NamelessFaceless wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:That wouldn't be christian.

Well, it's kind of the whole philosophy behind Christianity, isn't it? That we're all just a bunch of bad kids who deserve to be punished because of all the bad things we've done."

Yeah, I'm a sinner. I have been really naughty. Someone needs to punish me.

quas wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Charlou wrote:I find the "it never did me any harm" justification interesting ... Recently came across an article about initiation rituals, the upshot of which suggested that the psychology of the victim of initiation often defaulted to acceptance of what happened in order to make sense of it, and to normalise it .. as a form of ego preservation. I'll try and find it.

That's be helpful, although I suspect it will consistent with the experience of many who go through therapy that they have normalised abusive behaviour.

A child really has little or no concept of "normal" and what occurs within the bounds of their family is normalised by them. It is only when they reach an age that they have experience about how other children were treated by their parents that they can put "normal" behaviour into some sort of context.

Probably just a variant of Stockholm Syndrome.

Pretty much.

'default' probably isn't the right term for it. 'resort' perhaps?

NamelessFaceless wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:That wouldn't be christian.

Well, it's kind of the whole philosophy behind Christianity, isn't it? That we're all just a bunch of bad kids who deserve to be punished because of all the bad things we've done."

In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince men that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from. Christianity has nothing to offer a happy man living in a natural, intelligible universe. If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action. In the eyes of Christianity, man is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.
George H. Smith - Atheism: The Case Against God

NamelessFaceless wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:That wouldn't be christian.

Well, it's kind of the whole philosophy behind Christianity, isn't it? That we're all just a bunch of bad kids who deserve to be punished because of all the bad things we've done (Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.") And someone has to be punished for our misdeeds. But then this cool guy Jesus came along and took our licks for us. That dude "saved" us! What a friend we have in Jesus!

Maybe this is why Mick is having a hard time letting go of the retributive philosophy. Once you accept that no one deserves to suffer, it may lead to the conclusion that no one needs the services of a "savior."

Why is it true that no one deserves to suffer? Explain that to me.

Mick wrote:No one reasoned that prisons are in such-and-such way, and so that must be OK.

Well hang on a cotton pickin'. In response to this by me:

What are you attempting to say here? That prisons suck and this is because ''we'' want people to suffer and this is as it should be? You need to argue for that.

You replied:

I'm getting there. First we need to accept retributivism in principle.

So although you may not yet have argued this, you are apparently ''getting there''. So get there already, and then we can all have a good chuckle.

Instead, I pointed out that are prisons are this way, that is, fashioned toward retributive justice, and hence that is good evidence that we think retributive justice is OK.

Which is basically what you just said you're not saying, but you use ''we'' because you apparently, absurdly, assume this distances you from involvement in that thought. In any event, you're still using ''we'' when I've told you I'm not a part of it.

Otherwise, we'd be inconsistent, and surely we are not.

Again, I'm not a part of your ''we'', because I do not agree that retributive justice is OK, so I need not care that other people think it is so, commenting as I am from my own viewpoint.

Aside from the hug-a-thugs and such,

Straw man.

many North Americans agree with the idea of retributive justice to some degree, I reckon.

Who fuckin cares what you reckon, and what exactly do you think you're achieving by stating that many North Americans agree with the idea of retributive justice? Allowing us all to see that you're capable of appealing to popularity? Well done, I guess...

You might object that you're not included in this 'we' stuff, and that's fine. I'm able to speak generally insofar as most people within the scope of reference, indeed a great many, agree with the line of thinking I attribute to them. Likewise, I can say we agree with democracy, even though a few here and there, do not.

Yeah...the problem is that you asked me directly if I did not want a child rapist to suffer, apparently surprised that anyone wouldn't, and on the back of that you started to tag this ''we'' crap, presumably to show me I was out of step with a majority, like it was important. You're just continuing your argument from popularity here. Unimpressive.

Moving on, your ideas are muddled.

Oh? OK, let's see.

When we give someone a medal, someone who won a race, say, we do it because they deserve it. This is true even if the medal promotes nothing; it is true even if it had no positive results in future behavior, no positive reinforcement. Of course that it also offers positive reinforcement is another motivator, and a good one at that. However, it is not necessary. The winner deserves his prize; and so he gets it. Likewise, we someone only earns a silver or a bronze, rather than the gold, it is because someone else deserved the gold better than he. This silver winner deserves silver, not the gold; and hence he doesn't get the gold.

Aw Mick, no, that's not my muddled ideas. That's you not understanding what was said to you. Do you remember what you said? Hmm? You said you wonder why there is a resistance to people getting what they ''deserve'' when it comes to punishment (another shifting, this time away from ''suffering'' to something broader still...so we have gone from ''spanking'' to ''suffering'' to ''punishment''). I explained why, taking you at your word that you didn't know. It's because it's not actually the same thing, hasty though you are to claim it is.

Remember - I think the idea of anyone ''deserving'' suffering is idiotic and illogical, among other things. Rewarding people is another matter. So you can pontificate all day long about how race winners get gold medals because they ''deserve'' them. You can sing it in the Royal Albert Hall to a sell-out audience every night of the week from now until Christmas if you like. When you eventually stop and you're so hoarse from whinnying you can't do your Hail Marys, you'll still not have gained a fraction of an inch of ground for your claim that giving rewards for achievement and good behaviour and ''retributive justice'' are the same and therefore anyone who accepts one and not the other is being inconsistent.

You need to grant this: things can be given simply because they are deserved, regardless of whether it is an instance of positive reinforcement.

No, Mick, I don't - in order to think that someone ''deserves'' pain, one has to accept that concept as valid. I don't - the idea of deserving pain is idiotic, for reasons I've already given. Your claim here doesn't hold true. It's that simple.

Now, the logic with retributivism in justice is not that 'all x is wrong; and you did x; and I hence I will do x to you'. That's a little dumb, and it is a strawman. Instead, behaviors are wrong or permissible in relation to privilege, status and authority, and in relation to justification. For instance, it is a captain of a ship can behave in ways different from the rest; he has different authoritative powers. It is wrong for a member of the crew to imprison another member, but not wrong for a captain, so long as he has justification. It is wrong for a child to drive, but not an adult. A sibling does not have parental authority, but parents do, etc..

This is a lovely winding country lane - I can see many hedgerow plants and little birds and other creatures which make it their home. Look yonder - there is a butterfly - a tortoiseshell, I believe...observe how its wings glimmer in the afternoon sunlight. See how the baby blackbird sits upon the verge, shouting stridently, its yellow gape still evident, to its parents who perch on a nearby branch, bidding it fly, fly. It's a lovely lane, but it's a pure waste of time. You assume justification when that's the very thing under discussion. Retributive justice - the act of causing suffering to someone as a punishment for causing suffering to someone - is an idiotic notion. Aside from being logically incoherent and circular, it doesn't actually work. On top of that, none of your little vignettes above is relevant because not a one of them actually has anything to do with retributive justice - the topic under discussion.

In the case of violent bullying, the charge against the child is that 'bullying is wrong', 'tarnishing the family name is wrong', 'hitting another person unjustly is wrong', etc.. Thus, you deserve to be spanked or hit by your parent. Notice that none of this carries the inconsistency you tried to attribute-there is no formal inconsistency of any sort.

I'm not under hypnosis, you know that, right? When I wake up I will not think that there is no inconsistency because you've suggested to me there is no inconsistency. You've just illustrated the idiocy of that position perfectly - violent bullying is wrong so the bully deserves to be spanked or hit. But it's worse than that. Apparently it's also not inconsistent to punish ''tarnishing the family name" (whatever the fuck that means) with physical pain. Ain't that grand.

Hell, the way you reason, imprisonment would be inconsistent as a sentence for the crime of unlawful detainment. lol.

Yeek! Talk about nails down a blackboard. No, dear. No it wouldn't. Do you remember what it is we are discussing? I say, do you remember what we are discussing. Have a quick look back at your thread title and OP and all your posts and all my posts.

Fallible: Do you grant me this:

People should get things they deserve.

Nothing about this commits you to the idea that people deserve to suffer; it is just the commitment to deserts. People should get whatever it is they deserve. An instance of this would be the Olympians. Do you agree? If not, why?


Also: I've explained why the family name is important. you ignored it.

Mick wrote:Fallible: Do you grant me this:

People should get things they deserve.

Nothing about this commits you to the idea that people deserve to suffer; it is just the commitment to deserts. People should get whatever it is they deserve. An instance of this would be the Olympians. Do you agree? If not, why?

Oh lordy...Mick, what possible use could you get out of that? The very crux of the matter is that we disagree on what it is that people deserve. Surely you understand that much.

Also: I've explained why the family name is important. you ignored it.

You're not paying attention, and that's causing you to misunderstand what's being said. The glaring issue is that you don't think there's a problem with ''punishing'' such a transgression with physical violence and pain.

Mick wrote:People should get things they deserve.

And what is it that any given person deserves?

Or do you think that people should get what they think they deserve?
Or that people should get what other people think they deserve?

Who is the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes deserving?

Fallible wrote:

Oh lordy...Mick, what possible use could you get out of that? The very crux of the matter is that we disagree on what it is that people deserve. Surely you understand that much...You're not paying attention, and that's causing you to misunderstand what's being said. The glaring issue is that you don't think there's a problem with ''punishing'' such a transgression with physical violence and pain.

I'm going to presume you have no problem with this:

1. People should get what they deserve.

So, let me extend:

2.Sometimes people deserve negative things.

Ok, do you agree with 2? Think of negative grades; think of an F grade on a paper, for instance. Suppose someone put no effort in his essay, or he even plagiarized. It is fair, I think, to grant that he earns his bad grade, and it is a negative thing, I reckon. It will have a negative impact.

If you do, then from 1 and 2, you're committed to 3:

3. Sometimes people should get negative things.


I'm building up here. I'm trying to find the sticking point, if there is something more rudimentary at work here.

Try this one too:

4. Adults who murder deserve the loss of their freedom.
5. A person who loses their freedom suffers.


If you agree, you seem committed (though not inferentially) to the idea that some desert causing suffering is OK. If you don't, which idea do you disagree with?

Mick wrote:

NamelessFaceless wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:That wouldn't be christian.

Well, it's kind of the whole philosophy behind Christianity, isn't it? That we're all just a bunch of bad kids who deserve to be punished because of all the bad things we've done (Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.") And someone has to be punished for our misdeeds. But then this cool guy Jesus came along and took our licks for us. That dude "saved" us! What a friend we have in Jesus!

Maybe this is why Mick is having a hard time letting go of the retributive philosophy. Once you accept that no one deserves to suffer, it may lead to the conclusion that no one needs the services of a "savior."

Why is it true that no one deserves to suffer? Explain that to me.

Empathy! Simple. I don't like suffering, it makes me uncomfortable and causes me a degree of distress to see and learn about other people suffering.
To deliberately wish to cause suffering to someone is a trait seen within psychopathic personalities. People of this type lack empathy towards their fellow man. Of course, we see emotions such as anger trample over our normal levels of empathy and this allows us to temporarily seek to injure someone as an attempt to redress the balance. I assume it is the latter type of retributive justice that Mick is keen to discuss or promote the idea of, which I'm not sure since he never answers my questions.
As such, unless we are to strive towards a psychopathic system of behaviour modification, embracing the desire to cause suffering to people who we judge to have done wrong, we must accept that a retributive system is there to address the anger people feel towards miscreants.
Now whilst I may be attempting to promote a more rational approach to the treatment of transgressors, I myself am not perfect, as I'm sure none of us are. Perhaps with some degree of honesty, we could all recall a time when we have become angry and in the midst of that anger, have acted in a rash manner and either lashed out at someone or something and gone beyond what could be considered 'a reasonable response'. This sort of action is invariably followed by a period of regret for most of us, we learn a little about temper control and anger management from it.
However, when we attempt to sit down as a society to consider our laws, we must be more considered surely than the angry mob, or what are we than emotionally irrational? Psychologists, criminologists, social workers, mental health professionals, prison officers and such professionals appreciate that offenders have done wrong and have caused pain, suffering and anger during their crimes but have the ability to see beyond that emotional baggage and objectively assess the situation.
Many serious offenders do not become serious offenders by chance. Their life experiences have shaped the way they think, the way they relate to others, their values, their ability to rationalise, to problem solve, to function in society. They have already been let down and in many cases, have suffered years of abuse already. Systems which should have protected them have failed to do so and because they have ended up behaving abnormally and causing suffering to others, some elements of society would prefer that we punish them by causing more suffering to them.
Is it really hugging a thug to be able to recognise a victim despite his behaviour? Is it so bad to wish to repair the damage, to try to give someone the chance of getting some of the enjoyment of life the rest of us take for granted, albeit safely and risk assessed throughout?
Not all offenders are going to get those chances,some, such as Paul Bernardo are probably too damaged to ever be considered safe to release but to wish him to suffer more than he did already as a child? Rational or anger driven?
Is it hugging a thug to know from studies that offender treatment programme s are far more effective in reducing repeat offending?
We come then back to spanking. Is it too much of a leap in reasoning to add together what we know from studies on behaviour modification and spanking's ineffective role in such, added to the potential for role modelling violence and bullying behaviour, to wish to see spanking totally prohibited?
The only reason I see for people trying to justify spanking is to cover their inadequate parenting and poor anger control. There is nothing for the child to gain from spanking except physical pain, emotional trauma and abuse that if delivered to an adult would see assault charges brought.

Mick wrote:1. People should get what they deserve.

Who says so? And what should they get?

Mick wrote:2.Sometimes people deserve negative things.

Again, who says so?

Mick wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Oh lordy...Mick, what possible use could you get out of that? The very crux of the matter is that we disagree on what it is that people deserve. Surely you understand that much...You're not paying attention, and that's causing you to misunderstand what's being said. The glaring issue is that you don't think there's a problem with ''punishing'' such a transgression with physical violence and pain.

I'm going to presume you have no problem with this:

1. People should get what they deserve.

Why presume that? I've made no comment on any ''should''. You're looking at this issue from a fundamentally different perspective from me. Your view is one of the importance of ''shoulds'' and ''just deserts'' and vindictiveness and retribution. Of some absolute punitive moral authority adhered to. Mine isn't. I told you that. I don't tend to make ''should'' statements and I don't think those things I listed are important or necessary or effective. Therefore I am highly unlikely to frame any statement in the way you just have.

So, let me extend:

It's not an extension, it's a different matter.

2.Sometimes people deserve negative things.

Ok, do you agree with 2? Think of negative grades; think of an F grade on a paper, for instance. Suppose someone put no effort in his essay, or he even plagiarized. It is fair, I think, to grant that he earns his bad grade, and it is a negative thing, I reckon. It will have a negative impact.

No, I don't agree with it.

If you do, then from 1 and 2, you're committed to 3:

3. Sometimes people should get negative things.

I don't. So I'm not.

I'm building up here. I'm trying to find the sticking point, if there is something more rudimentary at work here.

The problem is you're building up from a fundamental misunderstanding. Consequently you've ended up with nothing.

Try this one too:

4. Adults who murder deserve the loss of their freedom.
5. A person who loses their freedom suffers.


If you agree,

I don't. That's awful.

you seem committed (though not inferentially) to the idea that some desert causing suffering is OK. If you don't, which idea do you disagree with?

Why not try reading my posts? It's all there. The position that people ''deserve'' suffering is not one I hold, for the reasons I've given. What seems to be happening here is that you view this from a standpoint of vindictiveness and retribution against a backdrop of some imagined objective frame of reference and I don't. It all flows from there.

Mick wrote:

1. People should get what they deserve.

That depends on so many things. For instance, should somebody get a surprise that someone else thinks they deserve or what they themselves think they deserve or is there some set in stone measure of what a person deserves for an action? Its too simplistic and an obvious set up for your next questions.

2.Sometimes people deserve negative things.

Ok, do you agree with 2? Think of negative grades; think of an F grade on a paper, for instance. Suppose someone put no effort in his essay, or he even plagiarized. It is fair, I think, to grant that he earns his bad grade, and it is a negative thing, I reckon. It will have a negative impact.

In this specific example, the person gets the grade their work, or label of effort reflected in their work merits. The criteria for marking is set in stone so to speak, it is predetermined. As to whether it is negative or not is subjective. Someone might have worked their butt off to get this grade and it may be positive for them.

3. Sometimes people should get negative things.

Why should they? People do get negative things but why should they? Surely we should be striving for a world where we limit the amount of negative things people get rather than accepting that they do or even that they should.

I'm building up here. I'm trying to find the sticking point, if there is something more rudimentary at work here.

Try this one too:

4. Adults who murder deserve the loss of their freedom.
5. A person who loses their freedom suffers.


If you agree, you seem committed (though not inferentially) to the idea that some desert causing suffering is OK. If you don't, which idea do you disagree with?

Adults who murder should be locked up because they are dangerous, not because they deserve their loss of freedom. They may suffer due to their incarceration but the primary goal should not be their suffering but the safety of others.
I have already explained in previous posts that they should be assessed and be given treatment and why.
Punishments even as extreme as the death penalty do not deter others. Long sentences don't either. Treatment programmes are far more effective!! Perhaps its time to consider other options to punishment by causing suffering and trying to justify it.

Mick wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Oh lordy...Mick, what possible use could you get out of that? The very crux of the matter is that we disagree on what it is that people deserve. Surely you understand that much...You're not paying attention, and that's causing you to misunderstand what's being said. The glaring issue is that you don't think there's a problem with ''punishing'' such a transgression with physical violence and pain.

I'm going to presume you have no problem with this:

1. People should get what they deserve.

Who decided this? Why should anyone get "what they deserve" and who decides what anyone deserves?
Why not just live and strive towards everyone in the society working towards making the society successful without any thought of reward?

So, let me extend:

2.Sometimes people deserve negative things.

On whose authority?
Who decides what is negative and what isn't?
Does this apply to all people, in all instances, in all societies?

Ok, do you agree with 2? Think of negative grades; think of an F grade on a paper, for instance. Suppose someone put no effort in his essay, or he even plagiarized. It is fair, I think, to grant that he earns his bad grade, and it is a negative thing, I reckon. It will have a negative impact.

No. I don't agree with 2. Negative grades, as in an F on a paper, could simply be that the child isn't interested in the subject, hates being made to study it, has long lost interest in it, and is only doing it because the parents have insisted, so he/she keeps failing at the subject. Why should he/she continue to be punished for simply not being interested?

If you do, then from 1 and 2, you're committed to 3:

3. Sometimes people should get negative things.

Using the above example, why should the child be further punished when studying the subject for which he/she is getting failing grades when sitting through the classes, and reading the material is already a punishment?

I'm building up here. I'm trying to find the sticking point, if there is something more rudimentary at work here.

You don't say.

Try this one too:

4. Adults who murder deserve the loss of their freedom.
5. A person who loses their freedom suffers.

Why? Why should someone who is obviously not capable of empathy, and who can't see that taking the life of another person is wrong be "punished?" Why shouldn't they rather be taught to behave differently by behaviour modification therapy?

If you agree, you seem committed (though not inferentially) to the idea that some desert causing suffering is OK. If you don't, which idea do you disagree with?

No, causing suffering to any living thing is wrong. No matter what.
In the extreme case of a completely messed up psychopathic serial killer who is totally beyond being helped, maybe a quick bullet the back of the head might be a better solution? Who knows? I certainly don't think that making the person sit through twenty years of incarceration, and lawyers get rich, and the tax-paying public's money is spent, while appeal after appeal is lodged, until an extremely painful form of capital punishment is carried out, is the way to deter them. The money would be far better spent in identifying possible serial killers early on in their lifetimes and using behaviour modification to prevent them carrying out their fantasies. Prisons full of people being "punished" certainly doesn't appear to be stopping people from committing serious crime. Just as beating children for failing at subjects they're not interested in studying doesn't appear to be making them more studious.

It's all just catholic doctrine interpreted in the modern era. Ignore it. It will all go away eventually.

Yeah, retribution, that works well.

The whole business of "crime" and "punishment" needs to be rethought. Vindictive retribution for failing to meet someone else's standards is just wrong. As monkeyboy points out, sometimes kids don't achieve the levels their parents think they're capable of simply because the level they do achieve is all they're capable of.

Parents make stupid decisions about their children's education all the time and they project their own ambitions onto their children. You could have a parent who is in a profession wanting their children, none of whom have an interest in the profession, to follow in their footsteps, or a child who doesn't have the same kind of "mind" for the profession. Think for instance of tenant farming in the past. Male children were made to go into the same work that their parents did. If a man was a blacksmith, his son had to learn the work and take over from the father, and maintain the work within the family. Even if the child was a gifted artist, he simply had to shoe horses because that was what he was born into. It's this sort of mentality that many parents employ in the education of their children.

Or they deny a child an opportunity simply because another child failed at the thing the child is interested in pursuing. Then when the second child fails at what he/she is made to do, the parents punish the child without consulting the child about what their interests are. Sometimes children need to try a whole lot of different things to find the one that attracts their attention enough to succeed at it.

Punishing a child because it fails at something is wrong. Finding out the reason for the failure: is the child interested, is the teacher doing his/her job properly, is the coursework beyond the child's level of intellect, is there another problem at school? The list could go on. It's not always because the child is a criminal.

Mazille wrote:

NamelessFaceless wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:That wouldn't be christian.

Well, it's kind of the whole philosophy behind Christianity, isn't it? That we're all just a bunch of bad kids who deserve to be punished because of all the bad things we've done."

Yeah, I'm a sinner. I have been really naughty. Someone needs to punish me.

It's a very peculiar idea. An all-forgiving God who has to punish misdeeds, when He could simply forgive.

quas wrote:

Mazille wrote:

NamelessFaceless wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:That wouldn't be christian.

Well, it's kind of the whole philosophy behind Christianity, isn't it? That we're all just a bunch of bad kids who deserve to be punished because of all the bad things we've done."

Yeah, I'm a sinner. I have been really naughty. Someone needs to punish me.

It's a very peculiar idea. An all-forgiving God who has to punish misdeeds, when He could simply forgive.

Not only that, an all-knowing god who has the ability to prevent something happening, but not doing that. He would know when a child was going to become a serial killer, why not just not allow the child to be conceived. But then this is where the "free choice" bullshit comes into the story. The serial killer, a psychopath who isn't able to understand empathy, or know that other people don't see the world the way he/she does, isn't capable of making choices. Which is why a bullet to the back of the head is a better idea.

Onyx8 wrote:It's all just catholic doctrine interpreted in the modern era. Ignore it. It will all go away eventually.

Yeah, retribution, that works well.

...but not very "christian"...

Jebus via Matthew wrote:5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

redwhine wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:It's all just catholic doctrine interpreted in the modern era. Ignore it. It will all go away eventually.

Yeah, retribution, that works well.

...but not very "christian"...

Matthew wrote:5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Yep, if a serial killer kills your mother, give him your father also!