dimreepr

Well, at some point we'll drift past the event horizon...

My point is, contentment can't be stolen but it can be shared; envy, frustration and resentment only steals from you, it doesn't effect me...

Didn't I already address that? "the correct definition of punishment"...

How is that, not your definition of punishment? The difference is the inclusion of punishment in your three point plan; mine means [1]punishment is not needed in a just society. As I've tried to explain throughout this thread, and you've yet to explain why I'm wrong. I've seem to have lost the strike-through feature, so I've used [] to indicated correction's in your statement; FTFY * how can they be inhumane, if the perp is human? I'm not entirely sure I get your meaning, please elaborate.

I don't see why not; we've managed to stop dunking witches in pond's. Besides there's plenty of historical examples of society radically changing for the better; the founding father's had a good stab at it, it's not their fault their blueprint has been cynically manipulated to make criminality a commodity; I suggest we start there at least in the UK/USA. I've no idea about Australia, but at least they've stopped victimising Aboriginal's.

I can't steal contentment from you, and make it my own. But I can steal contentment from you, because you denied me...

No, like I've said before, I'm selfish... I can't steal your happiness/contentment (unless you let me), I have to find it myself; and if I can't, hopefully you'll let me share yours... 😉

And using that description as an excuse to justify your definition of punishment, I'm using it as a reason to try harder. Semantics are important, if you want to understand. “If you wish to strive for peace of soul and happiness, then believe; if you wish to be a disciple of truth, then inquire.” — Friedrich Nietzsche

Imagine LJ has never had a candy bar, and his family just gets by with a little petty theft; if you punish him by making him stand in the corner and after he served his sentence you give him the candy bar, he's far more likely to learn that stealing only achieved him the pain of being singled out (in his mind he probably thinks the rest of the class is laughing at him). What do you think he'll learn, if you also steal away his first ever chance eat a candy bar? Bearing in mind that his family has been teaching, theft is a necessary part of life; ergo he must get better at stealing... Every day is a lesson in life and every action has a consequence, we can never know now if it's going to be good or bad, that's why the past is best place learn about the present. It's far easier to damage society with punishment, if you don't understand the correct definition of punishment. And the odds are stacked against the majority of people getting the fact that most of them are wrong.

What if LJ has learned his lesson from standing in the corner; He might go on to be candy bar moniter? But if you go on to deny him the candy, all you teach him is not to get caught stealing. If you haven't been to room 101, you can't say you wouldn't "turn on Julia and accept Big Brother."

Indeed, their not taught the same or don't think the same; but that doesn't change the fact that they're all human; ergo they're all capable of being human. Much like a worm, trained to eat shit, instead of good old-fashioned, dirt...

You're missing the key variable, not all German's were subjected to the same training...

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...