Why should I die because my retarded dad kills some dude's son?

Why should I die because my retarded dad kills some dude's son?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GfCMRk-osJ8
pastebin.com/mzFJyxea
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Why should I die because my retarded dad kills some dude's son?

Why should I accept my son's murder just because you feel not responsible?
Between the two of us, you are way more responsible than me.

Actually, eye for an eye, is extremely fair. But unfortunately, some rich people want to do shit without punishment, so they were against a fair law.

But it should also be on an individual level. I can't pay my father's wrongdoings, not in blood at least, but in fame maybe. So a "in such cases" part should be made, which makes things more complex.

First you must justify the concept of retaliation/vengeance.

Because if decision making takes place in the brain, and the brain is a system of cause and effect, then what is the purpose of retaliating against such a system? What does it achieve? Why is it righteous? etc.

It seems like anyone who wants to retaliate is just reacting emotionally and not so much rationally.

Or put it this way: prove to me that free will exists. Prove that if you create 2 identical human genetic clones , and place them under the exact same circumstances, what reason we have to believe one of them will choose differently.

>Maybe it is time to accept Islam?

Gas yourself

>Prove that if you create 2 identical human genetic clones , and place them under the exact same circumstances, what reason we have to believe one of them will choose differently

That doesn't disprove free will.

>what reason we have to believe one of them will choose differently.

And even if they did choose differently, please show me a logical pathway to "therefore retaliation/vengeance" is justified. Because first you still have to find a logical pathway from "I can make a different choice" (which even a computer can do) to "therefore this means vengeance/retribution etc. is justified".

Let's see you unpack that.

Death penalty should be decided democratically.

The entire state decides whether the convicted dies or gets life.

that's not how "eye for an eye" works properly, your retarded dad would get killed for killing someone else

and really, what else makes sense? taking a life means forfeiting your own

Reciprocity as a justification for punishment is retarded.

Let's say you rape someone. Then your punishment is that you get raped. That's ridiculous. It's somehow simultaneously goes too far, but also doesn't go far enough, in that state sanctioned rape makes my stomach turn, but also I wouldn't feel safe knowing that a rapist was returned to the streets that quickly, with very little change to their likelihood of recidivism.

rolling in shill thread

I was making the extreme case first so that the discussion doesnt end up there 100 posts later.
I also think that dying just because ur father did something wrong is not completely fair. Yes you are more responsible for your father than some random other dude but it's still barely more.
I actually havent decided yet how this should be handled. I mean you can only do so much to a person, you will never make up for killing somebody's children without also killing his. And what if he hasn't got any?

An alternative is to torture the guy to inflict more revenge. Not an exact science at all, how much torture will ever pay back for 1 of your children?
At the end of the day I think the only workable solution is to let the victim kill the criminal and take over all his possessions and money. That might actually be a good idea, seems fairly fair. It's all you can take from somebody.
His own heirs will not get a penny but then again, why should they expect to get anything from a murderer, why should they gain something just because they are related? If they wanted that system then they would be punished for his crimes too.

Vengeance is obviously justified, I dont have to justify it. Let's just get that clear. It is up to you to tell me why vengeance shouldnt be okay, not the other way around.
I will nonetheless oblige a little and say that vengeance is a tool for social peace and retribution, you dont want people to go unpunished completely because then people will obviously commit crimes without punishment. Every punishment in our system is already based on vengeance, it just doesnt look like it anymore because it's so weaksauce.

You went on to accuse me of emotionality without giving any arguments yourself except asking a bunch of stupid questions, which I was gracious enough to partly respond anyway.

Well if we have no reason to think 2 identical clones would choose differently under the exact same physical circumstances, then we have no reason to believe that they could, and therefore no reason to believe in the concept of vengeance (not that there even seems to be even a logical pathway from free will to "therefore vengeance is good", per)

Holy shit

Theyre shilling for Islam on Sup Forums

if there is no free will, then there is no morality anyway (if you claim there is "morality", despite us not having free will, i.e. an existence of moral obligation and duty, as well as that of moral good and evil, then PROVE it), and so there is no justification for objecting to the death penalty

>It seems like anyone who wants to retaliate is just reacting emotionally and not so much rationally.

it's the evolutionary stable solution, you dumbass fedora

that picture is fucking freaky. background story to that?

Christians are shit because they would do anything just to get to "muh heaven". Still better than muslims.

raping someone, due to the lasting psychological damage that it can cause to the victim, it is like killing them in a way, as such, it is congruent with a flexible reading of "eye for an eye" (flexible in so far as it reads: "severity in retaliation should match the severity of the crime", rather than an obtuse "the exact action of the crime should be inflicted on the criminal), for the rapist to be hung

Let's see you justify all those [obviously false in my view] claims. I've given my justification for mine, now it's your turn. Go go go

nothing of value was lost, they can still poo in the loo

>if there is no free will, then there is no morality anyway

How does that logically follow given that even if my mind is a causal system that I still can't hold my hand in fire and think it's good.

See, you're ignoring the existence of qualitative experiences.

Islam itself is based in the old testament

I cant't tell which would work best between the two

both "individuals" will be guided by identical free will.

You have a terrible argument

rape is not just the physical act of rape though. Rape destroys the sanctity of marriage, it destroys future value for marriage, it destroys psychologically.
The criminal should still be raped but other things should be taken into account and then something more should be piled up to make up for the difference.
However I believe that the "eye for an eye" principle must not be removed here just because it seems inappropiate. It's just a tad weird, that is all.
What do you call people who get very little punishment? If we dont use "eye for an eye" exactly as the base level of retribution then people will just continue to get off and the laws will continue to get weaker and weaker.

Because justice is not about revenge it's about putting an unstable individual out of society so the later can function properly. Death penalties come from the idea that an individual is so unstable he has no chance of ever being part of society again.

The first problem with death sentences is on the the case where they are wrong, you can't go back from such a penalty, the second one is when they become a political tool.

All that being said Jesus would not interfere with the laws of men so why should a simple priest?

what about sodomization with a dildo machine as punishment

translation: in no possible world could the clones have chosen different for a particular given scenario. I don't see how that is compatible with free will, which we haven't even defined yet (which you have tacitly assumed to be true and correct without any rational explanation whatsoever).

Basically you feel free will exists because your choices have a qualitative experience accompanying them. But how does that provide a logical pathway to anything more than "this causal system has a qualitative experience accompanying it". And if it's not causal, then that moves us even further away from "morally meaningful choices".

Point to exactly where you justified what. Use *exact quotes* of your original post.

Justification being that nobody has established P's truth, therefore P is unjustified (where P is a proposition).

Your turn now.

youtube.com/watch?v=GfCMRk-osJ8

>the old testament is still valid
>maybe its time to accept islam

jew shill #250

Torture is useless, both ethically and resource-wise. Killing ones child should be punished with death and the seizure of a good portion of the killer's property, enough to "give back" the resources spent on raising a child the current state. Plus public family humiliation.

At the end of the day, most types of punishment other than capital seems reasonable. Even forced labour.

Retaliation is very vague. Do you mean justify the imposition of punitive responses to criminal acts? If you're being ultra pedantic, I'll say that less crime is good, the same amount of or more crime is bad, and innocent people experiencing some benefit, even at the expense of a guilty party, is good. I assume this is in a rule of law jurisdiction where the law is discoverable and not exercised arbitrarily.

1. Deterrence. If other people see criminal penalties being imposed they'll be less likely to perform criminal acts.
2. Rehabilitation. If it's possible to expose offenders to state sanctioned conduct that prevents them from committing crimes into the future, then that's good.
3. Retribution. The victims of the crime benefit from the knowledge that punishment has been inflicted upon a guilty party because it is satisfying, it reduces their likelihood of engaging in vigilantism, and it brings them closure.
4. Communication: sentencing communicates the extent to which society denounces a certain kind of conduct, which is similar to deterrence but more far reaching in that it sets moral standards which motivates positive conduct in addition to negative conduct (i.e., people might do good things, rather than just not do bad things)
5. Community protection: for violent offenders, it is good that they are segregated from the community to eliminate the possibility of committing further crimes against innocent people.

Appropriate sentencing comes from balancing the merits and flaws of these separate justifications against one another and arriving at a just sentence.

So even if free will doesn't exist based on a deterministic reading of the universe, then sentencing is still good because it has good outcomes, as I have outlined here.
You write real retardedly sir. I could have taken your parentheses and condensed it into "it's a question of whether eye for an eye means proportional responses or reciprocal responses are justified".

>How does that logically follow given that even if my mind is a causal system that I still can't hold my hand in fire and think it's good.

The existence of morality requires the existence of moral duty, the existence of moral duty requires the existence of (the possibility of) morally responsible agents. If the mind is fully caused by pre-determined events, then someone cannot be morally responsible (for if they were, then they would be a necessary cause for acting, but that implies agency), ergo there cannot be moral duty, ergo there cannot be any morality.

As for saying that "putting your hand into fire is not good" then you are equivocating on the term "good" here, clearly, you do not mean the same thing as when people talk about moral "good". Indeed, it is not "good" to put your hand fire, but only in the same sense that it is not a "good" move in chess to sacrifice a queen for a pawn (generally), in the same way that it is not a "good" thing to do, to pass a ball across goal in football. But, even for the sake of argument, there is some sense of "morality" (based purely off of whether an act is condusive to the survival of the specific homo-sapien species, which is by the way, completely arbitrary), without agency, there is no moral duty anyway, so we would be living in a weird world where there is morality, but no moral duty.

forced labor is actually a good point. Maybe instead of taking a life, the victim should be able to choose to have the criminal imprisoned and forced to work for money for the rest of its life, money which the victim gets.
At any point the victim should be allowed to say "enough" and have the criminal killed. I'd say that this is fair because the criminal's life is worthless at that point, he chose to become a murderer.

Point to exactly where you justified what. Use *exact quotes* of your original post.

"P" did not occur anywhere in your original post. You did not use any quotes. Try again.

>Maybe it is time to accept Islam?
No to the power of no.
But in league with your point. We might want to return to our own older values. Which, yes, shares a smidge of the muslem values

thanks for the tip m8

In the eye-for-an-eye punishment you wouldn't rape the rapist necessarily. Although it sounds stupid, the correct analogy should be:

Male to female and female to male rape is punished according to local customs and the current factors taken into account, like whether the victim was engaged, was a virgin, etc.
Male to female and female to male anal rape follows the typical eye-for-an-eye rules.
Male to male or female to female rape is punished with forced sterilization at first, chemical castration afterwards.

Truth, we don't need any more life sentencers, especially with this compound interest debt system in place. No pay outs to gangster killings either, nobody deserves to get paid just because they got killed.

>Do you mean justify the imposition of punitive responses to criminal acts?

Locking someone up who is a threat to society to prevent them from doing more harm is not "vengeance" or "retribution" in my view.

Vengeance and retribution refers more to a "warm fuzzy feeling" that people get when they are causing someone else to suffer.

I see no reason why these "warm fuzzy feelings" (schadenfreude) would be a valuable thing in a system of cause and effect.

Phwoar those digits

If you can create the warm fuzzy feeling in a controlled, prescribed, written down, discoverable, and not arbitrarily exercised way, then that's better than letting self interested, independent parties create the warm fuzzy feeling by engaging in vigilante conduct.

>The existence of morality requires the existence of moral duty, the existence of moral duty requires the existence of (the possibility of) morally responsible agents. If the mind is fully caused by pre-determined events, then someone cannot be morally responsible (for if they were, then they would be a necessary cause for acting, but that implies agency), ergo there cannot be moral duty, ergo there cannot be any morality.

That doesn't follow, because there can still be qualitative experiences, such as holding one's hand in fire, which can justify the belief for instance that holding my hand in fire is bad. If something being "bad" isn't a moral proposition then I have no idea what is.

Forced labour has loopholes though. The accused may escape, the "welfare style payment" may make the accuser less productive, it could cause a "self victimization" culture, etc.

not bad

The old testament never says that, you dumb niggerposter.

>If you can create the warm fuzzy feeling in a controlled, prescribed, written down, discoverable, and not arbitrarily exercised way

Sure, but I'm still at a loss to what purpose it serves. If someone else's mind just happens to be evil due to some arbitrary circumstances, why should I feel schadenfreude about making their mind suffer? It just doesn't seem to follow logically why I should feel schadenfreude about making a causal system suffer.

I don't know if you practice or study law, but my list of justifications for sentencing operate similarly to salient features in establishing a duty of care in negligence law, in that it's not just about whether or not you've ticked off a few boxes that your punishment meets this criteria or that criteria, but also how closely it conforms to that criteria and the availability of better alternatives.
Human nature is absurd.

well yeah, it's more of an option in case somebody steals X amount of money from you and he's such a bum that he will never be able to pay you back. Imo it is then justified to make them pay back via forced government labor.
I actually cant see any reason why this would be bad and it's a lot better than sharia's cutting off of hands for simple theft or their cutting off of legs for robbery.

leave it up to the spic catholic to have never read the bible
Exodus 21:24

I guess he never read the book of Judges - mature people get to kill whomever they please - that Nicolatain scum will never even meet a ma ture person, unless you count the one who put him to death. God hates Nicolatains, but likes people who also hate them - yes, in the Bible, not the Koran. It's alien stuff to these Jesus-loves-you Balaam Love feast Heretics - also in Revelations 2. Don't knock the faith homo - Sodomites pray a lot you know, with their hands in the air (Isaiah).

I guess you are sort of right, it speaks of a very specific crime that would warrant that kind of justice.
Well this thread is still a valid discussion and it's not *that* much of a stretch to extrapolate that the bible might be okay with that kind of a justice system in general.

After all, it says: "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

So it's reasonable to think that this could be extended to any case of serious injury, not just the cases where a fight broke out over a pregnant woman and she gave birth prematurely.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world niggers.

you forgot the themesong bro

>Please tell me how "Eye for an Eye" can even be argued against.

Because Jesus explicitly changed that.

>“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

>rape is not just the physical act of rape though. Rape destroys the sanctity of marriage, it destroys future value for marriage, it destroys psychologically.

How about you cuckolds shut the fuck up.

The Old Testament says that if a man rapes a female child, who has not been promised to another man already, he keeps her, pays her father 50 silver, and doesn't send her away all his days.

You fucking pieces of shit will argue against this because you are WHITE. Whites are, by nature, goddess worshiping pieces of shit (which is why the Catholic Church had to promote Mary to get you into an OK religion), you will do ANYTHING to protect women's interests.

Read Dueteronomy 22: 28-29, IN HEBREW. Man takes (forces) female child still in her father's home, man pays father 50 silver and keeps girl as his woman and does not send her away all his days as he has humbled (shamed) he.

He rapes a cute little female child, a loli, he keeps her. He can keep doing this and collect a harem, just can't send them away.

The ONLY time when a man is killed for rape is when he rapes another man's female or pledged female: that is when he violates another man's proprietary interests.

He is not killed when he rapes some prostitute, or a female who is not mastered by any man, he is not killed when he rapes a child of the feminine sex, not even when she is in her fathers house. Men are instructed NOT to kill any intruder during the day (their blood will be on your head) additionally, in Deuteronomy.


Note, for all saying "no it doesn't say that:" If you wish to argue about taphas, here's a refutation of your arguments:
pastebin.com/mzFJyxea
30 bible citations say taphas is about rape and pillage, control. Of cities, of weapons, of women and girls)

Man is Ba'al in Deuteronomy: MASTER, LORD, of the woman. That is his position and title. Just as the lord of the flies was Baalzebub.

Jesus was a footsolider of feminism and hated God ("murderer, liar"), like you, whites

Mature woman - licenced to kill
Vs
Immature woman (feminist, rebellious witch who never repents, or shows remorse, tells lies, is not magic, bit us in EVERY churc) - thou shalt not suffer a witch to live

Rev 2 - wtf is that bitch still doing here? In my church?

Judges (Jehu) - how to uncuck the men, and kill a bitch.

Priestcraft = Nicolatain = wtf are you doing in my church? Jew in a fucking frock! Rev 2

... fucking hell, how do christians even handle this.
It's so utterly stupid, I dont understand. I just dont get it. Jesus HIMSELF literally tells you that self defense is bad.
What the fuck. How did christianity ever become a world religion when it says stuff like this?
I assume it was because nobody actually read the bible for a thousand years and priest classes made political coups to stay in power.
That's the only explanation I have.
The KJV bible actually changed
"You shall not murder" to "You shall not kill". For SOME FUCKING REASON christians are really really against self defense.

>What the fuck. How did christianity ever become a world religion when it says stuff like this?

Maybe you are onto something...

someone does something horrendous, i know, let's force the tax payer to keep them alive for the rest of their life. fucking liberals god i hate them all.

The rape scenarios are missing details - communists like to fuck with ones perspective...

1) A woman in a field (basically the kitchen), who at least cries out (gives the men a chance) - that's a rape victim, to be treated the same as if a MURDER haD occurred, indicating it's seriousness (whole tribes got wiped out over this).

By contrast, a feminist slut, heading into town alone, to turn tricks... cannot be a rape victim and a dumb slut - it's one or the other. Burns a little, doesn't it bitch?

2. Rape a woman, then have to marry her, pay big money, deal with her family who hate you, and if you cheat on her, they can legally put you to death. So it's like jail, except the men don't get left with a big bill to pay, and it's more interactive. Ps. Fuck you, lying stupid whore!

>He preferred Muslim law

You make many valid points but arrive at the wrong conclusion (convert to Islam). Restoration of real Christianity is ideal, but even Atheism is rational enough to refute liberal stupidity.

Ok sorry for arriving at the wrong conclusion, you bested me in this debate. Maybe I'll have more luck next time!

To reject free-will is to reduce man to animalism, for what is man without choice, but a slave to impulse?

What is an animal but a creature confined by its own impulsive inclinations?

This is the mission of all false religion, simply put in one line: to reduce man to an animal.

* Islam does not stir a man to rise above his impulses, but rather promises him an eternity of sensualism.

* Buddhism enables murder quiet easily, by teaching that man is the designer of his own reality, that if he murders, it is only murder if he says it is.

* The Mormon heresy instills into its followers that man will become his own god with his own celestial harem after death, as opposed to eternally living in God in Heaven.

* Odinism, like Islam and Mormonism, teaches that there will be eternal pleasures, with wine and fornication, in the realm of Valhalla.

* Hinduism pushes its followers into all sorts of perversities and violence.

=> Only Christianity stirs in its followers, the inner volition to rise above impulses, fears and concupiscence.

No, that's just how you understood it. Walter Winks has revised that in a big way...

Our understanding of that whole stone casting thing was dramatically revised by Walter Winks. Apparently the entire Faith (literally all of us) had it totally wrong, which is of course, impossible, given how right we typically are in these matters...

* Exception to the rule, the only one He didn't stone.
* Not her fault she was turning tricks to feed the kids - husband was meant to save 10%, religiously, by law, one of 3 different tithes; plus all the men present were meant to give to charity, also religious law, and one of the tithes - two layers of social welfare (unless they spent it on booze and hookers instead - as in, the wife of old mate who had a workplace accident... bahahah)

* Can't just make up a new verse on the spot, and expect the religious assholes to simply accept that, head back to the bible school, and "tell the fellas" that we're not doing that anymore (cross out the old verse, and 1000s of years of tradition - not a problem sir, everybody here loves Jesus, top of the very competitive class)

* Have you ever been stood over by religious hardliners, and tried the old doodle in the sand trick, and wait for them to leave)

* Her accusers left (not everyone), and by law, you need at least two.

* His disciples were bigger. Tradies, heavy hitters, not nerds from uni.

* The slut hunt was clearly taking the piss. The law was intended as an empty threat, a bluff; social convention was that the phone had to ring, and that phone never rings, for the aforementioned reasons. More just a private school drinking game - legally kill a hooker, for sport, which is harder than it sounds, even more so with a hot one, because if they fellas Rescued her, they would get a free fuck - a fair trade for averting an utterly humiliating (but technically legal) violent hookers death.

>2. Rape a woman, then have to marry her, pay big money, deal with her family who hate you, and if you cheat on her, they can legally put you to death. So it's like jail, except the men don't get left with a big bill to pay, and it's more interactive. Ps. Fuck you, lying stupid whore!

Wrong again, cuckold!
Rape a FEMALE CHILD (read the hebrew, english), you keep her, you pay the equivelant of a months wages of a roman solider to the father, you can continue to have sex with other unmarried women and collect other girls.
A man CANNOT commit adultery against a woman.
Adultery is committed against men ONLY. It is when a female has sex with a man who is not her master, when she is mastered by a man.
It is when a man has sex with an other man's female.

IT IS NOT WHEN A "married" (this does not exist in Deuteronomy) man has sex with a woman not his "wife".
Remeber what is translated into english as married is actually "man who is master of" "woman who is mastered (by a man)".

A female is MASTERED by the man (the translation of "married woman" is actually female-who-is-mastered in the actual hebrew)
She has NO CLAIM on him. He OWNS her.
He is LORD over her, she is NOT lord over him.

A Master may have many servants.
A servant may have but one Master.


You whites always try to twist everything God of the Old Testament said as a pro-woman, control men thing; because that is
what your lord Jesus wanted for you. It was he who claimed he abolished the old law, it was he who rebuked the God of the Jews
as a "murderer from the begining", it was he who said don't stone the woman, but the man who even looks at a woman has committed
adultery in his heart. It is he, jesus, that created the modern feminist movement, that takes your wives from you and gives
them to others (men or women), and denies you Lordship over cute young girls.

>2. Rape a woman, then have to marry her, pay big money, deal with her family who hate you, and if you cheat on her, they can legally put you to death. So it's like jail, except the men don't get left with a big bill to pay, and it's more interactive. Ps. Fuck you, lying stupid whore!

Wrong again, cuckold!
Rape a FEMALE CHILD (read the hebrew, not just english bowlderized translations), you keep her, you pay the equivelant of a months wages of a roman solider to the father, you can continue to have sex with other unmarried women and collect other girls.
A man CANNOT commit adultery against a woman.
Adultery is committed against men ONLY. It is when a female has sex with a man who is not her master, when she is mastered by a man.
It is when a man has sex with an other man's female.

IT IS NOT WHEN A "married" (this does not exist in Deuteronomy) man has sex with a woman not his "wife".
Remeber what is translated into english as married is actually "man who is master of" "woman who is mastered (by a man)".

A female is MASTERED by the man (the translation of "married woman" is actually female-who-is-mastered in the actual hebrew)
She has NO CLAIM on him. He OWNS her.
He is LORD over her, she is NOT lord over him.

A Master may have many servants.
A servant may have but one Master.


You whites always try to twist everything God of the Old Testament said as a pro-woman, control men thing; because that is
what your lord Jesus wanted for you. It was he who claimed he abolished the old law, it was he who rebuked the God of the Jews
as a "murderer from the begining", it was he who said don't stone the woman, but the man who even looks at a woman has committed
adultery in his heart. It is he, jesus, that created the modern feminist movement, that takes your wives from you and gives
them to others (men or women), and denies you Lordship over cute young girls.