IIIIITHE1IIIII said: Jay520 said: @The1 You keep saying "in a perfect world, we would...". But the fact is we don't live ina perfect world. These methods that you're suggesting, reasoning with criminals, trying to set the straight, simply isn't practical. We don't know how to 'treat' every criminal. We don't know how long it'll take to treat every criminal. We don't know how much it'll cost to treat every criminal. We don't know if we'll have the resources required t treat every criminal. We don't even know if every criminal is treatable e etc. And how would we even test these treatment methods? Just let the murderes back out in the streets and hope we've succeeded? Our current jail system is the most pragmatic approach which punishes & contains them. Which is why I said that I support the current treatment + punishment system that jail has to offer. It is simply the best available solution at the moment, like you said. (I have said this before, but anyway) This thread is not mainly about that though. It's about defending the criminals (from hate), as the title suggests. And, of course, the illogical electric chair. Why would you end someone's life because he happened to fall under the 'unfortunate' category? I say we should make that person fortunate instead.

Why should we not hate them? Hate is an extreme disliking of someone. You can extremely dislike someone while still believing they had no control over their actions. Hate is a feeling & is many times uncontrollable. As long as people don't act with hatred, then we're fine.

Jay520 said: IIIIITHE1IIIII said: Which is why I said that I support the current treatment + punishment system that jail has to offer. It is simply the best available solution at the moment, like you said. (I have said this before, but anyway) This thread is not mainly about that though. It's about defending the criminals (from hate), as the title suggests. And, of course, the illogical electric chair. Why would you end someone's life because he happened to fall under the 'unfortunate' category? I say we should make that person fortunate instead. Why should we not hate them? Hate is an extreme disliking of someone. You can extremely dislike someone while still believing they had no control over their actions. Hate is a feeling & is many times uncontrollable. As long as people don't act with hatred, then we're fine.

This has also been clarified before by saying: "Hate the crime, don't hate the criminal."

A person is lots of experiences, essentially. You can't hate him/her for experiencing them but you can hate the experiences.

spurgeonryan said: IIIIITHE1IIIII said: So, is that a yes? (I don't hate God by the way. Just some of the actions that some of his followers do. I can't believe how many times I have felt the need to clarify that.) I ususally do not read your Religious threads, but I have seen that before. What would you say about the religious Zealots that you have come to despise. Do you feel sorry for them, or do you blame them for their actions. After all, you were able to break free from Religous cults. As for the yes or no part. I say the opposite of whatever it was that you said.

I say that the zealots (if that means what I think it means) are unfortunate, and I hate their actions.

If I was fortunate to 'break free' from Christianity remains to be seen. My family is still religious and they don't plan to hurt somebody as far as I know, so they are fortunate as well. What I do know though is that I've lived a happier life as non-religious so far.

Player1x3 said: IIIIITHE1IIIII said: Not at all. He is presenting a scenario which has nothing to do with realistic criminality. It never takes longer than a few pages to see people agreeing with poor counter-argument because they have nothing to add themselves. Whoa, slow down there Socrates. I wasnt even posting any argument to begin with. I just find your deep philosophical threads historical xD

Not much history in here

IIIIITHE1IIIII said: This has also been clarified before by saying: "Hate the crime, don't hate the criminal." A person is lots of experiences, essentially. You can't hate him/her for experiencing them but you can hate the experiences.

A person's character is dictated by their actions. Regardless of whether they controlled their actions, actions are still the basis for judging people. If a person does funny things, he's a funny person. If a person doess crazy things, he's a crazy person. And if a person does bad things he's a bad person.

Lets assume that we are only the product of a combination of genetic makeup & environmental factors. If someone has a bad combination of genetic makeup & environment factors, then they will be a bad person. Sure, they didn't control their actions but That doesn't mean I can't still hate them. I hate the outcome of the person's genetic makeup & experiences. And that outcome is the person. Therefore, I hate the person. Since he is the result of terrible experiences and genetics.

If we have no free will and are the result of uncontrollable factors. Then we as people are simply the focus of our environment. And if someone hates that particular focus, then they should hate the person too. A person is his actions and if we hate all the actions, then we hate the person. It doesn't matter if they're responsible for their actions.

Jay520 said: A person's character is dictated by their actions. Regardless of whether they controlled their actions, actions are still the basis for judging people. If a person does funny things, he's a funny person. If a person doess crazy things, he's a crazy person. And if a person does bad things he's a bad person. Lets assume that we are only the product of a combination of genetic makeup & environmental factors. If someone has a bad combination of genetic makeup & environment factors, then they will be a bad person. Sure, they didn't control their actions but That doesn't mean I can't still hate them. I hate the outcome of the person's genetic makeup & experiences. And that outcome is the person. Therefore, I hate the person. Since he is the result of terrible experiences and genetics. If we have no free will and are the result of uncontrollable factors. Then we as people are simply the focus of our environment. And if someone hates that particular focus, then they should hate the person too.

The bolded makes no sense to me. I wouldn't hate that person in that case, I would call him unfortunate (since he didn't choose his experiences or genetics).

I don't hate a mass murderer, I feel sorry for him because he happened to be exposed to certain experiences and be born with certain genetics. I hate his actions which made innocent people die though.

Edit: I noticed you added this: "A person is his actions and if we hate all the actions, then we hate the person. It doesn't matter if they're responsible for their actions."

Which is wrong. A person is a body with senses; which are nouns. His actions are verbs, and are disconnected from the person.

Well, the1, how do you suggest we judge people if not by their actions?

I say we can like, dislike, love, hate whoever we want if we base these feelings off their actions. Should we act off of these feelings? No, I'm not saying that.

If there's someone who always steals your lunch money, it's okay to dislike him. And if he always rapes children, then it'll be okay to extremely dislike him. And extreme dislike is hate. And it makes sense in this case.

You seem to imply our feelings for others should not be based off their actions. So what should they be based off of?

Mr Khan said: But Japan achieves that by giving their police scarily broad latitude, which the police do abuse (the abuse part being mainly against left-wing protestors, leaving the screaming ultranationalists alone but locking, say, feminists up for months at a time with no charges filed)

I don't think that's why Japan has low crime, though. It's more likely attributable to its homogeneous population and the fact that it has a shame based culture rather than a guilt based one. People are much less likely to transgress against others if they feel a sense of commonality with them. Even moreso if they fear punishment in the form of social ostracization, which tends to nip bad behavior in the bud long before it metastatizes into full blown criminality. Compare the orderly way in which the Japanese behaved in the aftermath of the tsunami last year to the looting during Hurricane Katrina.

So that's why Japan and Sweden can both have low crime rates despite taking different approaches to dealing with criminals, but I'm a lot more confident in the ability of the Japanese model to produce similarly low crime rates in the future than I am that Sweden will succeed in doing so with its mollycoddling of criminals and suicidal multiculturalism.

badgenome said: Mr Khan said: But Japan achieves that by giving their police scarily broad latitude, which the police do abuse (the abuse part being mainly against left-wing protestors, leaving the screaming ultranationalists alone but locking, say, feminists up for months at a time with no charges filed) I don't think that's why Japan has low crime, though. It's more likely attributable to its homogeneous population and the fact that it has a shame based culture rather than a guilt based one. People are much less likely to transgress against others if they feel a sense of commonality with them. Even moreso if they fear punishment in the form of social ostracization, which tends to nip bad behavior in the bud long before it metastatizes into full blown criminality. Compare the orderly way in which the Japanese behaved in the aftermath of the tsunami last year to the looting during Hurricane Katrina. So that's why Japan and Sweden can both have low crime rates despite taking different approaches to dealing with criminals, but I'm a lot more confident in the ability of the Japanese model to produce similarly low crime rates in the future than I am that Sweden will succeed in doing so with its mollycoddling of criminals and suicidal multiculturalism.

Are you implying that diversity is the root of all crimes!? :O

Now that I think about it, my dad's little farm town in the mid east has no crime. The population of 6000 or so people is homogeneous. I think you are on to something. 

Jay520 said: Well, the1, how do you suggest we judge people if not by their actions? I say we can like, dislike, love, hate whoever we want if we base these feelings off their actions. Should we act off of these feelings? No, I'm not saying that. If there's someone who always steals your lunch money, it's okay to dislike him. And if he always rapes children, then it'll be okay to extremely dislike him. And extreme dislike is hate. And it makes sense in this case. You seem to imply our feelings for others should not be based off their actions. So what should they be based off of?

Did I? All I did was saying that I don't hate the individual, but its actions. An individual makes actions based on stored experiences from the past. I may hate those experiences which made him do it, and I may hate the things that he do, but I won't hate him for acting according to how his surroundings made him act. That makes no sense.

Associating an individual with certain actions is something else.