By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Allow me to Defend every Criminal out there

TeddostheFireKing on 25 June 2012

I agree with your opinion that few people see the world through the 'kidnappers' eyes, but the thing is, not everyone who went through that upbringing and got to that end result, that is the difference imo. There are undoubtedly many who reach the same point in their lives and break the law, but there are many who don't and simply carry on with life and slug through, that is why we don't feel sorry for them imo, because others have gone through it and not broken the law.



Around the Network
IIIIITHE1IIIII on 25 June 2012
badgenome said:

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

I don't think so. Just because we are encouraged to feel sorry for bullies at school that doesn't make their actions legitimate.

 

Large groups of people, such as protest groups and certainly society as a whole, don't do nuance as well as you seem to think. If people come to see a bully as just as much of a victim as his victims, then we will have school administrations spending time trying to get inside the bully's head and all of this nonsense instead of punishing their actions out of hand as we should so that we can get back to the business of teaching kids (or not teaching kids, whatever it is that goes on in schools these days).


In this case the priority should be to both teach the bullying kid to stop harass the other pupils and to educate. Education is about learning, after all.



Slimebeast on 25 June 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
badgenome said:

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

I don't think so. Just because we are encouraged to feel sorry for bullies at school that doesn't make their actions legitimate.

 

Large groups of people, such as protest groups and certainly society as a whole, don't do nuance as well as you seem to think. If people come to see a bully as just as much of a victim as his victims, then we will have school administrations spending time trying to get inside the bully's head and all of this nonsense instead of punishing their actions out of hand as we should so that we can get back to the business of teaching kids (or not teaching kids, whatever it is that goes on in schools these days).


In this case the priority should be to both teach the bullying kid to stop harass the other pupils and to educate. Education is about learning, after all.

But why don't just take the bully and put a hammer in his head?



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 25 June 2012
Slimebeast said:

IIIIITheOneIIII, as much as you have thought and meditated on these things, I thought you would be familiar with the potential confusions associated.

My point was obviously that human's have no free will (according to the logic you presented in the OP among other threads).

Nearly all philosophical discussions on the topic of free will also touch the topic of determination, so it's not that strange that I happened to (mistakenly) use the determinism approach instead of the free-will angle. But in this particular case it doesn't change anything (because morals cease to exist from lack of free will as well as from determinism). My point still stands.


In that case I really don't understand your point's association with the OP, which applies to both universes. I don't assume that the world is determined when I discuss this topic.



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 25 June 2012
Slimebeast said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


In this case the priority should be to both teach the bullying kid to stop harass the other pupils and to educate. Education is about learning, after all.

But why don't just take the bully and put a hammer in his head?


Do you mean violently punish him? That doesn't make much sense. You cannot punish someone for having bad parents and experiences. That would make it worse.



Around the Network
IIIIITHE1IIIII on 25 June 2012
TeddostheFireKing said:
I agree with your opinion that few people see the world through the 'kidnappers' eyes, but the thing is, not everyone who went through that upbringing and got to that end result, that is the difference imo. There are undoubtedly many who reach the same point in their lives and break the law, but there are many who don't and simply carry on with life and slug through, that is why we don't feel sorry for them imo, because others have gone through it and not broken the law.


There is a reason to why some didn't break the laws though. It may be genetics, it may be some unnoticeable differences in their upbringing and it may be because of randomness.



badgenome on 25 June 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

There is a reason to why some didn't break the laws though. It may be genetics, it may be some unnoticeable differences in their upbringing and it may be because of randomness.

So then what you're proposing seems to be nonsense since the reason that a bully is a bully may not be because of his upbringing but because of his genetic makeup or "randomness". Therefore, all we can do is punish his bad behavior so that other people won't imitate him because regardless of what makes one delinquent soul act out, it has been shown time and again that a general break down in order encourages others to act out (as in the London riots).



Slimebeast on 25 June 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Slimebeast said:

IIIIITheOneIIII, as much as you have thought and meditated on these things, I thought you would be familiar with the potential confusions associated.

My point was obviously that human's have no free will (according to the logic you presented in the OP among other threads).

Nearly all philosophical discussions on the topic of free will also touch the topic of determination, so it's not that strange that I happened to (mistakenly) use the determinism approach instead of the free-will angle. But in this particular case it doesn't change anything (because morals cease to exist from lack of free will as well as from determinism). My point still stands.


In that case I really don't understand your point's association with the OP, which applies to both universes. I don't assume that the world is determined when I discuss this topic.

Then just forget that I used the term "pre-determined" if that makes it easier for you. Just swap it to "lack of free will", because that was my point.

The point is that you took a narrow but popular field (the ethics of crime) where your conclusion has far wider implications (that morals don't exist).



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 25 June 2012
badgenome said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

There is a reason to why some didn't break the laws though. It may be genetics, it may be some unnoticeable differences in their upbringing and it may be because of randomness.

So then what you're proposing seems to be nonsense since the reason that a bully is a bully may not be because of his upbringing but because of his genetic makeup or "randomness". Therefore, all we can do is punish his bad behavior so that other people won't imitate him because regardless of what makes one delinquent soul act out, it has been shown time and again that a general break down in order encourages others to act out (as in the London riots).


There is no need to punish him. All you need to do is to tell the other pupils that what he did was wrong, and that he did it because he has troubles in his life. He and all his victims are unfortunate, and needs comfort in one way or another.

War breeds war.



Slimebeast on 25 June 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Slimebeast said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


In this case the priority should be to both teach the bullying kid to stop harass the other pupils and to educate. Education is about learning, after all.

But why don't just take the bully and put a hammer in his head?


Do you mean violently punish him? That doesn't make much sense. You cannot punish someone for having bad parents and experiences. That would make it worse.

Perhaps.

Or just exterminate him to get rid of a big huge problem. No need for psychologists and therapy sessions, contact persons, stimulation and encouragement. Just a butcher and a big hammer.

I mean, your OP suggests that all behavior is legit, that all behaviour makes sense and has a logical, legit reason. So why wouldn't it be a legitimate act of behaviour to just smack a big hammer in the back-head of the bully and the problem is solved?