Simulacrum

SeVeR: I would put Town Hall up there with WorldNetDaily in terms of objective, quality reporting, if you're familiar with them. Brain: I don't think that's his point at all. In fact, the issue is not that he is attacking the KKK, but that he is attacking Iran by connecting it with the KKK through something as frivolous as the titles of its leadership. Given that the KKK is reviled for its racism rather than its ranks, it's disingenuous to make that comparison out of the blue. It just makes the author look like he's grasping for an Evil Entity to link to Iran for the hell of it, rather than noting a meaningful parallel between the two groups.

To SeVeR's list of reasons this is not a credible article, I would add that it's fucking townhall.com.

I'm not used to forums so given to sanctimony.

This is actually a testable claim. Do people take care of everything through charities when welfare does not exist?

My point is that saying "Oh, the charities will take care of it" is rather naive when charities providing food for tens of thousands of people are willing to withdraw their support over political issues. When a charity acts like this, it is certainly not following your "get people back on their feet" formula.

Private (and especially religious) charities have been known to use their positions as a political bargaining chip. You may still think that private charities should be preferred over state welfare, but it is certainly not true that they have identical goals.

Not only do I draw criticism, but I've apparently managed to draw personal criticism. Accepting that paradigm: even though I appear to agree with you on taxes, go fuck yourself.

But, as mentioned previously, taxes and regulation aren't the same thing. It's unclear to me how discussion of global warming regulations relates to taxes. Moving the discussion away from global warming is something that you endorsed yourself a couple of posts back. I'm only suggesting that somebody actually, you know... do it.

Might I suggest that all these long posts about not-taxes that say "now let's talk about taxes" at the end do precisely dick to move the discussion back to taxes?

It wasted a fuckton of the time I should have been spending on homework. In the long run, worth it.

No. The evidence shows that it doesn't. What the hell? Have you heard of Venus?

Anyway, it's not like global warming is the only form of pollution, which is really the relevant category concerning regulation. Actually, taxes aren't regulation, so what does any of this have to do with the topic?

And now you're talking about the criminal's opinion again. I'm sure you'll accuse me of twisting your words here, though, as at every other turn. Whatever. I'm out.

I actually agree with Brain here: It's incredibly myopic to think that America was loved and respected worldwide before Bush, or that everyone would have stayed in love with us for particularly long after September 11th. I do think that the atmosphere immediately after 9/11 could have been used to build internationalism, but the fact that it was not does not indicate that Bush's actions were the genesis of anti-Americanism.

You say this like it is self-evident, and yet it is pretty clearly not. What is your justification for it? There may be a minor difference, but (1) is still deeply flawed; you say that eye-for-an-eye punishment is moral because punishment is necessary, and offer no justification. And since you justify punishment (which you practically conflate with eye-for-an-eye punishment) by saying that it is necessary for deterrence, it's not hard to see where my interpretation comes from. Yet you were speaking not of punishment in general, but of eye-for-an-eye punishment. In spite of your insistence on telling me what my opinion is, we both agree that punishment is justifiable. Our difference is that you think punishment should be eye-for-an-eye. So, let's look at a simpler example. What if you had said "Eye-for-an-eye punishment is necessary because criminals must pay for their crimes"? If I interpret "pay for their crimes" as "be punished," I'm left with "Eye-for-an-eye punishment is necessary because criminals must be punished," which sounds silly because it does nothing to establish the "eye-for-an-eye" part. Now, there is another way of interpreting "pay," and, while it may not be the most natural, it actually manages to account for the full claim being made and therefore form a coherent argument. I guess it's up to you which interpretation you were going for. But they're both flawed. Also, I don't fully accept that "payment" in the context of criminal justice does not imply a vengeance model. Where do you think that phrase comes if not from a notion that inflicting punishment repays something to the victim? Seriously? I've been talking about deterrence and consequentialism since page one. Any punishment geared toward preventing future crime rather than inflicting pain Because It's Just is not vengeance. In fact, although you've been talking about vengeance, you've also been talking about it from the start merely as something that arises naturally from deterrence. It seems to me that we don't disagree at all about the ends of punishment, but I still don't understand why you regard an eye for an eye as the magic formula for the appropriate level of deterrence. Now as before, that's my real question.

Christ, I might as well just duck out and let you argue with yourself: Or, looking within your post rather than between them: When you say "it's moral ... otherwise there would be no deterrent for those crimes," "it" referring to eye-for-an-eye punishment, what else am I to infer? Granted, I think it's a silly thing to say, but when your argument plainly states that equal retribution is necessary for deterrence, what else do I have to respond to? Your secret inner thoughts? While "payment" can refer to punishment, it was you who placed it specifically in a context of eye-for-an-eye punishment. If it is not payment in an economic sense, then it is not a justification for the eye-for-an-eye principle. Fair. Ironic that you would accuse me of not proving anything right in the midst of merely asserting that all punishment is vengeance. Care to elaborate?

(Ignoring NBVegita. Not that anyone should be surprised.) (Internet ate the first edition of this post. Color me upset.) This is absurd. People commit violent crimes not because they judge them to be ethical, but because they are considering practical rather than ethical interests. If you really want to take a convict's opinion on his punishment, just ask him. I suspect, however, that you won't find so much support for your position. You know as well as I do that an eye for an eye is not necessary for there to be any deterrence, unless you really believe that states without the death penalty have no deterrents against murder. Also, it's misleading to portray retribution as payment. Payment, in the example case, would be for the attackers to pay for their victim's medical treatment, counseling, etc. Retribution, on the other hand, would hurt the criminal worse and help the victim less. I never said that it was anything but a statement: But, since this statement is obviously part of an argument, it should not assume that the conclusion of the argument is correct. Otherwise, you end up in Circular Logic Land, which has short summers and nasty winters. The bolded part is patently false, as are the conclusions following from it. Punishment can be a deterrent or involve restitution without being done for revenge. These are legitimate ends of punishment; vengeance is not.

Perhaps it would, in some cases. As I said before, I am not in all cases opposed to punishment equal to offense. I am, however, opposed to treating this as an ends in itself. Anyway, the burden of proof ought to be on the person advocating that we mutilate people. Justice means different things in different contexts. Quit equivocating. That is not how I define justice, but I do think that justice necessitates non-violent punishment. It does, however, necessitate punishment respectful of human rights and aimed toward concrete benefits.

It has a great bearing on the definition of what I'm saying. Saying all retribution is justice is nothing like saying fair retribution is justice. I am simply elaborating that I never made the initial claim you stated. Right, but my argument is exactly the same if you add the word fair to it (or if you understand "retribution" as referring to "eye-for-an-eye" "fair" retribution in this context, as I have). Once again: the fact that there are multiple definitions of "fairness" does not mean that I have to pick one to be mine. Your question is meaningless. Same reason ordinary violence isn't justified. Punishment can be justified where it will prevent further harm. Doing violence to someone just because they're a Bad Person™ who Deserves It™, however, doesn't even claim to prevent future harm. Or if the punishment is eye-for-an-eye execution rather than execution by torture. Again, there are moral considerations in inflicting violence, and you have not explained why they are bounded by the eye-for-an-eye line. So I could cut off the executioner's nose, then? More seriously: Why is it moral? And since you are trying to argue that eye-for-an-eye punishment is just, why are you reasoning from statements like "It is moral to cut off the nose of someone who cuts off people's noses"? This is not at all what I am saying. Punishment can be immoral, but vengeance is an immoral purpose for punishment. Punishment should be tailored to prevent abuse in the future, whether by the person who is punished or by others who are deterred by it. While this principle may indeed justify eye-for-an-eye punishment in some cases, using the eye-for-an-eye principle as an ends in itself means that the prevention of abuse falls by the wayside. And if preventing abuse is not a goal, why have the law in the first place?

Fine. You have said that fair retribution is justice. Does this have any bearing on my argument? It should be pretty clear by now that I not think that these words are interchangeable synonyms. Remember when I said that fairness is not sufficient for justice? Would you like a dictionary? I never said that it was unfair. In fact, I have specifically stated that an eye for an eye satisfies certain definitions of fairness. It does not satisfy certain others, but that is beside the point, as none of those definitions are "mine." I am not saying that retribution is necessarily unfair; I am saying that fair retribution is still not justified.

Uhh, what? If you kill someone and I send you to jail for 20 years, I'm encouraging you to kill more people? No. You're already weighing moral considerations when you say "this far, but no more." Clearly we both agree that it's wrong to cut off someone's nose. What I'm asking is why it becomes un-wrong when your victim is also guilty.

Why is there a "right" bucket? BIG EDIT: Apparently a federal case to overturn Prop 8 (and, thus, gay marriage bans nationwide) had its first day in court today in California. The top lawyers from both sides of Bush v. Gore are teaming up on the pro-freedom-and-puppies side with this one, and actually seem pretty confident in getting it to a receptive Supreme Court by Fall 2011. As an amateur student of legal theory, I'd be surprised to see them overturn the precedent on this. But bringing in witnesses seems like a good idea.

And punishing him/her less would be... what... subtracting from the crime? Of course not. You're adding on anyway, so why is an-eye-for-an-eye the balance point? And worse than any more severe punishment, of course. Again, my point is that you already acknowledge that there are moral considerations beyond deterrence. You have yet to address those considerations directly.

Don't forget that Portugal (one of the most catholic country) just allowed gay marriages. Not really. The Portuguese Parliament passed a first-round vote on a gay marriage bill, if Wikipedia can be trusted.