct belief). I try to be open to the possibility that I'm right wrong, but that's easier said than done (being human and all…).

This simply isn't viable. If I were to try to superimpose my own political views on dteowner the result would be that he is utterly batshit crazy because that is the only explanation for how completely different his view on the political world is to mine … except he's not batshit crazy. I may not agree with him on most points but that doesn't make him crazy or his voice/vote invalid.

You're reading things into what I said that isn't supposed to be there. I might disagree with DTE on most aspects of politics, but that doesn't mean I think he's crazy. I'm fairly certain he believes that which he finds he has the best reasons to believe. And I find understanding different points of view to be highly interesting (if nothing else to increase my understanding of humans - and who knows, maybe they've actually thought of something I've missed).

There's a gigant gulf between wrong and batshit crazy.

That is NOT the case. Some people, as Rithrandil said, just don't care. There is no way in hell you can convince me that a rapist doesn't know that what he is doing is wrong when his victim is screaming, crying, struggling, begging to be let go throughout the ordeal. He KNOWS, he just doesn't CARE and with that distinction your arguments for not punishing him falls flat on the ground.

That sounds an awful lot like "you don't know better than me because I know better than you". Correct me if I'm wrong.

Übereil

 

[fatBastard()]

I believe I addressed these problems in my second paragraph in post #117.
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1061112556&postcount=117

True, I did miss that.

However, you're still no closer to an applicable solution than Bjørn Lomborg's lame-brained CO2 reduction scheme of launching thousands of ships that would whip up water vapors to create a shielding blanket to protect against the sun (Lomborg is a danish statistician masquerading as a environmental scientist)

It may very well be that you're on to something but as I said it is purely academic and it will remain purely academic for a long long time still.

If I'm right, which I believe I am (otherwise I wouldn't believe it, would I?), then it follows that those who don't believe what I believe are wrong. And thus it follows that I know better than them.

I could, of course, be wrong. But I don't think I am (because if I did I'd change beliefs to what I believed what the correct belief). I try to be open to the possibility that I'm right, but that's easier said than done (being human and all…).

Yes, you could indeed be wrong. Doesn't that make any impression on you when you suggest giving free reigns to murderers, rapists and other scum of the earth? What if you are indeed wrong and there ARE some bastards who do know right from wrong but since society is not willing/interested in holding them accountable for their actions they don't give a flying hoot what they do or who they hurt in the process?

You're reading things into what I said that isn't supposed to be there. I might disagree with DTE on most aspects of politics, but that doesn't mean I think he's crazy. I'm fairly certain he believes that which he finds he has the best reasons to believe. And I find understanding different points of view to be highly interesting (if nothing else to increase my understanding of humans - and who knows, maybe they've actually thought of something I've missed).

And if that different point of view is that his needs of your money outweighs your need to keep breathing, what then? Is that simply because he doesn't know any better?

I'm getting confused now. You're interested in different views (and therefore acknowledges that there ARE different points of view) yet when it comes to accountability there is still only one point of view: It must be because he/she didn't know any better. Is that right?

That sounds an awful lot like "you don't know better than me because I know better than you". Correct me if I'm wrong.

Übereil

You're at least partly right. I *DO* believe that I, in this case, know better than you (at least as far as not being blind to the cold hearted calculating nature of some people). However, I also realize that I don't know all the answers and I would really LIKE for what you suggest to be true … but in my experience it isn't.

We have a case running here in Denmark at the moment with a pure hell spawned evil bastard who has raped about a dozen women and killed several others over the last 20 years. His latest rape victim managed to call her dad before the ordeal began and the poor father got to hear his daughter screaming in the phone while she was being raped … if you manage to convince me that this waste of DNA shouldn't be held accountable for the dozens of lives he has ruined I'll fully subscribe to your point of view … I doubt you'll succeed though.

 

[dteowner]

Taking my name in vain, gents? For the record, I am batshit crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

 

[DArtagnan]

Taking my name in vain, gents? For the record, I am batshit crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

You're not crazy, just a bit simple

 

[Rithrandil]

A combination of clarification and what you consider an insult, sure

Well, it was. Have a cookie.

 

[JemyM]

True, I did miss that.

It may very well be that you're on to something but as I said it is purely academic and it will remain purely academic for a long long time still.

There will never be a 100%. But as far as improving; we are. And in a rapid pace as well. People aren't rocket-science. They are more complex than that. But the better we get at understanding how people work, the better we become at building a stable and functional society.

 

[Corwin]

Having no tolerance for criminals is having no tolerance for any human being in the world.

I can appreciate that, but I don't think it will help us live together.

The first step is to acknowledge that you're a criminal yourself. If the first reaction is some kind of excuse for the crimes you've commited, then you're in denial.

You're a criminal - and we're all criminals. The label represents the truth without revealing the whole truth. That's a weakness of the human mind. We can't replace a label with the whole truth - so we'll be wrong when we use it to generalise.

Essentially, being a criminal is rarely what it seems.

Change the word Criminal to SINNER (not really much difference) and you sound like a Preacher or Evangelist!! There's hope for you yet!!

 

[DArtagnan]

Change the word Criminal to SINNER (not really much difference) and you sound like a Preacher or Evangelist!! There's hope for you yet!!

Both concepts are equally meaningless without context, certainly

 

[Ubereil]

Yes, you could indeed be wrong. Doesn't that make any impression on you when you suggest giving free reigns to murderers, rapists and other scum of the earth? What if you are indeed wrong and there ARE some bastards who do know right from wrong but since society is not willing/interested in holding them accountable for their actions they don't give a flying hoot what they do or who they hurt in the process?

Now, hold your horses, mister! I think blaming criminals is pointless and that punishment for punishment's sake is harmful. That does not mean I think we ought to give free reign to murderers and rapists. Nothing I've said contradicts isolating criminals for safety reasons (having them in the open poses a security threat to the rest of us) or deterrence (if they don't care about others hurting we can at least be sure they don't do it because they will be punished).

(And, for the record, I try to be open to the possibility that I'm wrong. I don't really have to try to be open to the possibility that I'm right. )

I'm getting confused now. You're interested in different views (and therefore acknowledges that there ARE different points of view) yet when it comes to accountability there is still only one point of view: It must be because he/she didn't know any better. Is that right?

Well, I believe that with all data avaliable there's one correct conclusion. Thus, from an omnipotent point of view there's only one right answer. The thing is, humans don't have access to all data - we always draw conclusions based on an imperfect view. What's a reasonable conclusion from one point of view is entirely unreasonable from another. It might be that what I believe to be true isn't, and that the reason I believe it is because I'm not aware of the data that disproves what I believe.

That's one of the reasons other points of view is interesting - they might know something I don't. It's also interesting for another reason, and that is to understand how humans work (and thus, to understand myself). A friend of mine once said "if I can't understand why you believe as you believe, how am I to understand why I believe as I believe?"

As for this particular area, I'm quite certain I'm in the right. Because what you say contradicts what I believe to be the fundamentals of human decision making. If I'm right on that, what you're saying is impossible. It breaks the rules of How Things Works. Convincing me of what you're saying is almost as tough as "yesterday my aunt turned into a pink rabbit right in front of my eyes".

In order for what you're saying to be true I must have overlooked a large, crucial piece of data regarding how humans work. While it's not impossible that I have, I still find it unprobable.

I believe that you're pretty much on the same page, just that it's some other idea of how the world work I contradict. That's why debates like these tends to end up into feeling you're shouting at a wall - you're not debating the same thing, really. Which is why I try to move away from debates and move towards simply understanding how others think (with 'try' being the key word here… ).

You're at least partly right. I *DO* believe that I, in this case, know better than you (at least as far as not being blind to the cold hearted calculating nature of some people). However, I also realize that I don't know all the answers and I would really LIKE for what you suggest to be true … but in my experience it isn't.

We have a case running here in Denmark at the moment with a pure hell spawned evil bastard who has raped about a dozen women and killed several others over the last 20 years. His latest rape victim managed to call her dad before the ordeal began and the poor father got to hear his daughter screaming in the phone while she was being raped … if you manage to convince me that this waste of DNA shouldn't be held accountable for the dozens of lives he has ruined I'll fully subscribe to your point of view … I doubt you'll succeed though.

I don't believe in accountability. But I believe isolation for safety reasons and deterrence is necesary. And I hope clarifying that makes my view seem more reasonable.

(And as a side note I also believe in rehabilitation. By working on changing prisoners feelings regarding living a criminal life vs living a lawful life we can get them to change - which is good both for us and for the criminals in question.)

Übereil

 

[JemyM]

Both perspectives makes the word meaningless. If everybody is a sinner or a criminal we have nothing to talk about. But our problems remain, they ask for a solution, which is why we use words such as sinner or criminal to identify the problem.

I am not going to argue for the "sinner" idea. It's morally and scientifically bankrupt as far as I concern. "Criminal" is only useful in relation to a legal system, a system that is either just or unjust. There are nowadays a few principles that are more and more accepted to divide a just from an unjust law, such as there must be a victim, the punishment must be in level with the crime, the law must have a rational basis etc.

Too many laws that break these principles and the trust and loyalty to the system will wither. Eventually the "you are a criminal" is of no more value than the prophecies from the madman in the corner of the street who sells pencils from a cup.

 

[dteowner]

I am not going to argue for the "sinner" idea. It's morally and scientifically bankrupt as far as I concern. "Criminal" is only useful in relation to a legal system, a system that is either just or unjust. There are nowadays a few principles that are more and more accepted to divide a just from an unjust law, such as there must be a victim, the punishment must be in level with the crime, the law must have a rational basis etc.

This is exactly where y'all contradict yourselves. (and yes, I know that when you say "level" you mean proportional and not "level", but the point still stands) You take a violent murderer and give them 20 years of living on the public dime. That's not level. So then you make a completely subjective decision about the appropriate proportion, which is fine. Then, you throw insults about someone else's subjective judgment and claim the their subjective decision is objectively wrong. You can't have it both ways. I'd love "level", actually. Takes the subjective out of the equation. Unfortunately, that's probably not practical.

 

[Ubereil]

This is exactly where y'all contradict yourselves.

Why do you lump us all together into the same group? I agree more with you than with him on this matter (I don't give a damn about "level", I just want "sufficient", but besides that).

Übereil

 

[dteowner]

For the same reason I always get lumped in with the bible thumpers awhenever someone talks about conservatives—it's forum shorthand and most of the time we all understand the problems with broad brushes and just move on. But, specific to the quote, the whining about harsh punishment and haughty tut-tut's about the US approach certainly isn't limited to JemyM.

 

[Ubereil]

I think they're harsher than they ought to be - but that has nothing to do with justice. That's because I think you could soften them up without losing anything.

And in my experience those who lump you up with Bible thrumbers are pepole who simply don't know you. Besides, that others do wrong doesn't justify you doing wrong too. If you want to be able to complain about being lumped up with pepole you don't agree with, you can't lump others with pepole they don't agree with.

Übereil

 

[fatBastard()]

I don't believe in accountability. But I believe isolation for safety reasons and deterrence is necesary. And I hope clarifying that makes my view seem more reasonable.

It does clarify things.

I don't agree with you in the slightest. Accountability is a key component of responsibility and a society without responsibility is pretty much just anarchy/apathy mixed together.

"Meh, what do I care".
"It's not my problem".
"So what?"

Now, what form accountability should take can certainly be discussed but it IS an essential part of civilized society ... in my opinion.

NB! What made me fall off my chair in the first place was the statement that people who break the law don't know that what they're doing is illegal. Anyone with a drivers license KNOWS that crossing a red light is illegal but it is done hundreds of times every day.

Heck, you even have a political party in Sweden with the sole purpose of making filesharing/piracy LEGAL, which means they KNOW that it is currently illegal and thus in the eyes of the law WRONG (it doesn't matter whether the law is just or unjust).

 

[Ubereil]

It does clarify things.

I don't agree with you in the slightest. Accountability is a key component of responsibility and a society without responsibility is pretty much just anarchy/apathy mixed together.

"Meh, what do I care".
"It's not my problem".
"So what?"

Now, what form accountability should take can certainly be discussed but it IS an essential part of civilized society … in my opinion.

If there is empathy you don't need accountability to get responsibility. Accountability means getting pepole to take responsibility for others out of fear - empathy means getting pepole to take responsibility for others out of sympathy.

I think empathy is far more positive/healthy/good than the former.

NB! What made me fall off my chair in the first place was the statement that people who break the law don't know that what they're doing is illegal.

I never said that. I said they don't understand that it's wrong IE they don't understand that they're not supposed to do it. They're (probably) aware that it's illegal, they just don't think breaking the law is wrong.

Übereil