The Weapon

Pages:
1
2
3
4

The Weapon
Tweet Topic Started: Mar 30 2011, 08:07 AM (2,247 Views)
Big Richard	May 1 2011, 07:08 PM Post #61
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	lol that quote Reagan said is stupid, society is always guilty for no one is born a psychopath or a sociopath, no one steals unless they're starving or a kleptomaniac, etc. There's a reason or motive behind every crime, if society was more kind to the troubled (such as an abundance of wealth/ even distribution) there would be no need for petty crimes, and the only crimes there would be, would be committed by those who can't psychologically function such as schizophrenics.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	May 2 2011, 11:02 AM Post #62
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	Big Richard May 1 2011, 07:08 PM lol that quote Reagan said is stupid, society is always guilty for no one is born a psychopath or a sociopath, no one steals unless they're starving or a kleptomaniac, etc. There's a reason or motive behind every crime, if society was more kind to the troubled (such as an abundance of wealth/ even distribution) there would be no need for petty crimes, and the only crimes there would be, would be committed by those who can't psychologically function such as schizophrenics. Hmmm... I agree with your motif in its essence, but, if I was more vociferously prepared, I would challenge that phrase of yours.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


DragonLegend	May 5 2011, 01:51 AM Post #63
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Saladin, I was not discussing the judicial system. I'm talking about the morality of treating murderers and rapists this way. @ Jam: Still a straw man. I said nothing about giving them the worst treatment possible short of torture. Yes, some are angry about it. Do their feelings not mean anything? You don't need to evade the law and take over an African nation to live like a king. In Norway, you simply have to find someone to rape or murder, and voila, guaranteed to live for a few years (believe it or not, Norway has no life imprisonment. The maximum sentence is only about a couple dozen years, I believe -- actually, that's more like just over a dozen years, since the prison year in Norway is only 9 months -- But hey, the system "works"! ) in a place most people in the world (nay, the Western world) can only dream of. Rehabilitation is a privilege, not a right. When those... people, commit crimes such as rape or cold-blooded murder, they rescind many of their rights, including the right to life. It's acceptable to banish them from this world, then, for any reason; revenge, justice, protection of society, among others. Remember, this is an argument about morality, not legality. Norway's message is clear: Do whatever you want, and the most we'll do to you is put you in a spa for a few years.



_Saladin_	May 5 2011, 03:07 AM Post #64
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	Judicial system or not, your argument is still a fallacy. I guess you didn't reply to that part of my post for a reason.



Jam	May 5 2011, 07:30 AM Post #65
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	Quote: Still a straw man. I said nothing about giving them the worst treatment possible short of torture. Yes, some are angry about it. Do their feelings not mean anything? So then you are okay with murderers and rapists being given more than what is needed to maintain health in prison? That's not the impression you gave me, but apparently I was wrong. It makes no sense to determining a sentence based on how upset the victims are. If the victim is apathetic then you don't need to punish the criminal as much, or if the victim is devasted you should punish the criminal much more harshly? Quote: You don't need to evade the law and take over an African nation to live like a king. In Norway, you simply have to find someone to rape or murder, and voila, guaranteed to live for a few years (believe it or not, Norway has no life imprisonment. The maximum sentence is only about a couple dozen years, I believe -- actually, that's more like just over a dozen years, since the prison year in Norway is only 9 months -- But hey, the system "works"! ) in a place most people in the world (nay, the Western world) can only dream of. Norway's message is clear: Do whatever you want, and the most we'll do to you is put you in a spa for a few years. You're going to criticise others for strawmen arguments and then make them yourself. Seriously. "The maximum indeterminate penalty, called "containment" (Norwegian: forvaring), is also set at 21 years imprisonment, and the prisoner is required to serve at least 10 years before becoming eligible for parole. "Containment" is used when the prisoner is deemed a danger to society and there is a great chance of committing violent crimes in the future. If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the prisoner can receive up to five years additional containment. If the additional time is served, and the offender is still considered dangerous, a prisoner can continue to receive up to five years additional containment, and this, in theory, could result in actual life imprisonment". Quote: Rehabilitation is a privilege, not a right. When those... people, commit crimes such as rape or cold-blooded murder, they rescind many of their rights, including the right to life. Rehabilitation is the goal, not a right. Criminals do not lose the right to life unless they are given a death penalty. Quote: It's acceptable to banish them from this world, then, for any reason; revenge, justice, protection of society, among others. Remember, this is an argument about morality, not legality. I think it's acceptable for some cases, but not for 'any reason'. How do deal with criminals is a matter of legality and ethics, morality differs between individuals, that's no basis for a justice system.
	Long live Carolus


DragonLegend	May 6 2011, 09:49 AM Post #66
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ May 5 2011, 03:07 AM Judicial system or not, your argument is still a fallacy. I guess you didn't reply to that part of my post for a reason. What fallacy? I was talking about the morality of treating a criminal a certain way. "How would the victim feel?" is pretty relevant in such a discussion.



DragonLegend	May 6 2011, 10:10 AM Post #67
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam May 5 2011, 07:30 AM So then you are okay with murderers and rapists being given more than what is needed to maintain health in prison? That's not the impression you gave me, but apparently I was wrong. Depends on what you mean by "more than what is needed to maintain health." Preferably, all rapists and certain murderers would be locked in a cell 24/7 for the rest of their lives. I don't know if you consider that torture or just short of torture. Quote: It makes no sense to determining a sentence based on how upset the victims are. If the victim is apathetic then you don't need to punish the criminal as much, or if the victim is devasted you should punish the criminal much more harshly? I said nothing about the legal system. I'm discussing morality, not legality. Quote: You're going to criticise others for strawmen arguments and then make them yourself. Seriously. "The maximum indeterminate penalty, called "containment" (Norwegian: forvaring), is also set at 21 years imprisonment, and the prisoner is required to serve at least 10 years before becoming eligible for parole. "Containment" is used when the prisoner is deemed a danger to society and there is a great chance of committing violent crimes in the future. If the prisoner is still considered dangerous after serving the original sentence, the prisoner can receive up to five years additional containment. If the additional time is served, and the offender is still considered dangerous, a prisoner can continue to receive up to five years additional containment, and this, in theory, could result in actual life imprisonment". I know about it. But how often is it used? I heard very rarely, and judging by how Norway treats rapists and murderers, I find that quite believable. This is one of those criminal laws that are on the books but nobody really uses them. Also, if I'm reading this right, this "containment" penalty is only 21 years? Add that to the maximum normal penalty of 21, and you get 42 years (assuming that's in prison years, it's much less than that, since Norway's prison year is just over half an actual year). In what world is 42 years a life sentence? This isn't the 15 century. Quote: Rehabilitation is the goal, not a right. Criminals do not lose the right to life unless they are given a death penalty. The bolded is debatable. Either way, it's not a right. Criminals lose the right to life, morally, when they commit those crimes. Legally it's a whole 'nother thing, but that's not what we're discussing here. Again, this is a discussion about morality, not legality. Quote: I think it's acceptable for some cases, but not for 'any reason'. How do deal with criminals is a matter of legality and ethics, morality differs between individuals, that's no basis for a justice system. Again, this is about morality not legality. If a man went on a spree and axed children to death after raping them, would you think it's immoral for someone to kill that man?



_Saladin_	May 6 2011, 04:12 PM Post #68
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend May 6 2011, 09:49 AM _Saladin_ May 5 2011, 03:07 AM Judicial system or not, your argument is still a fallacy. I guess you didn't reply to that part of my post for a reason. What fallacy? I was talking about the morality of treating a criminal a certain way. "How would the victim feel?" is pretty relevant in such a discussion. Appeal to emotion, look it up.



DragonLegend	May 6 2011, 05:16 PM Post #69
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Yes... That's exactly what this thread is about...



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	May 6 2011, 05:19 PM Post #70
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	This thread is about the song The Weapon, by the band Rush; but all threads in this forum have a reputation for going off-topic rather quickly.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Jam	May 6 2011, 06:55 PM Post #71
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	Quote: Depends on what you mean by "more than what is needed to maintain health." Preferably, all rapists and certain murderers would be locked in a cell 24/7 for the rest of their lives. I don't know if you consider that torture or just short of torture. If you're talking about solitary confinement then it is torture. If not then what you are describing is the worst treatment without torture. You give them what they need to survive and nothing more, but you don't harm them. Quote: Quote: It makes no sense to determining a sentence based on how upset the victims are. If the victim is apathetic then you don't need to punish the criminal as much, or if the victim is devasted you should punish the criminal much more harshly? I said nothing about the legal system. I'm discussing morality, not legality. The exact same argument applies. If the victim is apathetic then the criminal doesn't deserve as much punishment, or if the victim is devasted the criminal deserves more punishment? Quote: I know about it. But how often is it used? I heard very rarely, and judging by how Norway treats rapists and murderers, I find that quite believable. This is one of those criminal laws that are on the books but nobody really uses them. Also, if I'm reading this right, this "containment" penalty is only 21 years? Add that to the maximum normal penalty of 21, and you get 42 years (assuming that's in prison years, it's much less than that, since Norway's prison year is just over half an actual year). In what world is 42 years a life sentence? This isn't the 15 century. How often it is used is irrelevant as long as it is used when it is appropriate. Nobody said that 42 years is a life sentence. Containment is an indeterminate sentence, meaning that it is 21 years plus more if they are still considered dangerous. The person does not have to be released after 21 years. Quote: Criminals lose the right to life, morally, when they commit those crimes. Legally it's a whole 'nother thing, but that's not what we're discussing here. Again, this is a discussion about morality, not legality. You don't get to state what is and isn't moral like it's some sort of fact. Quote: Quote: I think it's acceptable for some cases, but not for 'any reason'. How do deal with criminals is a matter of legality and ethics, morality differs between individuals, that's no basis for a justice system. Again, this is about morality not legality. If a man went on a spree and axed children to death after raping them, would you think it's immoral for someone to kill that man? "I think it's acceptable for some cases" such as the extreme cases which you always use. If you're going to talk about how certain type of criminals should be treated then of course ethics and the proper administration of justice is relevant. A vigilante killing should not be done, even if the person deserves it, because it is not neccessary and an individual cannot be trusted to make a sound judgement. Especially if they are emotionally involved.
	Long live Carolus


Incog	May 8 2011, 04:43 PM Post #72
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	A man by the name of Thomas Silverstein went to jail at the age of 19 for armed robbery, and later on killed 2 inmates (self-defence, or so he claims) and a prison guard and was therefore confined to the solitary for the next 28 years... Here's a small excerpt of his living conditions: Spoiler: click to toggle The cell was so small that I could stand in one place and touch both walls simultaneously. The ceiling was so low that I could reach up and touch the hot light fixture. My bed took up the length of the cell, and there was no other furniture at all�The walls were solid steel and painted all white. I was permitted to wear underwear, but I was given no other clothing. Shortly after I arrived, the prison staff began construction on the side pocket cell, adding more bars and other security measures to the cell while I was within it. In order not to be burned by sparks and embers while they welded more iron bars across the cell, I had to lie on my bed and cover myself with a sheet. It is hard to describe the horror I experienced during this construction process. As they built new walls around me it felt like I was being buried alive. It was terrifying. During my first year in the side pocket cell I was completely isolated from the outside world and had no way to occupy my time. I was not allowed to have any social visits, telephone privileges, or reading materials except a bible. I was not allowed to have a television, radio, or tape player. I could speak to no one and their was virtually nothing on which to focus my attention. I was not only isolated, but also disoriented in the side pocket. This was exacerbated by the fact that I wasn�t allowed to have a wristwatch or clock. In addition, the bright, artificial lights remained on in the cell constantly, increasing my disorientation and making it difficult to sleep. Not only were they constantly illuminated, but those lights buzzed incessantly. The buzzing noise was maddening, as there often were no other sounds at all. This may sound like a small thing, but it was my entire world. Due to the unchanging bright artificial lights and not having a wristwatch or clock, I couldn�t tell if it was day or night. Frequently, I would fall asleep and when I woke up I would not know if I had slept for five minutes or five hours, and would have no idea of what day or time of day it was. I tried to measure the passing of days by counting food trays. Without being able to keep track of time, though, sometimes I thought the officers had left me and were never coming back. I thought they were gone for days, and I was going to starve. It�s likely they were only gone for a few hours, but I had no way to know. I was so disoriented in Atlanta that I felt like I was in an episode of the twilight zone. I now know that I was housed there for about four years, but I would have believed it was a decade if that is what I was told. It seemed eternal and endless and immeasurable� There was no air conditioning or heating in the side pocket cells. During the summer, the heat was unbearable. I would pour water on the ground and lay naked on the floor in an attempt to cool myself� The only time I was let out of my cell was for outdoor recreation. I was allowed one hour a week of outdoor recreation. I could not see any other inmates or any of the surrounding landscape during outdoor recreation. There was no exercise equipment and nothing to do� My vision deteriorated in the side pocket, I think due to the constant bright lights, or possibly also because of other aspects of this harsh environment. Everything began to appear blurry and I became sensitive to light, which burned my eyes and gave me headaches. Nearly all of the time, the officers refused to speak to me. Despite this, I heard people who I believed to be officers whispering into my vents, telling me they hated me and calling me names. To this day, I am not sure if the officers were doing this to me, or if I was starting to lose it and these were hallucinations. In the side pocket cell, I lost some ability to distinguished what was real. I dreamt I was in prison. When I woke up, I was not sure which was reality and which was a dream. Here's the full document Silverstein wrote (64 pages). http://solitarywatch.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/silverstein-declaration.pdf
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


Incog	May 8 2011, 04:52 PM Post #73
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	I read the second half of the .pdf...... I might say that 3 murders is no big deal compared to solitary confinement. The guy has guts living it out for that long. :s
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


_Saladin_	May 8 2011, 06:14 PM Post #74
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend May 6 2011, 05:16 PM Yes... That's exactly what this thread is about... I can't tell if you're being sarcastic (which would be stupid), or if you don't think there's anything wrong with it.



DragonLegend	May 15 2011, 08:55 AM Post #75
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	I can't tell if you're simply incapable of serious, mature debate. Actually, I think I can, since I don't recall a single debate in which you were serious and mature. If you have nothing to say, you're free not to post.



DragonLegend	May 15 2011, 09:50 AM Post #76
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam May 6 2011, 06:55 PM If you're talking about solitary confinement then it is torture. If not then what you are describing is the worst treatment without torture. You give them what they need to survive and nothing more, but you don't harm them. I don't see how it's torture. It's still used in the developed world, although I believe they get a free hour, so it's more like 23/7. But that's not the topic here. Yes, I support putting murderers, rapists, pedophiles, kidnappers, among others, in a cell 24/7 for the rest of their lives. I oppose torture because it's illegal, but morally (which is what we're discussing here) I have no problem with it. Quote: The exact same argument applies. If the victim is apathetic then the criminal doesn't deserve as much punishment, or if the victim is devasted the criminal deserves more punishment? I don't know about 'deserve', but generally, if, say, someone steals a bike you own, and you couldn't care less about it, the criminal (from a moral perspective) shouldn't get the same punishment as someone who stole, say, a $50,000 gem with great emotional significance to you. I hope you know what I mean here. Quote: How often it is used is irrelevant as long as it is used when it is appropriate. Exactly. Is it used when appropriate? Or does the Norwegian government have its own definition of appropriate? If so, then you'll have to excuse me if I don't accept what you say, seeing that the Norwegian government also deems it morally and legally appropriate to treat rapists and murderers like misguided children who need Kumbaya singing and cooking classes. Quote: Nobody said that 42 years is a life sentence. Containment is an indeterminate sentence, meaning that it is 21 years plus more if they are still considered dangerous. The person does not have to be released after 21 years. That's not how I read it. "The maximum indeterminate penalty is set at 21 years" seems pretty self-explanatory. It seems that after they serve their original sentence (let's say the maximum 21 years), and the government deems them a threat to society, they can extend their imprisonment by 5 years, until they had served 21 years in prison (plus the original 21 years sentence), then the government has no choice but to release them. What "in theory, this could result in actual life imprisonment" means is that during those 42 years in prison, the criminal could die. While this is technically imprisonment until death, it's not what we're discussing here. If someone is imprisoned at 21, 42 years is nothing in a country where the life expectancy is 80 years. They'll still have quite a few years to go back to their evil ways. Do you think it's moral to take that risk? Quote: You don't get to state what is and isn't moral like it's some sort of fact. Moral relativism has no place in the real world. If my morality isn't the only morality, it's no morality. But again, this isn't the topic here. Quote: "I think it's acceptable for some cases" such as the extreme cases" which you always use. If you're going to talk about how certain type of criminals should be treated then of course ethics and the proper administration of justice is relevant. A vigilante killing should not be done, even if the person deserves it, because it is not neccessary and an individual cannot be trusted to make a sound judgement. Especially if they are emotionally involved. Again, Jam, this is about morality, not legality. I am of course against people going out and killing rapists and murderers, from a legal perspective. But if someone found out a recently-released, unrepentant rapist was living in the neighborhood, and they decided to simply kill them, I would be against that legally, but not morally, which is what the entire discussion is about.



Ichigo1uk	May 15 2011, 10:27 AM Post #77
Huh? Posts: 9,838 Group: A414A Member Member #10 Joined: December 14, 2007	Yer, no one cares enough.
	Incog Jan 19 2012, 05:34 PM I think unicorns have a higher chance of existing than gods do. I mean, if a mare fell into the ocean and a narwhal raped it, then the mare might just give birth to a unicorn.


gs	May 15 2011, 11:33 AM Post #78
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	DragonLegend May 15 2011, 08:55 AM I can't tell if you're simply incapable of serious, mature debate. Actually, I think I can, since I don't recall a single debate in which you were serious and mature. If you have nothing to say, you're free not to post. you need to learn to stop attacking people personally in debates. it's unnecessary and, ironically, immature.



Incog	May 15 2011, 02:38 PM Post #79
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	Besides, Saladin is perhaps one of the most serious debaters (aside from Jam) debater dudes here.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


_Saladin_	May 15 2011, 03:29 PM Post #80
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend May 15 2011, 08:55 AM I can't tell if you're simply incapable of serious, mature debate. Actually, I think I can, since I don't recall a single debate in which you were serious and mature. If you have nothing to say, you're free not to post. I'm going to let this one go because I happen to love irony.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	May 15 2011, 04:10 PM Post #81
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	Dragon, I found a picture of you on the internet;
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


DragonLegend	May 15 2011, 08:51 PM Post #82
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	gs May 15 2011, 11:33 AM DragonLegend May 15 2011, 08:55 AM I can't tell if you're simply incapable of serious, mature debate. Actually, I think I can, since I don't recall a single debate in which you were serious and mature. If you have nothing to say, you're free not to post. you need to learn to stop attacking people personally in debates. it's unnecessary and, ironically, immature. I didn't attack anybody personally. He was being unserious and immature. I called him unserious and immature. It's not a childish insult if it's an honest observation, and accusations of immaturity and lack of seriousness aren't exactly personal insults. It's not the first time he's done this either, so it's quite puzzling. Have I insulted Jam? or anybody here? No, sir, just Saladin (technically not an insult, but whatever), and possibly Richard after he kept using profanity and calling me names. Saladin is free to explain his points intelligently and maturely. But it seems he prefers to simply use vague, unserious one-liners. He's clearly not interested in a debate, so I just politely asked him why he's posting here. I wouldn't insult someone like Sal over a simple Internet discussion. I'm willing to discuss anything with anybody, as long as they can do so intelligently and maturely. If I were to reply to everyone's posts with meaningless one-liners on a serious discussion forum, I'd be banned within a week. I know all about the rules of debate, trust me.



DragonLegend	May 15 2011, 08:56 PM Post #83
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Incog May 15 2011, 02:38 PM Besides, Saladin is perhaps one of the most serious debaters (aside from Jam) debater dudes here. He should show it, then. A serious response in a debate is usually over one or two lines.



_Saladin_	May 15 2011, 11:41 PM Post #84
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	What you don't understand is that this isn't a debate. You've never had a debate on here. Ever. Debates are professional, anal, time constricted, turn based competitions. This is an informal discussion, I don't change my speech depending on if I'm talking to a friend or in a "debate". I change my speech depending on my mood. This deeply disturbs you, I can tell. You're so used to people following an imaginary set of rules when talking that you freak out when someone doesn't follow them and chooses to talk normally instead. I use one liners for conciseness, if someone wants me to elaborate on something specifically, I may choose to do so. I find that everything is so focused when you condense your words however. It also gives little opportunity for people to ignore bits of your post that they don't like, something which you, amazingly, still manage to do. Thus my posts keep getting shorter with you, and yet you still find a way to not respond. I've concluded that not even a simple one line post is small enough for you to not ignore. Had you taken a second to think a little bit about my post, you'll find that I made an important point, the same point that jam is trying to get you to see to no avail. Your argument is a logical fallacy called appeal to emotion. Let this sink in. Read the words again. Logical fallacy. This means that your reasoning is logically flawed. But, I have made a mistake, and I know it, but oh well, I got carried away. My mistake here is that this post is way too long. I would not be surprised if you started cherry picking through it, all the while wondering to yourself why no one seems to appreciate your debating genius. Do your worst.



Jam	May 16 2011, 07:42 AM Post #85
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	Quote: Yes, I support putting murderers, rapists, pedophiles, kidnappers, among others, in a cell 24/7 for the rest of their lives. I oppose torture because it's illegal, but morally (which is what we're discussing here) I have no problem with it. I think you mean that you oppose breaking the law, but if you think that torture should be legal then you support it. Quote: I don't know about 'deserve', but generally, if, say, someone steals a bike you own, and you couldn't care less about it, the criminal (from a moral perspective) shouldn't get the same punishment as someone who stole, say, a $50,000 gem with great emotional significance to you. I hope you know what I mean here. Both items need to be of equal value if the comparison is about emotion. So there's two bikes, one that you really like and one you don't care about. Of course you'll be more angry if the one you like is stolen, but to say the person should be punished more is revenge, why is it okay to punish people more because you want it. Quote: Exactly. Is it used when appropriate? Or does the Norwegian government have its own definition of appropriate? If so, then you'll have to excuse me if I don't accept what you say, seeing that the Norwegian government also deems it morally and legally appropriate to treat rapists and murderers like misguided children who need Kumbaya singing and cooking classes. Whether it's appropriate or not would be determined in the court. The rest of the quote is a non-sequiter followed by a misrepresentation of the rehabilitation process. Quote: That's not how I read it. "The maximum indeterminate penalty is set at 21 years" seems pretty self-explanatory. It seems that after they serve their original sentence (let's say the maximum 21 years), and the government deems them a threat to society, they can extend their imprisonment by 5 years, until they had served 21 years in prison (plus the original 21 years sentence), then the government has no choice but to release them. What "in theory, this could result in actual life imprisonment" means is that during those 42 years in prison, the criminal could die. While this is technically imprisonment until death, it's not what we're discussing here. If someone is imprisoned at 21, 42 years is nothing in a country where the life expectancy is 80 years. They'll still have quite a few years to go back to their evil ways. Do you think it's moral to take that risk? They can get either a determinate sentence set at 21 years and no more, or an indeterminate sentence set at 21 years plus additional terms of 5 years for as long as needed. I can't take you seriously when you tell me that 42 years, half of someone's life, is 'nothing'. There is no higher than normal risk if someone is reformed. Quote: Moral relativism has no place in the real world. If my morality isn't the only morality, it's no morality. But again, this isn't the topic here. Sorry, but your morality isn't the only morality, but don't worry that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist. Quote: Again, Jam, this is about morality, not legality. I am of course against people going out and killing rapists and murderers, from a legal perspective. But if someone found out a recently-released, unrepentant rapist was living in the neighborhood, and they decided to simply kill them, I would be against that legally, but not morally, which is what the entire discussion is about. Legality is about something being in accordance with the law, I'm talking ethics here, I'm not simply pointing out what is and isn't against the law. The discussion is about a number of things with the common theme of whether rehabilitation and giving second chances for crimes like murder is okay(which is not a question of only morality), and also some technicalities about the Norwegian legal system. It's not only about what you want to talk about.
	Long live Carolus


DragonLegend	May 17 2011, 06:55 PM Post #86
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Hyperactive Jam May 16 2011, 07:42 AM I think you mean that you oppose breaking the law, but if you think that torture should be legal then you support it. I do support it, in some cases, morally, but I don't think it should be legal. There's no need for torture, and it does more harm than good, so why use it? I simply said I have no problem with it from a moral standpoint. Quote: Both items need to be of equal value if the comparison is about emotion. So there's two bikes, one that you really like and one you don't care about. Of course you'll be more angry if the one you like is stolen, but to say the person should be punished more is revenge, why is it okay to punish people more because you want it. They are of equal value; I just wanted to put some variety there. Gem, bike, same thing here. Both of equal value, but not emotional value. So, if someone steals something they know you care deeply about, and another person steals something they know you couldn't care less about, from a moral perspective, who would you want to be punished more severely? Quote: Whether it's appopriate or not would be determined in the court. The same justice system that puts rapists and murderers in spas? That's not very comforting. Quote: The rest of the quote is a non-sequiter followed by a misrepresentation of the rehabilitation process [...] They can get either a determinate sentence set at 21 years and no more, or an indeterminate sentence set at 21 years plus additional terms of 5 years for as long as needed. Nothing I said is false, Jam. Read the Time article, and any other article about this. You, on the other hand, have yet to provide any evidence regarding your claims about the Norwegian government's policy on life imprisonment. Quote: I can't take you seriously when you tell me that 42 years, half of someone's life, is 'nothing'. There is no higher than normal risk if someone is reformed. It's not literally nothing. By 'nothing', I mean that they still have enough time to revert to crime after their release. We're ot talking about average Joes here. I'm talking about people who live and breathe crime, violence and evil. 42 years is not enough to sotp them. Quote: Sorry, but your morality isn't the only morality, but don't worry that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist. Subjective morality is no morality. Quote: Legality is about something being in accordance with the law, I'm talking ethics here, I'm not simply pointing out what is and isn't against the law. The discussion is about a number of things with the common theme of whether rehabilitation and giving second chances for crimes like murder is okay(which is not a question of only morality), and also some technicalities about the Norwegian legal system. It's not only about what you want to talk about. That explains why I (well, we) keep repeating ourselves. You're discussing legality (ethics or not, the theme is still the law), while I'm trying to keep this sdiscussion strictly about morality. All I'm saying is that, while something may be legal, that doesn't mean it's not immoral. The Norwegian government can stress rehabilitation over punishment. That's fine. What irks me is how utterly moral and perfectly okay they find giving subhuman creatures like rapists and murderers massages, singing classes, painting, cooking, yoga and whatnot. It's one thing to rehabilitate a criminal because you think it's better than punishing them, and quite another to treat that rapists like a kindergarten student who has done nothing wrong and is as pure as the driven snow.



DarkAngel	May 18 2011, 09:21 PM Post #87
Captain Posts: 501 Group: A414A Member Member #160 Joined: June 16, 2009	You rape someone ---> You should be fed your own testicles and hanged from a hook in your asshole till you die.



Ichigo1uk	May 18 2011, 09:37 PM Post #88
Huh? Posts: 9,838 Group: A414A Member Member #10 Joined: December 14, 2007	DarkAngel May 18 2011, 09:21 PM You rape someone ---> You should be fed your own testicles and hanged from a hook in your asshole till you die. What if they get comfortable.
	Incog Jan 19 2012, 05:34 PM I think unicorns have a higher chance of existing than gods do. I mean, if a mare fell into the ocean and a narwhal raped it, then the mare might just give birth to a unicorn.


Big Richard	May 19 2011, 10:49 PM Post #89
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	lmao



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	May 20 2011, 05:56 AM Post #90
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	Ichigo1uk May 18 2011, 09:37 PM DarkAngel May 18 2011, 09:21 PM You rape someone ---> You should be fed your own testicles and hanged from a hook in your asshole till you die. What if they get comfortable. Then they change the position, ofc.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience. Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4