Simulacrum

(Bumped for great justice) A year later, Maine has unbanned and then rebanned gay marriage, while New Hampshire has just begun allowing it. Thoughts?

Why is "an eye for an eye" the magic point where it would be morally wrong to go any further? Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate what punishment would result in the least total abuse (the strength of the punishment offset by its deterrent effects)? Edit: I mean, you clearly recognize that punishment can be immorally severe. Why do you think that punishment is automatically OK as long as it doesn't cross the eye-for-an-eye line?

How does proportionality have any bearing on effectiveness as a deterrent?

I've repeatedly pointed out that your logic is circular, at which point you inevitably deny that you were making any sort of argument at all. Which... is pretty silly, as I've said, in a discussion forum, but at any rate you can't deny that you're making an argument and then pretend to hold some sort of logical high ground. Jesus tittyfucking Christ, do you even know what axioms are? I never said that morals don't change. Look up "irreducible." It doesn't mean what you think it means. Circulate? But in any case, it doesn't matter what you've tried to do. If your argument is that retribution is just because it is fair, it is circular. Very well. But you have said that retribution is justice; when I asked you why it is meted out, you quoted yourself saying that it accomplishes "fair retribution" — and you bolded the word "fair"; again in that quote we see that you like "eye-for-an-eye" because it is retribution — or do you like retribution because it is eye-for-an-eye? Since then, you've been trying to get me to admit that retribution is fair, according to some unclear definition of fairness. Considering that you've done some (accidental or otherwise) considerable work toward building an argument around fairness, you ought to explain why you value the fairness which you ascribe to retribution. Don't take it from me: If retribution is a fair infliction of injustice, then fairness clearly does not suffice for justice. A stronger deterrent would be to torture every criminal to death. Surely you agree that there are other considerations in judicial punishment than seeking the strongest deterrents.

IN A.D. 2010 WAR WAS BEGINNING.

Pay-to-vote introduces the issue that many players might not vote on the supposition that their money would just be thrown away to a more popular player.

"Logically" is another word that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. (Hint: "I think it sounds natural" is not a logical argument.) Also, why is my argument the emotional one? Where have I even appealed to emotions? I'm getting really fucking tired of this "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man" Jeff Lebowski bullshit. The irreducibility of moral axioms does not imply that circular reasoning is sensible. There is no discussion to be had here if the only justification you have for retribution is one that presupposes the acceptability retribution. If you don't want discussion, then GTFO the World Discussion forum. You stated that your moral reasoning is "predicated" by this natural law (To save you the trouble of looking it up, "predicated" means "founded, based." Not "matched."). If this wasn't intended as an argument, it's at least the closest you've come to making one. Aren't you trying to prove (or at least argue) that "eye for an eye" is defensible? Every time you have asked the question, you have framed "fairness" according to your own definition rather than my own. And, indeed, there may not be anything wrong with your definition of fairness, since it is a word and not a metaphysical category. I haven't answered the question, then, because (as I have repeatedly argued, without substantive response) I do not find it relevant: whether I find something "fair" has no clear bearing on whether I should find it ethical. But, at any rate: If you define "fairness" as "repaying a person according to his or her actions," then of course retribution is fair. However, I do not value fairness under this definition, and I find its use in justifying retribution to be circular — retribution is simply the repayment of negative actions. If, however, "fairness" is understood as the absence of bias, I am all for it. But what does this have to do with retribution? Your original question was about what I find unfair about retribution, and my response to it hasn't really changed: the only definition of fairness that would even be a question for retribution in the general case does apply to it, but this does not imply an ethical justification of retribution. Edit: In other words: No, there's nothing unfair about it, but fairness is not sufficient for justification.

The problem with your argument is not that it uses relative terms. The problem is that it is circular, and not even well-disguised. Since fairness means retribution for you, you cannot expect to prove anything about retribution by asking me how I would feel about the fairness or proportionality of retribution in a situation. As for the equal and opposite reaction, that is a law of physics that cannot be seriously taken as an ethical principle; it is descriptive, not normative. And even within the natural sciences, chemical reactions among other things do not follow this law. But at any rate, I should like to think that human morality has developed beyond the principles which govern the clattering of asteroids into each other.

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. What do you mean by "fair retribution" beyond "the good feeling I get by hurting a bad person"? That word... I don't think it means what you think it means. There is nothing about "an eye for an eye" that contradicts your apparent definition of fairness. Instead, I contend that your conception of fairness is unrelated to ethics. In fact, it seems that by "fair" you simply mean "repaying the actions of its object" — in other words, while you use fairness as a justification for the eye-for-an-eye principle, you have already defined fairness so that it necessitates the eye-for-an-eye principle. While this may be a, for lack of a better word, fair definition of fairness in terms of its common understanding, what non-circular reasons do you have for valuing both retributive justice and this particular notion of fairness?

Lynx, I think that your script won't run ./ because the first line is missing a !

I'd have banned them on principle.

OK, but if you disprove a conception of God like "there is an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being," you're invalidating a pretty fundamental tenet of the Abrahamic religions.

Not scientifically, at least. But you can make philosophical arguments that point to contradictions in a particular conception of God. If these arguments hold, then God is proven to not exist.

Fair, but surely you realize that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have not always referred to the same principles, and continue to refer to different sets of principles in different places.

As someone who disagrees with Dr. Brain about pretty much everything, I think that he's just about on point. Bak's using "conservative" in a way that's far too flexible to build anything out of, so in the end he ends up saying nothing at all.

Paradoxically, where your argument falls apart is the historical instability of conservatism. Most of the views which you ascribe to the conservatives of the past would never be held by the conservatives today, because the very definition of conservatism is dependent upon the current position of ever-changing facts of society. If conservatism is truly always wrong, the logical conclusion is that we should never resist change. This can't be a good idea; we should never use such a general rule in place of considering ideas on their merits, or else we will never settle on the best ideas. Granted, you hedge your bet by saying that this is a "ridiculous" post. Very well; I think that you are right. But I wonder what you hope to accomplish by sinking to Aileron's level. Edit for Dr. Brain: I think that conservative does mean supporting the status quo, but only because, at any particular historical moment, the word "conservative" is used to describe that support. This doesn't mean that conservatives have no principles; it just means that the principles that we describe as "conservative" (and as "liberal") will probably change down the line when different issues come to the fore.

As an Internet (and real life) progressive, I know what you're talking about and quite agree. I'm not sure that it's limited to progressives, though; you can find similar reasoning (albeit with more caps and shorter words) over at Free Republic.

The bit about conservative governments not interfering with society or social life is Grade A horseshit, though.

Well, right. I'm asking if it would be possible to create such a log in order to alleviate those risks.

Berlusconi, petty? Perish the thought!

Developers: Would it be feasible to log ?gives, or large ?gives? Edit: Or, I suppose the problem is that there's no way to verify that the money was lost. Damn. What about recording each player's ?money after transactions of over 100k?

In any case, this should only be more reason to fix tax loopholes. I don't care so much if corporations are good or bad people, but being Good People is not a fair excuse to break the law.

Whereas I would like to decrease the amount of abuse in the world. Retribution is entirely hostile to this idea, and you haven't illustrated your rival ideals' benefits beyond restating them in different words ("justice," "an eye for an eye," "fairness"). If you can't illustrate any benefits to the model of justice which you are proposing, then what is it beyond the pornographic infliction of suffering which you have condemned elsewhere?

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. Witty. No shit. But why? Why do you value making people feel "torment and pain"? There is no amount of torment and pain that can actually undo the original crime.