dimreepr

How do you know? She might just lack the ability to explain it to you...

If that was intended as humour, who indeed. Maybe include a 😇 next time. Else: why not all humans? Given the right training/order's many a German became a Nazi... 😉

Indeed, since a human wrote it; besides didn't Jesus (also human) say "turn the other cheek"? Like I said "what's religion got to do with it?"...

Yes of course, if a human commited the crime, then a human is capable of the crime, the only escape clause is, become a petunia. 😉 Anyone who suggests otherwise, is in for an infinite number of what if question's... That's either an oxymoron or very ironic in this context:

The problem is, you think you've got a say in the matter. The judicial system is there as a balance, between you and the best persuaders in your society. Then all societies can evolve properly; in whatever direction is best...

That doesn't answer my question, what definition of punishment did he use?

Exactly my point, finally we agree; though I doubt that's the end of this merry-go-round. What definition of punishment, did Kant use?

I don't know, I'm not a monkey.

And I have refuted each with evidence and reasonable argument's. I haven't just said "I couldn't disagree more" and left it at that. Besides, most of your cases has been presenting 'what the media said about x or y. Not a cogent argument for the existance of evil people; just an emotional response to a horrible incident.

Reciprocity/fairness is a well studied trait in many animal's, what sets us apart is our ability to see past the immediate trade and weigh up the miriad nuance's. Evil for a monkey is just not getting the same reward as his immediate neighbour; for humans, evil is what the tabloids tell us is evil.

"Obviously, it's not meant to be taken litterally, it refers to any manufacturer of dairy product's." But not necessarily as part of your three part plan, please explain the rationale of punishment when society has already been protected; and the answer can't be, because it makes me feel better, that's hardly thinking beyond your emotions. I think animals understand far easier, than a lot of human's; the advantage human's have is the ability to turn the other cheek and dig out the real causes.

Then, as a man who has faith in the scientific method, you know you can't refute an hypothesis with simple gainsay, present your evidence/arguments. Besides, my knowledge of Buddhism is souly gained from watching 'Kung Fu Panda's 1 2 3', which I highly recomend, very educational.

Ask Starbuck...

Evolution, is not an inventor; it's an explanation...

Only if the poison, is more poisonous...

Starbuck, on the other hand... 🤔

I'm just trying to provide evidence, to you (a scientist), that evil doesn't exist in reallity and humans, any more than it does in any other animal. Our intelligence can hide the truth, ironically backed up by our emotions; we assume it separates us from (the animal's) causality and automatically gives us a choice to ignore our training. The ability to think past our emotions, is our true strength. The consequences of not recognising that as a strength, leads to regression, into a more animalistic approach to justice.

Really, was it the day after? What if we are? What then is satisfying for you? Another, is the multiple layers of mis-understanding...

Answer me, these question's three; Ayre the other side you'll see: [1] What!!! Is your name? [2] What!!! Is your favourite colour? [3] What!!! Is your take on punishment? No decent parent want's to damage their offspring, but to much love can be just as damaging as total neglect. Now imagine that it's your son (that you inadvertently damaged (read The Catcher in the Rye)), that raped that poor little girl; do you want the same retribution for him, that you'd dish out for someone you didn't love? Note to self, the one who crossed, without hesitation, was not afraid... 😉

FFS just answer my question, I've answered yours. Just restating your position doesn't make it truer... I didn't say you did... Good faith is a two way street... 😉 So, the righteously indignant is a system of governance? Or are you suggesting that coconut's migrate?

Please explain why forgiving is 'cynical' and punishment is not?

The army of the righteously indignant is no basis for a system of government. Please... Just answer the fecking question... I'm getting dizzy... 🙄 You'd forgive a damaged/dangerous dog, and be happy to put it out of it's misery (it's kinder), but you want your neighbour/fellow human to suffer for the same crime? Maybe a dog has no soul, are you sure your not religious???

Indeed, why do you insist on [1] punishment, in your version of justice? I also gave iNow a +1, but I suspect for a very different reason. Case in point; Why? Mandela/Gandhi/et al had far more reason than you, to not forgive the crimes against their society; but in doing so, they managed to usher in a slightly better society; imagine the society we could usher in, if all our leader's tried that approach??? Your assuming guilt first, a plea-bargainer as described by Peterkin may be lucky to get away with a house arrest, but guess what??? The more money you have the luckier you are...

The only question remains, which is greater...