Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei must go gaolang > your fav is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem loli real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
this is literally a conspiracy theory pushed by the father of one of the 9/11 hijackers and a KKK grand wizard
there is zero evidence that Israelis were behind 9/11 or knew about 9/11
The people pushing this theory are doing this because they hate Jews and want to blame Jews for everything. It’s the same thing with Jews being blamed for the black plague, the Great Depression, and Germany losing WWI.
Yeah the Gaza genocide claim has some validity as at least we know Israel has killed thousands of civilians in Gaza. Whether that can be classified as genocide will likely take several years to be deliberated.
But if you actually care about that, you’re undermining your own agenda when you push KKK tier antisemitic theories like the dancing Israelis thing.
there is zero evidence that Israelis were behind 9/11 or knew about 9/11
The people pushing this theory are doing this because they hate Jews and want to blame Jews for everything. It’s the same thing with Jews being blamed for the black plague, the Great Depression, and Germany losing WWI.
Post automatically merged:
Yeah the Gaza genocide claim has some validity as at least we know Israel has killed thousands of civilians in Gaza. Whether that can be classified as genocide will likely take several years to be deliberated.
But if you actually care about that, you’re undermining your own agenda when you push KKK tier antisemitic theories like the dancing Israelis thing.
@Germinator (Late note: Interesting discussion btw. I'm glad someone actually is debating with argumentations for once)
I changed my argumentation during this post in order to clarify the discussion (about instant change mainly). So take that into account.
No lol. I'm just saying that I was only using a specific usage of the world.
When I say "I always prioritize the living". I'm saying I'm prioritizing those that are living in our world. I consider a foetus a pre-living state in that sence (even if some biologist prefer to call even foetus living). I use the term living as a social meaning. As in "They are leaving among us" or "they are living their best life"
Anyway, this is just semantics, it's not really important.
I wanted to debate on that, but I will grant you that point. I think we should stay on topic. The important thing is, there is more probability in an old woman to do immediate good than a foetus when I consider the event that is pregnency.
No. An ethical one. An arbitrary prioritization would be to say that a life of a woman is more sacred than the one of a foetus.
The ethical statement that I'm making here is that in the lack of further data, it is more ethical to prioritize the life of the individual that bares the foetus rather than the foetus itself, simply because there is much less harm done by doing so rather than prioritizing the foetus. Which could have a LOT of consequences and not only on the individual themselves.
And as I told you, in this case, the absence of pain and consciousness of the foetus make it more ethical. When you talk about people not having pain, you are applying an argument to two situations that are very different and do not have the same ethical standart and context.
Ethic is always about context, I'm not making moral arguments here. So we should only take example where the context is similar.
Again, change is not that simple. It does not happens because you will it, but because the material conditions of your existence change.
In other words, it never us that change out of will, it's the universe that make us change.
A Nazi advocate will never suddenly become an anarchist or a feminist, but he could become less violent against women and minorities over time and start focus only on trans people because of an encounter with migrants one day that might have been nice to him or save him.
Then he might become more progressive an more understanding of the notion of gender equality, but this will not magically change his vision on meritocracy or capitalism.
For that to happen, a radical change would be needed as the gap between meritocracy and anti-meritocracy is not an easy one and can change our entire relationship with the world (as I explained earlier).. but this would rely on a lot of informations about the world.
Now, we were talking about rapist here, well.. technically they can appear everywhere as patriarchy is everywhere.. but the ones on the right (who are really on the left political spectrum) are much more likely to change because their vision of the world will follow. So while the realization might be destructive, it might not be dangerous.
On the other hand, aside from the man who is aware of gender equalities, it's almost impossible for someone on the left on this drawing to actually understand REALLY the negative reach of his action (rape). They will know it's not okay, but they won't really integrate the fundamental understanding and empathy needed to change on this matter.
A change of the person on the left here who is a rapist into a person on the right end here with the entire spectrum of knowledge and empathy needed to understand would be an extrem change. And it's simply impossible to create instantly without trauma.
It needs time.
Yes for the beginning, no to the middle, and no to the end.
Instant realization do not change our entire relationship with the world and the knowledge we have about it or the empathy we give to people. It only make us realize, at worse, that we really screwed up, but NEVER will it make someone extremilly dangerous understand entirely the negativity of their actions and make them change instantly.
Again, you would need a matrix like data center capable of downloading a massive load of informations and empathic experience into the brain.
We do not have this type of technology. We can only try to force a change but it will never stick (if it happens at all).. Now.. this doesn't means those change do not exist.
They do.
But they create Trauma.
For example (I will Spoil Arcane s1 & s2) :
This is what happens in real life. Extrem realization of negative behavior creates an extrem gap because we suddenly see ourselves with all our flaws and in the case of rapists or murderers, they would be big ones.
Without the materialist knowledge (the fact that our actions are also the result of the material conditions of existence and the pressure of the systems) those people will have NOTHING to hold on to unless they have a mission to live and in this situation, it would be extremely unlikely.
This is why a forced extrem change is impossible instantly without big trauma
I wished it was that simple in reality.
No. It would be impossible. I specifically created this scenario in a way that nothing prevents you from pushing the button.
It would be possible only in 4 scenarios:
1. Someone is telling you that you have to let your love one die because it's a necessity for some X reason (let's say to save humanity)
2. If you are secretely loving noone, in which case you could not push the button.
3. You lose your mind for a minute for some X reason and you do not push the button
But in this scenario, there is no world and no universe where you would stop, by your own will, from pushing the button and let the loved one die without losing a bit of your reason.
This is a mathematical certainty. It's simply a very caricatural example of external (train / risk of death) and internal (memory and love for the person) pression on the descision making. Those are things that we do not control. And thus, we do not have a free will over them.
Now, this is a simple example, but I could go bigger and explain to you in detail how your capitals (economic, social, cultural) added to your experience, your memory, and even the weather can create specific mood that can create specific descision that will make the difference between you taking a Croissant or a Donuts at the backery.
And when we had Chaos theory to all of that, you start to understand just how impossible free will is and how extremely fascinating the universe really is.
You have an idealistic vision of change. ("change can happen if we will it strongly enough"). But this doesn't take into account the material reality of the world and our existences.
It can't happen like that, I'm sorry. It's physically and materially not possible (at least for rapist, enlavers, torturer and kidnappers, for murderer, I would agree it's possible, but murder is kind of a different thing in term of change as it can be a very non symptomatic behavior but even in their case, there would need to be a form of instant aquirement of knowledge for some to really stick the change, especially the cases where the murder is pushed by the hatred of women or very apathic behavior like that).
Regret, yes. Really change ? It's another beast.
For those specific criminals (I'm not talking about the robber who threatenned a salesman with a gun) a big chunk of knowledge related to the gravity of their action is needed to understand (really understand) and change their behavior.
It can happen for some of them when they are already aware of the systemic reasons behind their actions (I'm talking about people on the left spectrum mainly) or people who have a lot of respect for others to begin with, but mainly, you would need specific kind of knowledge to start evolving and changing in an extrem way.
But hey ! Let's say that there is one or two exception, really strong guys who - despite the gap and the dissociation - kept living despite an extrem realization... well they are really a minority and even for them there will be a long time to really understand and change everything.
--
You need to understand that I'm not saying that an extrem realization is impossible. It is possible, even without the end of people threatenning us. But instant change is not.
"After 3 movies".
This is the important part. Change is a journey, it's rarely instant.
And on that note. I sence that I wasn't clear and confusing in my argumentation. (as this is - after all - arguments that I never had to really elaborate on. So I made a few mistak and I will explain:
Yes, radical change are possible. I told you that it can happen instantly but in reality, it's not true. That's a semantic problem.
Change is a transformation. A instant transformation is not really possible as the condition behind our choice are not instant either. It's rather the realization that is possible instantly (even the extrem one as I explained before). I'm sorry if I was not clear on that argument. I will clarify that from now on.
I will distinguish:
Realization : The action of realizing something (most of the time instantly)
Instant Change : The action of being transformed in an instant
Change overtime: The action of being changed over time
Choices : The actions we take because of change
Change will happen overtime unless if there is an extrem realization happening, in which case, there would be a extrem change of behavior. But such extrem change will induce trauma. And will create instability
I will stop talking about instant radical change because in reality, even with radical realizations, radical change do not happen. (which is logical as a radical realization is not strong enough to change someone put will be enough to transform them over time)
As such:
Radical change : Possible overtime but not really possible in an instant
Extrem change : Possible in an instant but will most likely induce Trauma because of the gap and dissociation
I hope this is clearer. And it's important because it allows us to understand how we are able to change and how we need to adapt our system.
In any case, punishment will never be enough or usefull to create positive long-term change. We need to create a system without that. A system that will push people toward change.
But one thing you do not take into account. Is that if society change, this debate will only be relevant in the period of transition between capitalism/patriarchy and a better system. Because once we are in such a system and new generations start to rise. There will be no one to put in prison aside from people who have a pathological condition and even in those case, I think we can manage to find solutions.
Radical change is indeed possible. In fact even extrem change is possible. I've been telling you that from the beginning.
What I'm arguing is not if those things are possible or not, but if it is possible to create an instant realization to change those behavior in an instant so those people will not be dangerous anymore.
And this is not possible for extrem change, unless you are ready to induce trauma to those people. They will realize that they did a bad thing, but they will need time to change and fully understand the dangerosity of their behavior.
Because trust me when if think that a rapist explained to you how sorry they were, if they did not get any kind of structural and material change in their vision of the world related to women....
Even if they were genuine in their repentance... They will do it again !
I changed my argumentation during this post in order to clarify the discussion (about instant change mainly). So take that into account.
What the fuck are you talking about, you're saying something could be living in our world but simultaneously, not be alive?
No lol. I'm just saying that I was only using a specific usage of the world.
When I say "I always prioritize the living". I'm saying I'm prioritizing those that are living in our world. I consider a foetus a pre-living state in that sence (even if some biologist prefer to call even foetus living). I use the term living as a social meaning. As in "They are leaving among us" or "they are living their best life"
Anyway, this is just semantics, it's not really important.
I wanted to debate on that, but I will grant you that point. I think we should stay on topic. The important thing is, there is more probability in an old woman to do immediate good than a foetus when I consider the event that is pregnency.
No. An ethical one. An arbitrary prioritization would be to say that a life of a woman is more sacred than the one of a foetus.
The ethical statement that I'm making here is that in the lack of further data, it is more ethical to prioritize the life of the individual that bares the foetus rather than the foetus itself, simply because there is much less harm done by doing so rather than prioritizing the foetus. Which could have a LOT of consequences and not only on the individual themselves.
And as I told you, in this case, the absence of pain and consciousness of the foetus make it more ethical. When you talk about people not having pain, you are applying an argument to two situations that are very different and do not have the same ethical standart and context.
Ethic is always about context, I'm not making moral arguments here. So we should only take example where the context is similar.
Again, change is not that simple. It does not happens because you will it, but because the material conditions of your existence change.
In other words, it never us that change out of will, it's the universe that make us change.
A Nazi advocate will never suddenly become an anarchist or a feminist, but he could become less violent against women and minorities over time and start focus only on trans people because of an encounter with migrants one day that might have been nice to him or save him.
Then he might become more progressive an more understanding of the notion of gender equality, but this will not magically change his vision on meritocracy or capitalism.
For that to happen, a radical change would be needed as the gap between meritocracy and anti-meritocracy is not an easy one and can change our entire relationship with the world (as I explained earlier).. but this would rely on a lot of informations about the world.
Now, we were talking about rapist here, well.. technically they can appear everywhere as patriarchy is everywhere.. but the ones on the right (who are really on the left political spectrum) are much more likely to change because their vision of the world will follow. So while the realization might be destructive, it might not be dangerous.
On the other hand, aside from the man who is aware of gender equalities, it's almost impossible for someone on the left on this drawing to actually understand REALLY the negative reach of his action (rape). They will know it's not okay, but they won't really integrate the fundamental understanding and empathy needed to change on this matter.
A change of the person on the left here who is a rapist into a person on the right end here with the entire spectrum of knowledge and empathy needed to understand would be an extrem change. And it's simply impossible to create instantly without trauma.
It needs time.
Yes for the beginning, no to the middle, and no to the end.
Instant realization do not change our entire relationship with the world and the knowledge we have about it or the empathy we give to people. It only make us realize, at worse, that we really screwed up, but NEVER will it make someone extremilly dangerous understand entirely the negativity of their actions and make them change instantly.
Again, you would need a matrix like data center capable of downloading a massive load of informations and empathic experience into the brain.
We do not have this type of technology. We can only try to force a change but it will never stick (if it happens at all).. Now.. this doesn't means those change do not exist.
They do.
But they create Trauma.
For example (I will Spoil Arcane s1 & s2) :
Powder gets an extrem change related to an extrem realization in season 1. She realizes that she killed everyone and she is getting abandonned for it. She couldn't take that, especially because she was very demanding of affection before. This triggered a switch in her, a failsafe to prevent her from killing herself and Jinx was born.
Once the failsafe is out and once Jinx start to starts to realize that she lost once again the most important thing for her in season 2, she tries to destroy herself.. Gladly, she had time to gradually change before that and thus, she managed to stop herself from jumping because of Ekko.
Once the failsafe is out and once Jinx start to starts to realize that she lost once again the most important thing for her in season 2, she tries to destroy herself.. Gladly, she had time to gradually change before that and thus, she managed to stop herself from jumping because of Ekko.
This is what happens in real life. Extrem realization of negative behavior creates an extrem gap because we suddenly see ourselves with all our flaws and in the case of rapists or murderers, they would be big ones.
Without the materialist knowledge (the fact that our actions are also the result of the material conditions of existence and the pressure of the systems) those people will have NOTHING to hold on to unless they have a mission to live and in this situation, it would be extremely unlikely.
This is why a forced extrem change is impossible instantly without big trauma
I wished it was that simple in reality.
No. It would be impossible. I specifically created this scenario in a way that nothing prevents you from pushing the button.
It would be possible only in 4 scenarios:
1. Someone is telling you that you have to let your love one die because it's a necessity for some X reason (let's say to save humanity)
2. If you are secretely loving noone, in which case you could not push the button.
3. You lose your mind for a minute for some X reason and you do not push the button
But in this scenario, there is no world and no universe where you would stop, by your own will, from pushing the button and let the loved one die without losing a bit of your reason.
This is a mathematical certainty. It's simply a very caricatural example of external (train / risk of death) and internal (memory and love for the person) pression on the descision making. Those are things that we do not control. And thus, we do not have a free will over them.
Now, this is a simple example, but I could go bigger and explain to you in detail how your capitals (economic, social, cultural) added to your experience, your memory, and even the weather can create specific mood that can create specific descision that will make the difference between you taking a Croissant or a Donuts at the backery.
And when we had Chaos theory to all of that, you start to understand just how impossible free will is and how extremely fascinating the universe really is.
You have an idealistic vision of change. ("change can happen if we will it strongly enough"). But this doesn't take into account the material reality of the world and our existences.
It can't happen like that, I'm sorry. It's physically and materially not possible (at least for rapist, enlavers, torturer and kidnappers, for murderer, I would agree it's possible, but murder is kind of a different thing in term of change as it can be a very non symptomatic behavior but even in their case, there would need to be a form of instant aquirement of knowledge for some to really stick the change, especially the cases where the murder is pushed by the hatred of women or very apathic behavior like that).
Regret, yes. Really change ? It's another beast.
For those specific criminals (I'm not talking about the robber who threatenned a salesman with a gun) a big chunk of knowledge related to the gravity of their action is needed to understand (really understand) and change their behavior.
It can happen for some of them when they are already aware of the systemic reasons behind their actions (I'm talking about people on the left spectrum mainly) or people who have a lot of respect for others to begin with, but mainly, you would need specific kind of knowledge to start evolving and changing in an extrem way.
But hey ! Let's say that there is one or two exception, really strong guys who - despite the gap and the dissociation - kept living despite an extrem realization... well they are really a minority and even for them there will be a long time to really understand and change everything.
--
You need to understand that I'm not saying that an extrem realization is impossible. It is possible, even without the end of people threatenning us. But instant change is not.
"After 3 movies".
This is the important part. Change is a journey, it's rarely instant.
And on that note. I sence that I wasn't clear and confusing in my argumentation. (as this is - after all - arguments that I never had to really elaborate on. So I made a few mistak and I will explain:
Yes, radical change are possible. I told you that it can happen instantly but in reality, it's not true. That's a semantic problem.
Change is a transformation. A instant transformation is not really possible as the condition behind our choice are not instant either. It's rather the realization that is possible instantly (even the extrem one as I explained before). I'm sorry if I was not clear on that argument. I will clarify that from now on.
I will distinguish:
Realization : The action of realizing something (most of the time instantly)
Instant Change : The action of being transformed in an instant
Change overtime: The action of being changed over time
Choices : The actions we take because of change
Change will happen overtime unless if there is an extrem realization happening, in which case, there would be a extrem change of behavior. But such extrem change will induce trauma. And will create instability
Like Jinx in my example.
I will stop talking about instant radical change because in reality, even with radical realizations, radical change do not happen. (which is logical as a radical realization is not strong enough to change someone put will be enough to transform them over time)
As such:
Radical change : Possible overtime but not really possible in an instant
Extrem change : Possible in an instant but will most likely induce Trauma because of the gap and dissociation
I hope this is clearer. And it's important because it allows us to understand how we are able to change and how we need to adapt our system.
In any case, punishment will never be enough or usefull to create positive long-term change. We need to create a system without that. A system that will push people toward change.
But one thing you do not take into account. Is that if society change, this debate will only be relevant in the period of transition between capitalism/patriarchy and a better system. Because once we are in such a system and new generations start to rise. There will be no one to put in prison aside from people who have a pathological condition and even in those case, I think we can manage to find solutions.
Radical change is indeed possible. In fact even extrem change is possible. I've been telling you that from the beginning.
What I'm arguing is not if those things are possible or not, but if it is possible to create an instant realization to change those behavior in an instant so those people will not be dangerous anymore.
And this is not possible for extrem change, unless you are ready to induce trauma to those people. They will realize that they did a bad thing, but they will need time to change and fully understand the dangerosity of their behavior.
Because trust me when if think that a rapist explained to you how sorry they were, if they did not get any kind of structural and material change in their vision of the world related to women....
Even if they were genuine in their repentance... They will do it again !
Last edited:
It is rather irrelevant, going to ignore this section of our discussion now
What the fuck are you talking about, you're saying something could be living in our world but simultaneously, not be alive?
Inb4 Logiko says being alive =/= living
It isn't potentially human, it is human as per it being a human fetus, as opposed to an elephant or dog fetus
It is actually a human fetus, and potentially a human baby, a human child, a human teenager, a human adult etc...
The potentiality is not in it being human, but it becoming various types of humans as per it's growth
An arbitrary prioritization because as I just demonstrated with the person in a coma argument, pain =/= humanity.
At the end of the day, your argument is reducible to arbitrarily prioritizing the life of one human at a later stage of development (adult) than another human at a lower stage of development (fetus), the reason for which you have nothing for
What is this change reducible to? The will going from desiring evil, to desiring good.
And the will choosing good rather than evil can happen instantly or gradually, just as the fireplace can burn brightly instantly or reach brightness gradually if much wood (or in the case of the will, information), is added instantly, or slowly
And so a criminal can slowly hange his will (desire to do good, not evil) if given realizations slowly overtime, or he can change his will desire to do good instantly, if given instant realization such as news of execution
That is the nature of the will to be able to change instantly, just as 1 + 1 = 2. It is a property inherit to the human heart to have the capacity for instant, radical change
These factors influence my free will, but you can't prove my will is entirely removed here.
I could choose evil, it'd just be very difficult to
It can happen in one step, just as a fireplace can instantly burn bright if given one giant log
It can also happen in many steps, just as a fireplace can burn brightly after many small logs
In this case, a criminal can instantly change (burn bright) in one step/realization (one log), being told he's being executed
Pretty sure plenty of criminals have instantly regret, and repented of their crimes after being informed of their execution, actually
It is reducible to that.
Jack, after 3 movies, had his will desire to do good, not evil
You should switch your line of arguments. I have just demonstrated radical change can happen in one step, or many steps, AKA it is possible for a criminal to radically change in an instant
However, is this likely?
When arguing against the death penalty, you should argue from statistics & data that it is unlikely to cause change within the criminal. You won't be able to prove radical change is inherently impossible, but you can prove it's unlikely in the majority of cases
What the fuck are you talking about, you're saying something could be living in our world but simultaneously, not be alive?
Inb4 Logiko says being alive =/= living
It isn't potentially human, it is human as per it being a human fetus, as opposed to an elephant or dog fetus
It is actually a human fetus, and potentially a human baby, a human child, a human teenager, a human adult etc...
The potentiality is not in it being human, but it becoming various types of humans as per it's growth
An arbitrary prioritization because as I just demonstrated with the person in a coma argument, pain =/= humanity.
At the end of the day, your argument is reducible to arbitrarily prioritizing the life of one human at a later stage of development (adult) than another human at a lower stage of development (fetus), the reason for which you have nothing for
What is this change reducible to? The will going from desiring evil, to desiring good.
And the will choosing good rather than evil can happen instantly or gradually, just as the fireplace can burn brightly instantly or reach brightness gradually if much wood (or in the case of the will, information), is added instantly, or slowly
And so a criminal can slowly hange his will (desire to do good, not evil) if given realizations slowly overtime, or he can change his will desire to do good instantly, if given instant realization such as news of execution
That is the nature of the will to be able to change instantly, just as 1 + 1 = 2. It is a property inherit to the human heart to have the capacity for instant, radical change
These factors influence my free will, but you can't prove my will is entirely removed here.
I could choose evil, it'd just be very difficult to
It can happen in one step, just as a fireplace can instantly burn bright if given one giant log
It can also happen in many steps, just as a fireplace can burn brightly after many small logs
In this case, a criminal can instantly change (burn bright) in one step/realization (one log), being told he's being executed
Pretty sure plenty of criminals have instantly regret, and repented of their crimes after being informed of their execution, actually
It is reducible to that.
Jack, after 3 movies, had his will desire to do good, not evil
You should switch your line of arguments. I have just demonstrated radical change can happen in one step, or many steps, AKA it is possible for a criminal to radically change in an instant
However, is this likely?
When arguing against the death penalty, you should argue from statistics & data that it is unlikely to cause change within the criminal. You won't be able to prove radical change is inherently impossible, but you can prove it's unlikely in the majority of cases
@Germinator (Late note: Interesting discussion btw. I'm glad someone actually is debating with argumentations for once)
I changed my argumentation during this post in order to clarify the discussion (about instant change mainly). So take that into account.
No lol. I'm just saying that I was only using a specific usage of the world.
When I say "I always prioritize the living". I'm saying I'm prioritizing those that are living in our world. I consider a foetus a pre-living state in that sence (even if some biologist prefer to call even foetus living). I use the term living as a social meaning. As in "They are leaving among us" or "they are living their best life"
Anyway, this is just semantics, it's not really important.
I wanted to debate on that, but I will grant you that point. I think we should stay on topic. The important thing is, there is more probability in an old woman to do immediate good than a foetus when I consider the event that is pregnency.
No. An ethical one. An arbitrary prioritization would be to say that a life of a woman is more sacred than the one of a foetus.
The ethical statement that I'm making here is that in the lack of further data, it is more ethical to prioritize the life of the individual that bares the foetus rather than the foetus itself, simply because there is much less harm done by doing so rather than prioritizing the foetus. Which could have a LOT of consequences and not only on the individual themselves.
And as I told you, in this case, the absence of pain and consciousness of the foetus make it more ethical. When you talk about people not having pain, you are applying an argument to two situations that are very different and do not have the same ethical standart and context.
Ethic is always about context, I'm not making moral arguments here. So we should only take example where the context is similar.
Again, change is not that simple. It does not happens because you will it, but because the material conditions of your existence change.
In other words, it never us that change out of will, it's the universe that make us change.
A Nazi advocate will never suddenly become an anarchist or a feminist, but he could become less violent against women and minorities over time and start focus only on trans people because of an encounter with migrants one day that might have been nice to him or save him.
Then he might become more progressive an more understanding of the notion of gender equality, but this will not magically change his vision on meritocracy or capitalism.
For that to happen, a radical change would be needed as the gap between meritocracy and anti-meritocracy is not an easy one and can change our entire relationship with the world (as I explained earlier).. but this would rely on a lot of informations about the world.
Now, we were talking about rapist here, well.. technically they can appear everywhere as patriarchy is everywhere.. but the ones on the right (who are really on the left political spectrum) are much more likely to change because their vision of the world will follow. So while the realization might be destructive, it might not be dangerous.
On the other hand, aside from the man who is aware of gender equalities, it's almost impossible for someone on the left on this drawing to actually understand REALLY the negative reach of his action (rape). They will know it's not okay, but they won't really integrate the fundamental understanding and empathy needed to change on this matter.
A change of the person on the left here who is a rapist into a person on the right end here with the entire spectrum of knowledge and empathy needed to understand would be an extrem change. And it's simply impossible to create without trauma.
Yes for the beginning, no to the middle, and no to the end.
Instant realization do not change our entire relationship with the world and the knowledge we have about it or the empathy we give to people. It only make us realize, at worse, that we really screwed up, but NEVER will it make someone extremilly dangerous understand entirely the negativity of their actions and make them change instantly.
Again, you would need a matrix like data center capable of downloading a massive load of informations and empathic experience into the brain.
We do not have this type of technology. We can only try to force a change but it will never stick (if it happens at all).. Now.. this doesn't means those change do not exist.
They do.
But they create Trauma.
For example (I will Spoil Arcane s1 & s2) :
This is what happens in real life. Extrem realization of negative behavior creates an extrem gap because we suddenly see ourselves with all our flaws and in the case of rapists or murderers, they would be big ones.
Without the materialist knowledge (the fact that our actions are also the result of the material conditions of existence and the pressure of the systems) those people will have NOTHING to hold on to unless they have a mission to live and in this situation, it would be extremely unlikely.
This is why a forced extrem change is impossible without big trauma
I wished it was that simple in reality.
No. It would be impossible. I specifically created this scenario in a way that nothing prevents you from pushing the button.
It would be possible only in 4 scenarios:
1. Someone is telling you that you have to let your love one die because it's a necessity for some X reason (let's say to save humanity)
2. If you are secretely loving noone, in which case you could not push the button.
3. You lose your mind for a minute for some X reason and you do not push the button
But in this scenario, there is no world and no universe where you would stop, by your own will, from pushing the button and let the loved one die without losing a bit of your reason.
This is a mathematical certainty. It's simply a very caricatural example of external (train / risk of death) and internal (memory and love for the person) pression on the descision making. Those are things that we do not control. And thus, we do not have a free will over them.
Now, this is a simple example, but I could go bigger and explain to you in detail how your capitals (economic, social, cultural) added to your experience, your memory, and even the weather can create specific mood that can create specific descision that will make the difference between you taking a Croissant or a Donuts at the backery.
And when we had Chaos theory to all of that, you start to understand just how impossible free will is and how extremely fascinating the universe really is.
You have an idealistic vision of change. ("change can happen if we will it strongly enough"). But this doesn't take into account the material reality of the world and our existences.
It can't happen like that, I'm sorry. It's physically and materially not possible (at least for rapist, enlavers, torturer and kidnappers, for murderer, I would agree it's possible, but murder is kind of a different thing in term of change as it can be a very non symptomatic behavior but even in their case, there would need to be a form of instant aquirement of knowledge for some to really stick the change, especially the cases where the murder is pushed by the hatred of women or very apathic behavior like that).
Regret, yes. Really change ? It's another beast.
For those specific criminals (I'm not talking about the robber who threatenned a salesman with a gun) a big chunk of knowledge related to the gravity of their action is needed to understand (really understand) and change their behavior.
It can happen for some of them when they are already aware of the systemic reasons behind their actions (I'm talking about people on the left spectrum mainly) or people who have a lot of respect for others to begin with, but mainly, you would need specific kind of knowledge to start evolving and changing in an extrem way.
But hey ! Let's say that there is one or two exception, really strong guys who - despite the gap and the dissociation - kept living despite an extrem realization... well they are really a minority and even for them there will be a long time to really understand and change everything.
--
You need to understand that I'm not saying that an extrem realization is impossible. It is possible, even without the end of people threatenning us. But instant change is not.
"After 3 movies".
This is the important part. Change is a journey, it's rarely instant.
And on that note. I sence that I wasn't clear and confusing in my argumentation. (as this is - after all - arguments that I never had to really elaborate on. So I made a few mistak and I will explain:
Yes, radical change are possible. I told you that it can happen instantly but in reality, it's not true. That's a semantic problem.
Change is a transformation. A instant transformation is not really possible as the condition behind our choice are not instant either. It's rather the realization that is possible instantly (even the extrem one as I explained before). I'm sorry if I was not clear on that argument. I will clarify that from now on.
I will distinguish:
Realization : The action of realizing something (most of the time instantly)
Instant Change : The action of being transformed in an instant
Change overtime: The action of being changed over time
Choices : The actions we take because of change
Change will happen overtime unless if there is an extrem realization happening, in which case, there would be a extrem change of behavior. But such extrem change will induce trauma. And will create instability
I will stop talking about instant radical change because in reality, even with radical realizations, radical change do not happen. (which is logical as a radical realization is not strong enough to change someone put will be enough to transform them over time)
As such:
Radical change : Possible overtime but not really possible in an instant
Extrem change : Possible in an instant but will most likely induce Trauma because of the gap and dissociation
I hope this is clearer. And it's important because it allows us to understand how we are able to change and how we need to adapt our system.
In any case, punishment will never be enough or usefull to create positive long-term change. We need to create a system without that. A system that will push people toward change.
But one thing you do not take into account. Is that if society change, this debate will only be relevant in the period of transition between capitalism/patriarchy and a better system. Because once we are in such a system and new generations start to rise. There will be no one to put in prison aside from people who have a pathological condition and even in those case, I think we can manage to find solutions.
Radical change is indeed possible. In fact even extrem change is possible. I've been telling you that from the beginning.
What I'm arguing is not if those things are possible or not, but if it is possible to create an instant realization to change those behavior in an instant so those people will not be dangerous anymore.
And this is not possible for extrem change, unless you are ready to induce trauma to those people. They will realize that they did a bad thing, but they will need time to change and fully understand the dangerosity of their behavior.
Because trust me when if think that a rapist explained to you how sorry they were, if they did not get any kind of structural and material change in their vision of the world related to women....
Even if they were genuine in their repentance... They will do it again !
I changed my argumentation during this post in order to clarify the discussion (about instant change mainly). So take that into account.
No lol. I'm just saying that I was only using a specific usage of the world.
When I say "I always prioritize the living". I'm saying I'm prioritizing those that are living in our world. I consider a foetus a pre-living state in that sence (even if some biologist prefer to call even foetus living). I use the term living as a social meaning. As in "They are leaving among us" or "they are living their best life"
Anyway, this is just semantics, it's not really important.
I wanted to debate on that, but I will grant you that point. I think we should stay on topic. The important thing is, there is more probability in an old woman to do immediate good than a foetus when I consider the event that is pregnency.
No. An ethical one. An arbitrary prioritization would be to say that a life of a woman is more sacred than the one of a foetus.
The ethical statement that I'm making here is that in the lack of further data, it is more ethical to prioritize the life of the individual that bares the foetus rather than the foetus itself, simply because there is much less harm done by doing so rather than prioritizing the foetus. Which could have a LOT of consequences and not only on the individual themselves.
And as I told you, in this case, the absence of pain and consciousness of the foetus make it more ethical. When you talk about people not having pain, you are applying an argument to two situations that are very different and do not have the same ethical standart and context.
Ethic is always about context, I'm not making moral arguments here. So we should only take example where the context is similar.
Again, change is not that simple. It does not happens because you will it, but because the material conditions of your existence change.
In other words, it never us that change out of will, it's the universe that make us change.
A Nazi advocate will never suddenly become an anarchist or a feminist, but he could become less violent against women and minorities over time and start focus only on trans people because of an encounter with migrants one day that might have been nice to him or save him.
Then he might become more progressive an more understanding of the notion of gender equality, but this will not magically change his vision on meritocracy or capitalism.
For that to happen, a radical change would be needed as the gap between meritocracy and anti-meritocracy is not an easy one and can change our entire relationship with the world (as I explained earlier).. but this would rely on a lot of informations about the world.
Now, we were talking about rapist here, well.. technically they can appear everywhere as patriarchy is everywhere.. but the ones on the right (who are really on the left political spectrum) are much more likely to change because their vision of the world will follow. So while the realization might be destructive, it might not be dangerous.
On the other hand, aside from the man who is aware of gender equalities, it's almost impossible for someone on the left on this drawing to actually understand REALLY the negative reach of his action (rape). They will know it's not okay, but they won't really integrate the fundamental understanding and empathy needed to change on this matter.
A change of the person on the left here who is a rapist into a person on the right end here with the entire spectrum of knowledge and empathy needed to understand would be an extrem change. And it's simply impossible to create without trauma.
Yes for the beginning, no to the middle, and no to the end.
Instant realization do not change our entire relationship with the world and the knowledge we have about it or the empathy we give to people. It only make us realize, at worse, that we really screwed up, but NEVER will it make someone extremilly dangerous understand entirely the negativity of their actions and make them change instantly.
Again, you would need a matrix like data center capable of downloading a massive load of informations and empathic experience into the brain.
We do not have this type of technology. We can only try to force a change but it will never stick (if it happens at all).. Now.. this doesn't means those change do not exist.
They do.
But they create Trauma.
For example (I will Spoil Arcane s1 & s2) :
Powder gets an extrem change related to an extrem realization in season 1. She realizes that she killed everyone and she is getting abandonned for it. She couldn't take that, especially because she was very demanding of affection before. This triggered a switch in her, a failsafe to prevent her from killing herself and Jinx was born.
Once the failsafe is out and once Jinx start to starts to realize that she lost once again the most important thing for her in season 2, she tries to destroy herself.. Gladly, she had time to gradually change before that and thus, she managed to stop herself from jumping because of Ekko.
Once the failsafe is out and once Jinx start to starts to realize that she lost once again the most important thing for her in season 2, she tries to destroy herself.. Gladly, she had time to gradually change before that and thus, she managed to stop herself from jumping because of Ekko.
This is what happens in real life. Extrem realization of negative behavior creates an extrem gap because we suddenly see ourselves with all our flaws and in the case of rapists or murderers, they would be big ones.
Without the materialist knowledge (the fact that our actions are also the result of the material conditions of existence and the pressure of the systems) those people will have NOTHING to hold on to unless they have a mission to live and in this situation, it would be extremely unlikely.
This is why a forced extrem change is impossible without big trauma
I wished it was that simple in reality.
No. It would be impossible. I specifically created this scenario in a way that nothing prevents you from pushing the button.
It would be possible only in 4 scenarios:
1. Someone is telling you that you have to let your love one die because it's a necessity for some X reason (let's say to save humanity)
2. If you are secretely loving noone, in which case you could not push the button.
3. You lose your mind for a minute for some X reason and you do not push the button
But in this scenario, there is no world and no universe where you would stop, by your own will, from pushing the button and let the loved one die without losing a bit of your reason.
This is a mathematical certainty. It's simply a very caricatural example of external (train / risk of death) and internal (memory and love for the person) pression on the descision making. Those are things that we do not control. And thus, we do not have a free will over them.
Now, this is a simple example, but I could go bigger and explain to you in detail how your capitals (economic, social, cultural) added to your experience, your memory, and even the weather can create specific mood that can create specific descision that will make the difference between you taking a Croissant or a Donuts at the backery.
And when we had Chaos theory to all of that, you start to understand just how impossible free will is and how extremely fascinating the universe really is.
You have an idealistic vision of change. ("change can happen if we will it strongly enough"). But this doesn't take into account the material reality of the world and our existences.
It can't happen like that, I'm sorry. It's physically and materially not possible (at least for rapist, enlavers, torturer and kidnappers, for murderer, I would agree it's possible, but murder is kind of a different thing in term of change as it can be a very non symptomatic behavior but even in their case, there would need to be a form of instant aquirement of knowledge for some to really stick the change, especially the cases where the murder is pushed by the hatred of women or very apathic behavior like that).
Regret, yes. Really change ? It's another beast.
For those specific criminals (I'm not talking about the robber who threatenned a salesman with a gun) a big chunk of knowledge related to the gravity of their action is needed to understand (really understand) and change their behavior.
It can happen for some of them when they are already aware of the systemic reasons behind their actions (I'm talking about people on the left spectrum mainly) or people who have a lot of respect for others to begin with, but mainly, you would need specific kind of knowledge to start evolving and changing in an extrem way.
But hey ! Let's say that there is one or two exception, really strong guys who - despite the gap and the dissociation - kept living despite an extrem realization... well they are really a minority and even for them there will be a long time to really understand and change everything.
--
You need to understand that I'm not saying that an extrem realization is impossible. It is possible, even without the end of people threatenning us. But instant change is not.
"After 3 movies".
This is the important part. Change is a journey, it's rarely instant.
And on that note. I sence that I wasn't clear and confusing in my argumentation. (as this is - after all - arguments that I never had to really elaborate on. So I made a few mistak and I will explain:
Yes, radical change are possible. I told you that it can happen instantly but in reality, it's not true. That's a semantic problem.
Change is a transformation. A instant transformation is not really possible as the condition behind our choice are not instant either. It's rather the realization that is possible instantly (even the extrem one as I explained before). I'm sorry if I was not clear on that argument. I will clarify that from now on.
I will distinguish:
Realization : The action of realizing something (most of the time instantly)
Instant Change : The action of being transformed in an instant
Change overtime: The action of being changed over time
Choices : The actions we take because of change
Change will happen overtime unless if there is an extrem realization happening, in which case, there would be a extrem change of behavior. But such extrem change will induce trauma. And will create instability
Like Jinx in my example.
I will stop talking about instant radical change because in reality, even with radical realizations, radical change do not happen. (which is logical as a radical realization is not strong enough to change someone put will be enough to transform them over time)
As such:
Radical change : Possible overtime but not really possible in an instant
Extrem change : Possible in an instant but will most likely induce Trauma because of the gap and dissociation
I hope this is clearer. And it's important because it allows us to understand how we are able to change and how we need to adapt our system.
In any case, punishment will never be enough or usefull to create positive long-term change. We need to create a system without that. A system that will push people toward change.
But one thing you do not take into account. Is that if society change, this debate will only be relevant in the period of transition between capitalism/patriarchy and a better system. Because once we are in such a system and new generations start to rise. There will be no one to put in prison aside from people who have a pathological condition and even in those case, I think we can manage to find solutions.
Radical change is indeed possible. In fact even extrem change is possible. I've been telling you that from the beginning.
What I'm arguing is not if those things are possible or not, but if it is possible to create an instant realization to change those behavior in an instant so those people will not be dangerous anymore.
And this is not possible for extrem change, unless you are ready to induce trauma to those people. They will realize that they did a bad thing, but they will need time to change and fully understand the dangerosity of their behavior.
Because trust me when if think that a rapist explained to you how sorry they were, if they did not get any kind of structural and material change in their vision of the world related to women....
Even if they were genuine in their repentance... They will do it again !
You do not tech the geopolitical implication. Which prevent your understanding of the gravity of this conflict.
People talk about all the genocide.
The problem with the gaza conflict, on top of it being an immediate urgency compared to other one (in the sence that the atrocities do not have the same time spacing and not the same intensity in increase), is that it is a genocide that is DENIED by the international community, mainly in the west.
This renders the conflict a top priority for anyone who understand who we must fight oppressions and the rise of fascism. Because behind the genocide of Gaza, that is the thing that you do not take into account and what I've been constantly warning you since the beginning:
Israel is now becoming a fascist state. And not only Palestinian are in danger, but Israelian as well and.. the entire west bank.
So yes, we speak more about Gaza at the moment because it's an ethical necessity. People like you who compare the number of death of genocides, in order laugh at those denouncing the one in gaza in priority because of necessity, while never talking about any oppressions do not have any moral lessons to give.
Especially when you do not seem to understand the geopolitical gravity of the situation.
People talk about all the genocide.
The problem with the gaza conflict, on top of it being an immediate urgency compared to other one (in the sence that the atrocities do not have the same time spacing and not the same intensity in increase), is that it is a genocide that is DENIED by the international community, mainly in the west.
This renders the conflict a top priority for anyone who understand who we must fight oppressions and the rise of fascism. Because behind the genocide of Gaza, that is the thing that you do not take into account and what I've been constantly warning you since the beginning:
Israel is now becoming a fascist state. And not only Palestinian are in danger, but Israelian as well and.. the entire west bank.
So yes, we speak more about Gaza at the moment because it's an ethical necessity. People like you who compare the number of death of genocides, in order laugh at those denouncing the one in gaza in priority because of necessity, while never talking about any oppressions do not have any moral lessons to give.
Especially when you do not seem to understand the geopolitical gravity of the situation.
That Jeju plane crash is strange.
Bird hit the right engine which we can see in the video
But what doesn't fit is why plane landing gears, flaps were not deployed?
I saw an expert saying, bird hit doesn't cause hydraulics failure. And, even if somehow plane faced hydraulics failure then plane had mechanical landing gears which could be deployed just by unlocking.
But what we saw is plane making belly landing in high speed before steering off the runway to hit that embankment which shouldn't be there in the first place
Unfortunately, only 2 survived and one has critical injuries to the extent that doctors feel he might end up with total paralysis
Bird hit the right engine which we can see in the video
But what doesn't fit is why plane landing gears, flaps were not deployed?
I saw an expert saying, bird hit doesn't cause hydraulics failure. And, even if somehow plane faced hydraulics failure then plane had mechanical landing gears which could be deployed just by unlocking.
But what we saw is plane making belly landing in high speed before steering off the runway to hit that embankment which shouldn't be there in the first place
Unfortunately, only 2 survived and one has critical injuries to the extent that doctors feel he might end up with total paralysis
Yeah so this is basically just the ends justify the means, the mother can literally kill the fetus (which you now admit is a human) if it reduces her own personal suffering. Got it
So you just posted a picture of "steps" involved in radical change.
Yes, the Nazi could turn into an Anarchist in an instant provided he is immedietly given what he perceives as reason to, just as the fireplace can instantly burn brightly if given lots of wood.
In other words, it never us that change out of will, it's the universe that make us change.
A Nazi advocate will never suddenly become an anarchist or a feminist, but he could become less violent against women and minorities over time and start focus only on trans people because of an encounter with migrants one day that might have been nice to him or save him.
A Nazi advocate will never suddenly become an anarchist or a feminist, but he could become less violent against women and minorities over time and start focus only on trans people because of an encounter with migrants one day that might have been nice to him or save him.
Yes, the Nazi could turn into an Anarchist in an instant provided he is immedietly given what he perceives as reason to, just as the fireplace can instantly burn brightly if given lots of wood.
You aren't using conceptual reasoning. Instant realizations can change our entire relationship with the world because this change is merely our will desiring good A over good B, a function the human will has the capacity to carry out by it's very nature
Example: A human with their whole life ahead of them and great plans finds out they are going to die in 1 week. This "sudden" realization, suddenly makes them very detached and cold to the world
It would be "impossible" the way me holding a knife and told to stab myself is "impossible", it's very unlikely but not physically impossible
The gap between it being very unlikely, and literally impossible, is an infinite gap which through reason you can't identify. Where exactly does it become impossible?
Again, your hypothetical lists a scenario in which the will is pressured but not, in the metaphysical sense, forced.
Inclination is not necessity. The burden of proof is on you to show me where this strong emotional inclination to press the button, ceases being a mere inclination and becomes an innate necessity, akin to how 2 + 2 necessarily equals 4, and is not merely inclined to equal 4.
Nothing about free will implies every choice will be an easy one. Some choices will be easier to make, some harder. Pressing the button is an easy choice to make, and not pressing it would be a very difficult choice to make, but not an impossible one per se
So you agree that instant, radical change of the will from evil to good can happen for rapists, enslavers, tortures, kidnappers...
But then you list why it's unlikely for a murderer as well, but not impossible.
It sounds like all of these are possible, but some are probabilistically more likely, some less likely
I'm not going to debate this. You're just going to use probabilistic arguments again about why it's unlikely for them to truly change but not impossible.
If you want to argue what the odds are that a criminal will change their behavior after the death penalty or some shit, we can debate that instead but I am not going to waste time making conceptual arguments to an empiricist
You say it rarely happens, this implies it is a possibility, just as it is a possibility that the criminal change after being threatened with death penalty
If you want to argue the odds of that, go ahead, but you can't use language like "impossible" and then say it's "rarely" instant, which implies chance is possibility albeit a slight one
It's possible for a criminal to fulfill all of these after being threatened with extreme punishment such as the death penalty.
If you want to argue why that's unlikely, we can go there
Yeah so again, your argument is "XYZ is possible but unlikely", but you don't want to use probabilistic language and instead go for damntatory language like "not possible" for some reason
It is not inherently impossible for extreme change to happen and for trauma to not be incurred, it's just unlikely
He's a Redditor. All of his arguments are derived from an empirical outlook which cannot reason beyond observed data or patterns that tend to occur in humans
He takes an empirical understanding of the will although the will is a conceptual, abstract faculty within humans. It is like trying to solve a mathematical problem using science. Math is conceptual, science is empirical
He says extreme change of will, proved overtime by his improved behavior, cannot possibly occur in a criminal (because it doesn't tend to happen often; an empirical/scientific observation), but pure logic says otherwise as this is a necessary function of the will (conceptual/mathematical understanding of the will)
Rather than trying to solve a math problem (is it possible for criminal to radically change behavior) using science, he should solve the scientific problem (is it LIKELY they will radically change) using science. He could feasibly prove though it's possible for them to change, it is radically unlikely, to which I will wave the flag and not argue anymore as I have not studied the death penalty to that degree
Example: A human with their whole life ahead of them and great plans finds out they are going to die in 1 week. This "sudden" realization, suddenly makes them very detached and cold to the world
It would be "impossible" the way me holding a knife and told to stab myself is "impossible", it's very unlikely but not physically impossible
The gap between it being very unlikely, and literally impossible, is an infinite gap which through reason you can't identify. Where exactly does it become impossible?
Again, your hypothetical lists a scenario in which the will is pressured but not, in the metaphysical sense, forced.
Inclination is not necessity. The burden of proof is on you to show me where this strong emotional inclination to press the button, ceases being a mere inclination and becomes an innate necessity, akin to how 2 + 2 necessarily equals 4, and is not merely inclined to equal 4.
Nothing about free will implies every choice will be an easy one. Some choices will be easier to make, some harder. Pressing the button is an easy choice to make, and not pressing it would be a very difficult choice to make, but not an impossible one per se
So you agree that instant, radical change of the will from evil to good can happen for rapists, enslavers, tortures, kidnappers...
But then you list why it's unlikely for a murderer as well, but not impossible.
It sounds like all of these are possible, but some are probabilistically more likely, some less likely
I'm not going to debate this. You're just going to use probabilistic arguments again about why it's unlikely for them to truly change but not impossible.
If you want to argue what the odds are that a criminal will change their behavior after the death penalty or some shit, we can debate that instead but I am not going to waste time making conceptual arguments to an empiricist
You say it rarely happens, this implies it is a possibility, just as it is a possibility that the criminal change after being threatened with death penalty
If you want to argue the odds of that, go ahead, but you can't use language like "impossible" and then say it's "rarely" instant, which implies chance is possibility albeit a slight one
It's possible for a criminal to fulfill all of these after being threatened with extreme punishment such as the death penalty.
If you want to argue why that's unlikely, we can go there
Yeah so again, your argument is "XYZ is possible but unlikely", but you don't want to use probabilistic language and instead go for damntatory language like "not possible" for some reason
It is not inherently impossible for extreme change to happen and for trauma to not be incurred, it's just unlikely
Post automatically merged:
He's a Redditor. All of his arguments are derived from an empirical outlook which cannot reason beyond observed data or patterns that tend to occur in humans
He takes an empirical understanding of the will although the will is a conceptual, abstract faculty within humans. It is like trying to solve a mathematical problem using science. Math is conceptual, science is empirical
He says extreme change of will, proved overtime by his improved behavior, cannot possibly occur in a criminal (because it doesn't tend to happen often; an empirical/scientific observation), but pure logic says otherwise as this is a necessary function of the will (conceptual/mathematical understanding of the will)
Rather than trying to solve a math problem (is it possible for criminal to radically change behavior) using science, he should solve the scientific problem (is it LIKELY they will radically change) using science. He could feasibly prove though it's possible for them to change, it is radically unlikely, to which I will wave the flag and not argue anymore as I have not studied the death penalty to that degree
Last edited:
