Well, this is weird. It's not every day that someone responds to a post you made 7 years ago on a site you forgot about, and then you see it because of an email notification. I wrote that in 2013. I probably learned the word 'transitive' in a mass class and I wanted to feel smart by using it in a new context.
Why does someone using a word like that make you think they're lonely?
What brought you to this site in 2020, anyways?
I have so many questions, but I feel like that's the best place to start
I completely agree. It gives people a distorted locus of loyalty to put one country over all others, and it's self-centeredness on a mass scale. We should be patriots to all of life instead of preferring whichever smaller group we're part of. So many of the world's problems would be solved if people didn't love their own races/cultures so much more than others.
Well the only possible purpose of making them suffer more than they need to is to discourage potential criminals, right?
I feel like should be as light as we can while reliably accomplishing that goal.
You bring up a really good first point that I've thought about before and stupidly overlooked.
My actual opinion is that the criminal should be given a life sentence with the option to be executed if they feel like life isn't worth living. If some people would prefer to die, then there'd be no appeals and it would be cheap. And if they don't want to die, then there are no expensive appeals. So it's the cheapest option.
In addition, death and life alike can be cruel sentences, so giving one with the option of another makes it, in my opinion, more humane without making it too pleasant to be a functional deterrent.
Okay, then I think we're actually on the same page- I didn't think the post was trying to advocate any sort of kindness- only practicality. It's not practical, as i mentioned earlier, to go out of our way to make criminals suffer, so we should do what's most cost-efficient.
If capital punishment were cheaper, I would be an advocate of it. But unfortunately (and I know this for a fact) it's more expensive because the alleged will often try to make numerous appeals, to the extent that it would usually be cheaper to let them sit in prison for life. So I advocate life sentences just for that reason. And once someone is beyond the point of rehabilitation, it's worthless to even try to better them through infliction of suffering. Perhaps the statement that nobody "deserves" to suffer as much pain as they've caused is arguable (I'm not sure if I agree with that specifically), but it's impractical to try to systematize a practice like it.
I get what you're saying, but that brings us to the question of "what's the point of punishment?"
And I say that it's:
-If it's a realistic and safe possibility, to rehabilitate the criminal
-To set an example for other potential criminals and deter them from committing crime
-Prevent the criminal from harming society again through temporary or permanent isolation
And if a criminal committed a crime like serial murder or rape, then they simply cannot be trusted again and the first clause is out of the question. So they simply need to be isolated in an unpleasant way for their punishment to be served.
What I see this post as saying is that it's a waste of effort to go out of our way to ensure that the punishment is just as painful as the crime. It can take a lot of effort and not really serve much of a purpose. It's not as much about "holding them accountable" as it is making an example, once they have no hope of being let back out into society.
Well I take the post seriously because it's using the very example (which you claim is ludicrous) as an example of something ludicrous.
Of course nobody is being killed multiple times, and it's pointless to try, according to the poster, because it's a waste of effort that bears no reward. The way I interpret the post: once people have harmed the world too much to be put back in the general public, we should stop trying to rehabilitate them (by making them understand how much suffering they've caused) and instead just get rid of them to make the world safer.
What did you get from it?
Are you seriously asking if humans are capable/worthy of judging others as evil?
Haha no. What about wrestling, rock climbing, and long-distance running? And weight lifting and boxing?
The way to deal with people who commit murder is to do what's safest for the planet and isolate/sentence them to death. There is no inherent benefit to repeating their own crime onto them when they're past the point of being able to fix their mistakes or not trustworthy enough to allow a second chance to.
The post isn't saying that you can be better than anyone with talent- just that you can be better than anybody who doesn't work at their talent.
Gotcha- I'd probably feel differently if I had less
Perhaps your school assigns less work than mine. It's hard to savor 4 hours a night.
No- it's subjects
You have a point, especially when johnny would only volunteer if he thought he could exceed expectations. Still, at least getting the words out and telling someone to do something can organize the situation. And I think it's fair to spout out what seems most reasonable, as long as one doesn't make the situation worse by insisting that it play out that way.