NBVegita

I can only post quick so here are just some points: I have stated that some forms of retribution can be justice, not: All retribution is justice. Lol, in the previous sentence you noted I bolded the fair, not the retribution. I like 'eye for an eye' because under my definition(s), it is fair. How many times do I have to say that? One step further I would state that in my opinion, fair retribution would be justice. Unfair retribution (either too light a punishment or too harsh) is not justice. Before I answer another question you pose I want you to answer just a few of mine. These would do: (note that retribution != unfair)I will even go as far to elaborate on this: Please tell me why, in accordance to your definition of fairness why 'eye for an eye' is an unfair form of justice and elaborate on your reasoning.

I pose that it is logical based on deductive reasoning as there is absolutely no possible way to create an inductive argument based on concepts that are relative. I can deduct a logical conclusion based on my beliefs concerning relative concepts. In my opinion, if you're countering an argument that I've purposed as deductive logic, without disproving my logic, nor providing logic of your own to support the opposition, then I would define that as having an emotional component. Again, not a finite definition, simply my belief. First your statement, although eloquently worded makes no sense. First you cannot declare any moral an axiom as it is based on a sliding scale of each society in place at a certain time. What is immoral to one, is moral to another. The only concept that you could use to justify a moral axiom would be religion, which again is relative based on your audience. Second the concept that you cannot alter a moral is in itself a ridiculous concept. As stated above, morals are a constantly evolving as societies evolve. Third, no where I have tried to circulate my argument by paraphrasing the prior. I have IMPLICITLY stated that I have an opinion which cannot be proven or disproven based on the supporting premises being relative in nature. For your statement to be valid, I would have to have stated: I believe x because it is fair. I believe x because it is just. I believe x because it is moral. I believe x because it is ethical. Instead I have stated, many many time: I believe x is fair because of my beliefs concerning fairness, justice, morals and ethics. I now ask you if you believe that fairness, justice, morals and ethics are interchangeable synonyms, as I do not believe they are. Of course I suppose that if you dedicate a moral axiom based on religion that it would be irreducible, but as I have done nothing of the sort, nor have I related that to what you believe is "circular reasoning" on my part, the sentence still makes no sense. I would argue the same that if your only justification for opposing my idea is based on your ethical beliefs, that we do not have an argument, but we surely have a discussion. You're trying to confuse an argument with discussion. Based on your beliefs above, we should delete the entire topic based on religion because the entire argument for religion is based on the presumption of a God(s). I also don't presume the social acceptability of retribution for anyone else except for myself. In my opinion, fairness dictates my sense of justice, morals and ethics. (where it can) Not at all. From my first post: If anything I made a statement concerning eye for an eye and asked for someone to disprove it. I have been posting things to defend my opinion concerning eye for an eye, I'm not trying to prove it in the sense you're trying to associate with it. As I've stated a dozen times, you cannot prove or disprove a concept when the only premises are relative. So the only way I can render a defense to such a subject is with my opinion, as the only way you can render offense to such a subject is with yours. GREAT!!! FINALLY!!! lol Now I propose to you, why does fairness not suffice for justification?

Couldn't you equally say that our morality has devolved as a society? Why does adding emotion to a concept mean it has evolved? I think I could argue equally that to determine punishment for a crime based on emotion would be more primitive than to do it logically. In my opinion, logic would dictate that if you kill a man, you should be killed. If you disagree I ask you how is it logical to take a man who's killed another man, cloth, feed, shelter, entertain and give him medical attention for the rest of his life with other like minded individuals, taking up lots of space and resources? All while we have children without health care and people starving to death in the streets. To me it would be more logical to find a cheap efficient way to kill murderers and to reallocate those funds to other much needed areas in our country. The problem you don't understand is that the only reason why my argument is circular, is because all of the defining terms are relative. Vice versa, your argument containing morality is no less circular than my argument concerning fairness. Except for one fact, I have implicitly stated that it is my belief, because as every possible term used to define fairness is relative you cannot acutely define fairness without defining each associated relative term with your own beliefs, thus making it nothing more than your opinion in the first place. I never stated it was a law that could be applied to ethics. I stated that my concept of fairness is similarly matched to the concept that for every action there is an equal consequence. I believe that is the biggest thing as Americans we have tried to get rid of. We like telling people that for most actions, there are very little consequences because it let's us sleep better at night. Simply put, the biggest reason why Americans have such international malice is that we don't consider the consequences of our actions. Also note that I am not trying to "prove" anything. I have been completely defending my own opinion in this discussion, not trying to prove that "eye for an eye" is X. I notice that every time I ask you if something is unfair, IN YOUR BELIEF and to explain why you feel that way, you skirt the question. I again ask your opinion and ask you to defend it, instead of trying to disprove an argument I'm not even trying to prove.

First: I was not using "complex sentences" as a literary definition, I was using the implicit words "complex" coupled with "sentences". Second, even in literary terms, "complex sentences" is still two words. You're trying to invalidate my argument, noting that I am defining something that is relative, by you yourself trying to argue something that again is relative that you have defined yourself. I completely agree that fairness is a relative idea. What is fair to me is not fair to you. I also argue that concerning morals and ethics, the same can be said. Very similar to the concept of justice. What you're attempting to do is make me define something that in order to do, I need to define more items which cannot be defined. What is moral, just and unbiased to me, may be immoral, unjust and biased to you. My concept of justice, or fairness as you will, is predicated by the concept embedded in nature. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Note the key word equal. In my opinion, the concept that a man can willingly take another mans life, spend 20 years in prison and get out on parole is not equal punishment for the crime. Not only did the man choose to end the life of one man, but he forever damaged the lives of everyone connected to that man. To me, equal punishment would be taking the mans life. Again equality is a relative term, which if you're letting emotions dictate, you cannot rationally measure. I again ask, using the original article that started this. What is unfair about having two men, who brutally attacked, attempted to kill and mutilated a 22 year old woman, have the same mutilation done to themselves and spend the rest of their years in prison? What is unjust in that situation? I daresay put yourself in her shoes and in our legal system. Would you feel fair retribution had been paid to your assailants if the same had been done to you and they simply got 10-15 (even 20) years in prison? I bet each time you looked in the mirror that self righteousness would ebb away. EDIT: fix tags

Oh I agree that we should fix the loopholes, 100%. But I'm saying you can't demonize the corporations completely because if they've figured it out, our government sure has figured it out.

I did not condemn it anywhere. First: Is relating to torturing a man for nothing but the enjoyment of causing pain to another being. The concept of "eye for an eye" is to cause a fair retribution towards a person who has seriously wronged another person. I didn't even use complex sentences. I will ask you again, what about "eye for an eye" is not fair?

I'll play a bit of Devil's advocate here but: Sim: Have you never sped in your entire life? Have you never rolled a stop sign? Have you never cheated on a test? Have you never ? I believe that yes, the corporations hold a part of the responsibility, but no more or less responsibilities than those who allow them to get away with it.

Witty? If you don't commit a crime, you don't deserve the punishment associated with it. That seems rather simple to me, not witty. I completely agree that no matter of torment nor pain can undo anything. Simply put once an action has been done, nothing can "undo" that action. I am stating the above out of what I believe to be fairness. I know that "life isn't fair" but I would like to try to make it a bit fairer. I believe that the consequence should be equal (or greater in some instances) to the action. To me, 10 years in jail for mutilating someone's face is not an equal punishment for the action. Now 10 years in jail and the same mutilation to me is a fair punishment for willingly inflicting the above on another human being. Now I ask you, what about that is NOT fair?

Ah Lynx but I would dare say that if anything the use of torture would be the less emotional decision. I will use an analogy. Most police officers will tell you that they hope to never have to draw their weapon during their time of service. Yet if they are in a situation where drawing their weapon can help save their life, or the life of others, they will draw in a heart beat. That is because they can move their emotions to the side and do what they believe is necessary in the situation. Now to relate that with torture. I don't believe these men, who order/condone torture (as a whole) enjoy the concept of torture. I don't believe they wake up and say "Man would I love to cause an immense amount of pain to another person today". Now I do agree that torture for revenge is simply not useful. Yet these people will do what they believe is necessary to protect lives. Now the above is a personal belief of mine, but I personally believe that the point of torture is to gather information. If you are torturing a prisoner simply for the enjoyment you get out of seeing another human being writhing in pain, that is not acceptable in my opinion.

I won't tell you why it should be done to me. I don't deserve it. I've never attacked a person, tried to strangle them with a cord, and then cut of their nose and ears to make a point. What mutilation accomplishes is a punishment. In my opinion, deterrent or not, you have permanently ruined this 22 year old woman's life. It's hard enough to get by in life, now have a severely mutilated face and see how that works for you. The point of "eye for an eye" is to make the perpetrator feel the same kind of that their victim had to suffer. I'm not saying that it will deter crime, but there is no amount of jail time that can ever make you undergo the same torment and pain that this person now has to suffer for the rest of their life. To me what "eye for an eye" accomplishes is a fair retribution paid against someone who voluntarily did an act of injustice towards another human being. For Lynx: As I said, I do agree to a point. But for example, China uses the death penalty liberally for murderers and they have over 4 times the population, yet half the murder rate we do. I'm not saying that is the only reason for their low murders, but I do believe (personally) that it has something to do with it. Again I do agree that as a whole, if someone is going to commit a crime, unless the penalty is drastic, it doesn't do too much to deter. Ahh but you see are you sure that the idea of eye for an eye is really the emotional, unreasonable response? Or could it possibly be that the emotional response is not wanting to exact a severe punishment unto another person? I would say it's perfectly reasonable to believe that if a person takes another person's life, that their life should also be taken. I'm looking at this with no emotion involved. In my opinion, if you voluntarily take another person's life, that person wasn't given the option to sit in jail for the rest of their lives. They had no option except to lose their life to you. Part of what I think it comes down to is emotions, but not on my side of the fence. For example, if your dog is sick and old, you put the dog down. You do this because it's the "humane" thing to do for the suffering animal. Yet we say that if a human wants to end his life (if he is sick and old) it's "inhumane" to do the same thing? If a dog is overly aggressive and violent, you put him down because he can't co-exist with other people or animals. Yet if a human acts the same way, then it's "inhumane" to consider the same option. Now before I get the whole "OMG WTF YOU THINK PEOPLE ARE JUST LIKE ANIMALS!?!?!?!!?", I'm posting the above as food for thought. Ultimately I feel like sending someone to jail for life is an emotional cop-out. If a man kidnaps a person, locks them in a cell, gives them food and water and clothing ect. Now they die (of old age/whatever). If the police catch him, it's still manslaughter. That's exactly what we're doing with these men. We're sentencing them to death, but it's a death that makes it easier for some people to sleep on. Now while we're at it, you're sapping tons of money out of the system to support people who's ultimate goal is to die in that exact same spot xx years later. There really is no argument that capital punishment isn't logical (except on the exception that an innocent man may be executed, but inversely that same innocent man could just as easily be killed in prison during his term). Even at that, the percentage is so low, it would be parallel to saying that police officers should not carry guns because on a very small percentage an innocent person will be shot by unintentional police fire. The only argument is really based on if you believe it's ethical or not. EDIT: Fix tags

I do agree that as a whole, the severity is less effective than the chance of getting caught. But for example if you changed the law so that if you're caught speeding, you will never be able to drive again (I know its an extreme), you would drastically decrease the number of people speeding. Not to say that it works in every situation as again I do agree with you on a whole. My opinion is that if a person acts in an inhumane way towards another person, they don't deserve to have humane punishment. For example in our legal system those guys would most likely get 10-20 years in jail (maybe) and this 22 year old woman has virtually lost her life. I mean can you imagine going through life like that? I do agree that it's not perfect and innocent people may be maimed/killed. But on the inverse most of these people who have been cleared after years in jail have no lives left to live. I'll try to find a source but I think I heard somewhere that after 20 years in prison most people who leave prison wish they were back because they have such a hard time in the world after that much time away. I'm not saying the idea is perfect, but the concept to me that a man (or woman) could kill 15 people and live out his days being completely cared for (if not nurtured) does not seem fair to me. If someone killed my wife, they had better hope the cops find him before I do. Hell I'd even go as far as saying in cases as severe as murder that they allow the victim's family to choose the punishment.

So I was reading through CNN and found the following article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/22/pakistan.harsh.justice/index.html What are your thoughts on the eye for an eye concept? Also please explain why you feel the way you do. Personally I think that is justice. If you cut of a woman's nose and ears, well then why shouldn't the same be done to you?

lol. Please cite an impartial source if you can for your first source and one that cites sources of it's own. "Scientists do not pretend to know, in any individual case, whether torture might extract useful information." From your second source, which I've said I agree with on the most part. Your third source is an ex FBI interrogator, who is an anti-torture activist. I say that is one mans opinion. I'd like to see a published report is possible. Please cite where the use of torture makes you a terrorist. I also believe that sometimes in order to beat an enemy, you have to do things you may otherwise not do. These countries don't hate us for torture (which has only recently come into light). They hate us for our political and militaristic actions of the past decades. If torture is done properly, no one will ever know it happened. That's like comparing apples to oranges. First with a patient you can actively assess their medical history and you are looking to cure a specific . With interrogation there is no way to limit the controls to an accurate level. Even trying to use environment and background history as a control is useless because there is only a very loose correlation. Cite that. I also want you to cite where anyone, any where has been able to create a report showing the positive results of torture. Seriously, one things humans are, most notably when it comes to war is efficient. If torture was so ineffective then it would have been stamped out over the ages. Again I challenge you to answer this question: What is telling him the boogey man is gonna eat him gonna make him talk? Just a few sources I can find quick: http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-30938320071211 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/justify/ (Interesting article of people from Harvard debating the use of torture) I'm at work and it's hard to find sources because a lot of sources have been mysteriously "removed". Again it's a lot like global warming. There is a lot of evidence and a lot of people speaking out against man's influence in global warming, but they're getting harder to find. For Lynx: So to sum up your entire post: "I think torture is morally wrong so anyone else who thinks different is simply wrong." Sounds a bit Catholic to me. I will go into dissecting everything you've posted, but only if you're willing to have a DISCUSSION on the topic. I'm not willing to waste my time arguing with a zealot who believes (at least in this issue) that anyone not taking your side is simply wrong.

First we're arguing something that there is no factual evidence on. Even if the FBI presents a report, that is based on their analysis. Also note that being torture is "Internationally condemned" you will not find a credible source citing when/where torture has been useful because then International action HAS to be taken (due to Geneva convention violations). I say this is a similar metric as how they have stats of how many lives are taken by the use of guns, but there is no statistics to allocate how many lives were saved from the use of guns. As such, I agree on some levels with what you've said above, and I disagree. First, "terrorists" have no problem using these tactics on our allies and have no commitment to the Geneva conventions. As such using the same tactics against them does not alter our ideal "war on terror". The reason why these people hate us has little to do with our interrogation tactics. In fact I don't think most of them could outline if we do or do not torture. Until we change the cultural view of the United States in these "terrorist" groups (due to warranted and propagandized actions), then we will always have the "war on terror". On the scientific grounds, I do agree to a point. First depending on what you are doing to torture a person, they can lose sense and a lot of other actions (which is why torture although brutal, is a form of art (in a very crude way)). I say that in the sense that there is a very thin line to walk before it becomes useless. As for the empirical, I would dare say that if enhanced interrogation is supposedly ineffective, then you need to completely eliminate the concept of interrogation. You've captured men who are not only completely prepared to die for their God and cause, but who have also been highly trained and harbor a hatred so deep for you that they're willing to sacrifice their own lives to eliminate yours. These men have no problem killing men, women and children. They would just assume blow up a school bus as they would a tank. What can you honestly tell this man that is going to make him decide to give his secrets to you? The idea of death or prison does not scare him. As we are arguing hypotheticals, I go back to the case that your prisoner will tell you anything you want to hear to stop the torture. Well a key that still allows torture to be effective is that you don't let your prisoner go after you torture him. If you're asking where is cell leader is and he tells you (A). You evaluate (A). If (A) was false, you begin torture again. Again there is an art to inflict pain without severe loss of mental capacity. Now what if he tells you the truth, but his cell has moved? Well no system is perfect by any means but in my opinion, you've got the chance to get information out of this man, where without "enhanced interrogation" you've got no chance. For the ethical part, I am a very eye for an eye type of man. I believe that if you murder someone, you deserve to die. I believe that if you murder multiple people, you don't deserve to have rights we would accord to a normal human being as you took not only the rights of those people you killed, but their lives too. Ultimately these men get no empathy from me. Not to say there will not be innocents caught and tortured and possibly killed, but that is a casualty of war. You attempt to limit civilian casualties, but there will always be some casualties.

I would say that striving for world peace is futile. In definition and theory it sounds amazing, but we cannot even have peace in most small cities, let alone for the entire world. There will always be levels of peace and war, but unless you kill every human on the planet, there will never be world peace.

That is exactly like trying to strive for "world peace". Seriously unless you brainwash every human being in the world to no longer be human, there will always be war and there will always be torture. I'm not saying that it should be internationally condoned, but for people who act "shocked and abhorred" that it happens is simply naive and unrealistic. I also believe there are uses for torture. Ultimately we're just animals. We like to think of ourselves as "better" than animals, but we're not. That is a matter of opinion. Personally I feel that there are times and places where torture can be useful. We can elaborate later in another topic if you want me to get into those details. Same thing with indefinite detention.

lol bad press is about all Guantanamo cost us. Every country has their own version of it, to think different would be naive. It's kinda like Bill Clinton. How many presidents of any country aren't getting head under the desk? I mean hell "sleep with president" is nearly on the job description for presidential intern. He just got caught lying about having his hand in the cookie jar.

Hey Bak, I don't have a source to cite, I'll try to find it, but my cousins in law (my wife's cousins) come from a police family. Her uncle is a retired detective, one of the cousins is a police officer the other is a sheriff. I can confirm that at least in NY state, you are only allowed to use equal forced used against you. So if someone is attacking you with a knife, shooting them is excessive force. If you shoot first in NYS you need to actually need to prove that the only way to save your life, or another life was to discharge your weapon, which is a bear to try to do. It's damn stupid.

I'm of the eye for an eye type of deal but even with corrupt cops, unless they're going Rambo on these thugs and gangs, then they don't deserve to die. And maybe going Rambo on these gangs might be the way to do it, so I find it hard to eye for an eye them. If someone's murdered 3 people and someone murders him, to me that's its own form of justice. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm more lenient about someone shaking down criminals over shaking down people who earned an honest living.

lol the map was right...it was just the labeling that was wrong. Doesn't really upset me because there are problems in all facets of the news. To me that is no bigger a deal than the image DR. B. posted.

Your whole argument on a smoker's car is irrelevant. First who's to say that a smoker isn't buying the car? Second, they thoroughly clean the car, including the systems like heat and air conditioning. Third, my parents have always smoked and never gotten less than the blue book for their car when sold. Fourth, if you've ever bought a used car you most likely have no idea, unless you know the previous owner, if it actually was a smokers or not. I agree that if you start voiding warranties on smokers then you have to take other situations into consideration. Sama, as for your pics, In order for something like that to build up that means you're not cleaning your computer and using it for a LONG time. If you had electric heat (which produces more dust) you'd see something similar if not cleaned. Like most things if you don't take care of your equipment it will have problems.

The point isn't to shoot at a tank with a shotgun. If you used that mentality, should every country who is getting aggression from a technologically superior country simply surrender? No matter how many tanks you have, you can't win a war or rebellion with tanks or jets alone. Also note that when you have arms it gives you means to confiscate such technology from the enemy. Hell, a well armed group of civilians could very easily storm an army/navy/air force base. An unarmed group has no chance. Plus the civilians have the advantage that unless the government plans to destroy most of it's infrastructure which it needs for those very same tanks and jets, tanks and jets are only of limited use in non rural areas, in a civil war done in a non 3rd world country. It's not exactly like you can carpet bomb Chicago or just drive a tank down Broadway. I mean I could honestly go on for a while.

Amen.

Random thought... I find it funny that BDE now also owns Kazaa too...do they just love to eat up Priit's old work? Which isn't surprising being one of the guys(Kevin Bermeister) who co-founded altnet inc. also founded BDE, and the other altnet co-founder(Janus Friis) has also been a co-creator of Kazaa, Skype and Joost (with Priit and Niklas Zennström). Why that is convenient is that before Kazaa was sold to BDE, it partnered with Altnet inc to try and charge users for use of Kazaa (to make it more legit). BTW Altnet inc. is a division of BDE. Just thought I'd post this funny little circle of online love.

grapes.