The cost of keeping someone in jail for a year is $50k in the U.S. Can't we save a lot of money by simply administering corporal punishment?
Consider this situation: Someone resists arrest for drunkenness in public and strikes a cop. That person could go to jail for years. But what if corporal punishment was legal and a judge said to to this person: You can go to jail for a few years or you can submit to a flogging. The flogging is a choice that many might accept.
Perhaps to keep corporal punishment palatable, we can make it so that women are exempt, because the public would stand for men getting flogged but they wouldn't stand for women receiving the same treatment.
In some ways, corporal punishment is probably more humane than locking someone up for years.
Of course, if someone is a violent criminal, then we would have no choice but to lock away that person to protect the public. But for purely punitive purposes, flagellation can save the public a lot of money.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Perhaps to keep corporal punishment palatable, we can make it so that women are exempt, because the public would stand for men getting flogged but they wouldn't stand for women receiving the same treatment.
Exempt, in that they get to choose a flogging and then receive no punishment, or exempt in that they don't get the choice of flogging and have to spend those years in jail?
Neither would be acceptable.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Also, you're making an implicit assumption that flogging can serve the same function as jail time. Now...whether jail time is actually effective at what it purports to do is another matter...but if flogging doesn't actually affect the perpetrator's future behavior, or affect the likelihood that others may commit the same crime, then it may end up costing the taxpayer significantly more money in various other ways.
It's like saying, instead of putting them in jail for years, why don't we just buy them an ice cream cone! It'll be loads cheaper. You have to prove that the ice cream cone, or the flogging, will actually have the effect you think it will.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Designing a system to have zero equality seems like a baaad idea.
Flogging itself seems like it could be a decent and cheap punishment/deterrent.
[/edit]Come on Strider...taking 30 lashes is hardly comparable to a delicious, delectable, delightful ice cream cone. If you want some evidence for whipping as a deterrent, just ask...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ooooh. But think of the revenue FOX* will make when the broadcast rights! *With their political connections, they seem likely, though not the only contender.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
At least on first glance, it does seem like it could serve as a decent deterrent.
quote:Designing a system to have zero equality seems like a baaad idea.
I have no idea what this means or what it is in reply to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hey! Maybe for certain crimes we could make them fight lions!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Designing a system to have zero equality seems like a baaad idea.
I have no idea what this means or what it is in reply to.
In reference to:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: ...we can make it so that women are exempt, because the public would stand for men getting flogged but they wouldn't stand for women receiving the same treatment.
Clearer?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Obviously flogging is a stronger deterrent than ice cream (at least i hope it is), but I'm just making a point that just because something is cheaper, doesn't *necessarily* make it as effective. And further, just because something is effective, doesn't *necessarily* make it right.
In terms of the latter, it seems that if we as a society would like discourage violent behavior, beating people as punishment for it may not set the best example. "Violence is NOT okay...unless we have justification for it...in which case it's okay for us...but not for you...and if you're confused about when is okay or not...we'll just beat you again. Will that clear things up for you?"
How can we promote non violence in our citizens by beating them?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
The accuser or sentencer should perform the punishment.
If they are later found innocent, they should receive a very nice lump sum.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ah, but violence is tolerated, as a proper reaction to inappropriate violence. A hero with a gun who defends people from villains is still doing violence, but it is appropriate because it is defensive, not offensive.
Such would be the case with flogging...it is a (optional) consequence for bad behavior.
It's not like there is a government violence truck going around beating citizens with loud speaker declaring "Violence is bad! Stop violence!".
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: How can we promote non violence in our citizens by beating them? [/QB]
Easy. You flog the criminals.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote: Ah, but violence is tolerated, as a proper reaction to inappropriate violence. A hero with a gun who defends people from villains is still doing violence, but it is appropriate because it is defensive, not offensive.
I don't think that's immediately clear. You might be able to make case for retribution being equivalent to defense in this case, but I'm not sure it's that cut and dried.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Juxt...I wasn't saying flogging is defensive, just that the idea of stopping violence with more violence doesn't work.
It does.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Well, it can. In some situations, it's the only possible solution.
That doesn't make it the best solution. Take the drug wars in Mexico, for example. Police crackdowns have led to increased violence and cyclesof retaliation.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Also, what would you do with a career criminal who simply viewed corporal punishment as a cost of doing business?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I agree that violence is not always the best answer.
However, there seems to be an idea floating around that violence is always a bad thing, and always going to propagate more violence. This I strongly disagree with. At times violence is the best answer, and if done properly, the end of the problem.
Violence is not evil, merely powerful, like money or sex. And like all powerful things it can be misused, corrupted and generally used for evil. But also like money and sex, violence can be used well, intelligently and for the good of all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I strongly disagree. Violence may be a necessary evil, but it is, in itself, evil.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Also, what would you do with a career criminal who simply viewed corporal punishment as a cost of doing business?
I would imagine that a criminal couldn't keep opting in for floggings...this option would be more likely used only once or twice in a lifetime as an acknowledgment of wrong doing, and a way of not disrupting your whole life with a prison sentence.
Of course, it is not my suggestion, so I could be wrong.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
If my posts implied that as I saw this as a black and white issue of choosing one extreme or the other, I apologize, that wasn't my intention.
I have yet to see a defense of flogging (in this thread) that argues either for its effectiveness or its moral justification, but rather, simply an assertion that it would save us money, which I think is only true in the very short term, and I pointed out some reasons why I think so.
Accepting that some times violence is not the answer, and sometimes it is the answer, why would it be the answer in this situation? And is flogging the only available option to save money in the justice system?
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
I should make it clear that I am not advocating a wholesale immediate conversion to this system. It should be experimentally implemented in a few states and then adopted nationwide should the results be promising.
Remember--keeping people caged up for years amid psychopaths, rapists and sadistic jail guards is already very cruel in and of itself. A flogging would be less cruel.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I strongly disagree. Violence may be a necessary evil, but it is, in itself, evil.
I frequently see this spoken as a truism, but I have never been convinced that it's true.
At least, not without a bunch of qualifiers.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I should also point out that I think the way our current justice system works is not very effective. It seems to me that we can't figure out whether we're in the business of revenge or rehabilitation. And there's a host of other problems that I think waste money, destroy peoples' lives, and don't in the end promote positive behavior or help people understand that their actions were wrong.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
The reason the public is so okay with the horrors of jail is that those horros are hidden from view and the anguish is mainly psychological. The public has a harder time shuddering at the prospect of jail than they would at the prospect of getting flogged even though the former could be on the whole considerably worse for a person.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I strongly disagree. Violence may be a necessary evil, but it is, in itself, evil.
I frequently see this spoken as a truism, but I have never been convinced that it's true.
At least, not without a bunch of qualifiers.
Can you give me an example of when violence itself is a good thing?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I didn't say it was ever inherently good. I said that I am unconvinced that it is always inherently evil.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Also, what would you do with a career criminal who simply viewed corporal punishment as a cost of doing business?
I would imagine that a criminal couldn't keep opting in for floggings...this option would be more likely used only once or twice in a lifetime as an acknowledgment of wrong doing, and a way of not disrupting your whole life with a prison sentence.
Of course, it is not my suggestion, so I could be wrong.
Hmm. I might able to support that. It would depend heavily on the details.
If we're going to drastically change an aspect of the way we punish crimes, though, I'd prefer we ended drug prohibition first.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I didn't say it was ever inherently good. I said that I am unconvinced that it is always inherently evil.
Ok. An example where it is neutral?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
boots, someone can argue that violence isn't inherently evil, without jumping to the extreme alternative that it's in itself good. It could be that violence is not inherently anything. Violence just is. And to evaluate it we might have to look at the effects, or the reasons for it, etc...
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Also, what would you do with a career criminal who simply viewed corporal punishment as a cost of doing business?
I would imagine that a criminal couldn't keep opting in for floggings...this option would be more likely used only once or twice in a lifetime as an acknowledgment of wrong doing, and a way of not disrupting your whole life with a prison sentence.
Of course, it is not my suggestion, so I could be wrong.
Hmm. I might able to support that. It would depend heavily on the details.
If we're going to drastically change an aspect of the way we punish crimes, though, I'd prefer we ended drug prohibition first.
I agree on that point. Or at least change the way we deal with people with serious drug problems.
But also, in regards to the quoted part, again, there is an assumption that the choice to get flogged is an acknowledgement of wrong doing on the part of the perpetrator, rather than a choice of what seems an easy way out.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I strongly disagree. Violence may be a necessary evil, but it is, in itself, evil.
I don't think it is. Violence I think is dependent on context before the act can be considered evil or good.
Two people I think you will agree who happen to enjoy physical pain in the context of sex, are not committing sin when they inflict pain on each other. Spanking/whipping/etc. There's nothing necessary about the circumstance, the violence isn't unethical I should think.
If I chose to vent my frustration by punching a bag at the gym, that violence to me is not a necessary evil, it's simply a means of using violence to accomplish a good thing.
If I were attacked by a man who was clearly out of his mind, and while using force to defend myself he accidentally dies, the violence in the exchange is not evil on either side.
I know I'm being a bit teleological but I'm not sure violence is one of those things that is inherently evil. It lends itself extremely well to evil, as it works well with coercion, but again coercion is not always evil. Think of me diving to save a man who is wandering into traffic and not watching where they are going.
Violence as a means to punish those who break the law, I'm not convinced is warranted, or effective at dealing with it. To be honest though, I really don't know what the best means of responding to the criminal element in society is. I don't think it's prison, but I don't have an alternative.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: If we're going to drastically change an aspect of the way we punish crimes, though, I'd prefer we ended drug prohibition first.
**Stands and claps** Stupid drug laws!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Great post BlackBlade...there can be no morality with context.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Oh, I have no doubt that the person sentenced will be choosing what they consider to be the easy way out.
I don't think that necessarily precludes effectiveness as a crime deterrent.
EDIT - this was in response to Strider. I can't keep up from my phone.
Also, well said BB.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Violence a means to punish those who break the law, I'm not convinced is warranted, or effected at dealing with it. To be honest though, I really don't know what they best means of responding to the criminal element in society is. I don't think it's prison, but I don't have an alternative.
Blacklade, I wrote something on my blog a while back that is tangentially related to this. I was specifically talking about how I think the arguments regarding free will often times miss the forest for the trees, in what should really be a conversation about responsibility, about the causes of human behavior and how to best address problems. I don't propose an answer to your question, but I do propose what I think is a more fruitful way to think about the questions. Link. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I didn't say it was ever inherently good. I said that I am unconvinced that it is always inherently evil.
Ok. An example where it is neutral?
Um, you're the one making a claim about the nature of violence, not me.
How about you a give me a single example where it is evil itself (not because of any effects it might have, but as you say, itself).
And if you succeed in convincing me of it in that single case, you could try to explain to me how it always true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, I don't think we are defining violence in the same way.
Your first example I would not consider violence. The second also is not violence - it is force. The third example is violence - evil on both parts, but necessary on yours. You used violence to prevent more violence. If violence wasn't bad, why would you want to prevent it?
ETA: mph, the definition of violence I am using is that of physical force to cause injury or harm. Causing injury or harm is, I am pretty sure, harmful.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Oh, I have no doubt that the person sentenced will be choosing what they consider to be the easy way out.
I don't think that necessarily precludes effectiveness as a crime deterrent.
Fair point, though not the one Stone Wolf was making. What I'm getting at...do we have an statistics that would indicate that this type of punishment does indeed decrease criminal behavior or save money in the long term? And if we do, do we have any further statistics about the relative differences in psychological damage from long term imprisonment vs. flogging. And if so, does the money saved outweigh the damage done?
Stone Wolf seemed to be implying that the choice of getting flogged already reflected an acceptance by the perpetrator that their action was wrong, and a further desire to right their lives.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:To be honest though, I really don't know what the best means of responding to the criminal element in society is. I don't think it's prison, but I don't have an alternative.
Would it be fair to say that while you think it's a terrible solution, it might actually be the best one?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In terms of the latter, it seems that if we as a society would like discourage violent behavior, beating people as punishment for it may not set the best example. "Violence is NOT okay...unless we have justification for it...in which case it's okay for us...but not for you...and if you're confused about when is okay or not...we'll just beat you again. Will that clear things up for you?"
I've never understood this line of reasoning.
Our forms of punishment now include forced incarceration and fines. That doesn't mean that we endorse kidnapping and robbery. Penal systems pretty much invariably involve doing unpleasant things to offenders against their will, which is generally the sort of thing that, when individuals do it, is considered wrong and often grounds for them being subjected to the penal system.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
violence definition: Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Given that definition, I would say that violence is not inherently evil. Because committing physical harm to someone with the intention of stopping them from committing physical harm to you or someone you love is not inherently evil. Same act, different moral judgment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:BlackBlade, I don't think we are defining violence in the same way.
Your first example I would not consider violence. The second also is not violence - it is force.
Like I said in my earlier post, "At least, not without a bunch of qualifiers. "
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Stone Wolf seemed to be implying that the choice of getting flogged already reflected an acceptance by the perpetrator that their action was wrong, and a further desire to right their lives.
I was simply saying that this voluntary alternative should not always be available, especially to repeat offenders.
As to statistics, I have no idea...I think Sa'eed is suggesting that we try this out as a study and use the resulting statistics to decide about widespread use.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:violence definition: Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Heh. Saying mean things to hurt someone's feelings could technically fall within this definition. You're using physical force (to form words with your mouth, to type the letters on the keyboard, etc.), with the intent to hurt someone.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
mph, blame google dictionary. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Strider, that would be committing evil to prevent a greater evil. I acknowledged from the start that it may sometime be a necessary evil.
mph, I don't consider defining a word to be "a bunch of qualifiers".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Google dictionary didn't post that as a useful definition for this discussion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ETA: mph, the definition of violence I am using is that of physical force to cause injury or harm. Causing injury or harm is, I am pretty sure, harmful.
I got very few spankings in my life, but one I really deserved was violent, and didn't cause me any harm, it in fact was very helpful to me.
There is a branch of martial arts called Aikido, which uses pressure points and joint manipulation to cause pain, but not harm (it can harm, but you are taught to assess and decide before things get that far). It is violent. But doesn't cause injury or harm.
I think your definition is not very strong Boots.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Strider, that would be committing evil to prevent a greater evil. I acknowledged from the start that it may sometime be a necessary evil.
kmboots, only if you're starting from the assumption of that "violence is inherently evil". I would say it was committing an action to prevent another action. The initial violent action was not morally justified, not because it was inherently evil, but because let's say the perpetrator was causing unjustified harm to another individual. Violence != unjustified harm, or at least not necessarily so.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Porter: That might very well be true, I even lean towards it.
---------
Kate: What distinction do you draw between violence and force?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:the definition of violence I am using is that of physical force to cause injury or harm.
Let me point out that performing surgery falls within this definition. Cutting into somebody's flesh is injuring their body. The fact that it's ultimately done to help doesn't make that injury nonexistent.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Violence is force used to cause harm.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Replacing "injury" with "harm" in my post doesn't change anything.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
But if you understand "harm" to mean "net harm", as its clearly intended, it does .
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So a surgery gone wrong is violent?
I think "net harm" isn't helpful either...violence is about "harmful intent through the use of force" although that doesn't even cover it properly, as if someone breaks into my house and has a weapon, and I shoot them, my intent is not to harm them, but to stop them from harming my family.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Your intent is to harm them to stop them from harming your family.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
No, I would want to stop them, the means to that end is harmful, but it is not the goal.
And in this example, how is my shooting an armed intruder in my home evil?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If there were a way to stop them without harming them, all things being otherwise equal, would you choose that instead? Why?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If there were a way to stop them without harming them, all things being otherwise equal, would you choose that instead? Why?
but this wouldn't prove that violence is inherently evil. Inherent in your question there already exists a relative value judgment. One that says that not causing harm is preferable to causing harm to bring about the same end, all things being equal. That causing harm is a worse course of action. But not necessarily an evil one. It just exists lower on the scale of "right" actions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why is causing harm lower on the scale of "right" actions?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
What if I like being flogged?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
But all things are otherwise never equal. Strange but true, beanbag (non/less lethal) shotgun ammo is illegal in my state. Just a funny side note.
On my tactical vest, I have a stungun (which actually doesn't project, so why is it called a gun?) and pepper spray, as well as extra mags etc. If there was someone in my house I would likely use the nonlethal weapons if I saw they were unarmed. But in this example, the intruder is armed, and I am not going to add extra risk to my own life in trying to prevent harm to an intruder.
I would demand they drop the weapon and kick it to me, and put their hands up and get on their knees. If they complied I would ziptie their hands and call the cops, using zero violence. And if instead of complying they made me feel even a little threatened I would shoot them to disable them, that is, per my training, twice in center mass and once in the head.
Or to put it in general terms, as long as I felt I and my family was safe I would do everything in my power to not use violence.
Please answer my question though...if I did shoot an armed intruder in my home, how is it evil?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: What if I like being flogged?
Then you are a sick, sick man.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why is causing harm lower on the scale of "right" actions?
Because harm causes pain and suffering to the one at the receiving end of it. This lowers their state of well being. Also, given human psychology and our social evolutionary history, reducing someone else's well being through your actions lowers your own possible well being, because you are not acting in ways to maximize your ontological nature. It implies you have no regard for the well being of others or the effect of your actions. It is a way of interacting with the world that precludes you from developing into or becoming a person with certain values and virtues that would take me some time to defend as being values and virtues we should hold.
None of this makes violence inherently evil. It doesn't even make it inherently "wrong" if we'd rather not throw around the word evil. It makes violence qualifyingly wrong. It makes it a sub-optimal choice for action given other choices in certain situations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why is causing harm lower on the scale of "right" actions?
Because harm causes pain and suffering to the one at the receiving end of it. This lowers their state of well being. Also, given human psychology and our social evolutionary history, reducing someone else's well being through your actions lowers your own possible well being, because you are not acting in ways to maximize your ontological nature. It implies you have no regard for the well being of others or the effect of your actions. It is a way of interacting with the world that precludes you from developing into or becoming a person with certain values and virtues that would take me some time to defend as being values and virtues we should hold.
And that is bad?
quote:
None of this makes violence inherently evil. It doesn't even make it inherently "wrong" if we'd rather not throw around the word evil. It makes violence qualifyingly wrong. It makes it a sub-optimal choice for action given other choices in certain situations.
Why is it "sub-optimal" if there is no "bad" in harm?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I didn't say there was no "bad" in harm. Just that causing harm isn't inherently bad (as in the case of removing a bullet from a wound).
The furthest I'd be willing to meet you is to say that causing unjustified harm is inherently wrong (I don't believe in evil). But even that isn't exactly accurate to my philosophy. I don't think black and white pronouncements about good and evil, right and wrong, are very useful. And since my own philosophy has been moving away from judging actions as right or wrong to a philosophy where the locus of evaluation is the person, it's actually impossible for me to say that any given action is inherently wrong, since I'm concerned with the person committing the action. Actions are just events in the world, it's the people committing those actions that we judge. And we judge them based on the results of their actions, why they did those actions, etc...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Anyone else notice how Boots is only asking questions and ignoring questions to her?
For the third time Boots...if I did shoot an armed intruder in my home, how is it evil?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Boots: are you backing down from your earlier claim that violence is inherently evil, as opposed to being evil because of the harm that it causes?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Anyone else notice how Boots is only asking questions and ignoring questions to her?
Sometimes these conversations remind me of a judo match, where a common tactic is to get the other one to commit too much and then use that against them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
m_p_h Agreed...which is a shame, as there is no reason for these discussions to be so adversarial.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Stone_Wolf: I think Porter was saying that while Kate recently posted myriad responses to multiple posters. Her not getting to yours is not indicative of cowardice or apathy. I stopped responding to what she has written for a time because I need time to sit and craft a good response, and I don't have the appropriate time to do so.
In my particular circumstance it's because I was just giving a project at work to complete and I've been hard at work on it. I just took a 30 second break, and that was enough to craft *this* response and catch up on the thread. I'm going back to work now, but I can think of a multitude of reasons why Kate might not respond to your post the rest of the day, or even tomorrow, and the day after, all without having any sort of negative strike on her as a person. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
BB: I would never take silence as a negative, people have lives. But when people respond to a post which has a question in it, and completely ignore that question, and instead of answering that question ask one themselves, more then once, it gets old.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Stone_Wolf: I think Porter was saying that while Kate recently posted myriad responses to multiple posters. Her not getting to yours is not indicative of cowardice or apathy.
I was saying absolutely nothing about Boots.
I was commenting that that the behavior Boots is accused of is pretty commonly used as a tactic in these conversations.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
m_p_h...if what you were saying had nothing to do with Boots, why did you quote something that I said that had to do with Boots...
Nevermind, it's okay...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Because I was responding to what you said.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I love all of you equally.
So anyway, I think we can all agree that this flogging scenario probably will never happen, at least not in the foreseeable future.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
For many reasons, this will not happen.
Starship Troopers is still a fun book, though.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Starship Troopers is still a fun book, though.
A three way tie for my favorite book with Dune and EG.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Ew...Dune's omniscient narrative was annoying. I couldn't read it all the way through. Personal taste, I suppose.
EG is and always will be my favorite book. Until I write my own!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No computer at home. Hard to post from phone. I will get to you all tomorrow. Srone wolf, it is bad but less bad than allowing the greater violence. And you dodged my all things being equal question. Poter, how do you separate doing harm from the harm it causes?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't. Which is why I would never claim that it is, to use your words, evil itself.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots: I asked why it was evil...saying it's bad doesn't answer the question...and I don't think I did dodge it, I said I would try and not use violence if possible. As to why...because an appropriate punishment for trespassing isn't getting shot in the face, so if there is a chance someone just pulled a bone head move I want to try and give them a chance to be arrested and face the law instead of their maker.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone Wolf, let's say that we start with zero unit of harm. An intruder comes into your home intending to cause 50 units of harm. You stop him by causing 10 units of harm to him. We are not at zero anymore; we are at 10 units of harm. That is better than the 50, but it is still harm. Those 10 units were necessary but still harmful. Does that make more sense? If harm weren't bad, you wouldn't worry about an appropriate response because why wouldn't you shoot someone in the face if harming him isn't a bad thing.
mph, if I kick someone, my action is bad and so is the bruise that is a consequence of my bad act.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Hmmm flogging? Flogging leaves marks and scars. It would only be a matter of time before the ACLU jumped all over that because a guy that was flogged for a crime felt uncomfortable taking his shirt off at the pool for fear of what people will think of him.
I vote for indian burns. They hurt like hell and don't really leave a mark. Excuse me while I go patent a design for an indian burn machine.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots, you claimed that all violence is evil, that is, morally bad, wrong, wicked, but that sometimes it is necessary.
I'm saying that violence is only an action, neither good nor evil in and of itself and the morality depends on the circumstance.
So in your example, I have done 10 units of evil to the armed intruder, who planned on doing 50 units of evil to me (nevermind that breaking into someone's home is already evil). I don't buy it.
Harm ≠ evil.
If a swimmer gets a leg cramp in the ocean and is harmed by the sea water flowing into his lungs and causing his death, he is harmed by the sea, but the sea is not evil.
If you are in a car accident caused by mechanical failure and you are thrashed around, violently, it is not evil. Simply unfortunate.
I get your point that harming other humans is not a good thing in and of itself, but sometimes it's better then whatever alternative you are trying to prevent. But please understand people here are not going to agree with you that violence is evil, because evil is about morality and morality requires circumstance.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Hmmm flogging? Flogging leaves marks and scars. It would only be a matter of time before the ACLU jumped all over that because a guy that was flogged for a crime felt uncomfortable taking his shirt off at the pool for fear of what people will think of him.
I vote for indian burns. They hurt like hell and don't really leave a mark. Excuse me while I go patent a design for an indian burn machine.
You mean scars like this? Yes, that could be a problem at the pool.
There is a reason we don't flog people anymore.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone-Wolf, I have acknowledged (from the start) that sometimes violence is necessary and you admit that it is not a good thing. How is that different from it being a bad thing? And how is bad different in your mind from evil?
The sea water has no intent. Nor does the car.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There is a difference between doing violence is a bad thing in and of itself and violence is bad.
The end result of violence can often be a very good thing.
The difference between bad and evil is that bad is without morality, bad is what food turns if you leave it out, bad is an unfortunate unpreventable tragedy, bad is no judgment, it just is.
Evil is a moral judgement, and while it is bad, bad is not always evil, just as milk is a drink but not all drinks are milk.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So, had I said "necessary bad" instead of the more typical "necessary evil" you would have agreed? If so, consider it done. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Peace in the valley!
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Hmmm flogging? Flogging leaves marks and scars. It would only be a matter of time before the ACLU jumped all over that because a guy that was flogged for a crime felt uncomfortable taking his shirt off at the pool for fear of what people will think of him.
I vote for indian burns. They hurt like hell and don't really leave a mark. Excuse me while I go patent a design for an indian burn machine.
You mean scars like this? Yes, that could be a problem at the pool.
Exactly. I know some would say "The scars will be a reminder for them not to commit any more crimes." While I think those that break the law should be punished, I am not comfortable with causing physical disfiguration that will stay with a person for the rest of their life.
Whipping them and causing these scars is just a step below cutting off fingers for stealing. I guess they could get around it by saying that the person actually chose that as their punishment that as such knew the consequences, but that still doesn't make it right.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I could be wrong, but I don't think scarring like that is typical of whipping...more like, someone went apesh** on that poor guy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
On what are you basing that?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Nothing in particular...I know they used to give you lashes as a standard punishment for insubordination in the sail powered navy days...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh, and btw, the caption to that picture is...
quote:A whipped slave, Baton Rouge, 1863. The original caption reads: "Overseer Artayou Carrier whipped me. I was two months in bed sore from the whipping. My master come after I was whipped; he discharged the overseer...
Even in those dark days, this type of whipping was considered a firing worthy offense apparently.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone-Wolf, flogging is a brutal act. Perhaps not always as brutal as that example, but brutal nonetheless. I cannot help but belief that flogging damages the soul of both the person being flogged and the person doing the flogging.
I do not see anything good about returning to those "dark days" when flogging was a typical punishment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I could be wrong, but I don't think scarring like that is typical of whipping...more like, someone went apesh** on that poor guy.
I suspect that a lack of medical attention afterward contributed a lot to the severity of those scars.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh, and btw, the caption to that picture is...
quote:A whipped slave, Baton Rouge, 1863. The original caption reads: "Overseer Artayou Carrier whipped me. I was two months in bed sore from the whipping. My master come after I was whipped; he discharged the overseer...
Even in those dark days, this type of whipping was considered a firing worthy offense apparently.
By some.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots: Would it surprise you to know that a lot of people would find it even more soul damaging to be locked away for years at a time with many wrong doers?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That has always seemed to me to be a much more pointed argument towards reforming our prisons than instituting something like flogging.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone Wolf, certainly, but I recognize the importance of keeping some people away from the general populace so they can't hurt other people. A necessary "bad".
Also, what Rakeesh wrote.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That has always seemed to me to be a much more pointed argument towards reforming our prisons than instituting something like flogging.
QFT
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm hugely in favor of reforming our prisons.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Let's just build a huge wall around Montana (Nobody lives there anyways) and throw all of the prisoners in there.
Problem solved. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I bet Joe white collar who is in for one year for tax evasion would mind being thrown loose into a walled up Montana.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
What if Montana is home?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm sure this system is awesome and appropriate. Flogging is, I'm sure, neither cruel nor unusual and so the constitution couldn't possibly have any problem with it and the precedent wouldn't be terrible anyway so let's just go nuts.
But not on the women, of course
seriously?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I suppose this is a derail, but I never understood the 'unusual' part of 'cruel and unusual'. If something is proscribed infrequently it's [not] OK? Something that was not OK but a judge hands down 10 sentences of it in a row is now acceptable?
Hobbes Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And prison is cruel.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Samp, I am still trying to get my head around people who could justify flogging yet have their heads explode over masturbation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As a pun I suppose that's alright. Who are these people, though? None that I've seen around here anyway. And I say that as someone who personally thinks proscriptions against masturbation in and of itself are pretty strange and silly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I didn't say or mean to imply that there were necessarily any of those people here. There very well might be, but they have not done so to my knowledge.
And you are right. Not bad for an unintentional pun.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
kmboots, can you define what you mean when you say "evil". That might help clarify aspects of the conversation.
It could be this is where Sa'eed got the thread idea.
quote:Suggest adding the whipping post to America’s system of criminal justice and most people recoil in horror. But offer a choice between five years in prison or 10 lashes and almost everybody picks the lash. What does that say about prison?
America has a prison problem. Never in the history of the world has a country locked up so many of its people. We have more prisons than China, and it has a billion more people than we do. Forty years ago America had 338,000 people behind bars. Today 2.3 million are incarcerated. We have more prisoners than soldiers. Something has gone terribly wrong.
He basically makes the case that while we might not like it, it's better than the current system.
I think that's a valuable debate to have, but it still to a large degree sets up a false dichotomy. There are other options out there, options that have been advocated by prison reform activists. Flogging is not our only alternative to a messed up prison system.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
no let's just bring flogging into the picture. But remember, it's JUST for men. Women aren't allowed that punitive option even if it's being introduced as a remedy, because Clive Candy, ergo
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp has a very low tolerance for fools...however he manages on a day to day basis is a wonder to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I think it's more accurate to say I have a very high tolerance for fools and they fill me with mirth via their endless entertainment value
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It seems like there is a large amount of anger involved as well. I guess getting POed is pretty entertaining though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I know it's really common for people to claim 'oh man I am totally never angry, in fact I am a bastion of monklike jedi zen' when people call them out for flipping out or raging, but this forum hasn't ever really incited anger in me. Not even with Sa'eed, he's just a Known Quantity and the jury's out on him.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Monkeylike Jedi? Cool!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Force Throw (feces)
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
I think penal labor could possibly be a good system, if properly regulated. Of course the problem is always that you don't want it to compete with private business.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)