Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win 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 worst thread ever
Based on ?
You desire for blood ? What would make the difference between you and them then ?
If you consider that someone must be killed there must be another reason that "revenge". Revenge resolves nothing, it repares nothing, it only adds suffering and violence on suffering and violence. So by principle, revenge is unethical and thus a good system of justice CAN'T be based on revenge.
It can only be based on the will to repare and to change. This is what and just system is.
Why ?
Because it takes into account the fact that in the end, we and the choices we made are the product of the material conditions of our existence : capitals/Biology/education/ Environment etc.
but if you want consider to consider that we have control over our choice then fine. Prove it to me right away and start to like something and someone you hate right now.
As you can see, choice and thus responsibility are illusion. In a materialistic vision of the world, in the most scientifically accurate possible, we, human, are the product of our material condition of existence.
In short, A justice that judge work based on the principle that people make their own choice is an idiotic system at best and an highly oppressive system at worse.
We do NOT live in this kind of world. I know, it sucks.. well until you start to see the big picture.
A good system of Justice can only work correctly if it is based on :
1. A just and efficient way to see the world
2. On the material reality of the world we live in.
This material reality is not what is funding our current justice system in the world today. So no. No one deserves to die. Even the worst of the worst. Sometimes people have no choice but to kill, but Justice has the choice to do things differently.. if we let it.
People are not evil, people do evil things.
As long as you don't understand this basic philosophical principle, you won't understand the world.
You desire for blood ? What would make the difference between you and them then ?
If you consider that someone must be killed there must be another reason that "revenge". Revenge resolves nothing, it repares nothing, it only adds suffering and violence on suffering and violence. So by principle, revenge is unethical and thus a good system of justice CAN'T be based on revenge.
It can only be based on the will to repare and to change. This is what and just system is.
Why ?
Because it takes into account the fact that in the end, we and the choices we made are the product of the material conditions of our existence : capitals/Biology/education/ Environment etc.
but if you want consider to consider that we have control over our choice then fine. Prove it to me right away and start to like something and someone you hate right now.
As you can see, choice and thus responsibility are illusion. In a materialistic vision of the world, in the most scientifically accurate possible, we, human, are the product of our material condition of existence.
In short, A justice that judge work based on the principle that people make their own choice is an idiotic system at best and an highly oppressive system at worse.
We do NOT live in this kind of world. I know, it sucks.. well until you start to see the big picture.
A good system of Justice can only work correctly if it is based on :
1. A just and efficient way to see the world
2. On the material reality of the world we live in.
This material reality is not what is funding our current justice system in the world today. So no. No one deserves to die. Even the worst of the worst. Sometimes people have no choice but to kill, but Justice has the choice to do things differently.. if we let it.
People are not evil, people do evil things.
As long as you don't understand this basic philosophical principle, you won't understand the world.
When you have people defending rights of criminals more than the rights of victims and their families who suffered
When you have people voching for the rights of hardened criminals who took away rights of other innocent people.
When you have people showing more empathy towards criminals than the victims who suffer indignation, lost lives, pain, mental and physical trauma
When you have people voching for the rights of hardened criminals who took away rights of other innocent people.
When you have people showing more empathy towards criminals than the victims who suffer indignation, lost lives, pain, mental and physical trauma
When you have people defending rights of criminals more than the rights of victims and their families who suffered
When you have people voching for the rights of hardened criminals who took away rights of other innocent people.
When you have people showing more empathy towards criminals than the victims who suffer indignation, lost lives, pain, mental and physical trauma
When you have people voching for the rights of hardened criminals who took away rights of other innocent people.
When you have people showing more empathy towards criminals than the victims who suffer indignation, lost lives, pain, mental and physical trauma
No because if I remember correctly, I am one of those who is the most vocal to defend people under oppression or the hands of criminals or genocide, and as far as I remember, you defended someone like Trump who is a rapist.
So. go ahead - because I know you are replying based on my message, no one is dumb here - try to give me moral lesson and repeat that again please.
No. you get a detailed version of a reply. A reply with added context and added solutions based on scientific facts.
I know you are not used to that here, but don't worry, it's gonna be okay.
Again, I ask why, specifically, it would be unjust for his life to be given for murder.
Agree or disagree, all humans have an obligation to make atonement for any good/evil we formally (that is, with full knowledge & consent) commit?
And, if your answer is yes, why exactly is giving our life an excess in atonement for having taken a life, as opposed to being perfectly proportionate?
Agree or disagree, all humans have an obligation to make atonement for any good/evil we formally (that is, with full knowledge & consent) commit?
And, if your answer is yes, why exactly is giving our life an excess in atonement for having taken a life, as opposed to being perfectly proportionate?
Let me guess. You are taking about you here ?
No because if I remember correctly, I am one of those who is the most vocal to defend people under oppression or the hands of criminals or genocide, and as far as I remember, you defended someone like Trump who is a rapist.
So. go ahead - because I know you are replying based on my message, no one is dumb here - try to give me moral lesson and repeat that again please.
No. you get a detailed version of a reply. A reply with added context and added solutions based on scientific facts.
I know you are not used to that here, but don't worry, it's gonna be okay.
No because if I remember correctly, I am one of those who is the most vocal to defend people under oppression or the hands of criminals or genocide, and as far as I remember, you defended someone like Trump who is a rapist.
So. go ahead - because I know you are replying based on my message, no one is dumb here - try to give me moral lesson and repeat that again please.
No. you get a detailed version of a reply. A reply with added context and added solutions based on scientific facts.
I know you are not used to that here, but don't worry, it's gonna be okay.
I never defended Trump as rapist or sexual abuser but his policies and straightforwardness as a politician
But let me bring your hypocrisy
1) You want reformative and rehabilitation for hardened criminals because you think they deserve second chance
But you hold Trump accountable till this date and even expressed dissatisfaction on missed assassination attempt
2) you defend Hamas - a terrorist organization which includes killing civilians in the name of resistance movement but at the same time denies the same for Israel.
3) and, now you are putting a case for someone who set an innocent woman on fire rather than talking about the victim's rights.
Your morality is twisted. You aren't just or fair even in the slightest.
I literally replied to that in details. So my conclusion is that you can't read.
At one point, don't expect me to make the effort twice if you are not even willing to make the effort of reading correctly something.
It's a no.
Nothing exist outside of the laws and social structure of humans on this topics.
Again. If your vision of life is that Justice=Revenge. Then you are not seeking justice, you are seeking blood.
He is a rapist. it's factual. I will not debate on that subjet.
And the guy is a criminal. Which make your moral lessons completely unwarranted.
And fallacious on top of that.
Indeed.
1. No. I never expressed dissatisfaction on the missed assassination of Trump.
You are straight up lying and trust me that I will remember this one.
You are confusing what I say with what you think people like me are saying. But since you never listen to people like me actually speak or read what we say, you lie.
I don't want Trump to be assassinated, it would literally create a civil war.
2. Again, you are proving that you - like many - do not care to understand what I say. And yet, I have literally explicited this very point (yeah, I debunked your argument long before you made it):
>>>
This means that while anger can be the reason why we fight, the praxis must be filled with ideals.
In other word, I don't like Trump, but in such a system I which he would have the exact same chances that everyone else.
And since you REALLY don't understand let me show you how I debunked you point once again but this time WEEKS before you made it:
Hate is not in my vocabulary Reborn. When I say that I understand the anger for people, it's because I share their anger and I can understand their hate, it does not mean that I feel it.
I would be willing to welcome Trump with respect if the guy had an epic moral crisis about what he did and what he thinks. This would mean that the guy is not a danger anymore and a potential force for good. But this will never happen in reality. And so, I only have anger against him because that the only thing we have.
Thanks for trying to point my hypocrisy mate, you managed to demonstrate my coherence in my ideals.
1. Hamas is not an terrorist organization, but a movement of resistance.
2. I support all the actions resistance movement against oppression. It does not mean that I support their War Crimes or that I specifically defend Hamas.
Once again, you are demonstrating your skill in fallacious argumentations to counter a argumentation you do not even understand.
(And Israel, is the oppressor here, they have no legitimace. Time to stop being the enabler of a genocide mate, just in case, because we will remember this. Just so you know, the count of death is most likely around 200.000 at the moment)
Are you really saying to ME that I do not talk enough about victims right now because I'm jumping on people who only want blood as a form of justice ?
Do you really have those kind of balls after those 2600+ thread pages ?
I've seen a lot on this forum, but I never thought that someone would have enough lack of moral compass to try to look like a white knight by negating the entire work I have put here when in reality the only thing they want is to see a man get executed.
You do not care about this woman, you only care about the blood. About your own satisfaction, not understanding that in reality, families of victims or victims themselve often do not ask for those kind of sentence because it's F****G them up ALSO.
OMG.. I won't lie.. I was close to throw my first insult here.
At one point, don't expect me to make the effort twice if you are not even willing to make the effort of reading correctly something.
It's a no.
Nothing exist outside of the laws and social structure of humans on this topics.
Again. If your vision of life is that Justice=Revenge. Then you are not seeking justice, you are seeking blood.
He is a rapist. it's factual. I will not debate on that subjet.
And the guy is a criminal. Which make your moral lessons completely unwarranted.
And fallacious on top of that.
Indeed.
1. No. I never expressed dissatisfaction on the missed assassination of Trump.
You are straight up lying and trust me that I will remember this one.
You are confusing what I say with what you think people like me are saying. But since you never listen to people like me actually speak or read what we say, you lie.
I don't want Trump to be assassinated, it would literally create a civil war.
2. Again, you are proving that you - like many - do not care to understand what I say. And yet, I have literally explicited this very point (yeah, I debunked your argument long before you made it):
>>>
This means that while anger can be the reason why we fight, the praxis must be filled with ideals.
In other word, I don't like Trump, but in such a system I which he would have the exact same chances that everyone else.
And since you REALLY don't understand let me show you how I debunked you point once again but this time WEEKS before you made it:
Hate is not in my vocabulary Reborn. When I say that I understand the anger for people, it's because I share their anger and I can understand their hate, it does not mean that I feel it.
I would be willing to welcome Trump with respect if the guy had an epic moral crisis about what he did and what he thinks. This would mean that the guy is not a danger anymore and a potential force for good. But this will never happen in reality. And so, I only have anger against him because that the only thing we have.
Thanks for trying to point my hypocrisy mate, you managed to demonstrate my coherence in my ideals.
1. Hamas is not an terrorist organization, but a movement of resistance.
2. I support all the actions resistance movement against oppression. It does not mean that I support their War Crimes or that I specifically defend Hamas.
Once again, you are demonstrating your skill in fallacious argumentations to counter a argumentation you do not even understand.
(And Israel, is the oppressor here, they have no legitimace. Time to stop being the enabler of a genocide mate, just in case, because we will remember this. Just so you know, the count of death is most likely around 200.000 at the moment)
Are you really saying to ME that I do not talk enough about victims right now because I'm jumping on people who only want blood as a form of justice ?
Do you really have those kind of balls after those 2600+ thread pages ?
I've seen a lot on this forum, but I never thought that someone would have enough lack of moral compass to try to look like a white knight by negating the entire work I have put here when in reality the only thing they want is to see a man get executed.
You do not care about this woman, you only care about the blood. About your own satisfaction, not understanding that in reality, families of victims or victims themselve often do not ask for those kind of sentence because it's F****G them up ALSO.
OMG.. I won't lie.. I was close to throw my first insult here.
Justice is based on equality
On punishing criminals in proportion to the harm they cause.
It might take 2-3 years for a victim of robbery to recover. Maybe a decade or more for a victim of rape or aggregated assault.
But a person who has been murdered can never recover. How do you make that right?
For some murderers, they could live their entire lives in prison and repay their debt via prison labor. But for others it is simply impossible.
How does someone like Adolf Eichmann pay for his crimes? It’s impossible
Justice is also based off standards and legal precedent
Almost every major religion allows for the death penalty. It was used historically since the dawn of man.
I have absolutely zero qualms over murderers being humanely executed via lethal injection.
On punishing criminals in proportion to the harm they cause.
It might take 2-3 years for a victim of robbery to recover. Maybe a decade or more for a victim of rape or aggregated assault.
But a person who has been murdered can never recover. How do you make that right?
For some murderers, they could live their entire lives in prison and repay their debt via prison labor. But for others it is simply impossible.
How does someone like Adolf Eichmann pay for his crimes? It’s impossible
Post automatically merged:
Justice is also based off standards and legal precedent
Almost every major religion allows for the death penalty. It was used historically since the dawn of man.
I have absolutely zero qualms over murderers being humanely executed via lethal injection.
Ah yes, you flew into the air to give a birds' eye "definition" (didn't really define anything) and never came back down to land on where, specifically, an injustice would occur in giving the death penalty to a murderer lol.
I just went and reread it. Is it because, as you said, we should "work on it" and seek rehabilitation?
I would somewhat agree and do not think every murderer needs, or should receive the death penalty.
However, I would argue equally that someone can simultaneously deserve a punishment, but it be better for them not to refuse it out of mercy and a desire for their betterment.
An example of this would be a father toward his son, who had struck his mother; the father may take mercy on the son and not ground him and instead only have him apologize because it would be better for his behavior.
Does the son still deserve punishment? Yes. Is it justified that the father, through his authority relieves the debter of his debt? Also yes.
Similarly, all murderers deserve to give their life in exchange for the life they took, but not all may need to do such in order to repent and improve.
If what you say is true, then what accounts for these laws and social structures exactly? Why not have no laws or any laws?
In truth, it is laws and "social structure" (whatever that is supposed to mean) that presume fundamental aspects inherit to human nature such as this right to life that every human has, which makes murder evil to begin with. Outside of these facts about human nature there exists no laws or social structure at all; the laws and the social structure assume these things to exist.
I just went and reread it. Is it because, as you said, we should "work on it" and seek rehabilitation?
I would somewhat agree and do not think every murderer needs, or should receive the death penalty.
However, I would argue equally that someone can simultaneously deserve a punishment, but it be better for them not to refuse it out of mercy and a desire for their betterment.
An example of this would be a father toward his son, who had struck his mother; the father may take mercy on the son and not ground him and instead only have him apologize because it would be better for his behavior.
Does the son still deserve punishment? Yes. Is it justified that the father, through his authority relieves the debter of his debt? Also yes.
Similarly, all murderers deserve to give their life in exchange for the life they took, but not all may need to do such in order to repent and improve.
If what you say is true, then what accounts for these laws and social structures exactly? Why not have no laws or any laws?
In truth, it is laws and "social structure" (whatever that is supposed to mean) that presume fundamental aspects inherit to human nature such as this right to life that every human has, which makes murder evil to begin with. Outside of these facts about human nature there exists no laws or social structure at all; the laws and the social structure assume these things to exist.
I literally replied to that in details. So my conclusion is that you can't read.
At one point, don't expect me to make the effort twice if you are not even willing to make the effort of reading correctly something.
It's a no.
Nothing exist outside of the laws and social structure of humans on this topics.
Again. If your vision of life is that Justice=Revenge. Then you are not seeking justice, you are seeking blood.
He is a rapist. it's factual. I will not debate on that subjet.
And the guy is a criminal. Which make your moral lessons completely unwarranted.
And fallacious on top of that.
Indeed.
1. No. I never expressed dissatisfaction on the missed assassination of Trump.
You are straight up lying and trust me that I will remember this one.
You are confusing what I say with what you think people like me are saying. But since you never listen to people like me actually speak or read what we say, you lie.
I don't want Trump to be assassinated, it would literally create a civil war.
2. Again, you are proving that you - like many - do not care to understand what I say. And yet, I have literally explicited this very point (yeah, I debunked your argument long before you made it):
>>>
This means that while anger can be the reason why we fight, the praxis must be filled with ideals.
In other word, I don't like Trump, but in such a system I which he would have the exact same chances that everyone else.
And since you REALLY don't understand let me show you how I debunked you point once again but this time WEEKS before you made it:
Hate is not in my vocabulary Reborn. When I say that I understand the anger for people, it's because I share their anger and I can understand their hate, it does not mean that I feel it.
I would be willing to welcome Trump with respect if the guy had an epic moral crisis about what he did and what he thinks. This would mean that the guy is not a danger anymore and a potential force for good. But this will never happen in reality. And so, I only have anger against him because that the only thing we have.
Thanks for trying to point my hypocrisy mate, you managed to demonstrate my coherence in my ideals.
1. Hamas is not an terrorist organization, but a movement of resistance.
2. I support all the actions resistance movement against oppression. It does not mean that I support their War Crimes or that I specifically defend Hamas.
Once again, you are demonstrating your skill in fallacious argumentations to counter a argumentation you do not even understand.
(And Israel, is the oppressor here, they have no legitimace. Time to stop being the enabler of a genocide mate, just in case, because we will remember this. Just so you know, the count of death is most likely around 200.000 at the moment)
Are you really saying to ME that I do not talk enough about victims right now because I'm jumping on people who only want blood as a form of justice ?
Do you really have those kind of balls after those 2600+ thread pages ?
I've seen a lot on this forum, but I never thought that someone would have enough lack of moral compass to try to look like a white knight by negating the entire work I have put here when in reality the only thing they want is to see a man get executed.
You do not care about this woman, you only care about the blood. About your own satisfaction, not understanding that in reality, families of victims or victims themselve often do not ask for those kind of sentence because it's F****G them up ALSO.
OMG.. I won't lie.. I was close to throw my first insult here.
At one point, don't expect me to make the effort twice if you are not even willing to make the effort of reading correctly something.
It's a no.
Nothing exist outside of the laws and social structure of humans on this topics.
Again. If your vision of life is that Justice=Revenge. Then you are not seeking justice, you are seeking blood.
He is a rapist. it's factual. I will not debate on that subjet.
And the guy is a criminal. Which make your moral lessons completely unwarranted.
And fallacious on top of that.
Indeed.
1. No. I never expressed dissatisfaction on the missed assassination of Trump.
You are straight up lying and trust me that I will remember this one.
You are confusing what I say with what you think people like me are saying. But since you never listen to people like me actually speak or read what we say, you lie.
I don't want Trump to be assassinated, it would literally create a civil war.
2. Again, you are proving that you - like many - do not care to understand what I say. And yet, I have literally explicited this very point (yeah, I debunked your argument long before you made it):
>>>
This means that while anger can be the reason why we fight, the praxis must be filled with ideals.
In other word, I don't like Trump, but in such a system I which he would have the exact same chances that everyone else.
And since you REALLY don't understand let me show you how I debunked you point once again but this time WEEKS before you made it:
Hate is not in my vocabulary Reborn. When I say that I understand the anger for people, it's because I share their anger and I can understand their hate, it does not mean that I feel it.
I would be willing to welcome Trump with respect if the guy had an epic moral crisis about what he did and what he thinks. This would mean that the guy is not a danger anymore and a potential force for good. But this will never happen in reality. And so, I only have anger against him because that the only thing we have.
Thanks for trying to point my hypocrisy mate, you managed to demonstrate my coherence in my ideals.
1. Hamas is not an terrorist organization, but a movement of resistance.
2. I support all the actions resistance movement against oppression. It does not mean that I support their War Crimes or that I specifically defend Hamas.
Once again, you are demonstrating your skill in fallacious argumentations to counter a argumentation you do not even understand.
(And Israel, is the oppressor here, they have no legitimace. Time to stop being the enabler of a genocide mate, just in case, because we will remember this. Just so you know, the count of death is most likely around 200.000 at the moment)
Are you really saying to ME that I do not talk enough about victims right now because I'm jumping on people who only want blood as a form of justice ?
Do you really have those kind of balls after those 2600+ thread pages ?
I've seen a lot on this forum, but I never thought that someone would have enough lack of moral compass to try to look like a white knight by negating the entire work I have put here when in reality the only thing they want is to see a man get executed.
You do not care about this woman, you only care about the blood. About your own satisfaction, not understanding that in reality, families of victims or victims themselve often do not ask for those kind of sentence because it's F****G them up ALSO.
OMG.. I won't lie.. I was close to throw my first insult here.
You were literally trying to defend them by saying it's understandable why they did it or said it
And,^ here the last quote - life of someone is threatened so it's understandable for you to even attempt murder/assassination
Doesn't bringing hardened criminals out of prison threatens society? And, why tax payers should keep on funding the prison time for life of those who committed heinous crime?
And the current equality creates oppression. It's a basic principle that every activists on the left understand.
Why ?
Because the vision of equality creates the illusion that we are all equal in chances, history, experiences, educations, capitals, genetics.
This is not the case.
All of those parameters are different from one person to the next. For example, I do have enough to live at the moment, I'm literally what you can call a poor person in my country and yet, in front of justice, I will have a lot more chances that someone coming from the working class. The reason for that is that I come of the middle class and I have therefore culturals and economic capitals that those people may not have. EVEN if those people are currently earnings more than me at the moment.
As you can see with this simply example, we are not equal and yet justice and society are blinding you into thinking that we are. The reasons are multiple but if we were to sum up : They are trying to make you legitimate the system
Real justice should be based on :
- Science
- The material conditions of our existence
- Equity
As long as those three parameters are not met, there is no such thing as equal justice.
Indeed. This doesn't change my argumentation.
Justice is not here to satisfy the desire of blood of a victim (which rarely exist in the first place), but to make an unjust situation, just.
It's the SYSTEM that will have to support the victim not justice as an institution.
By starting to understand that more blood will never create real justice, but just more blood.
There is no easy way to recover, it's horrible, those people must be supported by the system, but - once again - not by justice.
Exactly, it's impossible. Meaning that the entire concept of "debt" is irrelevant to begin with. It's an archaic system coming from times that I don't want to live in.
Now, we need to mature as a civilization and understand that our choices and being are the result of the material conditions of our existence and as such, we need to move toward a system that takes the REALITY of the world into account. NOT the idealistic vision of an eyes for an eye world.
Exactly, it's impossible. So the answer is not here. The problem is not your answer, it's your question.
If it is impossible, we need to think differently and not transfer our affects on justice, at least in a system without oppressions.
Killing Hitler in a context of war would save million. Killing Hitler in a context of a trial would only feed or blood desire. It's useless, it's inefficient, it's counterproductive, it's simply unjust to kill people when
This is called the appeal to tradition. "because it's old and with major system, therefore it's just and good".
No, it's not. Never was.
Is that your way of saying that you didn't understand the definition ?
There are other ways to change a person than to punish them.
There was no debt to begin with. A life is not a debt, there is no ownership here. When we lose someone, we do not lose an object, we lose someone that was there and is now not there anymore because of the actions of someone else.
Nothing more. Especially when we are talking here about a woman who is the victim of a beating here and when it's the father (who has no say in the matter) who somehow make the call to forgive the son thus ignoring what his wife might want.
Again, there is no debts. If a bad action happens, we can't bribe the universe to erease it or to buy it back. It happened, it's in the past, so the question is not "how can I make the person who made me suffer, suffer" but "how can justice be applied so that this person stop being a danger for others".
There is three solutions to that :
- Death penalty > Factually, it doesn't work.
- Prison > It does not work well either
- A new system of rehabilitation that takes into account the material condition of the accusee to stop their track and change them.
You see, real justice should act in balance with the system. If there is a victim > She gets compensated by the system, meanwhile, the system compensate for the rehabilitation of the accusee on the other end.
In fact I think that in a good system, justice should not even exist, it should be a natural part of the system. Everything should be able to work in sync.
No.
We are not in wano here.
Well.. spoiler, that's the point of creating a better society.. to arrive at a point where laws will not be necessary.
There is no such thing as human nature. It's a essentialist concept made to legitimize an oppressive system in a paradise.
I evolved on the matter.
Murder is not evil, it's simply the action of taking the life of another human. In some cases, it is ethical, in others it is not.
For example, in a context of war where one is genociding a population and the only solution to stop that is to murder them, then.. murder a action of resistance and defense and becomes the ethical thing to do. On the other hand, in a random context (let's say a husband murders his wife) it is not ethical in any way.
Underestandable doesn't mean that I agree with them. I think I already told you that, but you can't make the difference between understanding the actions of a person and siding with the actions of a person, you will miss a lot of things about life.
Thanks for quoting something I just literally explained.
At this point I will start to consider that you can't read either. I don't know why I should waste my time with people who can't understand the difference between "understanding" and "siding with" in such a debate.
In our capitalistic society ? Yes. Because our society is not equiped to deal with that kind of problems.
We are a weak society. A society ruled by fear and meritocracy. A society that refuse to see the reality of the world because it's too hard to accept for some. 😢😢😢😢😢
Because we don't stop being a society when it becomes inconvenient.
If you consider that we should live in that type of weak *ss society, go for it, we will build something stronger.
Why ?
Because the vision of equality creates the illusion that we are all equal in chances, history, experiences, educations, capitals, genetics.
This is not the case.
All of those parameters are different from one person to the next. For example, I do have enough to live at the moment, I'm literally what you can call a poor person in my country and yet, in front of justice, I will have a lot more chances that someone coming from the working class. The reason for that is that I come of the middle class and I have therefore culturals and economic capitals that those people may not have. EVEN if those people are currently earnings more than me at the moment.
As you can see with this simply example, we are not equal and yet justice and society are blinding you into thinking that we are. The reasons are multiple but if we were to sum up : They are trying to make you legitimate the system
Real justice should be based on :
- Science
- The material conditions of our existence
- Equity
As long as those three parameters are not met, there is no such thing as equal justice.
Indeed. This doesn't change my argumentation.
Justice is not here to satisfy the desire of blood of a victim (which rarely exist in the first place), but to make an unjust situation, just.
It's the SYSTEM that will have to support the victim not justice as an institution.
By starting to understand that more blood will never create real justice, but just more blood.
There is no easy way to recover, it's horrible, those people must be supported by the system, but - once again - not by justice.
Exactly, it's impossible. Meaning that the entire concept of "debt" is irrelevant to begin with. It's an archaic system coming from times that I don't want to live in.
Now, we need to mature as a civilization and understand that our choices and being are the result of the material conditions of our existence and as such, we need to move toward a system that takes the REALITY of the world into account. NOT the idealistic vision of an eyes for an eye world.
Exactly, it's impossible. So the answer is not here. The problem is not your answer, it's your question.
If it is impossible, we need to think differently and not transfer our affects on justice, at least in a system without oppressions.
Killing Hitler in a context of war would save million. Killing Hitler in a context of a trial would only feed or blood desire. It's useless, it's inefficient, it's counterproductive, it's simply unjust to kill people when
This is called the appeal to tradition. "because it's old and with major system, therefore it's just and good".
No, it's not. Never was.
Is that your way of saying that you didn't understand the definition ?
There are other ways to change a person than to punish them.
There was no debt to begin with. A life is not a debt, there is no ownership here. When we lose someone, we do not lose an object, we lose someone that was there and is now not there anymore because of the actions of someone else.
Nothing more. Especially when we are talking here about a woman who is the victim of a beating here and when it's the father (who has no say in the matter) who somehow make the call to forgive the son thus ignoring what his wife might want.
Again, there is no debts. If a bad action happens, we can't bribe the universe to erease it or to buy it back. It happened, it's in the past, so the question is not "how can I make the person who made me suffer, suffer" but "how can justice be applied so that this person stop being a danger for others".
There is three solutions to that :
- Death penalty > Factually, it doesn't work.
- Prison > It does not work well either
- A new system of rehabilitation that takes into account the material condition of the accusee to stop their track and change them.
You see, real justice should act in balance with the system. If there is a victim > She gets compensated by the system, meanwhile, the system compensate for the rehabilitation of the accusee on the other end.
In fact I think that in a good system, justice should not even exist, it should be a natural part of the system. Everything should be able to work in sync.
No.
We are not in wano here.
Well.. spoiler, that's the point of creating a better society.. to arrive at a point where laws will not be necessary.
There is no such thing as human nature. It's a essentialist concept made to legitimize an oppressive system in a paradise.
I evolved on the matter.
Murder is not evil, it's simply the action of taking the life of another human. In some cases, it is ethical, in others it is not.
For example, in a context of war where one is genociding a population and the only solution to stop that is to murder them, then.. murder a action of resistance and defense and becomes the ethical thing to do. On the other hand, in a random context (let's say a husband murders his wife) it is not ethical in any way.
Underestandable doesn't mean that I agree with them. I think I already told you that, but you can't make the difference between understanding the actions of a person and siding with the actions of a person, you will miss a lot of things about life.
Thanks for quoting something I just literally explained.
At this point I will start to consider that you can't read either. I don't know why I should waste my time with people who can't understand the difference between "understanding" and "siding with" in such a debate.
In our capitalistic society ? Yes. Because our society is not equiped to deal with that kind of problems.
We are a weak society. A society ruled by fear and meritocracy. A society that refuse to see the reality of the world because it's too hard to accept for some. 😢😢😢😢😢
Because we don't stop being a society when it becomes inconvenient.
If you consider that we should live in that type of weak *ss society, go for it, we will build something stronger.
Last edited:
And the current equality creates oppression. It's a basic principle that every activists on the left understand.
Why ?
Because the vision of equality creates the illusion that we are all equal in chances, history, experiences, educations, capitals, genetics.
This is not the case.
All of those parameters are different from one person to the next. For example, I do have enough to live at the moment, I'm literally what you can call a poor person in my country and yet, in front of justice, I will have a lot more chances that someone coming from the working class. The reason for that is that I come of the middle class and I have therefore culturals and economic capitals that those people may not have. EVEN if those people are currently earnings more than me at the moment.
As you can see with this simply example, we are not equal and yet justice and society are blinding you into thinking that we are. The reasons are multiple but if we were to sum up : They are trying to make you legitimate the system
Real justice should be based on :
- Science
- The material conditions of our existence
- Equity
As long as those three parameters are not met, there is no such thing as equal justice.
Indeed. This doesn't change my argumentation.
Justice is not here to satisfy the desire of blood of a victim (which rarely exist in the first place), but to make an unjust situation, just.
It's the SYSTEM that will have to support the victim not justice as an institution.
By starting to understand that more blood will never create real justice, but just more blood.
There is no easy way to recover, it's horrible, those people must be supported by the system, but - once again - not by justice.
Exactly, it's impossible. Meaning that the entire concept of "debt" is irrelevant to begin with. It's an archaic system coming from times that I don't want to live in.
Now, we need to mature as a civilization and understand that our choices and being are the result of the material conditions of our existence and as such, we need to move toward a system that takes the REALITY of the world into account. NOT the idealistic vision of an eyes for an eye world.
Exactly, it's impossible. So the answer is not here. The problem is not your answer, it's your question.
If it is impossible, we need to think differently and not transfer our affects on justice, at least in a system without oppressions.
Killing Hitler in a context of war would save million. Killing Hitler in a context of a trial would only feed or blood desire. It's useless, it's inefficient, it's counterproductive, it's simply unjust to kill people when
This is called the appeal to tradition. "because it's old and with major system, therefore it's just and good".
No, it's not. Never was.
Is that your way of saying that you didn't understand the definition ?
There are other ways to change a person than to punish them.
There was no debt to begin with. A life is not a debt, there is no ownership here. When we lose someone, we do not lose an object, we lose someone that was there and is now not there anymore because of the actions of someone else.
Nothing more. Especially when we are talking here about a woman who is the victim of a beating here and when it's the father (who has no say in the matter) who somehow make the call to forgive the son thus ignoring what his wife might want.
Again, there is no debts. If a bad action happens, we can't bribe the universe to erease it or to buy it back. It happened, it's in the past, so the question is not "how can I make the person who made me suffer, suffer" but "how can justice be applied so that this person stop being a danger for others".
There is three solutions to that :
- Death penalty > Factually, it doesn't work.
- Prison > It does not work well either
- A new system of rehabilitation that takes into account the material condition of the accusee to stop their track and change them.
You see, real justice should act in balance with the system. If there is a victim > She gets compensated by the system, meanwhile, the system compensate for the rehabilitation of the accusee on the other end.
In fact I think that in a good system, justice should not even exist, it should be a natural part of the system. Everything should be able to work in sync.
No.
We are not in wano here.
Well.. spoiler, that's the point of creating a better society.. to arrive at a point where laws will not be necessary.
There is no such thing as human nature. It's a essentialist concept made to legitimize an oppressive system in a paradise.
I evolved on the matter.
Murder is not evil, it's simply the action of taking the life of another human. In some cases, it is ethical, in others it is not.
For example, in a context of war where one is genociding a population and the only solution to stop that is to murder them, then.. murder a action of resistance and defense and becomes the ethical thing to do. On the other hand, in a random context (let's say a husband murders his wife) it is not ethical in any way.
Underestandable doesn't mean that I agree with them. I think I already told you that, but you can't make the difference between understanding the actions of a person and siding with the actions of a person, you will miss a lot of things about life.
Thanks for quoting something I just literally explained.
At this point I will start to consider that you can't read either. I don't know why I should waste my time with people who can't understand the difference between "understanding" and "siding with" in such a debate.
In our capitalistic society ? Yes. Because our society is not equiped to deal with that kind of problems.
We are a weak society. A society ruled by fear and meritocracy. A society that refuse to see the reality of the world because it's too hard to accept for some. 😢😢😢😢😢
Because we don't stop being a society when it becomes inconvenient.
If you consider that we should live in that type of weak *ss society, go for it, we will build something stronger.
Why ?
Because the vision of equality creates the illusion that we are all equal in chances, history, experiences, educations, capitals, genetics.
This is not the case.
All of those parameters are different from one person to the next. For example, I do have enough to live at the moment, I'm literally what you can call a poor person in my country and yet, in front of justice, I will have a lot more chances that someone coming from the working class. The reason for that is that I come of the middle class and I have therefore culturals and economic capitals that those people may not have. EVEN if those people are currently earnings more than me at the moment.
As you can see with this simply example, we are not equal and yet justice and society are blinding you into thinking that we are. The reasons are multiple but if we were to sum up : They are trying to make you legitimate the system
Real justice should be based on :
- Science
- The material conditions of our existence
- Equity
As long as those three parameters are not met, there is no such thing as equal justice.
Indeed. This doesn't change my argumentation.
Justice is not here to satisfy the desire of blood of a victim (which rarely exist in the first place), but to make an unjust situation, just.
It's the SYSTEM that will have to support the victim not justice as an institution.
By starting to understand that more blood will never create real justice, but just more blood.
There is no easy way to recover, it's horrible, those people must be supported by the system, but - once again - not by justice.
Exactly, it's impossible. Meaning that the entire concept of "debt" is irrelevant to begin with. It's an archaic system coming from times that I don't want to live in.
Now, we need to mature as a civilization and understand that our choices and being are the result of the material conditions of our existence and as such, we need to move toward a system that takes the REALITY of the world into account. NOT the idealistic vision of an eyes for an eye world.
Exactly, it's impossible. So the answer is not here. The problem is not your answer, it's your question.
If it is impossible, we need to think differently and not transfer our affects on justice, at least in a system without oppressions.
Killing Hitler in a context of war would save million. Killing Hitler in a context of a trial would only feed or blood desire. It's useless, it's inefficient, it's counterproductive, it's simply unjust to kill people when
This is called the appeal to tradition. "because it's old and with major system, therefore it's just and good".
No, it's not. Never was.
Is that your way of saying that you didn't understand the definition ?
There are other ways to change a person than to punish them.
There was no debt to begin with. A life is not a debt, there is no ownership here. When we lose someone, we do not lose an object, we lose someone that was there and is now not there anymore because of the actions of someone else.
Nothing more. Especially when we are talking here about a woman who is the victim of a beating here and when it's the father (who has no say in the matter) who somehow make the call to forgive the son thus ignoring what his wife might want.
Again, there is no debts. If a bad action happens, we can't bribe the universe to erease it or to buy it back. It happened, it's in the past, so the question is not "how can I make the person who made me suffer, suffer" but "how can justice be applied so that this person stop being a danger for others".
There is three solutions to that :
- Death penalty > Factually, it doesn't work.
- Prison > It does not work well either
- A new system of rehabilitation that takes into account the material condition of the accusee to stop their track and change them.
You see, real justice should act in balance with the system. If there is a victim > She gets compensated by the system, meanwhile, the system compensate for the rehabilitation of the accusee on the other end.
In fact I think that in a good system, justice should not even exist, it should be a natural part of the system. Everything should be able to work in sync.
No.
We are not in wano here.
Well.. spoiler, that's the point of creating a better society.. to arrive at a point where laws will not be necessary.
There is no such thing as human nature. It's a essentialist concept made to legitimize an oppressive system in a paradise.
I evolved on the matter.
Murder is not evil, it's simply the action of taking the life of another human. In some cases, it is ethical, in others it is not.
For example, in a context of war where one is genociding a population and the only solution to stop that is to murder them, then.. murder a action of resistance and defense and becomes the ethical thing to do. On the other hand, in a random context (let's say a husband murders his wife) it is not ethical in any way.
Underestandable doesn't mean that I agree with them. I think I already told you that, but you can't make the difference between understanding the actions of a person and siding with the actions of a person, you will miss a lot of things about life.
Thanks for quoting something I just literally explained.
At this point I will start to consider that you can't read either. I don't know why I should waste my time with people who can't understand the difference between "understanding" and "siding with" in such a debate.
In our capitalistic society ? Yes. Because our society is not equiped to deal with that kind of problems.
We are a weak society. A society ruled by fear and meritocracy. A society that refuse to see the reality of the world because it's too hard to accept for some. 😢😢😢😢😢
Because we don't stop being a society when it becomes inconvenient.
If you consider that we should live in that type of weak *ss society, go for it, we will build something stronger.
You feel they are threatened coz you feel threatened yourself and thus saying "I understand" why they were sad when assassination failed.
What kind of a punishment do you think a mass shooter in school killing kids or terrorist attack killing civilians or gruesome rapist deserves?
Don't write an essay....just answer it in a paragraph to the point -
what kind of a punishment do you think would suffice to be called "Justice was done in accordance to the henious crime committed"?
See, and I feel the same about the execution part
@Mathias
impossible in the for profit prison system
You have a source for this one? I'd argue the opposite males sense. Seeing the killer get killed can be vital for the family 's mental health recovery
@Mathias
impossible in the for profit prison system
Post automatically merged:
You have a source for this one? I'd argue the opposite males sense. Seeing the killer get killed can be vital for the family 's mental health recovery
Last edited:
