Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:23 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 7:59 pm imaginary number.

Do the count yourself.

Yes, of course...

Jesus was responsible for:

1. All the wars committed by Constantine and his inheritors in the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire.
2. All mutilations and persecutions of people of other religions, by Christians. This includes witch hunts.
3. All religious wars instigated in the name of God from 100AD to the present.
4. All wars of any kind as a result of the believe in the divine right of kings.
5. All feudal disputes and claims to the thrones of Europe.
6. All deaths caused by missionary nations, either directly or by the spreading of European diseases.
7. The persecutions and the millions of military deaths in the Reformation.
8 The Crusades.
9. WW One.
10. Deaths caused by Hitler and his compact with the Vatican, including the transport and reporting of Jews.
11. ALL deaths and persecutions due to ANTISEMITISM.
12. Shall I go on....

I blame the Big Bang for all of those atrocities and more!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:22 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:23 pm
Do the count yourself.

Yes, of course...

Jesus was responsible for:

1. All the wars committed by Constantine and his inheritors in the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire.
2. All mutilations and persecutions of people of other religions, by Christians. This includes witch hunts.
3. All religious wars instigated in the name of God from 100AD to the present.
4. All wars of any kind as a result of the believe in the divine right of kings.
5. All feudal disputes and claims to the thrones of Europe.
6. All deaths caused by missionary nations, either directly or by the spreading of European diseases.
7. The persecutions and the millions of military deaths in the Reformation.
8 The Crusades.
9. WW One.
10. Deaths caused by Hitler and his compact with the Vatican, including the transport and reporting of Jews.
11. ALL deaths and persecutions due to ANTISEMITISM.
12. Shall I go on....

I blame the Big Bang for all of those atrocities and more!

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.” --Douglas Adams

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 6:29 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:22 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:29 am
Yes, of course...

Jesus was responsible for:

1. All the wars committed by Constantine and his inheritors in the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire.
2. All mutilations and persecutions of people of other religions, by Christians. This includes witch hunts.
3. All religious wars instigated in the name of God from 100AD to the present.
4. All wars of any kind as a result of the believe in the divine right of kings.
5. All feudal disputes and claims to the thrones of Europe.
6. All deaths caused by missionary nations, either directly or by the spreading of European diseases.
7. The persecutions and the millions of military deaths in the Reformation.
8 The Crusades.
9. WW One.
10. Deaths caused by Hitler and his compact with the Vatican, including the transport and reporting of Jews.
11. ALL deaths and persecutions due to ANTISEMITISM.
12. Shall I go on....

I blame the Big Bang for all of those atrocities and more!

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.” --Douglas Adams

Indeed.
And I remember a time when men were men, women were women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were mall furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:14 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:00 pm Americans are:... celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd.

I don't have a comment about George Floyd as a man, RC. I mean, is it worse if he was a saint than if he was a drugged-out thug? Either way, I don't see that being a criminal warrants one in being killed on the street

Exactly, i thank you for your humanity Sir.

- BTW not heard from you, how are you doing? well i hope.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:14 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:00 pm Americans are:... celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd.

I don't have a comment about George Floyd as a man, RC. I mean, is it worse if he was a saint than if he was a drugged-out thug? Either way, I don't see that being a criminal warrants one in being killed on the street

Exactly, i thank you for your humanity Sir.

- BTW not heard from you, how are you doing? well i hope.

Just to clear the air: I did not write, "Americans are:... celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd." IC posted it that way. The words are quoted from an article by a black University of California, Berkley professor of history. It was IC who brought up the idea that anything warranting what happened to George Floyd. Nothing in the article or anything I wrote suggested such a thing.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:09 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:14 pm

I don't have a comment about George Floyd as a man, RC. I mean, is it worse if he was a saint than if he was a drugged-out thug? Either way, I don't see that being a criminal warrants one in being killed on the street

Exactly, i thank you for your humanity Sir.

- BTW not heard from you, how are you doing? well i hope.

Just to clear the air: I did not write, "Americans are:... celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd." IC posted it that way. The words are quoted from an article by a black University of California, Berkley professor of history. It was IC who brought up the idea that anything warranting what happened to George Floyd. Nothing in the article or anything I wrote suggested such a thing.

I had assume so, thanks for taking the time to affirm your character and schooling me on it.

good to know, peace to you, i misunderstood (assumed) . thanks for clarifing.

I know Floyd had counterfit 20's and tried to move out of the backseat of the copcar. so no saint, but not a capital offense either.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:20 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:09 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:57 pm

Exactly, i thank you for your humanity Sir.

- BTW not heard from you, how are you doing? well i hope.

Just to clear the air: I did not write, "Americans are:... celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd." IC posted it that way. The words are quoted from an article by a black University of California, Berkley professor of history. It was IC who brought up the idea that anything warranting what happened to George Floyd. Nothing in the article or anything I wrote suggested such a thing.

I had assume so, thanks for taking the time to affirm your character and schooling me on it.

good to know, peace to you, i misunderstood (assumed) . thanks for clarifing.

I know Floyd had counterfit 20's and tried to move out of the backseat of the copcar. so no saint, but not a capital offense either.

I agree, especially since I reject the very idea of retributive justice. Two wrongs still do not make a right.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:45 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:20 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:09 am
Just to clear the air: I did not write, "Americans are:... celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd." IC posted it that way. The words are quoted from an article by a black University of California, Berkley professor of history. It was IC who brought up the idea that anything warranting what happened to George Floyd. Nothing in the article or anything I wrote suggested such a thing.

I had assume so, thanks for taking the time to affirm your character and schooling me on it.

good to know, peace to you, i misunderstood (assumed) . thanks for clarifing.

I know Floyd had counterfit 20's and tried to move out of the backseat of the copcar. so no saint, but not a capital offense either.

I agree, especially since I reject the very idea of retributive justice. Two wrongs still do not make a right.

thanks for reply - are you a Christian? - none of my busness, but your reply kind of suggested you are.

I'm not, and in fact have no problem with retributive justice (I fact i affirm it - as long as it in i response to the offence, and in equal proportion to that offence). I'm a Torah affirmer Athiest.

i never start a fight, and if i do, then my bad and you have a right to kick my ass. i fine with returning an offense against me, as along as i did'nt start it - and if i did, my bad and i deserve to get my ass kicked - i go out of my way to try to not be a dick and never start a fight, but fine to return the favor of an other dick that starts the fight (but only in equal proportion of original offense)

recipricity.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:56 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:45 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:20 am

I had assume so, thanks for taking the time to affirm your character and schooling me on it.

good to know, peace to you, i misunderstood (assumed) . thanks for clarifing.

I know Floyd had counterfit 20's and tried to move out of the backseat of the copcar. so no saint, but not a capital offense either.

I agree, especially since I reject the very idea of retributive justice. Two wrongs still do not make a right.

thanks for reply - are you a Christian? - none of my busness, but your reply kind of suggested you are.

No! I hold no views of mysticism or the supernatural.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:56 am I'm not, and in fact have no problem with retributive justice (I fact i affirm it - as long as it in i response to the offence, and in equal proportion to that offence). I'm a Torah affirmer Athiest.

i never start a fight, and if i do, then my bad and you have a right to kick my ass. i fine with returning an offense against me, as along as i did'nt start it - and if i did, my bad and i deserve to get my ass kicked - i go out of my way to try to not be a dick and never start a fight, but fine to return the favor of an other dick that starts the fight (but only in equal proportion of original offense)

recipricity.

Well, I'm not an atheist, either. I think it's silly to identify one's self in terms of what one does not believe. Gods are just one of a multitude of silly things must human being are gulllible enough to believe in that I do not.

Retributive justice is nothing more than codified vengeance, a mistaken view, that if someone does something, "bad," doing something bad to them in some way fixes or cancels the bad they did. In fact, it just doubles it.

In practice, retributive justice always ends up harming the original victim as much as the perpetrator. If someone is burglarizing my home and I shoot and kill them, that is defense. If someone burglarizes my home when I'm not there, and they are subsequently caught and tried and jailed, that is simply vengeance that does nothing for me but increase my taxes to support the perpetrator in jail.

I get no pleasure or satisfaction from the suffering of others and believe anyone who does has a psychological problem. No matter what anyone does to me, their suffering in no way does anything good for me. Suffering or pain can never be a positive value and cannot pay for anything, except possibly to assuage someone's irrational vindictive hate. [In practice, most people find vengeance totally unsatisfying.]

Though it is probably impossible to implement, except by the choice of individuals themselves, the only, "justice," would be restorative justice, as when a thief is required to restore to the victim whatever was stolen, and of course that cannot work in cases of permanent injury or death.

The biggest problem with retributive justice is that it never fixes anything and is extremely expensive in terms of resources and trouble to implement, and of course, as a function of government, it is wrong on principle.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:35 pm Retributive justice is nothing more than codified vengeance, a mistaken view, that if someone does something, "bad," doing something bad to them in some way fixes or cancels the bad they did. In fact, it just doubles it.

In practice, retributive justice always ends up harming the original victim as much as the perpetrator. If someone is burglarizing my home and I shoot and kill them, that is defense. If someone burglarizes my home when I'm not there, and they are subsequently caught and tried and jailed, that is simply vengeance that does nothing for me but increase my taxes to support the perpetrator in jail.

I get no pleasure or satisfaction from the suffering of others and believe anyone who does has a psychological problem. No matter what anyone does to me, their suffering in no way does anything good for me. Suffering or pain can never be a positive value and cannot pay for anything, except possibly to assuage someone's irrational vindictive hate. [In practice, most people find vengeance totally unsatisfying.]

Though it is probably impossible to implement, except by the choice of individuals themselves, the only, "justice," would be restorative justice, as when a thief is required to restore to the victim whatever was stolen, and of course that cannot work in cases of permanent injury or death.

The biggest problem with retributive justice is that it never fixes anything and is extremely expensive in terms of resources and trouble to implement, and of course, as a function of government, it is wrong on principle.

Should victims be compensated or aided in any way so that they recover from someone else's bad deed or how would justice be served if someone does something wrong to someone else? If someone breaks into your home while you're not there do you really think nothing should be done to punish that person? What's to prevent something like that from happening again and again? If there's no punishment then what would be the incentive not to do it?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:35 pm If someone is burglarizing my home and I shoot and kill them, that is defense.

depends.

recently - last decade or so - we've had many states codify "make my day' laws (which i oppose fully) - i affirm the older 2-century law of "castle doctrine"

in the former case if you shoot the Burglar, you will probably be aquitted (there will usually be a trial, so the final say with be via the jury as it should be). why aquitted? because "make my day" tends to side with the victim, even if the burglar was unarmed (and of course if you knew he was and shot him - well then you have to allow the jury to determine if your killing was legal or not).

what i saying is "self defense" per the Castle Doctrine i affirm - i.e. you saw (or think you saw - even if burglar did not in fact have a gun) a gun, and shot the dude.

great! - lol.

"make my day" lower the bar too low IMO - and allows plugging a thug burglar even if your life as not at stake. (and of course we have jurors to think all this through to serve justice, so that is great!).

to give an extreme example, i think (i think - not a lawyer so not fully curtain) under "make my day" law, you can shoot the Burglar in the back as he is running away from you with your TV in his arms.

under Castle Doctrine - that is murder, his hands are full, back to you and running out of your house.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:35 pm If someone burglarizes my home when I'm not there, and they are subsequently caught and tried and jailed, that is simply vengeance that does nothing for me but increase my taxes to support the perpetrator in jail.

I've been Burgalled twice in the last 8 yrs, and lost a nice TV - while i was not home. I'm fully fine with the guy/s being caught and sent to jail for thier offense, and maybe - after serving some time (no prob not, but maybe he/they will be an exception to the rule) - will learn "crime does not pay" after sitting in jail for a few months.

AFAIK my burgals(sp) were never caught.

thanks for Reply BTW!

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:21 pm Should victims be compensated or aided in any way so that they recover from someone else's bad deed or how would justice be served if someone does something wrong to someone else?

Frankly, if I'm a victim of crime, it's my own fault. I know what the risks are and take measures to protect myself from them. There is no guarantee I'll always be successful in my own defense, but it's no riskier than depending on some government police force. As they say, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:21 pm If someone breaks into your home while you're not there do you really think nothing should be done to punish that person?

If it is possible for me to have what was stolen returned, that might be a worthwhile objective, so long as it cost me nothing, which is unlikely. I do not see how it will do me any good for the theif to be punished.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:21 pm What's to prevent something like that from happening again and again? If there's no punishment then what would be the incentive not to do it?

There are police, and courts and punishment now, and most criminals, if they are caught at all, are repeat offenders. Penal law obviously does not deter crime. I think if potential criminals knew their victims were free to kill them and take whatever measures they liked to prevent crime, that might deter more criminals than are by the present criminal justice system. If you think any system is going to eliminate crime, however, I'm afraid you are dreaming.

I personally have no use for any part of the criminal justice system and avoid it in every way possible, but I have no interest in changing or eliminating it. I'm not anti-police, or anything else political, because I think they are inevitable. They will all go away when individuals learn to live correctly.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:48 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:35 pm If someone is burglarizing my home and I shoot and kill them, that is defense.

depends.

I was only differentiating defense from retribution. However:

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:48 pm recently - last decade or so - we've had many states codify "make my day' laws (which i oppose fully) - i affirm the older 2-century law of "castle doctrine"

in the former case if you shoot the Burglar, you will probably be aquitted (there will usually be a trial, so the final say with be via the jury as it should be). why aquitted? because "make my day" tends to side with the victim, even if the burglar was unarmed (and of course if you knew he was and shot him - well then you have to allow the jury to determine if your killing was legal or not).

what i saying is "self defense" per the Castle Doctrine i affirm - i.e. you saw (or think you saw - even if burglar did not in fact have a gun) a gun, and shot the dude.

great! - lol.

"make my day" lower the bar too low IMO - and allows plugging a thug burglar even if your life as not at stake. (and of course we have jurors to think all this through to serve justice, so that is great!).

to give an extreme example, i think (i think - not a lawyer so not fully curtain) under "make my day" law, you can shoot the Burglar in the back as he is running away from you with your TV in his arms.

under Castle Doctrine - that is murder, his hands are full, back to you and running out of your house.

If someone comes into my home, uninvited, and proceeds to make any kind of threat to anyone or anything in my home I'll take any measure necessary to stop that individual. If the only way to stop them is to shoot them, back, front, top, or bottom, I'll shoot them.

I never consider what some man-made law says I may or may not do. Right and wrong are not determined by what some crooked men write down. Government, "doctrines," do not mean a thing do me.

I do not, by the way, encourage others to have my view on criminal justice. Everyone must use their own best judgment to decide their own values.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:48 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:35 pm If someone burglarizes my home when I'm not there, and they are subsequently caught and tried and jailed, that is simply vengeance that does nothing for me but increase my taxes to support the perpetrator in jail.

I've been Burgalled twice in the last 8 yrs, and lost a nice TV - while i was not home. I'm fully fine with the guy/s being caught and sent to jail for thier offense, and maybe - after serving some time (no prob not, but maybe he/they will be an exception to the rule) - will learn "crime does not pay" after sitting in jail for a few months.

AFAIK my burgals(sp) were never caught.

thanks for Reply BTW!

Sorry about your experience. I think it does illustrate the criminal justice system does not work, however.

I've enjoyed your reasonable and courteous debate. Rare, around here.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:52 am
I never consider what some man-made law says I may or may not do.

you can do whatever you like.

I was just illustrating the differences in The Law between Castle Doctrine and Make my Day states.

the former conforms to Natural Law right to self defense, the latter does not (it allows legal "Murder" under the older Castle Law/understanding)

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:52 am Right and wrong are not determined by what some crooked men write down. Government, "doctrines," do not mean a thing do me.

Right and wrong is determined by your Conscience!!!!!!!! so ya!

and why i've been a Jury Nullification/Pardon NUT for the last 30 yrs. ie as a juror if you think the law that the accussed of violating you have the power (was a Right 200 yrs ago) to ignore the accussed guilt and throw the law out by acquiting the accussed.

i.e you have the power and moral right to ignore the evidence, if you are on a jury and think the accused is guilty under the law you object to (i.e you rule "innocent" because your think the law he violated is fully shit).

refer to fugitive slave laws 150 yrs ago

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:52 am I do not, by the way, encourage others to have my view on criminal justice. Everyone must use their own best judgment to decide their own values.

of course.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:52 am I've enjoyed your reasonable and courteous debate. Rare, around here.

me too - you triggered me 20 minutes ago when you seemed to dissparage the "right to assemble" via our 1st.

i don't like folks that pick and choose - either you support the 1st or you don't, its that simple.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:36 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:21 pm Should victims be compensated or aided in any way so that they recover from someone else's bad deed or how would justice be served if someone does something wrong to someone else?

Frankly, if I'm a victim of crime, it's my own fault. I know what the risks are and take measures to protect myself from them. There is no guarantee I'll always be successful in my own defense, but it's no riskier than depending on some government police force. As they say, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:21 pm If someone breaks into your home while you're not there do you really think nothing should be done to punish that person?

If it is possible for me to have what was stolen returned, that might be a worthwhile objective, so long as it cost me nothing, which is unlikely. I do not see how it will do me any good for the theif to be punished.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 8:21 pm What's to prevent something like that from happening again and again? If there's no punishment then what would be the incentive not to do it?

There are police, and courts and punishment now, and most criminals, if they are caught at all, are repeat offenders. Penal law obviously does not deter crime. I think if potential criminals knew their victims were free to kill them and take whatever measures they liked to prevent crime, that might deter more criminals than are by the present criminal justice system. If you think any system is going to eliminate crime, however, I'm afraid you are dreaming.

I personally have no use for any part of the criminal justice system and avoid it in every way possible, but I have no interest in changing or eliminating it. I'm not anti-police, or anything else political, because I think they are inevitable. They will all go away when individuals learn to live correctly.

I suppose you may have a point concerning repeat offenders. abolishing police and courts seems like a very radical concept, however. What about issues like breach of contract and things like that? Aren't courts needed to play referee so that people obey contracts and things of that nature?

And if there are no police, wouldn't that mean people would take matters into their own hands more. So, for example, suppose I rob someone of some small value items and then they get mad and decide to come and shoot me? What's to keep law proportionate? Or what if I am falsely accused of something and someone takes it out on me even though I'm innocent? what's to keep things from devolving into the wild west with lynch mobs and things of that nature? Or what's to keep us from devolving into Somalia with bandits running loose and local warlords running things?

Also what do you think about Black Lives Matter and their campaign to defund police? It sounds like you and they are pretty close in agreement.