TL;DR but I did read your moral at the end and my response is FUCK that. I don't care if a starving cancer-surviving orphan steals a loaf of bread...he's still a fucking thief and did nothing to earn that bread.

hatmoza said: 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.

It's not the root of all crimes, and statisically speaking people generally tend to victimize people who are like themselves. But it is always a potential fault line in a society, for sure.

IIIIITHE1IIIII said: 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.

You say you may hate his experiences and you may hate his actions. Therefore, you should hate the person as well. Why? Because the person is not separate from his actions or his experiences. His experiences/actions make him who he is. A person is a outcome of his experiences, correct? So if you hate the person's experiences, then surely you must hate the outcome of it.

And why don't you associate a person with his actions? Actions are the only thing that characterizes a person. A person's experiences, genetics, actions, & the person itself all act as one system. And the person is dependent upon his experiences & genetics. So if you hate a person's experiences and genetics, then sure you must hate the person too, because a person is the product of those two things.

Think of it like this. Lets say experiences = A. And genetics = B. Therefore a person = A+B. That is the combination that dictates a person's character. So if you hate A+B, wouldn't you also hate the outcome of A+B? And the outcome of A+B = the person. Therefore, you must logically hate the person as well because he is the product of two things you hate.

Think of it this way. If you hate blue pants. And you hate red shirts. Then surely you must hate an outfit which consists of blue pants & a red shirt.

It's the same with people. If you hate a person's experiences. And you hate his genetics. Then sure you must hate the person because the person's character is solely decided by his experiences & genetics.

Jay520 said: Think of it this way. If you hate blue pants. And you hate red shirts. Then surely you must hate an outfit which consists of blue pants & a red shirt. It's the same with people. If you hate a person's experiences. And you hate his genetics. Then sure you must hate the person because the person's character is solely decided by his experiences & genetics.

This is a funny example.

I wouldn't hate those shirts/pants, I would hate whatever gave them those colours (assuming the colors are 'wrong'). It's not the clothes fault that they were coloured that way, so I actually feel sorry for them. They are unfortunate.

The whole idea of hating the crime and not the criminal is not something that I just made up. It's a common point of view.

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.

I must say there are things about Japan's approach that I enjoy, but it breeds problems all its own. Harsh ostracism becomes a breeding ground for the uniquely Japanese problems of Hikikomori, plus the young, heterosexual Japanese men and women who have no interest in the opposite sex, and all the suicides.

The shirts/pants are supposed to represent a person's experience/genetics in this analogy. You said you can hate a person's experience/genetics, so you can also hate the shirts/pants.

the combination of the shirts & pants is supposed to create the shirt-pants outfit. Much like the combination of experiences & genetics creates a person.

IIIIITHE1IIIII said: Go tell that to all the homeless people in America who feel the need to steal from others to make life worthwhile/possible. Do you really want them to be punished?

What? That's the stupidest thing to bring up.

Homeless people have a choice here.

1. Get Help. (Which is all over.)

2. Steal and Break the Law. (Which, no matter what, someone shouldn't do.)

Jay520 said: The shirts/pants are supposed to represent a person's experience/genetics in this analogy. You said you can hate a person's experience/genetics, so you can also hate the shirts/pants. the combination of the shirts & pants is supposed to create the shirt-pants outfit. Much like the combination of experiences & genetics creates a person.

The shirt (I'm removing the pants for simplicity) is the individual, while the colour is its actions. If I don't like red shirts, I do so because of the colour. If someone gives the shirt a different colour I wouldn't mind it anymore. The colour is what matters while the shirt will always be a shirt which is why there is never a reason to hate the actual fabrics.

IIIIITHE1IIIII said: Jay520 said: The shirts/pants are supposed to represent a person's experience/genetics in this analogy. You said you can hate a person's experience/genetics, so you can also hate the shirts/pants. the combination of the shirts & pants is supposed to create the shirt-pants outfit. Much like the combination of experiences & genetics creates a person. The shirt (I'm removing the pants for simplicity) is the individual, while the colour is its actions. If I don't like red shirts, I do so because of the colour. If someone gives the shirt a different colour I wouldn't mind it anymore. The colour is what matters while the shirt will always be a shirt which is why there is never a reason to hate the actual fabrics.

Exactly. The fabric is nothing on it's own. The fabric is not independent of the color. The fabric is one with the color. You cannot feel a way towards the color without feeling the same towards the fabric. Because without the color, the fabric is nothing.