Jump to content

What are your thoughts on physical torture?


Alex Mercer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Alex Mercer said:

Would painful torture as a punishment scare people away from committing crimes?

Depends entirely on the criminal and the nature of the crime they’re considering... plus their motivations for considering it... but, in most cases, no. It would teach people to avoid getting caught, not to avoid the crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Torture dehumanizes both torturer and torturee.   What kind of society do we become if we ask people to perform such a brutalizing (and likely psychologically damaging) occupation on our supposed behalf?   This is aside from the obvious hypocrisy -- hello,  we're going to teach the wrongness of harming others by,  um,  harming someone.  The idea is cruel,  sadistic, and I know of no evidence that it would actually deter those most likely to commit crimes of serious harm.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2021 at 12:33 AM, Alex Mercer said:

Why would it be a good or bad idea to torture criminals as punishment.

You convicted the wrong guy!

The executioner enjoys his work so much, he takes it home.

The warden likes to keep strict order in his fiefdom.

Etc.

It's a bad idea for the same reason that official encouragement of any destructive human trait is a bad idea: it produces a destructive culture populated by destructive people and makes a short-lived, evil society. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

Torture dehumanizes both torturer and torturee.   What kind of society do we become if we ask people to perform such a brutalizing (and likely psychologically damaging) occupation on our supposed behalf?   This is aside from the obvious hypocrisy -- hello,  we're going to teach the wrongness of harming others by,  um,  harming someone.  The idea is cruel,  sadistic, and I know of no evidence that it would actually deter those most likely to commit crimes of serious harm.   

 

Indeed, as Socrates suggests, any harm we do, we do to our soul's...

It goes to the heart of justice, if I pluck out an eye for an eye; can you see more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, as Socrates suggests, any harm we do, we do to our soul's...

It goes to the heart of justice, if I pluck out an eye for an eye; can you see more?

As the song goes "to live outside the law you must be honest"

The justice system is a social contract...but I  argue  that is a good (and just)  thing.

And yes we cannot harm others without the dagger penetrating ourselves.(although  Godwin's Law may suggest ,otherwise)

Edited by geordief
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The role of government is to maintain civil peace and order. Whether that's achieved through the punishment, correction, exclusion or elimination of law-breakers depends on the philosophy underlying its mandate.  Torture has, in many societies, been part of the the punishment for crime, and even more often, a means of discovering crime - whether any was committed or not. The supporters of cruel-as-usual system of justice claim it as a deterrent. It has never, afaik, reduced the absolute amount of crime nor eliminated any category of crime, from any society. This also seems to hold for the killing of lawbreakers.

Retribution, otoh, is the moral prerogative of the victim (or the wrongdoer's god), and nobody else. It's also usually against the law, as a habit of personal revenge spreads to vendettas and feuding tends to undermine peace and order.

 

Edited by Peterkin
mistakes were made
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Revenge, otoh, is the moral prerogative of the victim, and nobody else. It's also usually against the law, as a habit of feuding tends to undermine peace and order.

Revenge is the antipode of forgiveness, no-one else can grant you peace...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Revenge is the antipode of forgiveness, no-one else can grant you peace...

Someone who seeks revenge is not seeking peace, but justice (typically a subjective version of justice). But some people are still in the "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" stage. Most people, actually. Politicians, nationalists, fascists, communists, priests, use it as tool to incite people against other country, against people from other nationality, race or worship, for true or fake wrongdoings of people in the past (even dozens or hundreds years ago).

Quote

no-one else can grant you peace...

How such a "simple minded person" can gain peace, if politicians repeatedly recall "the crimes of fathers/grandfathers" (etc. people long time dead by now) from neighborhood country.. ? It starts on history lessons at school..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are several kinds of "peace" cited here.

By "civil peace and order" I meant to the (relatively) tranquil operation of a society, with a minimum of conflict and discord among the citizens. Societies have invented various kinds of legal system to accomplish some version of that. 

I'm not sure what dimreepr meant by "peace"; from the context, I assumed spiritual peace as experienced by a human. It that can be "granted" through forgiveness, that must be done by some other conscious entity - another human or a god - and I think the one in need of this kind of peace is the wrongdoer, whose spirit is disturbed by his own evil deed. 

Sensei, otoh, seems to be referring to the disquiet of the victim's spirit.

Revenge, justice, retribution are difficult concepts to communicate, since they have such very different degrees and kinds of significance on the individual, communal and societal level level. One thing is clear, though: torture falls partly in revenge category, but extends ominously beyond its scope, into oppression and terror - neither of which plays any part in civil peace, order and sound governance. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2021 at 2:33 PM, Alex Mercer said:

I am wondering what do you think about physical torture being used on criminals. Would painful torture as a punishment scare people away from committing crimes? Why would it be a good or bad idea to torture criminals as punishment.

Many criminals are bullies, many bullies are cowards and hate pain being inflicted on their person. What do you do with criminals that are unable to be reformed, or refuse to be reformed and will always be a danger to society. One terrible unbelievable actually, case that comes to mind occured in England involving a little 2 year old boy. It is in reality even too upsetting to discuss, but I'm sure members here from the British Isles will remember...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

In Australia, we have also had our share of incorridgable criminals, one notable case being the following....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Anita_Cobby

Before anyone gets me wrong, no, I am not advocating being "hung drawn and quartered" but sometimes it seems like being caught between a rock and a hard place!

Obvious "flaw" with the death penalty is the chance of a wrongful conviction. Here are some...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#Australia

 

 

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sensei said:

Someone who seeks revenge is not seeking peace, but justice (typically a subjective version of justice). But some people are still in the "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" stage. Most people, actually. Politicians, nationalists, fascists, communists, priests, use it as tool to incite people against other country, against people from other nationality, race or worship, for true or fake wrongdoings of people in the past (even dozens or hundreds years ago).

I quite agree with that in actual fact, but how do we sought out the never ending undesirable consequences of "an eye for an eye" from Justice should be seen to be done and separating the incorridgables from society, where they obviously  pose a danger?

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

What do you do with criminals that are unable to be reformed, or refuse to be reformed and will always be a danger to society.

How do you tell which are incorrigible? If you can be quite certain that a particular criminal will never be able to function as a citizen, then a quick and tidy death (preferably carried out remotely by an unwitting layman chosen randomly, rather than a designated executioner)  would be more practical and less damaging to society than torture. 

Better yet, organize a society that doesn't turn out so many vicious criminally insane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

How do you tell which are incorrigible?

Good question, but perhaps as per the two chidren that murdered the toddler, it will reveal itself....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger one certainly appeared incorrigible....

42 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

If you can be quite certain that a particular criminal will never be able to function as a citizen, then a quick and tidy death (preferably carried out remotely by an unwitting layman chosen randomly, rather than a designated executioner)  would be more practical and less damaging to society than torture. 

Perhaps, I'm not really sure. 

44 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Better yet, organize a society that doesn't turn out so many vicious criminally insane. 

How do you do that? How do you tell who is going to be vicious and/or criminally insane?

I have a thought though...as I said, bullies, cowards, and criminals are generally one and the same. Perhaps if bullies were  stood up to early in life?

Not sure if this is relevant but around 20 years ago, just a couple of days before Chrissy, I was in a 7/11 store, standing about fifth in line waiting to be served. Suddenly around five or six young little arseholes burst in and started yahooing and knocking things of the shelves, including tipping over a "slurpy machine" making a mess, then in that usual cowardly fashion, started to all run out of the store, passed me and the other people waiting to be served by the two Asian lasses that were working there. They were obviously distraught, and I was thinkiing along the lines of "bloody little arseholes, why are they doing this!" As they ran by me, I instinctively through out my right arm [Rugby League stiff arm style] and caught the last bugger around the shoulders and neck...down he went with me on top of him! His friends continued on running and as per their bully/cowardly style failed to offer any help. Make a long story short, the Police were called, and they took the young fella away who then ratted on the others. Two weeks later, I hear a knock on the door. There he was [the young bloke I stiff armed, with his parents, who gratefully thanked me for my actions, enabling them to also chastice their Son and at least have something to say about the company he was keeping. 

Your last question is a doozy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

How do you do that? How do you tell who is going to be vicious and/or criminally insane?

I have a thought though...as I said, bullies, cowards, and criminals are generally one and the same. Perhaps if bullies were  stood up to early in life?

You can't tell who is "going to be" anything, because nobody's future is cast in concrete at birth. But you certainly can see tendencies and proclivities in early childhood; you can see a temperament forming and you can definitely see most of the risk factors in their environment. 

What is a criminal, anyway? Someone who has broken a law? Or someone who habitually breaks a particular law? Or someone who breaks many laws?  Is there any reason to suppose that all laws are good and should be respected, or that it's even possible for all people to obey all laws? What are the other available options for each criminal before he or she breaks the law for the first time? 

Many criminals are brave, even foolhardy. Most are not bullies, but thieves. No action is without a long chain causation behind it: nobody wakes up one morning and decides to start bullying people. Children don't raise themselves - and their parents don't raise them, either, though the parents contribute most to the child's development - the whole society immerses its children in its economy, legal structure, hierarchy, customs and culture, education and pastimes, beliefs and values. Children are surrounded by examples of adult behaviour to imitate; they generally keep imitating the behaviours that see rewarded in some way.  

There are also many kinds of mental illness, some even caused by a genetic error. A very small percent of those result in antisocial behaviour, and a very small percent of that small percent is untreatable if diagnosed early.  Most mental illness is a result of environmental factors that are overlooked, or discounted, or accepted as "just how things are", all the while twisting people's minds.

44 minutes ago, beecee said:

Your last question is a doozy.

Not a question; a suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 What is a criminal, anyway? Someone who has broken a law? Or someone who habitually breaks a particular law? Or someone who breaks many laws?  Is there any reason to suppose that all laws are good and should be respected, or that it's even possible for all people to obey all laws?

We all  break laws from time to time, be it simply traffic laws, parking infringements, or jay walking [which I have done] that doesn't make us criminal.

28 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What are the other available options for each criminal before he or she breaks the law for the first time? 

Being a law abiding citizen? 

28 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Many criminals are brave, even foolhardy. Most are not bullies, but thieves.

Brave, foolhardy, certainly...but plenty of bullies also, as per the example I gave.

28 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No action is without a long chain causation behind it: nobody wakes up one morning and decides to start bullying people. Children don't raise themselves - and their parents don't raise them, either, though the parents contribute most to the child's development - the whole society immerses its children in its economy, legal structure, hierarchy, customs and culture, education and pastimes, beliefs and values. Children are surrounded by examples of adult behaviour to imitate; they generally keep imitating the behaviours that see rewarded in some way.  

No argument on any of those points, other then to say that justice still needs to be seen to be done, including attempts at reformation.

Did you read, or are you familiar with this case? .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger The other side of the world from me, but remember it well, and certainly had me really disturbed as to how any child could undertake such bizzare inhuman action. One actually appeares to have reformed, the other not.

My own Son was 11 years old at the time...same age as the two who undertook this indescribable inhumane action.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

We all  break laws from time to time, be it simply traffic laws, parking infringements, or jay walking [which I have done] that doesn't make us criminal.

I asked what does.

25 minutes ago, beecee said:
52 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What are the other available options for each criminal before he or she breaks the law for the first time? 

Being a law abiding citizen? 

Being is not optional; specific actions are. When you broke the jaywalking law, you had the option of going to the crosswalk. When that person in prison was confronted, at that moment, with that decision, he was not choosing between good citizenship and criminality,  he was choosing between available options: take the car or let the gang shoot him? march for civil rights or give up any chance at the vote? recruit the underage escorts or disappoint his millionaire friends? drive an unlicensed cab or starve waiting for a permit?

 

38 minutes ago, beecee said:

but plenty of bullies also, as per the example I gave.

 Some criminals are also bullies. Some bullies are also criminals. It's not synonymous. 

42 minutes ago, beecee said:

No argument on any of those points, other then to say that justice still needs to be seen to be done, including attempts at reformation.

How?

43 minutes ago, beecee said:

Did you read, or are you familiar with this case? .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger The other side of the world from me, but remember it well, and certainly had me really disturbed as to how any child could undertake such bizzare inhuman action. One actually appeares to have reformed, the other not.

What were they before they were crazed killers? And how typical is their crime? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

I asked what does.

Choises are made, simple as that. Criminals, real criminals,make decisions...they may have excuses, hard times etc, but others also have been in similar circumstances and risen above simply taking the easy way out.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 Some criminals are also bullies. Some bullies are also criminals. It's not synonymous. 

What I said in my first post to this thread was, "Many criminals are bullies, many bullies are cowards and hate pain being inflicted on their person."

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

How?

That's generally up to the individual concerned, and how much he or she wants to be part of the human race, or an outcaste from. Some can certainly be reformed, others like one of the Monsters in the link I gave, obviously cannot, and is a danger to society.  What do you do in that case? https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/james-bulger-killers-jon-venables-robert-thompson-murder-now-221759                                        

What happened to Jon Venables?

The child murderer was born 13 August 1982, making him ten-years-old when he abducted Bulger from the New Strand Shopping Centre.

He was found guilty, alongside Thompson, on 24 November 1993 – when the pair became the youngest people convicted of murder in English history.

Venables was given extensive rehabilitation during his time in a young offenders’ institute and was issued with a new identity after leaving.

His identity has been changed twice since, after he compromised his identity and told friends he was a convicted murderer.

His current identity faced a legal threat in February 2018, 25 years after the murder, when Bulger’s father launched High Court proceedings to try and remove Venables’ entitlement to anonymity.

The lawyer representing Bulger’s father and uncle argued that the right to anonymity had only been granted on the understanding Venables did not re-offend.

As Venables has been convicted of crimes since, they wanted his lifelong privacy revoked. Bulger’s mother, however, disagreed and argued that the anonymity should be maintained to avoid vigilante justice.

The father lost his legal challenge and the Attorney General’s office concluded the injunction was still necessary and justified.

Has Jon Venables committed other crimes?

In 2008, seven years after being released from prison, Venables was arrested after a drunken fight and was given a formal warning by the probation service. He was also given a caution for being in possession of Class A drug cocaine.

Two years later he was sent back to prison after he was found with images of child sexual abuse.

The Parole Board recommended his release in 2013. However, in 2017 he was arrested again for possessing child abuse images, and sentenced to 40 months behind bars in February 2018, almost 25 years to the day after he murdered Bulger.

In August 2019, his father warned that Venables will soon be on parole from his most recent period behind bars.

A parole hearing is expected to be held in October, half way through his prison sentence for the most recent offence.

Mr Bulger said: “Venables is up for parole any time now, and if it is granted he will be released into the community under a fake name and secret new identity.

“He is a dangerous, predatory child abuser and killer, and I am terrified he will strike again and harm another child like my James.”

more here...https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/james-bulgers-killer-tells-prison-chiefs-he-doesnt-want-to-be-freed-as-he-fears-hell-reoffend/news-story/b106b08d4f0fddcdf328218ca288e8f0

"James Bulger’s evil killer Jon Venables has begged prison chiefs to keep him locked up as he fears he will reoffend, a source reveals".

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

What were they before they were crazed killers? And how typical is their crime? 

These were kids and their crime was anything but typical. But another question for you...Can any excuse be made for what they did? An account here of there upbringing....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/01/bulger.familyandrelationships

Thompson and Venables grew up in circumstances which had both striking similarities and profound differences. Both boys had parents who had separated; each had difficulties with attendance, learning and behaviour at school. They bunked off, they shoplifted, they were violent; all these pieces in a pattern that made up a pair of empty, broken young lives.

Before their trial in November 1993, the press ferreted around the doorways and back alleys of Walton village, Liverpool, looking for any thing that might determine that these two 10-year-olds were indeed evil or the product of evil. Neighbours told of pigeons having their heads shot off with an airgun, of rabbits being tied to railway lines, of dawn rollerbooting sessions. There were tales of charity collection boxes being stolen and of children being assaulted in the classroom.

Exaggeration and gossip aside, a picture of neglect slowly emerged, a picture that focused on the pair's "bad parents", with the Daily Mail pronouncing: "Jon Venables, perhaps inevitably, is the classic product of a broken home." Ann Thompson was portrayed as an incompetent alcoholic, while Susan Venables was painted as a loose woman whose neighbours "noted a procession of men friends for Mrs Venables".

A narrative emerged of two childhoods influenced not merely by the flaws of parents or the absence of a father, but by the environment in which these boys lived, a world of social and economic deprivation, of trashy television and cultural poverty, inadequate social services, failed schooling and general confusion. It was a place that left a moral vacuum for two children who would go on to kill and leave the unanswered question: why did they do it?

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

So they had anything but a worthwhile, decent upbringing. Many others do also, some far worse. And if you believe that this was anything more then a simple thrill killing, then think again. What they did do this toddler, was prolonged torture and mutilation and cruelty, animalistic and barbaric. How do you handle such a case? 

Can I relate another incident? When I was a young hairy arse little 10 year old, going to school [a Christian Brothers Catholic school] I obtained what at the time was a rage among kids...a Coca Cola badge! I was proudly wearing it when class had ended and was heading home but still in the school grounds, when I was confronted by the school bully...a boy 12 years old and a class ahead of me. He ripped off my badge and threw it ontop of the church confessional roof...enraged I swung with all  my might, my globite suit case at his head. It drew blood, and before he could retaliate, the principal arrived, took us both into his office, asked me what happened and then told me to go home. My well known bully adversary was less fortunate then I and after first aid, was kept in and told to write a hundred lines with regards to bullying. He never ever confronted me again.

Another question I will ask you [I raised and commented on earlier]...which would be worse, a state endorsed execution or life imprisoment?

In summing up, I hate bullies.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art. 27 c. 3 of Italian Constitution says:  Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted.

I can't agree more with our constitution. We shouldn't even discuss torture as a punishment in a civil world.

Edit: Spelling error

Edited by Neuron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Neuron said:

Art. 27 c. 3 of Italian Constitution says:  Punishments may not be inhuman and shall aim at re-educating the convicted.

I can't agree more with our constitution.

Nice, great to see! But still we will always have some who will never be re-educated or reformed...In fact some will certainly attempt to use that part of the Italian constitution, or any similar part of any Nation's constitution for their own benefit.

29 minutes ago, Neuron said:

 We shouldn't even discuss torture as a punishment in a civil world.

Some would see any imprisoment as torture, particularly in cases from fellow inmates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Nice, great to see! But still we will always have some who will never be re-educated or reformed...In fact some will certainly attempt to use that part of the Italian constitution, or any similar part of any Nation's constitution for their own benefit.

You can't know beforehand who is re-educatable vs who is not, so everyone should be given the opportunity to re-education. For people who keeps reiterating crimes the problem is different and surely complicated. But anyway I am still against torture even in those cases because I doubt it works on a practical level. There is a concept, typically propagandized by italian right-parties, that if you want to keep people from committing crimes you should raise the punishment. I think it's a blind way to see things because it doesn't take into account why people do certain things and the entire context of people lives. It's not a simple positive vs negative benefits of committing crime that cross criminals' mind.

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

Some would see any imprisoment as torture, particularly in cases from fellow inmates.

I agree. Many treatments may be considered torture, in fact the concept is somewhat ambiguous. But the OP was talking about physical torture and I was still (implicity) talking about that. I think there aren't many doubt about what physical torture is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Neuron said:

You can't know beforehand who is re-educatable vs who is not, so everyone should be given the opportunity to re-education. For people who keeps reiterating crimes the problem is different and surely complicated. But anyway I am still against torture even in those cases because I doubt it works on a practical level. There is a concept, typically propagandized by italian right-parties, that if you want to keep people from committing crimes you should raise the punishment. I think it's a blind way to see things because it doesn't take into account why people do certain things and the entire context of people lives. It's not a simple positive vs negative benefits of committing crime that cross criminals' mind.

The highlighted bits by me I am commenting on.....[1] Agreed we have no way of knowing who or who is not open to reformation and re-education. Those that show they are not open, [as per one of the children in this most horrific torture/murder of a two year old...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger] are the problem/s, and will always be with us. Are we still going to apply the softly softly approach with them? [them being the proven incorrigibles that may prove a danger to society in general]

I can assure you also in general I am not "right leaning", in fact I dislike being labeled left, right, atheistic or theist. I see and form opinions based on the scientific methodology and my conscience.  I dislike with a fervour the Trumps of this world, and other similar racist rednecks. But then again,  sometimes, just sometimes, they make a little bit of sense...An example of right wing agendas in my country [that make a little bit of sense]  like yours,  are those that want to see punishment/prison time increased, and in certain cases, they are shown to be correct. eg: There have certainly been cases in my country where crimes of violence have seen perpetrators given a slap on the wrist, or like getting sentence deductions for so called "good behaviour", and then re-offending not long afterwards. This happened with the rape of a little girl in a toilet block by an arsehole that was given a sentence reduction and on parole. Are you willing to give such trash another parole reduction for so called good behaviour? And obviously sometimes, just sometimes, left leaning politicians can also make mistakes. eg: Sometimes political correctness can go too far. I may start a thread on that one day.

All in all I think I would vote for abolishing the death penalty [which it is in Australia]  for the reasons I gave previously, mainly being the number of executions carried out and later DNA confirmation that the person executed was innocent. I cannot think of anything worse.

2 hours ago, Neuron said:

I agree. Many treatments may be considered torture, in fact the concept is somewhat ambiguous. But the OP was talking about physical torture and I was still (implicity) talking about that. I think there aren't many doubt about what physical torture is.

[2] I agree with no torture physical 100%, and accept the different application of that from just torture as you mentioned, but irrespective many see imprisoment as torture, and particularly reactionary scenarios from fellow inmates. As I said, I hate bullies, and when that bullying situations involve me or mine, then I will handle it with whatever force is necessary, as per my example. 

Can I relate another personal example? When my Son was around 4 years old and not long after we moved into our new house, he made friends with a little boy [smaller then him] just down the road from us. Then after a time, he started coming in crying. Asked what happened and he would say that Andrew [the other little boy hit him] My wife being a good church going Christian, virtually told my Son to "turn the other cheek. After this happened a few times, him coming in crying, I became infuriated and grabbed him one day before the Mrs could get to him, and told him that next time Andrew hit him, to whack him back as hard as he could. On the day in question I was in the garden and watching them ride their tricycles up and down the street. Andrew by the way had two older brothers who unbeknowns to me were egging Andrew on. Anyway I see one of them whisper something to Andrew and Andrew then hit my young bloke. My Son, to his credit, whacked him back with a lovely hay maker which sent Andrew packing! Long story short, my Son and Andrew, 40 years later are still the best of mates and were best men at each others wedding. And even though they have moved on, his parents and me and the Mrs, still socialise with them. My Son by the way, is slightly coloured as the wife is Fijian...not sure if this was the underlying reason/s why all this started.

Another reason why I hate bullies and did say,  "Many criminals are bullies, many bullies are cowards and hate pain being inflicted on their person."

I hope that helps in showing where I am coming from. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Sensei said:

Someone who seeks revenge is not seeking peace, but justice (typically a subjective version of justice). But some people are still in the "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" stage. Most people, actually. Politicians, nationalists, fascists, communists, priests, use it as tool to incite people against other country, against people from other nationality, race or worship, for true or fake wrongdoings of people in the past (even dozens or hundreds years ago).

On 8/3/2021 at 2:13 PM, dimreepr said:

if I pluck out an eye for an eye; can you see more?

An eye for an eye, is not revenge...

It's a teachable moment; it's only justice if it's justifiable...

 

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Another reason why I hate bullies and did say,  "Many criminals are bullies, many bullies are cowards and hate pain being inflicted on their person."

So, sometimes it's good to be a bully...

It reminds me of a joke I thought of when I saw a life-ring in the canal:

A youth throws in the ring, laughing and saying "now they're fucked, that's hilarious..." 

Me, pushing the youth into the canal, laughing and saying "now it is... 😉". 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems Peterkin wants to eliminate any, and all, options that a person can make that would be unlawful.
Shift all responsibility from the person to 'society'; that will solve all sorts of problems ( 😑 extreme sarcasm 😑 ).

9 hours ago, Neuron said:

I can't agree more with our constitution. We shouldn't even discuss torture as a punishment in a civil world.

All depends on your definition of torture.
If your two year old child, being curious, wants to stick a fork in the electrical outlet, do you slap his/her hand  hard enough that they remember the pain and never do it again, or do you explain the dangers of electricity to them, and hope that they understand, and don't kill themselves the next time you're not looking ?
 

Edited by MigL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.