Sensitivity Training

[Nikolaz72]

Snip

So you think a lot of the older republicans who were leading politicians during the red scare also deserves 'every' ounce of hate that they get? In that case I guess we agree with eachother on both counts. But it has nothing to do with religion, more to do with facist policies.

Youknow, if you agree to hate muslims cause they discriminate against nonmuslims. You must also hate Christians for discriminating against non-christians. And Conservatives for approving violence against people following left-leaning ideologies.

 

[Agayek]

Lets say I am in a position of power and am able to spread information very fast and I insult or spread bad rumors your mother or father or whoever your most beloved person or thing is. Are you not allowed to be angry? Are you not allowed to punch me in the face out of frustration because in the hypothetical scenario you are not in a position that anyone will listen to you. That is why some people respond violently to comments.
This is the situation most uneducated Muslims found themselves in after the video was posted on Youtube.
Those who could respond peacefully did. Like the response to Newsweek's Muslim Rage article on twitter.

Of course you're allowed to be angry when someone maligns you or yours falsely. What you're not allowed to do is haul off on someone for stating their opinion. You can argue your case, and if they've lied you can prove them wrong, but you are not in any way justified in attacking them.

When someone says something you don't like, there's 2 possible scenarios that can play out.

1) It's the truth
2) It's a lie

If #1 is the case, then the solution is ridiculously simple: Accept it or change it. Either you like it, in which case good on you, or you don't like it, in which case the onus is on you to do something about it. Neither of these responses involve violence, rioting, or really much of anything beyond some introspection and possibly a change/focus in your efforts in the future.

If #2 is the case, then they can safely be ignored (as clearly the holder of said opinion has false information or is deliberately lying, either way they're not worth the effort), or if you're feeling petty, proven false. Again, neither of these options involve violence.

At the end of the day, responding to someone's opinion with violence is inherently flawed, and you do not in any way have the right to do so. The initiation of violence is inherently wrong, with a very small handful of exceptions that almost all fall under the category of "the victim was planning to initiate violence upon me".

TLDR version: Settling arguments, especially such pointless ones as "which ancient text that's been translated so many times and across so many cultures that practically nothing of the original remains is the ONE REAL TRUTH", with violence is fucking atrocious, and anyone that does so needs to be beaten to death before their stupidity can take even more of a foothold amongst the human race.

 

[Cavouku]

So, if I said that you needed to convert to Catholicism or be punched in the face until the stupid bleeds out of your ears, would that be discussing my belief uncivilly?

Just askin'.

If you attempted to assault me because I said your *insert holy book here* is fallacious, you would be discussing your beliefs uncivilly.

If you restrained it to just stating that you want to punch me in the face for not being *insert religion here*, you would still qualify as "civil".

No war actually happened because people told other people to believe in their religion. They happened because of political and social differences. Even the Crusades wasn't the Pope telling Muslims to convert. The first one was because one Muslim ruler forgot that Islam prohibits persecuting non-Muslims living in a Muslim country and started abusing Christians. The Byzantine emperor called for help and the Pope seized this as an opportunity to gain political power and throw some bad people out of Europe by sending them as mercenaries/Crusaders. Where does Christianity or Islam come into this? Its Muslims and Christians who were the culprits, not their religion. If they did follow their religion, the Muslim ruler would not have done what he did and the Pope would turn the other cheek. And don't say religion allowed these people to control everyone else, people like that can use any excuse. Stalin, Hitler and Robespierre used nationality to do the same thing. Money can be and is used to do it, resources, land, anything can do it.

Some Muslims can and do respond in a civil manner, you just tend to ignore them.
What question would you ask of me, a proud Pakistani Muslim?

Also, Islam has rules for war, one of them being to not kill civilians and another being if an enemy inclines to peace we are ordered to incline to peace.

About the protests, you only saw the violent ones. From Pakistan,for example, you saw the ones on the day declared by the government on which it turned violent. No news channel covered the peaceful one in my university or the one held by Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman, the Grand Mufti of Pakistan, one week later. What you don't understand about those protests is that there are some people here who use protests like this as an excuse to start looting.

I live in Karachi and I actually saw the aftermath of this personally. Is a stupid joke worth this? Is it not hate speech if it incites hatred between my people and yours? We aren't asking you to censor any speech that you don't censor for others.

I never said anything about Islam.

I'm firmly of the camp that people are people. Some are good, some are bad, and the vast majority are somewhere in between. Muslim, Christian, Atheist, black, white, yellow, tall, short, whatever. It's all irrelevant. People are people.

My point was not the whole "fuck religions, especially those damn dirty Arabs!" thing that you've apparently conjured up. I explicitly made no mention of any particular religion or situation, simply a general guideline of behavior.

My post explicitly states that "anyone (I really want to draw attention to this because you're apparently willfully blind to it) who can't keep their hands to themselves over an argument needs to be punched in the face". That means that anyone, regardless of race or creed, that feels the need to resort to violence to settle an argument needs to be violently beaten, preferably with pieces of their own anatomy.

People can, and have, done terrible things to people for any number of reasons, some valid, but most horrifically not. Anyone who perpetrates violence against another for stating their opinion is most assuredly in the latter category. I don't give a flying fuck what the reasons are.

Actually, I should've read the second page before my last post.

Now, you realize you're recommending violence against violent people, right? I just want to point that out to you. I know you probably mean more of a general "they should be punished for assaulting others" deal, but you shouldn't use forms of assault within that punishment. That's... kinda getting a bit Hammurabic there.

You're right. People who use violence in an argument are not being nice, and should receive some form of condemnation for it. Religion is barely related to that. I don't believe anyone's disagreeing.

So... thanks for the input, but unless it IS related to religion, like the "My texts are holier than thou'sts" bit from earlier, it's a bit redundant. In regards to the text thing... well, it's one of many reasons people argue. I like to think South Park had it right; if you take away the thing making people argue, they'll find something else to argue about.

Captcha: inside out

I just thought that might have some meaning if you think about it.

 

[Agayek]

I'm willing to totally agree, but we can extend that to; the problem also comes when people with different beliefs or no beliefs are not being civil towards people with certain beliefs, right?

That's more or less what I was driving at under "discuss", so yea sure.

Edit: To clarify a response to your second quote of me, I am in fact promoting violence against those who initiate violence. Violence is a tool, and just like any other, it has its place. Defending you and yours is the most widely acknowledged of such, but it also extends to the realm of punishment. I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility and accepting punishment for wrongdoing, 'tis one of the reasons I support the death penalty and whatnot.

If someone is willing to commit violence, they implicitly accept the responsibility for that choice, and should therefore have violence committed unto them for doing so.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

or because they're xenophobic turds looking for any excuse to put the boot in on a religion they don't even begin to understand.

This is politically correct bleeding heart liberalism at it's finest. Islam deserves EVERY single goddamn ounce of hate it gets. Speaking as someone who's family lived under the boot of an Islamic theocracy, where you could be executed for having a Bible in your family home (my family is Christian, and this very nearly happened), I understand Islam more than some bleeding heart liberal who spouts the same politically correct, inane bullshit about how Islam isn't "different from any other religion". Christopher Hitchen's would disagree.

Also, tying Islam to race by your use of the word "xenophobic" is racist in itself. I'm of Middle Eastern descent, yet no one in my immediate and extended family are Muslim.

Shit like this sets me off, when people of privilege who don't have to deal with the absolute misery Islam as a whole still brings to the world (It's not the Middle Ages anymore, so the "BUT OTHER RELIGIONS DID BAD STUFF TOO!!11!" argument doesn't really hold up), get on a moral high horse and condemn us as "bigots" for hating a religion of bigotry and hatred.

I am very sorry about what happened to you but I would like to clarify that if you lived in a Muslim county, Islam says it is the responsibility of the government to protect you.
If the government that you lived under ignored this part then they are not just terrible people, they are terrible Muslims.
When Pakistanis burnt Hindu temples in response to the Babri Masjid verdict in India, our government actually paid to repair those temples and they were following Islam when they did this. I can't provide links to this news but this was something my old history teacher(who came from India to Pakistan in 1971) told the class.
Again I am very sorry for what Muslims did to you and your family and your community.

 

[NotALiberal]

Snip

So you think a lot of the older republicans who were leading politicians during the red scare also deserves 'every' ounce of hate that they get? In that case I guess we agree with eachother on both counts. But it has nothing to do with religion, more to do with facist policies.

I still think the vast majority of Republican senators deserve every ounce of hate they get. Nothing but a bunch of idiots pandering to the ignorant conservatard masses. Not as much as I hate liberals though. Matt Stone said it best, really .. "I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.", which sums up my stance on the matter.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Snip

So you think a lot of the older republicans who were leading politicians during the red scare also deserves 'every' ounce of hate that they get? In that case I guess we agree with eachother on both counts. But it has nothing to do with religion, more to do with facist policies.

I still think the vast majority of Republican senators deserve every ounce of hate they get. Nothing but a bunch of idiots pandering to the ignorant conservatard masses. Not as much as I hate liberals though. Matt Stone said it best, really .. "I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.", which sums up my stance on the matter.

So you hate everything? Ah well, I guess I cant really use you for a measurement tool anyway. As long as you arent using liberals as a synonym for 'left leaning' like some other idiots I've seen... actually, im not even certain the democrats are liberal. Are you American or Not? Cause Democrats are pretty much the actual conservatives with a mix of Liberalism. The Republicans are regressive s with a mix of conservatism, which makes Democrats seem progressive, really its just an illusion.

 

[NotALiberal]

Snip

So you think a lot of the older republicans who were leading politicians during the red scare also deserves 'every' ounce of hate that they get? In that case I guess we agree with eachother on both counts. But it has nothing to do with religion, more to do with facist policies.

I still think the vast majority of Republican senators deserve every ounce of hate they get. Nothing but a bunch of idiots pandering to the ignorant conservatard masses. Not as much as I hate liberals though. Matt Stone said it best, really .. "I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.", which sums up my stance on the matter.

So you hate everything? Ah well, I guess I cant really use you for a measurement tool anyway.

Yes, because you must either be an idiot who blindly tips to the left of the scale, or an idiot who blindly tips to the right of the scale. Liberalism and Conservatism are the only political stances that exist.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Snip

So you think a lot of the older republicans who were leading politicians during the red scare also deserves 'every' ounce of hate that they get? In that case I guess we agree with eachother on both counts. But it has nothing to do with religion, more to do with facist policies.

I still think the vast majority of Republican senators deserve every ounce of hate they get. Nothing but a bunch of idiots pandering to the ignorant conservatard masses. Not as much as I hate liberals though. Matt Stone said it best, really .. "I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.", which sums up my stance on the matter.

So you hate everything? Ah well, I guess I cant really use you for a measurement tool anyway.

Yes, because you must either be an idiot who blindly tips to the left of the scale, or an idiot who blindly tips to the right of the scale.

You realize Liberalism isnt the left, and Republicans arent really conservatives. And most democrats certainly arent liberalists. I know, must have blown your mind. I'll give you some time to take it in. Republicans seems to swing between facism and theocracy, with a little mix of objectivism (Or a too big one in my tastes) they can, be called regressive (They wanna move towards the past). Democrats are too scared to do anything of importance, that doenst make them liberalists, that disqualifies them from being called progressive entirely, hence why they are more conservative than the ones you call conservatives. Inaction is to me, more neutral than negative-action. And the negative action deserves far more hatred.

 

[NotALiberal]

or because they're xenophobic turds looking for any excuse to put the boot in on a religion they don't even begin to understand.

This is politically correct bleeding heart liberalism at it's finest. Islam deserves EVERY single goddamn ounce of hate it gets. Speaking as someone who's family lived under the boot of an Islamic theocracy, where you could be executed for having a Bible in your family home (my family is Christian, and this very nearly happened), I understand Islam more than some bleeding heart liberal who spouts the same politically correct, inane bullshit about how Islam isn't "different from any other religion". Christopher Hitchen's would disagree.

Also, tying Islam to race by your use of the word "xenophobic" is racist in itself. I'm of Middle Eastern descent, yet no one in my immediate and extended family are Muslim.

Shit like this sets me off, when people of privilege who don't have to deal with the absolute misery Islam as a whole still brings to the world (It's not the Middle Ages anymore, so the "BUT OTHER RELIGIONS DID BAD STUFF TOO!!11!" argument doesn't really hold up), get on a moral high horse and condemn us as "bigots" for hating a religion of bigotry and hatred.

I am very sorry about what happened to you but I would like to clarify that if you lived in a Muslim county, Islam says it is the responsibility of the government to protect you.
If the government that you lived under ignored this part then they are not just terrible people, they are terrible Muslims.
When Pakistanis burnt Hindu temples in response to the Babri Masjid verdict in India, our government actually paid to repair those temples and they were following Islam when they did this. I can't provide links to this news but this was something my old history teacher(who came from India to Pakistan in 1971) told the class.
Again I am very sorry for what Muslims did to you and your family and your community.

If you are Muslim, then no offense intended. To be clear, if someone tells me they're Muslim, I won't treat them any differently, I will merely treat them the way I would want to be treated. I hate most major religions, but I will NEVER hate it's adherents blindly because they believe in something I do not. I will only hate those who give me reason to, like the idiots burning down embassies, or more recently, those fundie Christians in Greece(I think?) who assaulted press for watching a "blasphemous" film.

 

[Arif_Sohaib]

Lets say I am in a position of power and am able to spread information very fast and I insult or spread bad rumors your mother or father or whoever your most beloved person or thing is. Are you not allowed to be angry? Are you not allowed to punch me in the face out of frustration because in the hypothetical scenario you are not in a position that anyone will listen to you. That is why some people respond violently to comments.
This is the situation most uneducated Muslims found themselves in after the video was posted on Youtube.
Those who could respond peacefully did. Like the response to Newsweek's Muslim Rage article on twitter.

Of course you're allowed to be angry when someone maligns you or yours falsely. What you're not allowed to do is haul off on someone for stating their opinion. You can argue your case, and if they've lied you can prove them wrong, but you are not in any way justified in attacking them.

When someone says something you don't like, there's 2 possible scenarios that can play out.

1) It's the truth
2) It's a lie

If #1 is the case, then the solution is ridiculously simple: Accept it or change it. Either you like it, in which case good on you, or you don't like it, in which case the onus is on you to do something about it. Neither of these responses involve violence, rioting, or really much of anything beyond some introspection and possibly a change/focus in your efforts in the future.

If #2 is the case, then they can safely be ignored (as clearly the holder of said opinion has false information or is deliberately lying, either way they're not worth the effort), or if you're feeling petty, proven false. Again, neither of these options involve violence.

At the end of the day, responding to someone's opinion with violence is inherently flawed, and you do not in any way have the right to do so. The initiation of violence is inherently wrong, with a very small handful of exceptions that almost all fall under the category of "the victim was planning to initiate violence upon me".

TLDR version: Settling arguments, especially such pointless ones as "which ancient text that's been translated so many times and across so many cultures that practically nothing of the original remains is the ONE REAL TRUTH", with violence is fucking atrocious, and anyone that does so needs to be beaten to death before their stupidity can take even more of a foothold amongst the human race.

Sometimes people's emotions get the best of them and they resort to violence in frustration.

And I really don't want to mention Hitler again but he spread rumors about Jews before killing them. So no, if the person spreading rumors is in a position of power, it can't be ignored.(I am not talking about the guy who posted the video, I am talking about Youtube arbitrarily defining what is and what isn't hate speech on their own whims, no response video is going to get as many hits or media attention as the original and more attention would have been on the violent protestors).

 

[Cavouku]

I'm willing to totally agree, but we can extend that to; the problem also comes when people with different beliefs or no beliefs are not being civil towards people with certain beliefs, right?

That's more or less what I was driving at under "discuss", so yea sure.

Edit: To clarify a response to your second quote of me, I am in fact promoting violence against those who initiate violence. Violence is a tool, and just like any other, it has its place. Defending you and yours is the most widely acknowledged of such, but it also extends to the realm of punishment. I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility and accepting punishment for wrongdoing, 'tis one of the reasons I support the death penalty and whatnot.

If someone is willing to commit violence, they implicitly accept the responsibility for that choice, and should therefore have violence committed unto them for doing so.

Violence just always seemed like an ineffective tool of punishment. It causes physical pain, yes, but what is physical pain? Well, in a lot of cases, it's something one can't actually remember. I can't call back the pain I felt when my arm was broken. Or the second time. If I smacked my head into a wall, I know it hurt, but I don't remember the hurting itself. It's something that isn't hard to put behind you, in terms of your actual pain.

Violence is an act that is more often than not, emotionally charged, especially as punishment. To hurt someone who caused you pain is to be vengeful, to be unable to let go. True action is in education, to try and break through the emotions that caused the other's violence, and to get to the reasonable person that almost everyone is capable of being.

Failing that, one is better to let go. They are their own problem. If they harass your person, or any other persons further, they should be condemned into a situation where they cannot do so anymore. There are two options - incarceration, or death.

Incarceration I've also always felt is ineffective, time consuming, expensive, and wholly uneducational. There's no opportunity to learn from what you did, or develop empathy for those who you've hurt. I don't yet know the best ways to put these into practice, but I like to believe prisons in the future will truly be a place of emotional rehabilitation. If not, then it would be best to put these people to some sort of work, as cruel as it sounds. Their being there is a detriment, and that would best be compensated for by labours or services rendered.

However, I think that should be choice. Refusing that choice, and refusing the choice to not harass others, death... is really the most ideal outcome. We can't let them hurt others, we can't let them rot away time and money, and the choose to do nothing to better either of these. A death that is not emotionally charged, but merely death...

*sigh*, sorry, got somber there. I understand if you're emotional about this, and disagree, but try and look and see if you disagree because you're emotional about this. If so, I ask that you don't respond to me until you feel more relaxed. I'm not so much arguing with you as trying to bring in a viewpoint that I'd appreciate you examining.

 

[NotALiberal]

Snip

So you think a lot of the older republicans who were leading politicians during the red scare also deserves 'every' ounce of hate that they get? In that case I guess we agree with eachother on both counts. But it has nothing to do with religion, more to do with facist policies.

I still think the vast majority of Republican senators deserve every ounce of hate they get. Nothing but a bunch of idiots pandering to the ignorant conservatard masses. Not as much as I hate liberals though. Matt Stone said it best, really .. "I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.", which sums up my stance on the matter.

So you hate everything? Ah well, I guess I cant really use you for a measurement tool anyway.

Yes, because you must either be an idiot who blindly tips to the left of the scale, or an idiot who blindly tips to the right of the scale. Liberalism and Conservatism are the only political stances that exist.

You realize Liberalism isnt the left, and Republicans arent really conservatives. And most democrats certainly arent liberalists. I know, must have blown your mind. I'll give you some time to take it in. Republicans seems to swing between facism and theocracy, with a little mix of objectivism (Or a too big one in my tastes) they can, be called regressive (They wanna move towards the past). Democrats are too scared to do anything of importance, that doenst make them liberalists, that disqualifies them from being called progressive entirely, hence why they are more conservative than the ones you call conservatives.

I'm very much aware of this, thanks for the condescension though.

I'm what I like to call a "Brainist", I use my brain, and then decide what I believe to be correct. I do not adhere to any all encompassing labels or ideologies. I may adhere to certain parts of some (like for instance, I'm very much in support of gay marriage and drug legalization, but then I swing to the "right" on issues like abortion because I believe abortion to be murder, not because I believe in some sky daddy). Technically I could be called an "Objectivist" but I'm not because I still think labels are fucking stupid.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Snip

So you think a lot of the older republicans who were leading politicians during the red scare also deserves 'every' ounce of hate that they get? In that case I guess we agree with eachother on both counts. But it has nothing to do with religion, more to do with facist policies.

I still think the vast majority of Republican senators deserve every ounce of hate they get. Nothing but a bunch of idiots pandering to the ignorant conservatard masses. Not as much as I hate liberals though. Matt Stone said it best, really .. "I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.", which sums up my stance on the matter.

So you hate everything? Ah well, I guess I cant really use you for a measurement tool anyway.

Yes, because you must either be an idiot who blindly tips to the left of the scale, or an idiot who blindly tips to the right of the scale. Liberalism and Conservatism are the only political stances that exist.

You realize Liberalism isnt the left, and Republicans arent really conservatives. And most democrats certainly arent liberalists. I know, must have blown your mind. I'll give you some time to take it in. Republicans seems to swing between facism and theocracy, with a little mix of objectivism (Or a too big one in my tastes) they can, be called regressive (They wanna move towards the past). Democrats are too scared to do anything of importance, that doenst make them liberalists, that disqualifies them from being called progressive entirely, hence why they are more conservative than the ones you call conservatives.

I'm very much aware of this, thanks for the condescension though.

I'm what I like to call a "Brainist", I use my brain, and then decide what I believe to be correct. I do not adhere to any all encompassing labels or ideologies. I may adhere to certain parts of some (like for instance, I'm very much in support of gay marriage and drug legalization, but then I swing to the "right" on issues like abortion because I believe abortion to be murder, not because I believe in some sky daddy). Technically I could be called an "Objectivist" but I'm not because I still think labels are fucking stupid.

Labels are useful, also since I now know you to be an objectivist I think tis smarter if I end the conversation here. Wouldnt want anyone (especcialy me) to get suspended... At for the thanks, right back at ye. Even if it was a tad bit more subtle.

 

[Agayek]

Sometimes people's emotions get the best of them and they resort to violence in frustration.

Loss of self control does not excuse violent behavior. It simply means you lack discipline and self control, and should probably be punished for that on top of being a violent dick.

And I really don't want to mention Hitler again but he spread rumors about Jews before killing them. So no, if the person spreading rumors is in a position of power, it can't be ignored.(I am not talking about the guy who posted the video, I am talking about Youtube arbitrarily defining what is and what isn't hate speech on their own whims, no response video is going to get as many hits or media attention as the original and more attention would have been on the violent protestors).

Eh, somebody had to invoke Godwin's Law, don't worry about it.

And yes, he did. Know what else he did? He conspired to visit violence upon them. As I mentioned in my post, right here in fact:

The initiation of violence is inherently wrong, with a very small handful of exceptions that almost all fall under the category of "the victim was planning to initiate violence upon me".

It is acceptable to commit violence to prevent it from being visited to you. I take absolutely no issue with someone walking up and outright murdering the likes of Adolf Hitler, Fred Phelps, or anyone else actively promoting that others be attacked. They are inciting violence, and a violent response to that is perfectly acceptable.

However, if you were to walk up to, say, firebomb the apartment of a man who drew a cartoon of Mohammad blowing up a building, then you would be stepping over the line.

Also, you should always keep in mind that while other people are able to make broad sweeping generalizations about whatever, you have that exact same power. You can just as easily as they do stand up on a soap box and pull out all your evidence that they're either lying or misguided. If someone puts out a video condemning Muslims and you find it false, then you put out a video disproving their points.

It's really not complicated. If someone says something that offends you, grow the fuck up and get over yourself. And if someone says something that paints you in a bad light, stand the fuck up and prove them wrong. If you can't even do that much, then you're clearly on the wrong side of the argument.

Violently lashing out doesn't accomplish anything but piss more people off and prove yourself incapable of behaving like a rational being.

 

[NotALiberal]

Snip

So you think a lot of the older republicans who were leading politicians during the red scare also deserves 'every' ounce of hate that they get? In that case I guess we agree with eachother on both counts. But it has nothing to do with religion, more to do with facist policies.

I still think the vast majority of Republican senators deserve every ounce of hate they get. Nothing but a bunch of idiots pandering to the ignorant conservatard masses. Not as much as I hate liberals though. Matt Stone said it best, really .. "I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals.", which sums up my stance on the matter.

So you hate everything? Ah well, I guess I cant really use you for a measurement tool anyway.

Yes, because you must either be an idiot who blindly tips to the left of the scale, or an idiot who blindly tips to the right of the scale. Liberalism and Conservatism are the only political stances that exist.

You realize Liberalism isnt the left, and Republicans arent really conservatives. And most democrats certainly arent liberalists. I know, must have blown your mind. I'll give you some time to take it in. Republicans seems to swing between facism and theocracy, with a little mix of objectivism (Or a too big one in my tastes) they can, be called regressive (They wanna move towards the past). Democrats are too scared to do anything of importance, that doenst make them liberalists, that disqualifies them from being called progressive entirely, hence why they are more conservative than the ones you call conservatives.

I'm very much aware of this, thanks for the condescension though.

I'm what I like to call a "Brainist", I use my brain, and then decide what I believe to be correct. I do not adhere to any all encompassing labels or ideologies. I may adhere to certain parts of some (like for instance, I'm very much in support of gay marriage and drug legalization, but then I swing to the "right" on issues like abortion because I believe abortion to be murder, not because I believe in some sky daddy). Technically I could be called an "Objectivist" but I'm not because I still think labels are fucking stupid.

Labels are useful, also since I now know you to be an objectivist I think tis smarter if I end the conversation here. Wouldnt want anyone (especcialy me) to get suspended... At for the thanks, right back at ye. Even if it was a tad bit more subtle.

I'm not an Objectivist though, not as defined by Ayn Rand. Labels can be useful, but trying to label human thought and belief, and people who adhere to these like they are dogmatic truth are fucking stupid. That's pretty much the gist of it.

 

[Agayek]

Violence just always seemed like an ineffective tool of punishment. It causes physical pain, yes, but what is physical pain? Well, in a lot of cases, it's something one can't actually remember. I can't call back the pain I felt when my arm was broken. Or the second time. If I smacked my head into a wall, I know it hurt, but I don't remember the hurting itself. It's something that isn't hard to put behind you, in terms of your actual pain.

Violence is an act that is more often than not, emotionally charged, especially as punishment. To hurt someone who caused you pain is to be vengeful, to be unable to let go. True action is in education, to try and break through the emotions that caused the other's violence, and to get to the reasonable person that almost everyone is capable of being.

It's not about rehabilitation or retribution, or even punishment really. It's about the fact that the perpetrators made a choice, and should therefore be made to face the consequences. Like I said, I'm a massive believer in personal responsibility and accountability. If one decides they will visit violence upon others, they implicitly accept that violence will be visited upon them. Thus, it should be fulfilled.

Failing that, one is better to let go. They are their own problem. If they harass your person, or any other persons further, they should be condemned into a situation where they cannot do so anymore. There are two options - incarceration, or death.

Incarceration I've also always felt is ineffective, time consuming, expensive, and wholly uneducational. There's no opportunity to learn from what you did, or develop empathy for those who you've hurt. I don't yet know the best ways to put these into practice, but I like to believe prisons in the future will truly be a place of emotional rehabilitation. If not, then it would be best to put these people to some sort of work, as cruel as it sounds. Their being there is a detriment, and that would best be compensated for by labours or services rendered.

However, I think that should be choice. Refusing that choice, and refusing the choice to not harass others, death... is really the most ideal outcome. We can't let them hurt others, we can't let them rot away time and money, and the choose to do nothing to better either of these. A death that is not emotionally charged, but merely death...

*sigh*, sorry, got somber there. I understand if you're emotional about this, and disagree, but try and look and see if you disagree because you're emotional about this. If so, I ask that you don't respond to me until you feel more relaxed. I'm not so much arguing with you as trying to bring in a viewpoint that I'd appreciate you examining.

In my ideal world, people would punish themselves (part of the whole accepting responsibility thing and all).

Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, so we've gotta make do. I don't particularly care about prison one way or the other, to be honest. My personal take on punishment is closer to "eye for an eye". Someone robs someone, they should be made to return the value of what they stole, and then fined for that value plus the value of everything they could have potentially stolen. Etc, etc.

I'm not much of a fan of prison, it's mostly just a waste of time and money with the exception of repeat violent offenders, but whatever.