• Penal labor for repetitive murder offenders
    96 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cone;36423781]at the very least you could pretend it's a necessary evil. if I have the option between saving ten people and saving one person I'll pick the ten people, but that doesn't mean I want to leave the one person to die; this is a similar situation, and you're basically saying it's good for the one person to die regardless.[/QUOTE] No, I'm saying that it's OK to enslave those who murdered and then murdered after rehabilitation attempts because it would benefit the society by reallocation of resources to health care, education, etc. I have a question for you. Where did you get your values from? The values that there are static liberties, and that they could never be reduced if it ensures greater benefit? I'm wondering, because most of the world doesn't share these values, but for some reason, people in the West and the US very often do.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36368985]Justice is pointless. It's attaining maximal benefit for the society that counts.[/QUOTE] But then the question is who decides who suffers to achieve that benefit? If you're working them for profit are we going to start trying to put more people in jail because it's profitable? At what point does the system become corrupt to achieve 'maximal benefit' from people who shouldn't be charged? If you skip justice and due process for maximum benefit, you're no better than the 'murderers' you're enslaving. You're just doing something terrible on a massive, and potentially industrial scale. (By the way, I think you're a terrible person.)
[QUOTE=soulharvester;36423853]But then the question is who decides who suffers to achieve that benefit? If you're working them for profit are we going to start trying to put more people in jail because it's profitable? At what point does the system become corrupt to achieve 'maximal benefit' from people who shouldn't be charged? If you skip justice and due process for maximum benefit, you're no better than the 'murderers' you're enslaving. You're just doing something terrible on a massive, and potentially industrial scale. (By the way, I think you're a terrible person.)[/QUOTE] No, obviously there would be a proper due process. And doing this to normal people who don't repeatedly murder wouldn't outweigh the moral benefit, so it wouldn't be done.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36423681]Torture is a very good way of getting information as long as it (the information provided) can be tested. For example, if an AL-Qaeda suspect is tortured to reveal the location or other identification methods of other members, and this information would be proven to be false, they would just be tortured more, until correct information is given.[/QUOTE] right, but that doesn't explain why it's necessary. tazing a dude in the balls isn't going to get him to want to help you, it's going to convince him that you're the biggest sadist in the world, as well as that the pain really has to stop. at that point he'll say anything to get it to end, regardless of whether or not you'll be back the next day. and since he also hates your guts, there's a good chance he'll feed you false information just to spite you. and then there's the chance that they don't even know anything and, again, they'll just grow to utterly despise you and all that you stand for, leading to the same conclusion. so why would you want to take that risk? sit them down, get them to consider your viewpoint, trick them, whatever - just don't torture them, because it isn't anywhere near as reliable, it hurts your reputation, and it requires that you hire absolute sadists. also, just something I've noticed - this system would violate the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDHR"]UDHR[/URL], specifically articles four and 23 (1) and (2), as well as articles 24 and 30. the UDHR was signed by fifty countries, including basically all the ones I can ever see you placing this system in. this system would be totally illegal.
[QUOTE=Cone;36423943]right, but that doesn't explain why it's necessary. tazing a dude in the balls isn't going to get him to want to help you, it's going to convince him that you're the biggest sadist in the world, as well as that the pain really has to stop. at that point he'll say anything to get it to end, regardless of whether or not you'll be back the next day. and since he also hates your guts, there's a good chance he'll feed you false information just to spite you. and then there's the chance that they don't even know anything and, again, they'll just grow to utterly despise you and all that you stand for, leading to the same conclusion. so why would you want to take that risk? sit them down, get them to consider your viewpoint, trick them, whatever - just don't torture them, because it isn't anywhere near as reliable, it hurts your reputation, and it requires that you hire absolute sadists. also, just something I've noticed - this system would violate the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDHR"]UDHR[/URL], specifically articles four and 23 (1) and (2), as well as articles 24 and 30. the UDHR was signed by fifty countries, including basically all the ones I can ever see you placing this system in. this system would be totally illegal.[/QUOTE] "tazing a dude in the balls isn't going to get him to want to help you," If he refuses cooperation, it will. "also, just something I've noticed - this system would violate the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDHR"]UDHR[/URL], specifically articles four and 23 (1) and (2), as well as articles 24 and 30. the UDHR was signed by fifty countries, including basically all the ones I can ever see you placing this system in. this system would be totally illegal." Sorry, couldn't give less of a fuck about the UDHR. It's a static code, which assumes that it can't be changed. All the static codes are dumb. And a country can't sign something. It's not an entity. A majority-elected representative did. Sorry, I don't believe that if a majority-elected representative signed it, it somehow makes this code or law legitimate. Not at all. And the UDHR is implemented in 50 (or rather less) countries, not in most countries. On top of that, most of the World doesn't share the Western values.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36424015]If he refuses cooperation, it will.[/QUOTE] I don't really see how [QUOTE=GenPol;36424015]Sorry, couldn't give less of a fuck about the UDHR. It's a static code, which assumes that it can't be changed. All the static codes are dumb.[/QUOTE] so not wanting citizens to be tortured is dumb? attempting to enforce some kind of universal code based upon evidence that something is unhelpful is dumb? applying a consistent logic to something is dumb? it can be changed, but only for the better, and with very careful consideration. why exactly is the fact that it is static a bad thing if it is done with extreme foresight, careful thought, and thorough consideration of the ways the law could potentially be maniupulated? I don't see any exploitable loopholes here, do you? [QUOTE=GenPol;36424015]And a country can't sign something. It's not an entity. A majority-elected representative did. Sorry, I don't believe that if a majority-elected representative signed it, it somehow makes this code or law legitimate. Not at all.[/QUOTE] what do you mean it isn't legitimate? how would [I]your[/I] laws be legitimate then, if not from someone of power emplacing them? would they not have the majority's opinion on such laws? [QUOTE=GenPol;36424015]And the UDHR is implemented in 50 (or rather less) countries, not in most countries.[/QUOTE] I said, and I quote: [QUOTE]the UDHR was signed by fifty countries, including basically all the ones I can ever see you placing this system in.[/QUOTE] nice reading [QUOTE=GenPol;36424015]On top of that, most of the World doesn't share the Western values.[/QUOTE] and? that doesn't mean Western values are immediately irrelevant. just the fact that the rest of the world doesn't share them doesn't mean they're instantly retarded and useless.
[QUOTE=Cone;36424156]I don't really see how so not wanting citizens to be tortured is dumb? attempting to enforce some kind of universal code based upon evidence that something is unhelpful is dumb? applying a consistent logic to something is dumb? it can be changed, but only for the better, and with very careful consideration. why exactly is the fact that it is static a bad thing if it is done with extreme foresight, careful thought, and thorough consideration of the ways the law could potentially be maniupulated? I don't see any exploitable loopholes here, do you? what do you mean it isn't legitimate? how would [I]your[/I] laws be legitimate then, if not from someone of power emplacing them? would they not have the majority's opinion on such laws? I said, and I quote: nice reading and? that doesn't mean Western values are immediately irrelevant. just the fact that the rest of the world doesn't share them doesn't mean they're instantly retarded and useless.[/QUOTE] "I don't really see how" Lol! Are you serious? You don't see how torturing someone if they don't cooperate could get some information, as long as the information can be tested? Fuck, even the Bush administration acknowledged that it can. "so not wanting citizens to be tortured is dumb? attempting to enforce some kind of universal code based upon evidence that something is unhelpful is dumb? applying a consistent logic to something is dumb?" It isn't based on evidence. It's based on useless emotional appeal. "it can be changed, but only for the better, and with very careful consideration. why exactly is the fact that it is static a bad thing if it is done with extreme foresight, careful thought, and thorough consideration of the ways the law could potentially be maniupulated? I don't see any exploitable loopholes here, do you?" It's a bad thing because it can't be adjusted to the cases where violating these rights would produce greater moral benefit. "what do you mean it isn't legitimate? how would [I]your[/I] laws be legitimate then, if not from someone of power emplacing them? would they not have the majority's opinion on such laws?" Because I don't believe in majority-elected representatives being a legitimate way of directing power. "I said, and I quote: nice reading" Because these rights are often violated even in the countries which signed this declaration. In fact, despite them signing it, many of them still realize that some rights can be violated to ensure the greater good. "and? that doesn't mean Western values are immediately irrelevant. just the fact that the rest of the world doesn't share them doesn't mean they're instantly retarded and useless." No, but it means that they aren't values which are held as sacred by most people, as many make it out to be. In fact, most of the world is far closer to collective, maximal benefit ensuring values, than to the Western values.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.