dimreepr

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...

The enlightened learnt to build on the "teaching" not depend on it...

Indeed, it's called mitigation. You can store food, but you can't decide who eats it...

The point is, we don't know the future...😉

Indeed, all we can know is, there's a bigger picture... We can't prevent it...

Shouldn't the word be 'mitigation', it's the industrious mouse all over and why Ricky didn't get it.

I'm not suggesting we do, I'm suggesting we use the correct translation. The point of this parable, as seen from a socratic POV: The man died in peace because his soul is untainted, and the wolf lived because it's a wolf; if it was a dear, the outcome could be the same, in a panic the deer trampled the man to death, only the food is different. 😉

I'm questioning the need for the word punishment in the context of beecee's insistence on retaining the word in his 1,2,3 approach. What I'm proposing is we exchange the word with, [1] an attempt to understand the underlying 'reasons' for the perp to commit the crime. As it stands 'punishment' is used as an 'excuse' to protect the status quo, for some reason; I want to understand the reason. When I look at a homeless person, I think "there but for the grace of god go I" as I'm sure do countless other's. We can't prevent crime (whatever the movie's say), but we can mitigate against the damage done by society, as it stands now, prison's are nothing more than a university of criminality; only this time the "drop outs" are the lucky one's.

No, you've dodged and danced round it, with strawmen and ridicule. It's really quite simple, if the perp is unable to threaten you; why do you need to punish them? This might be quite a long hour for you... Then why do I ask the question? when it's much easier to hate what I don't understand... What else don't you know?

Just answer the question...

Indeed, my agenda is, let's try to be a little bit kinder to our fellow animals/humans. It's a simple question, if we're protected why do we need to punish?

I've answered that question many time's, if he's a proven dangerous dog and can't be changed; put him down, with the lament "it's kinder".

Again no answer, if the public are protected from your 'so called evil' and [3] isn't effective, there's no reason to stop protecting the public; that doesn't = they need to be punished.

That's no answer, why is there [1] and [2] if they're the same?