Saudi man sentenced to be paralysed from the waist down in 'eye for an eye' punishment
87 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40160795]America does this exact same thing, just only with lives[/QUOTE]
This is far worse, although once you get to executions, it really doesn't matter whats worse, it just shouldn't happen in the first place
[QUOTE=viperfan7;40160794]Well to a point, going to invoke godwins law here and say hitler could be considered evil, as he used the jews as a way to rally the people behind him in order to be placed into power when he could have done the same by other means because, well face it, the man knew how to get people to support him.
Also there are the 3 Kims, everything done by that family is done to maintain their grip on power.
And Pol Pot with the Khmer Rouge
Not saying you're wrong, as what you say definitely applies to almost every other situation, take the Sandy Hook thing, with proper psychiatric care I doubt that would have happened. Just that it doesn't apply when the crime is done to take/hold onto power.
tl/dr: You're right unless it comes to genocide/ethnic cleansing, then that is evil in every sense of the word[/QUOTE]
Sorry, that's not right at all. Hitler wasn't evil. The Kim family isn't evil. They're only evil according to your moral reasoning - Just because a lot of people happen to agree with you doesn't make it a universal truth.
I don't like the way Hitler or the Kims used their power either, but I'm not going to go and say "This is evil because I don't like it."
This is exactly what I meant when I said good and evil don't exist - They're just social constructs. There is only power, and the way that power is used.
Because by your definition, the United States' government is evil. US politicians are evil for never sacrificing comfort for the good of the people their country exploits in the developing world. US businesses are evil for employing sweatshop workers in South Asia, the Phillipines and China.
Hell, I could say you're evil for those times you lied to your parents or the times you were selfish as a kid.
No, that's not how it works. Human beings put things and people into categories to define them, but we should never mistake that ideological categorization as having any basis in physical reality.
Because ideologies different from your own will have their own ideas of good and evil - And while you do have the right to your opinion, that doesn't make your opinion more *right* than theirs.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?
He's lucky he didn't steal any of his friend's poultry. You can imagine what they do to you for stealing a cock.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;40159055]Lol are we in the BC era[/QUOTE]
Apparently, they still [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18503550]behead people for witchcraft over there[/url]
Calling anyone or anything 'evil' is a dehumanization of them - An utter denial of the fact that the person or group you're talking about is human, thinking and feeling, and that they have their own reasons, which are completely justified in their mind, for doing what they're doing. It's a great way to shrug off the responsibility (And there *is* a responsibility, from my personal point of view) to face them as people and instead dismiss them as stupid or crazy. It's intellectual laziness.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;40161638]so the guy who is tasked with stealing his cock is in trouble for stealing a cock, so he gets HIS cock stolen, and the cycle repeats[/QUOTE]
No, they just dismember you for stealing there, it avoids all the complicated legal maneuvering.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40161505]Sorry, that's not right at all. Hitler wasn't evil. The Kim family isn't evil. They're only evil according to your moral reasoning - Just because a lot of people happen to agree with you doesn't make it a universal truth.
I don't like the way Hitler or the Kims used their power either, but I'm not going to go and say "This is evil because I don't like it."
This is exactly what I meant when I said good and evil don't exist - They're just social constructs. There is only power, and the way that power is used.
Because by your definition, the United States' government is evil. US politicians are evil for never sacrificing comfort for the good of the people their country exploits in the developing world. US businesses are evil for employing sweatshop workers in South Asia, the Phillipines and China.
Hell, I could say you're evil for those times you lied to your parents or the times you were selfish as a kid.
No, that's not how it works. Human beings put things and people into categories to define them, but we should never mistake that ideological categorization as having any basis in physical reality.
Because ideologies different from your own will have their own ideas of good and evil - And while you do have the right to your opinion, that doesn't make your opinion more *right* than theirs.[/QUOTE]
I'm assuming that some universal good/bads probably exist though. If we can find an instance of a behaviour which is universal in every society and culture, chances are it's probably viewed the same by every human (and isn't really socially constructed).
"Eye for an Eye" is such bullshit.
They are essentially trying to show that paralyzing someone is wrong by paralyzing someone.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40161505]Sorry, that's not right at all. Hitler wasn't evil. The Kim family isn't evil. They're only evil according to your moral reasoning - Just because a lot of people happen to agree with you doesn't make it a universal truth.
I don't like the way Hitler or the Kims used their power either, but I'm not going to go and say "This is evil because I don't like it."
This is exactly what I meant when I said good and evil don't exist - They're just social constructs. There is only power, and the way that power is used.
Because by your definition, the United States' government is evil. US politicians are evil for never sacrificing comfort for the good of the people their country exploits in the developing world. US businesses are evil for employing sweatshop workers in South Asia, the Phillipines and China.
Hell, I could say you're evil for those times you lied to your parents or the times you were selfish as a kid.
No, that's not how it works. Human beings put things and people into categories to define them, but we should never mistake that ideological categorization as having any basis in physical reality.
Because ideologies different from your own will have their own ideas of good and evil - And while you do have the right to your opinion, that doesn't make your opinion more *right* than theirs.[/QUOTE]
Well I'm not going to argue with that, because you've convinced me otherwise.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40161505]Sorry, that's not right at all. Hitler wasn't evil. The Kim family isn't evil. They're only evil according to your moral reasoning - Just because a lot of people happen to agree with you doesn't make it a universal truth.
I don't like the way Hitler or the Kims used their power either, but I'm not going to go and say "This is evil because I don't like it."
This is exactly what I meant when I said good and evil don't exist - They're just social constructs. There is only power, and the way that power is used.
Because by your definition, the United States' government is evil. US politicians are evil for never sacrificing comfort for the good of the people their country exploits in the developing world. US businesses are evil for employing sweatshop workers in South Asia, the Phillipines and China.
Hell, I could say you're evil for those times you lied to your parents or the times you were selfish as a kid.
No, that's not how it works. Human beings put things and people into categories to define them, but we should never mistake that ideological categorization as having any basis in physical reality.
Because ideologies different from your own will have their own ideas of good and evil - And while you do have the right to your opinion, that doesn't make your opinion more *right* than theirs.[/QUOTE]
this is your brain on sociology
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40161660]I'm assuming that some universal good/bads probably exist though. If we can find an instance of a behaviour which is universal in every society and culture, chances are it's probably viewed the same by every human (and isn't really socially constructed).[/QUOTE]
I just think that the entire idea of 'good' and 'bad evolved because we're animals with a very complex herd/pack structure, and because of our awareness of ourselves and others, we needed to develop social tendencies that would help us function to a degree in a social setting. From there, people just piled stuff on according to their personal likes and dislikes, and tribal leaders (or councils) would agree on a set of rules that, if broken, would result in the member who broke them being punished.
As settlements began to grow and cities formed, we created laws and a crude legal system.
But basically what I'm saying is that there's nothing that's always good or always bad, that only exists in the minds of people.
[editline]4th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40161696]this is your brain on sociology[/QUOTE]
-snip- Let's say instead that abstract reasoning is an important factor of critical thinking. Difficult questions aren't answered by ignoring the problems traditional scientific methodology introduces to the equation.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40161709]I just think that the entire idea of 'good' and 'bad evolved because we're animals with a very complex herd/pack structure, and because of our awareness of ourselves and others, we needed to develop social tendencies that would help us function to a degree in a social setting. From there, people just piled stuff on according to their personal likes and dislikes, and tribal leaders (or councils) would agree on a set of rules that, if broken, would result in the member who broke them being punished.
As settlements began to grow and cities formed, we created laws and a crude legal system.
But basically what I'm saying is that there's nothing that's always good or always bad, that only exists in the minds of people.[/quote]
What I'm arguing is that if we see behaviours that all humans see as good and bad, irregardless of culture, then it's quite possible that some good/bads are in fact universal and not social constructs.
[quote]Let's say instead that abstract reasoning is an important factor of critical thinking. Difficult questions aren't answered by ignoring the problems traditional scientific methodology introduces to the equation.[/QUOTE]
What problems are those?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40161847]What I'm arguing is that if we see behaviours that all humans see as good and bad, irregardless of culture, then it's quite possible that some good/bads are in fact universal and not social constructs.[/quote]
If they're universal, they have to be tangible. They're social constructs, and not universal, because they're necessities for social sapient creatures to survive. What if there was a sapient species that could reproduce asexually, or at the very least was not social in nature? These ideals certainly wouldn't be the same for them. Of course, that's all just speculation.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40161847]
What problems are those?[/QUOTE]
Remember the discussion we had in the other thread, where DainBramage was trying to use a longitudinal study to prove that blacks are less intelligent than whites?
Sociology doesn't work that way - You can't get accurate results on human intelligence with a bunch of standardized tests and a huge sample when there are many, many variables that have been entirely ignored by the study.
If the scientific method as it has been used in the study of physics or nature doesn't apply when studying human beings (And it doesn't) then it's of very limited use in gauging intelligence.
[QUOTE=archangel125;40161927]If they're universal, they have to be tangible. They're social constructs, and not universal, because they're necessities for social sapient creatures to survive. What if there was a sapient species that could reproduce asexually, or at the very least was not social in nature? These ideals certainly wouldn't be the same for them. Of course, that's all just speculation.[/QUOTE]
True, but considering that we are all human here, I think it's fair to say that there are "bad" acts. Of course it's just a social construct, but that doesn't mean we should stop using it. There are plenty of social constructs that we have to accept for conveniences sake.
[QUOTE=Hellduck;40161969]True, but considering that we are all human here, I think it's fair to say that there are "bad" acts. Of course it's just a social construct, but that doesn't mean we should stop using it. There are plenty of social constructs that we have to accept for conveniences sake.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say it should stop - I said that people should be aware of how subjective it was. But let's try and come up with a 'legal' definition.
"There may or may not be certain acts with an attached moral value that the majority of the human species is in agreement upon."
[QUOTE=archangel125;40161927]If they're universal, they have to be tangible. They're social constructs, and not universal, because they're necessities for social sapient creatures to survive. What if there was a sapient species that could reproduce asexually, or at the very least was not social in nature? These ideals certainly wouldn't be the same for them. Of course, that's all just speculation.[/quote]
If they are necessities, can it not be argued that creatures which failed with regards to these behaviours, would have died out given enough time?
[quote]Remember the discussion we had in the other thread, where DainBramage was trying to use a longitudinal study to prove that blacks are less intelligent than whites?[/quote]
I do remember, although the study was more on how populations of people often had differing intelligences, some of which were down to both nature and nurture causes. There was actually greater differences in intelligence within races than between them, making them rather small.
[quote]Sociology doesn't work that way - You can't get accurate results on human intelligence with a bunch of standardized tests and a huge sample when there are many, many variables that have been entirely ignored by the study.[/quote]
Such as? Do realize that research has been gradually improving, to the extent we know that, behaviourism, psychoanalysis, and humanism are pretty much discredited.
It is in my view that the biological and cognitive schools are slowly moving towards a unifying theory of psychology.
[quote]If the scientific method as it has been used in the study of physics or nature doesn't apply when studying human beings (And it doesn't) then it's of very limited use in gauging intelligence.[/QUOTE]
Why does it not apply?
The scientific method is used the same for natural phenomena. So far it's done massive strides outside of physics and chemistry, the most important being pretty much all of biology (the findings of which are accepted as scientific).
[QUOTE=Kwigg;40158907]Why the hell did he stab his [b]friend[/b] in the back?[/QUOTE]
Friends backstab friends. You hear about it all the time on the Disney Channel.
It's just that in Saudi Arabia you have it reversed.
In all seriousness this is atrocious.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40162081]If they are necessities, can it not be argued that creatures which failed with regards to these behaviours, would have died out given enough time?
I do remember, although the study was more on how populations of people often had differing intelligences, some of which were down to both nature and nurture causes. There was actually greater differences in intelligence within races than between them, making them rather small.
Such as? Do realize that research has been gradually improving, to the extent we know that, behaviourism, psychoanalysis, and humanism are pretty much discredited.
It is in my view that the biological and cognitive schools are slowly moving towards a unifying theory of psychology.
Why does it not apply?
The scientific method is used the same for natural phenomena. So far it's done massive strides outside of physics and chemistry, the most important being pretty much all of biology (the findings of which are accepted as scientific).[/QUOTE]
If, for example, all of humanity agreed that rape and murder were wrong, there'd be no rapes and murders, except from the mentally ill. And we know that this is not the case, because people can justify anything if they're determined to do it. Therefore, there is no aspect of right and wrong all of humanity agrees upon all the time, therefore there is no universal standard.
As for creatures that would have died out if they failed to conform to society, early tribes and civilizations would exile or execute members of their group who broke the rules - Exile is as good as a death sentence, btw.
As for the reason the scientific method does not apply, it's because even at the cutting edge of our study of psychology and behaviour, there is very, very much we do not yet understand, and there is NO way to consistently predict human behaviour.
In physics, outside of the quantum level, we can predict results consistently. The scientific method can be used there, because the results will be the same in the same situation every time.
That does not apply to people, and using VERY narrow definitions (which is what IQ testing and the longitudinal study does) fails to describe anything; It also fails to account for social conditions, history, individual background, illness, nutrition, education, and more.
I've said it before. I will repeat myself. Using a narrow study that does not take all variables into account proves nothing.
And where human behaviour is concerned, you don't know all the variables.
so controlling for social conditions and individual background isn't scientific?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40162305]so controlling for social conditions and individual background isn't scientific?[/QUOTE]
Sure, it's scientific. The study results will still mean nothing unless you can account for EVERY variable, however.
I never claimed it wasn't scientific. I said that it's neither accurate nor reliable, and is of limited use.
i think your point is that the scientific method doesn't work for stuff we're uncertain about?
the [I]entire point[/I] of the scientific method is about reasoning under uncertainty (it's a special case approximation of bayesian inference)
[QUOTE=archangel125;40162176]If, for example, all of humanity agreed that rape and murder were wrong, there'd be no rapes and murders, except from the mentally ill. And we know that this is not the case, because people can justify anything if they're determined to do it. Therefore, there is no aspect of right and wrong all of humanity agrees upon all the time, therefore there is no universal standard.[/quote]
"If"
Is it actually the case that rape is seen as universally bad in every society?
Because I'm pretty sure there's some cultures which have different rules on rape, thereby making it that rape isn't seen as universally bad.
I think it's actually more likely that humans have a basic ability to rape, and that culture modifies how likely it is for them to do so (and which ones will do).
[quote]As for creatures that would have died out if they failed to conform to society, early tribes and civilizations would exile or execute members of their group who broke the rules - Exile is as good as a death sentence, btw.[/quote]
Yes, and they were removed and left no descendants (or at least nobody had sex with them). The only ones left would be those who would continue to pass on those views on X.
[quote]As for the reason the scientific method does not apply, it's because even at the cutting edge of our study of psychology and behaviour, there is very, very much we do not yet understand, and there is NO way to consistently predict human behaviour.[/quote]
Although a unifying theory has yet to exist, some experiments have given curious findings. For instance, we know that humans tend to reciprocate, even if they don't like the other person. They also tend to obey authority figures.
[quote]In physics, outside of the quantum level, we can predict results consistently. The scientific method can be used there, because the results will be the same in the same situation every time.
That does not apply to people, and using VERY narrow definitions (which is what IQ testing and the longitudinal study does) fails to describe anything; It also fails to account for social conditions, history, individual background, illness, nutrition, education, and more.
I've said it before. I will repeat myself. Using a method that will not solve the problem to get results without examining all facets of the problem proves nothing - Not a thing.[/QUOTE]
Which is why you should be taking those aspects into account in research. A lot of research unfortunately doesn't do this (or worse, refuses to be falsifiable). I mean for fucks sake, sometimes Marxist views and Psychoanalysis are still being taken seriously.
If you want to study human behaviour, a good place to start is to investigate which behaviours are universal among all humans, and try to figure out why.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;40160062]How are we allies with these barbarians?
Right, the oil.[/QUOTE]
I'd hardly say the USA is exactly the bastion of a just and reasonable penal system anyway
here's to you, Guantanamo!
[QUOTE=archangel125;40162322]Sure, it's scientific. The study results will still mean nothing unless you can account for EVERY variable, however.[/QUOTE]
Which is why you try to do your best.
We get a experiment which doesn't take X into account.
It's still the best explanation we have.
Once you do an experiment which takes that into account, then that explanation becomes more favourable.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;40160062]How are we allies with these barbarians?
Right, the oil.[/QUOTE]
Are you just ignoring the fact that a massive portion of America's oil comes from Canada and Venezuela, moreso than Saudi-Arabia?
[QUOTE=archangel125;40162322]Sure, it's scientific. The study results will still mean nothing unless you can account for EVERY variable, however.[/QUOTE]
that's an unreasonably high standard of evidence
like
by that logic, anthropogenic climate change is unscientific because we can't control for all of the variables
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;40159055]Lol are we in the BC era[/QUOTE]
In Saudi Arabia they use the Islamic calendar making it 1434 AH, not AD but might as well be 1434 AD
Seems reasonable. At 14 I, and everyone I've known, were smart enough to know that stabbing your friends is bad.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40162342]"If"
Is it actually the case that rape is seen as universally bad in every society?
Because I'm pretty sure there's some cultures which have different rules on rape, thereby making it that rape isn't seen as universally bad.
I think it's actually more likely that humans have a basic ability to rape, and that culture modifies how likely it is for them to do so (and which ones will do).
Yes, and they were removed and left no descendants (or at least nobody had sex with them). The only ones left would be those who would continue to pass on those views on X.
Although a unifying theory has yet to exist, some experiments have given curious findings. For instance, we know that humans tend to reciprocate, even if they don't like the other person. They also tend to obey authority figures.
Which is why you should be taking those aspects into account in research. A lot of research unfortunately doesn't do this (or worse, refuses to be falsifiable). I mean for fucks sake, sometimes Marxist views and Psychoanalysis are still being taken seriously.
If you want to study human behaviour, a good place to start is to investigate which behaviours are universal among all humans, and try to figure out why.[/QUOTE]
Universal behaviours: Breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping, excreting waste, etc.
According to the scientific method, if you claim that something is a universal human behaviour, but a single human being fails to engage in that behaviour among all the human beings on the planet, either you refuse to class that anomaly as human, or your theory isn't specific enough.
Also, tendencies in human behaviour are not the same as consistently predictable outcomes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.