Don't hate! Don't judge!

Now for the utterly stupid sayings plaguing Western culture these days:

"Don't hate!"

"Don't judge them just because they're different!"

"Everyone's different, and we must learn to accept differences."

No. Fuck that. Judging people is right. Having standards for your society is right. Set standards, judge people by them, and fuck them up if they fail to meet those standards. There is no rational reason to spout shit about it being good to accept differences simply because they're differences.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The poor, poor man and his poor, suffering wife are obviously mentally disturbed. They don't need our condemnation and punishment, they need our love and care and help. We should get them that help in mental care hospitals, cure them, then let them back out into the world again. If they do the crime again, we should repeat the same process because obviously they're just slightly more disturded than we first thought, and a little extra rest and care in a mental hospital will be good for them. Then we can let them back out again to test our cure and see if they fuck up another little boy. If they do....(rinse, repeat care, release again).

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He's evil. That's about as evil as it gets.

[okay, there are more eeeeevil things out there. . . but you get the picture]

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, and as a society, we need to give him three hot meals a day, a nice warm place to sleep, good medical and dental care, tv privileges, plenty of books to read,....... All paid for by the American taxpayer.

So the little boy is pretty much ignored, and I mean that in a real sense, while the taxpayers care for the abusers.

Baron Max

 

Your solution is?

~String

 

Execute them both, then use the money that we would have spent on the abusers and help the little boy. Society simply does not need people like that. Get rid of them ...and not locked up, either. "Rid" as in "execute". And don't give them lengthy appeals and such. Just do it.

Baron Max

 

I'm fine with that.

~String

 

They where both most likely abused as well. So we should execute the old and help the young. When does a human life become expendable. Every human deserves redemption no matter what their age.

 

There's a point in time, in every person's life, where they become responsible for their actions, no matter what happened to them in their past. Excuses go away, and they should be held accountible for who they are.

My dad was a heavily abused kid. His dad drank and philandered a lot. My dad is a stand-up guy who broke the cycle by choice. Every sane human being has a choice. Granted that each person has their limits; ultimately, those who display horrific patterns of behavior should be allowed by society to be deemed beyond redemption and, ultimately, executed.

Rapists. Molesters. Murderers.

~String

 

Superstring01.

You have power of altourney here as moderator and I have retracted any defamatory remark I have made to a member of sciforums via edit of post.

Yet your personal view to the circumstance and veracity of the subject is just that personal.

is your personal opinion.

I will endeavorer to refrain from personal attack of individual sciforum members but I will not be told to inhibit my personal view on topics on this site.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

In Australia we do not kill humans no matter what the crime.

 

people aren't responsible for their actions, their experiences and biology are responsible for their actions. You make a decision depending on your thoughts which are determined by experiences and biology. People who rape do so because they perceive the positive to outweigh the negative, which is how every person makes every decision, they just pick the best option. people should be held responsible for their actions because its a deterrent.

 

Are you psycho? People aren't responsible for their actions?

People have choices, just because they are predisposed to making bad decisions doesn't mean they aren't responsible or should not be held to account.

~String

 

String, the logic this person is giving is that you have your body, and I suppose your soul.

Now when you are do something bad, it's your bodies fault not your spirit, so you shouldnt punish the person because the spirit itself did nothing wrong.

Of course I think that's BS, I believe I suppose you have a "soul" for lack of a better word, but I dont believe it's some sort of "spiritual" or "G-dly" gift, I believe it is the result of trillions maybe even quadrillions of cells organized into the most incredibly complicated thing evolution has come up with which is the brain, and not just the human brain, just look at an ant, tiny, and yet somehow it can knows when to forage for food, when to attack, when eggs are going to hatch into larvae and where they must be moved to, and all with a head smaller than a grain of rice, now is that not incredible when you consider the incredible range of decisions and logic skills it has?

Now by my own logic id say that the brain is the puppeteer that controls your body and your own body does not have any decision making abilities unlike your "soul" (my word for describing the quadrillions of cells that make up our consciousness because "brain" is too general). So any bad action had to have come from your brain (I say brain because of Freud's life work which indicates that in your subconsciouss is another thing that influences behavior)

But also by his logic, it is the soul's fault too for standing by and allowing the body control.

Id look up Sigmund Freud's work it is incredibly cool

 

How far is too far?

Not all neuroses, though, result in diminished capacity to distinguish right and wrong.

 

i already said i agree with enforcing responsibility for people's actions because people need motivation to do the right thing.

my argument is based on determinism, a person's sense of logic and reasoning has been determined by experiences and values. they didn't control these initial experiences or values, which have shaped all of their decisions, so they're not responsible for them.

similar to what i'm saying, but with some weird terminology and stuff, so i'm not sure what you're talking about. i don't agree with all freudian perspective on thought, didn't he ignore the whole bandura's social learning theory aspect of conditioning or behaviour or whatever?

 

What am I missing?

Could you possibly expand on what you mean by that? Specifically, the part about ignoring Bandura? After all, Albert Bandura was all of thirteen years old when Sigmund Freud died.

 

Pfft, the older generations have no imagination. We should have reprobates like that fight to the death in an arena with rusty hooks and flamethrowers. Alternatively, the government could host 'stone the crim' days, similar to what occurs in Life of Brian.

 

i didn't mean ignore as in refuse to listen, but neglected to include. did Freud believe vicarious experience could affect behaviour (as bandura did)? it was a rushed post, and i wasn't sure if social learning theory was the right name, but thought mentioning bandura would clarify that.

 

Indeed, stuff like this disqusts me in so many ways.