• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Jokes about prison rape on men? Not a fan.

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Some folks opine that bad people will get what’s coming to them by ending up in prison, victimized by rape. It’s usually delivered as a laugh line.

But I’d like to suggest it’s harmful and wrong to make a laugh out of extra-judicial violence, particularly in the case of the traumatizing and degrading violence of rape.

My personal philosophy is that retribution never helps. It only legitimizes the idea that violence and degradation is okay when you feel “justified.” All criminals feel “justified.” All bullies feel “justified” all of those school shooters and all of those rapists feel “justified.”

I think it is a bad turn for society to give them any indication in any way that all you have to feel is “justified” and you can rape, assault, brutalize, murder.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
In case my screed elsewhere on this site inspired the OP, I feel the opposite of the OP. Humor is about absurdity. It doesn't have boundaries. An audience member can have boundaries. We all do.
Jim Norton does an extended routine on the Jerry Sandusky scandal on one of his cd's. I find it hilarious. In no way can a discerning adult consider it advocacy. It's about absurdity, in this case an absurdity of horrors. If that stuff offends you, avoid it.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,767
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Some folks opine that bad people will get what’s coming to them by ending up in prison, victimized by rape. It’s usually delivered as a laugh line.

But I’d like to suggest it’s harmful and wrong to make a laugh out of extra-judicial violence, particularly in the case of the traumatizing and degrading violence of rape.

My personal philosophy is that retribution never helps. It only legitimizes the idea that violence and degradation is okay when you feel “justified.” All criminals feel “justified.” All bullies feel “justified” all of those school shooters and all of those rapists feel “justified.”

I think it is a bad turn for society to give them any indication in any way that all you have to feel is “justified” and you can rape, assault, brutalize, murder.

I think there's a difference between laughing at someone for bringing consequences on themselves and feeling those consequences are strictly 'justified'. I laugh at Wells Fargo and Target for being burned down, but I don't think it is "justified". I think 'justification' reads much like a repackaging of 'excuse'. It implies, to me, that the person who offers the justification would feel entitled to repeat their actions, without further consideration, if they arrive in the same context, as opposed to having to consider in the future how and why the outcome was still bad and how and why to avoid having to do whatever it was ever again.

To that end, I think the solution to the trolley problem is in fact how to avoid getting into that falling problem in the first place. Justification only goes so far as doing things you have a right to do already.

Given that context, I do think it is amusing when someone who fucks over society gets, well, fucked. But it is not justified and we still have a responsibility to prevent such violations from happening. Two bad out outcomes don't make a good outcome, even if the result is no further bad outcomes.

You are absolutely right: everyone is the hero of their own story and people will jump through all kinds of hoops to prove it to themselves. We absolutely need to set aside our desire for revenge. But I can't not feel "good" when I see a child rapist (or killer cop) get their anus prolapsed. I don't get to decide how I feel after all.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
488
Location
a pretty sidestreet in Happiness
Basic Beliefs
complicated
Some folks opine that bad people will get what’s coming to them by ending up in prison, victimized by rape. It’s usually delivered as a laugh line.

But I’d like to suggest it’s harmful and wrong to make a laugh out of extra-judicial violence, particularly in the case of the traumatizing and degrading violence of rape.

My personal philosophy is that retribution never helps. It only legitimizes the idea that violence and degradation is okay when you feel “justified.” All criminals feel “justified.” All bullies feel “justified” all of those school shooters and all of those rapists feel “justified.”

I think it is a bad turn for society to give them any indication in any way that all you have to feel is “justified” and you can rape, assault, brutalize, murder.

I suspect the urge for revenge is not rational but rather emotional. Killing is terrible revenge because there is no more suffering.

The issue really comes down to the utter vacuum that revenge offers. Showing people that revenge does not help anyone is great but for people with no personal experience with exacting revenge, it all goes out the window when the pain of the offense feels personal. Yes, it is clearly wrong and obviously so. That thougbt doesn't intrude on the emotions until the individual has a bit of experience getting revenge. And for those that try to convince themselves that it was a right decision, practice can make them into monsters.

I speak here with a great deal of personal experience in this subject so I didn't just pull that out of my butt. I was a butcher for ten years in my youth. Most knockers (knocks the animals in the head) become vicious and cruel after a while.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
In case my screed elsewhere on this site inspired the OP, I feel the opposite of the OP. Humor is about absurdity. It doesn't have boundaries. An audience member can have boundaries. We all do.
Jim Norton does an extended routine on the Jerry Sandusky scandal on one of his cd's. I find it hilarious. In no way can a discerning adult consider it advocacy. It's about absurdity, in this case an absurdity of horrors. If that stuff offends you, avoid it.


It did cause me to post, but it was not just you - it’s used often and this was just the impetus to have a conversation about it.
 

braces_for_impact

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
3,398
Location
Clearwater, FL.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I can't fathom the pain, both physical and mental of being raped, whether you're a man or a woman. Either is uniquely awful. In the past I've made the odd joke, but I've reassessed that behavior and decided that I don't want to do that anymore. But then, too, I'm finding in my old age (wink) that I'm not as tolerant of violence as I used to be.

I actually had an unpopular opinion last week on reddit. The topic was a neighbor that caught a registered sex offender again talking to his underage girls. He had the offender on the ground, and kept slapping and punching him, threatening him, his life, and so on, admonishing him never to talk to his girls again. As a father, I get this. I really do. I understand the fear and the anger, but in my mind that didn't excuse the behavior of the dad to the offender. I know it's acceptable to look the other way when pedophiles are hurt, and I can somewhat understand the appeal. I also notice that wishing harm on pedophiles is a common type of virtue signalling in our society. There are better ways to handle it in my opinion.
 

repoman

Contributor
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,304
Location
Seattle, WA
Basic Beliefs
Science Based Atheism
In case my screed elsewhere on this site inspired the OP, I feel the opposite of the OP. Humor is about absurdity. It doesn't have boundaries. An audience member can have boundaries. We all do.
Jim Norton does an extended routine on the Jerry Sandusky scandal on one of his cd's. I find it hilarious. In no way can a discerning adult consider it advocacy. It's about absurdity, in this case an absurdity of horrors. If that stuff offends you, avoid it.

yeah, with broadcasting from before for the most part you had to search out more edgy material, now you can get crazy unwanted stuff on all the feeds of social media you are on when you are not in the mood for edgy stuff.

But Jim Norton for all his other faults is not a misanthropist at all. He is pretty compassionate for a comedian.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Retribution is built-in morality. It's a feature, not a bug - when the retribution is just, that is.

The behavior the jokes are about - i.e., prison rape - is not just retribution for the crimes of the inmates. In fact, it is not even unjust retribution for those crimes - it is not retribution at all, as the rapists do not rape the victims in order to punish them for the crimes for which they were sent to prison.

So, in short: I disagree about retribution. But I agree that prison rape is evil, and is not what they deserve.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,767
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Retribution is built-in morality. It's a feature, not a bug - when the retribution is just, that is.

The behavior the jokes are about - i.e., prison rape - is not just retribution for the crimes of the inmates. In fact, it is not even unjust retribution for those crimes - it is not retribution at all, as the rapists do not rape the victims in order to punish them for the crimes for which they were sent to prison.

So, in short: I disagree about retribution. But I agree that prison rape is evil, and is not what they deserve.

And rape is a built in reproduction strategy for a lot of species. Doesn't make it right. Is does not automatically drive ought and evolution only produces "good enough for now". You have a much higher bar to pass to justify retributive justice, much more than your revenge boner

The fact is, we can get better outcomes without revenge in the picture at all.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Retribution is built-in morality. It's a feature, not a bug - when the retribution is just, that is.

The behavior the jokes are about - i.e., prison rape - is not just retribution for the crimes of the inmates. In fact, it is not even unjust retribution for those crimes - it is not retribution at all, as the rapists do not rape the victims in order to punish them for the crimes for which they were sent to prison.

So, in short: I disagree about retribution. But I agree that prison rape is evil, and is not what they deserve.

And rape is a built in reproduction strategy for a lot of species. Doesn't make it right. Is does not automatically drive ought and evolution only produces "good enough for now". You have a much higher bar to pass to justify retributive justice, much more than your revenge boner

The fact is, we can get better outcomes without revenge in the picture at all.

I do not have a boner. That is merely you insulting me. But retribution is built-into human morality. When people call for justice for the victims of rape, or murder, etc., what they want is to inflict punishment on the perpetrators. And that is what their moral sense says, that they deserve it. It is moral outrage what they feel, not an intent to rape for fun or something akin to that - nor any kind of sexual impulse, distorted or otherwise.

In other words, it's not merely that humans have an evolve tendency for retribution. It's that part of the specific part of the (evolved, but that's not the use) human mind that is the moral part of the mind, normally makes retributive assessments. Even with their huge and growing power, the Woke will not be able to end retributive justice. They might mandate an end to it, and remove it from the laws, and will say that what they're doing is not retribution. But barring massive genetic engineering to replace humans with something else (which they won't do), retributive justice will stay - even if distorted to some extent.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Even with their huge and growing power, the Woke will not be able to end retributive justice. They might mandate an end to it, and remove it from the laws, and will say that what they're doing is not retribution. But barring massive genetic engineering to replace humans with something else (which they won't do), retributive justice will stay - even if distorted to some extent.

There are pretty large numbers of people who want rehab instead of punishment, and in cases when rehab is not possible, simply removal from public of the dangerous.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Retribution is built-in morality. It's a feature, not a bug - when the retribution is just, that is.
Except it is criminals applying the retribution. That isn't justice. It isn't like the victim or family of the victim is getting a cut. Nor is there any system where said retribution is distributed.

It is merely lawlessness we pretend is retribution. Heh... they'll get their's in prison... just like the guy who is in prison for some minor crime.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
I have targeted nukes at my own planet. And joked about it. If it were up to me, i would want to prevent nuclear war. But i still joked about it.

I worked a suicide hotline. I did this exactly because i wanted to stop suicides. But among the hotline workers, we joked about some of the calls.

The missile tech who volunteered on an ambulance had anecdotes that made MTs throw up. Not me, but i was working the hotline at the time. We used to just clear out the break room, swapping stories. But finding humor in a subject is a separate subject from the reality.

Given the opportunity, or authority, or sufficient tasers, i would stop any rape, even in prison, even if the victim was a rapist, a child molester, or one of the Trumps.

However, the idea of someone like Bannon, or Stone, or Trump being in prison, and facing the threat of rape amuses me. Not because of any thoughts of justice, karma, or retribution.
I like the idea of some evil bastard facing the fact that he's fallen so low, that no matter his money, his clout, his political savvy, or his friends, he's now a goldfish in a shark tank. And he done it to his own greedy self.

And that's funny.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,767
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Retribution is built-in morality. It's a feature, not a bug - when the retribution is just, that is.

The behavior the jokes are about - i.e., prison rape - is not just retribution for the crimes of the inmates. In fact, it is not even unjust retribution for those crimes - it is not retribution at all, as the rapists do not rape the victims in order to punish them for the crimes for which they were sent to prison.

So, in short: I disagree about retribution. But I agree that prison rape is evil, and is not what they deserve.

And rape is a built in reproduction strategy for a lot of species. Doesn't make it right. Is does not automatically drive ought and evolution only produces "good enough for now". You have a much higher bar to pass to justify retributive justice, much more than your revenge boner

The fact is, we can get better outcomes without revenge in the picture at all.

I do not have a boner. That is merely you insulting me. But retribution is built-into human morality. When people call for justice for the victims of rape, or murder, etc., what they want is to inflict punishment on the perpetrators. And that is what their moral sense says, that they deserve it. It is moral outrage what they feel, not an intent to rape for fun or something akin to that - nor any kind of sexual impulse, distorted or otherwise.

In other words, it's not merely that humans have an evolve tendency for retribution. It's that part of the specific part of the (evolved, but that's not the use) human mind that is the moral part of the mind, normally makes retributive assessments. Even with their huge and growing power, the Woke will not be able to end retributive justice. They might mandate an end to it, and remove it from the laws, and will say that what they're doing is not retribution. But barring massive genetic engineering to replace humans with something else (which they won't do), retributive justice will stay - even if distorted to some extent.

Yes. You have a "revenge boner". A lot of people do. In this case "revenge boner" is a pejorative description of the desire to consummate revenge and experience a drive relief. It is a pejorative for any aroused emotional drive. You get "horny" but instead of that horniness to rub your dick, it's horniness to see someone else suffer during an act of revenge. It is a base instinct and one that rational humans should learn to either overcome or redirect.

It doesn't matter where in the brain this conceptual revenge penis lives. It is an evolved drive. It is an evolved drive to serve a purpose, perhaps badly, but "good enough for the Paleolithic". Lots of things were good enough for the Paleolithic. They just aren't good enough for now. No amount of hand waving and wishing will get you past is-/>ought.

You need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome. As Rhea stated, "rehab instead of punishment, and in cases when rehab is not possible, simply removal from public of the dangerous," is a much better model. It just wasn't a model that was useful in the Paleolithic age when humans were more capable than the physical efforts it would take to sequester them, and forcing them to endure what they had inflicted on others was a last line chance at forcibly generating an empathetic understanding of their actions.

There are better models now, more time, more security. The only question is, do you think you can be more reasonable and rational than cave men. I joined these boards when it was still "freethought and rationalism discussion boards". "Letting my revenge boner steer me into revenge" is not a rational process, it is an emotional one.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,742
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
But if we don't insult, degrade, and mock the terrible suffering of the occupants of the prison system, how will we maintain control of America's remaining slave class? We can't have the freedmen sympathizing with indentured felons, next they'll want to give them rights. It's a slippery slope that leads from protection from rape to absurd demands to end torture, unpaid or underpaid labor, grift, predatory court practices, and unofficial indefinite extension of all sentences due to unemployability and police harassment of ex-convicts leading to almost inevitable reincarceration.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Even with their huge and growing power, the Woke will not be able to end retributive justice. They might mandate an end to it, and remove it from the laws, and will say that what they're doing is not retribution. But barring massive genetic engineering to replace humans with something else (which they won't do), retributive justice will stay - even if distorted to some extent.

There are pretty large numbers of people who want rehab instead of punishment, and in cases when rehab is not possible, simply removal from public of the dangerous.
When they are applying their ideology, sure, just as Christians can go for 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. But in their daily lives, when their ideology is not applied because they're not thinking about it, they will do what human monkeys do: they will go for retribution of those they deem wrongdoers, even if a small percentage manage not to do so when they demand government punishment.

Now, granted, removal from the public of the dangerous is also a common motivation, though usually, retribution seems to be the main one. Just look at people in demonstrations, calling for "justice for Jane/John Doe", or calling for punishment for the perpetrators, etc. What they want is that the perpetrators suffer for what they did, as they deserve. They also may want - but that's not the main drive, not what really gets them outraged - to remove the dangerous from society, though.

As for rehabilitation, that's something that can be added to it, sure. I mean, I have no problem if the perpetrator, in addition to being properly punished, is treated, as long as there is available treatment (as opposed to wasting resources in something that is almost sure not to work). But the punitive intent will remain higher on the agenda. Well, at least as there are humans and are driving things. This might be changed by massive genetic engineering (i.e., no more humans), or by a non-human dictator (e.g., AGI dictator). But other than than, I do not see that changing (fortunately, as it would be massively unjust).
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Jarhyn said:
Yes. You have a "revenge boner". A lot of people do. In this case "revenge boner" is a pejorative description of the desire to consummate revenge and experience a drive relief. It is a pejorative for any aroused emotional drive. You get "horny" but instead of that horniness to rub your dick, it's horniness to see someone else suffer during an act of revenge. It is a base instinct and one that rational humans should learn to either overcome or redirect.
It is a pejorative description of a significant portion of human morality, and since you do that deliberately, it is unethical on your part to do that. It is also epistemically irrational on your part to fail to realize that this is part of human morality. Humans who are being epistemically rational will realize just retribution is, well, just.

And no, of course, it is not the case that rational humans should learn to overcome or redirect something that is part of morality. Nor will they, regardless of the power of the Woke.


Jarhyn said:
It doesn't matter where in the brain this conceptual revenge penis lives. It is an evolved drive. It is an evolved drive to serve a purpose, perhaps badly, but "good enough for the Paleolithic". Lots of things were good enough for the Paleolithic. They just aren't good enough for now. No amount of hand waving and wishing will get you past is-/>ought.
The 'oughts' do not come from the commands of God. They are part of our mental architechture - which, as it happened, evolved. And I was not trying to get from an is to ought - though I can do that too: it is immoral for you to condemn just retribution, so you ought not to do it. Rather, I was saying that just retribution is an evolved part of the human moral faculty - and a very significant one at that. You can make it go away if you manage massive genetic engineering and replace humans with something else. You can suppress it if you manage to make some AGI-dictator. But short of that, you are not in luck.


Jarhyn said:
You need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome.
The just punishment of the guilty is the best outcome, all other things equal (though not always they are, so sometimes it's a lesser evil to let them get away with evil).



Jarhyn said:
There are better models now, more time, more security. The only question is, do you think you can be more reasonable and rational than cave men. I joined these boards when it was still "freethought and rationalism discussion boards". "Letting my revenge boner steer me into revenge" is not a rational process, it is an emotional one.
Instead of "revenge boner", you should perhaps call it your 'retributive justice moral faculty'. And no, attempting to destroy one of your moral faculties is a bad idea. It's not rational. Or morally acceptable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jab

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,706
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I can't say I've heard many comedians tell "prison rape jokes". But the joke is either funny or not depending on one's sense of humor. And that's the way most comedians approach their material, will the audience laugh and be entertained.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,767
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It is a pejorative description of a significant portion of human morality, and since you do that deliberately, it is unethical on your part to do that.
That is a very big leap to make. I do not accept the unnecessary axiom that being pejorative of a common flaw in the system is unethical. Selfishness and tribalism are built into "human morality", too, and those are similarly bad.
It is also epistemically irrational on your part to fail to realize that this is part of human morality.
Morality is not ethics. Ethics are not morality. 0/2
Humans who are being epistemically rational will realize just retribution is, well, just.
begging the question.

And no, of course, it is not the case that rational humans should learn to overcome or redirect something that is part of morality. Nor will they, regardless of the power of the Woke.
begging the question, equivocating "what we feel for irrational reasons is right" with "what we can understand, using reason and rational investigation, is in fact the best course of action".
The 'oughts' do not come from the commands of God. They are part of our mental architechture - which, as it happened, evolved.
appeal to nature

And I was not trying to get from an is to ought - though I can do that too: it is immoral for you to condemn just retribution
begging the question that revenge is ever "justified", a concept I have roundly rejected

, so you ought not to do it. Rather, I was saying that just retribution is an evolved part of the human moral faculty - and a very significant one at that.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, that it is part of a shitty moral machinery makes no difference. We overlay learned and educated patterns to correct our moral (emotional pseudo-ethic) machinery toward rationally discovered ethical models all the time. You just seem to wish to be LAZY and UNCIVILIZED.
You can make it go away if you manage massive genetic engineering and replace humans with something else. You can suppress it if you manage to make some AGI-dictator. But short of that, you are not in luck.
or, you know, teach people philosophical ethics, and design laws that conform to the superior ethical model.

Jarhyn said:
You need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome.
The just punishment of the guilty is the best outcome, all other things equal (though not always they are, so sometimes it's a lesser evil to let them get away with evil).
you are just assetring the premise here again, as part of your argument...

Jarhyn said:
There are better models now, more time, more security. The only question is, do you think you can be more reasonable and rational than cave men. I joined these boards when it was still "freethought and rationalism discussion boards". "Letting my revenge boner steer me into revenge" is not a rational process, it is an emotional one.
Instead of "revenge boner", you should perhaps call it your 'retributive justice moral faculty'. And no, attempting to destroy one of your moral faculties is a bad idea. It's not rational. Or morally acceptable.

Again begging the question. Are you going to actually provide reasonable arguments? No?

The first thing to do to get to the truth is to doubt. To doubt the correctness of something that evolved just-so in the Paleolithic age is right up at the top.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,624
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I have targeted nukes at my own planet. And joked about it. If it were up to me, i would want to prevent nuclear war. But i still joked about it.

I worked a suicide hotline. I did this exactly because i wanted to stop suicides. But among the hotline workers, we joked about some of the calls.

The missile tech who volunteered on an ambulance had anecdotes that made MTs throw up. Not me, but i was working the hotline at the time. We used to just clear out the break room, swapping stories. But finding humor in a subject is a separate subject from the reality.

Given the opportunity, or authority, or sufficient tasers, i would stop any rape, even in prison, even if the victim was a rapist, a child molester, or one of the Trumps.

However, the idea of someone like Bannon, or Stone, or Trump being in prison, and facing the threat of rape amuses me. Not because of any thoughts of justice, karma, or retribution.
I like the idea of some evil bastard facing the fact that he's fallen so low, that no matter his money, his clout, his political savvy, or his friends, he's now a goldfish in a shark tank. And he done it to his own greedy self.

And that's funny.

Yeah, I just can’t get to any place close to rape as being funny. Or just or acceptable. Rape should not be part of any criminal sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Yeah, I just can’t get to any place close to rape as being funny. Or just or acceptable.
it's a defense. The fact thsst it's unacceptable is what drives the humor. In skilled hands.
Rape should not be part of any criminal sentence.
I agree. Which is why i reject it as 'karma.'

If someone or some thing has determined that rape, for example, is a bad thing, i wouod expect it/them to try to reduce the event. Not to carefully orchestrate lives to meter out a requisite amount of retributive rape.
It just seems weird to believe 'rape bad, therefore more rape' is a meaningful plan.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
37,031
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I have targeted nukes at my own planet. And joked about it. If it were up to me, i would want to prevent nuclear war. But i still joked about it.

I worked a suicide hotline. I did this exactly because i wanted to stop suicides. But among the hotline workers, we joked about some of the calls.

The missile tech who volunteered on an ambulance had anecdotes that made MTs throw up. Not me, but i was working the hotline at the time. We used to just clear out the break room, swapping stories. But finding humor in a subject is a separate subject from the reality.

Given the opportunity, or authority, or sufficient tasers, i would stop any rape, even in prison, even if the victim was a rapist, a child molester, or one of the Trumps.

However, the idea of someone like Bannon, or Stone, or Trump being in prison, and facing the threat of rape amuses me. Not because of any thoughts of justice, karma, or retribution.
I like the idea of some evil bastard facing the fact that he's fallen so low, that no matter his money, his clout, his political savvy, or his friends, he's now a goldfish in a shark tank. And he done it to his own greedy self.

And that's funny.

Yeah, I just can’t get to any place close to rape as being funny. Or just or acceptable. Rape should not be part of any criminal sentence.
What if it is an ape? Apologies for that awful capture. Best I could find.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x07BKBdjIak[/YOUTUBE]
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,403
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
That is a very big leap to make. I do not accept the unnecessary axiom that being pejorative of a common flaw in the system is unethical. Selfishness and tribalism are built into "human morality", too, and those are similarly bad.

Morality is not ethics. Ethics are not morality. 0/2
Humans who are being epistemically rational will realize just retribution is, well, just.
begging the question.

And no, of course, it is not the case that rational humans should learn to overcome or redirect something that is part of morality. Nor will they, regardless of the power of the Woke.
begging the question, equivocating "what we feel for irrational reasons is right" with "what we can understand, using reason and rational investigation, is in fact the best course of action".
The 'oughts' do not come from the commands of God. They are part of our mental architechture - which, as it happened, evolved.
appeal to nature

And I was not trying to get from an is to ought - though I can do that too: it is immoral for you to condemn just retribution
begging the question that revenge is ever "justified", a concept I have roundly rejected

, so you ought not to do it. Rather, I was saying that just retribution is an evolved part of the human moral faculty - and a very significant one at that.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, that it is part of a shitty moral machinery makes no difference. We overlay learned and educated patterns to correct our moral (emotional pseudo-ethic) machinery toward rationally discovered ethical models all the time. You just seem to wish to be LAZY and UNCIVILIZED.
You can make it go away if you manage massive genetic engineering and replace humans with something else. You can suppress it if you manage to make some AGI-dictator. But short of that, you are not in luck.
or, you know, teach people philosophical ethics, and design laws that conform to the superior ethical model.

Jarhyn said:
You need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome.
The just punishment of the guilty is the best outcome, all other things equal (though not always they are, so sometimes it's a lesser evil to let them get away with evil).
you are just assetring the premise here again, as part of your argument...

Jarhyn said:
There are better models now, more time, more security. The only question is, do you think you can be more reasonable and rational than cave men. I joined these boards when it was still "freethought and rationalism discussion boards". "Letting my revenge boner steer me into revenge" is not a rational process, it is an emotional one.
Instead of "revenge boner", you should perhaps call it your 'retributive justice moral faculty'. And no, attempting to destroy one of your moral faculties is a bad idea. It's not rational. Or morally acceptable.

Again begging the question. Are you going to actually provide reasonable arguments? No?

The first thing to do to get to the truth is to doubt. To doubt the correctness of something that evolved just-so in the Paleolithic age is right up at the top.

okay: 1. Do you believe that serious crimes should be punished? M. A. does, and conflates punishment with revenge. You seem to accept that conflation. Do you? I don't think they're quite the same thing.
2. Certain types of offenders are routinely in danger of being beaten by other inmates, and not necessarily raped, because of the nature of the offense.
3. What do you have against boners? "Revenge craving" or "revenge jones" or "revenge addiction" would make more sense, since you seem to be trying to make a point about revenge that covers more than rape as revenge.
 
Last edited:

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,403
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
Yeah, I just can’t get to any place close to rape as being funny. Or just or acceptable.
it's a defense. The fact thsst it's unacceptable is what drives the humor. In skilled hands.
Rape should not be part of any criminal sentence.
I agree. Which is why i reject it as 'karma.'

If someone or some thing has determined that rape, for example, is a bad thing, i wouod expect it/them to try to reduce the event. Not to carefully orchestrate lives to meter out a requisite amount of retributive rape.
It just seems weird to believe 'rape bad, therefore more rape' is a meaningful plan.

By the same logic: locking someone up against their will and forcibly detaining them there is bad, so therefore prison is always bad.
The question is, what is justifiable social response to a crime, and of course to specific crimes.
I would not consider armed robbery sufficient to make the possibility of prison rape at all funny--the way ironic karma is often funny. On the other hand, madam Maxwell. . . ?
How's about Paul Bernardo?
I wouldn't shed I tear, I wouldn't bother to laugh, but I would smile.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,624
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Some folks opine that bad people will get what’s coming to them by ending up in prison, victimized by rape. It’s usually delivered as a laugh line.

But I’d like to suggest it’s harmful and wrong to make a laugh out of extra-judicial violence, particularly in the case of the traumatizing and degrading violence of rape.

My personal philosophy is that retribution never helps. It only legitimizes the idea that violence and degradation is okay when you feel “justified.” All criminals feel “justified.” All bullies feel “justified” all of those school shooters and all of those rapists feel “justified.”

I think it is a bad turn for society to give them any indication in any way that all you have to feel is “justified” and you can rape, assault, brutalize, murder.

Or that there is any justification for rape, assault, or murder.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,767
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
That is a very big leap to make. I do not accept the unnecessary axiom that being pejorative of a common flaw in the system is unethical. Selfishness and tribalism are built into "human morality", too, and those are similarly bad.

Morality is not ethics. Ethics are not morality. 0/2
begging the question.


begging the question, equivocating "what we feel for irrational reasons is right" with "what we can understand, using reason and rational investigation, is in fact the best course of action".
The 'oughts' do not come from the commands of God. They are part of our mental architechture - which, as it happened, evolved.
appeal to nature

And I was not trying to get from an is to ought - though I can do that too: it is immoral for you to condemn just retribution
begging the question that revenge is ever "justified", a concept I have roundly rejected

, so you ought not to do it. Rather, I was saying that just retribution is an evolved part of the human moral faculty - and a very significant one at that.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, that it is part of a shitty moral machinery makes no difference. We overlay learned and educated patterns to correct our moral (emotional pseudo-ethic) machinery toward rationally discovered ethical models all the time. You just seem to wish to be LAZY and UNCIVILIZED.
You can make it go away if you manage massive genetic engineering and replace humans with something else. You can suppress it if you manage to make some AGI-dictator. But short of that, you are not in luck.
or, you know, teach people philosophical ethics, and design laws that conform to the superior ethical model.

Jarhyn said:
You need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome.
The just punishment of the guilty is the best outcome, all other things equal (though not always they are, so sometimes it's a lesser evil to let them get away with evil).
you are just assetring the premise here again, as part of your argument...

Jarhyn said:
There are better models now, more time, more security. The only question is, do you think you can be more reasonable and rational than cave men. I joined these boards when it was still "freethought and rationalism discussion boards". "Letting my revenge boner steer me into revenge" is not a rational process, it is an emotional one.
Instead of "revenge boner", you should perhaps call it your 'retributive justice moral faculty'. And no, attempting to destroy one of your moral faculties is a bad idea. It's not rational. Or morally acceptable.

Again begging the question. Are you going to actually provide reasonable arguments? No?

The first thing to do to get to the truth is to doubt. To doubt the correctness of something that evolved just-so in the Paleolithic age is right up at the top.

okay: 1. Do you believe that serious crimes should be punished? M. A. does, and conflates punishment with revenge. You seem to accept that conflation. Do you? I don't think they're quite the same thing.
2. Certain types of offenders are routinely in danger of being beaten by other inmates, and not necessarily raped, because of the nature of the offense.
3. What do you have against boners? "Revenge craving" or "revenge jones" or "revenge addiction" would make more sense, since you seem to be trying to make a point about revenge that covers more than rape as revenge.

1: no. Nothing needs to be "punished". Punishment, retribution, revenge are all the same thing, the same action to an outside observer, hurting people because they hurt others. Instead, we need to resolve one or more of how to ethically prevent/eliminate the will, the opportunity, and/or motive that drives criminal action (preferably, eliminating future motive and will, though sometimes prevention of opportunity is necessary). Punishment is, occasionally, a tool in the behavior modification toolbox, but it is the difficult to use and most easily abused tool in that box. There are plenty of places in the world where people do not punish criminals, but instead focus on will/motive/opportunity issues, and it works quite well.

2. Is does not establish ought.

3. Nothing, per se. But when you whip your boner out on the subway, or stick your boner in a non-consenting party, or rub it on someone else's pants, that's a big issue. Not every boner needs to be consummated. Some forms of boner ought never be consummated.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
By the same logic: locking someone up against their will and forcibly detaining them there is bad, so therefore prison is always bad.
i notice you snuck an 'always' into your conclusion, there, which is not supported by your premise.
I had to lock my two-year-old up against his will or he'd have gone to play in traffic. So, if that's not an ALWAYS bad thing, it's not logical to conclude prison is always bad.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I have targeted nukes at my own planet. And joked about it. If it were up to me, i would want to prevent nuclear war. But i still joked about it.
[...]
I like the idea of some evil bastard facing the fact that he's fallen so low, that no matter his money, his clout, his political savvy, or his friends, he's now a goldfish in a shark tank. And he done it to his own greedy self.

I do completely understand gallows humor. And I find it funny when it’s well done. I do get that. Ambulance jokes, nuke jokes.

So hmmm, why do jokes about rape as karma not fall into the funny category for me? Good question. Maybe it’s because this one is such an act of meanness. Maybe because it feels like choosing an actor to do something that feels too much like me doing it. As opposed to thinking it’s funny if something happens but rather wanting somethng to happen. Maybe that’s it? I dunno. I would be more likely to be amused by a joke about rape than one that approves of rape as the correct outcome. Maybe that’s it.


Interesting. Good discussion though, because how does it differ from other gallows humor? For me, it seems to differ.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
When they are applying their ideology, sure, just as Christians can go for 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. But in their daily lives, when their ideology is not applied because they're not thinking about it, they will do what human monkeys do: they will go for retribution of those they deem wrongdoers, even if a small percentage manage not to do so when they demand government punishment.

I do not see that in real life. The data I see are different. I do not see people seeking punishment and retribution all the time.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Jarhyn said:
Yes. You have a "revenge boner". A lot of people do. In this case "revenge boner" is a pejorative description of the desire to consummate revenge and experience a drive relief. It is a pejorative for any aroused emotional drive. You get "horny" but instead of that horniness to rub your dick, it's horniness to see someone else suffer during an act of revenge. It is a base instinct and one that rational humans should learn to either overcome or redirect.

It is a pejorative description of a significant portion of human morality, and since you do that deliberately, it is unethical on your part to do that. It is also epistemically irrational on your part to fail to realize that this is part of human morality. Humans who are being epistemically rational will realize just retribution is, well, just.

I feel like I just heard you say that Jarhyn was unethical for saying that people who want retribution in the form of prison rape have a boner.

We’re talking about people who want to hurt other people in serious ways and the person who is mocking it is the bad guy in that equaltion?

I did not see that coming...
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
What if it is an ape? Apologies for that awful capture. Best I could find.

I find that it doesnt matter if it’s a human penis, an ape penis or a broken broomstick. Doesn’t create a laugh.
I never did like that scene. It broke the flow of humor in the movie.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,403
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
That is a very big leap to make. I do not accept the unnecessary axiom that being pejorative of a common flaw in the system is unethical. Selfishness and tribalism are built into "human morality", too, and those are similarly bad.

Morality is not ethics. Ethics are not morality. 0/2
begging the question.


begging the question, equivocating "what we feel for irrational reasons is right" with "what we can understand, using reason and rational investigation, is in fact the best course of action".
appeal to nature

And I was not trying to get from an is to ought - though I can do that too: it is immoral for you to condemn just retribution
begging the question that revenge is ever "justified", a concept I have roundly rejected

, so you ought not to do it. Rather, I was saying that just retribution is an evolved part of the human moral faculty - and a very significant one at that.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, that it is part of a shitty moral machinery makes no difference. We overlay learned and educated patterns to correct our moral (emotional pseudo-ethic) machinery toward rationally discovered ethical models all the time. You just seem to wish to be LAZY and UNCIVILIZED.
You can make it go away if you manage massive genetic engineering and replace humans with something else. You can suppress it if you manage to make some AGI-dictator. But short of that, you are not in luck.
or, you know, teach people philosophical ethics, and design laws that conform to the superior ethical model.

Jarhyn said:
You need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome.
The just punishment of the guilty is the best outcome, all other things equal (though not always they are, so sometimes it's a lesser evil to let them get away with evil).
you are just assetring the premise here again, as part of your argument...

Jarhyn said:
There are better models now, more time, more security. The only question is, do you think you can be more reasonable and rational than cave men. I joined these boards when it was still "freethought and rationalism discussion boards". "Letting my revenge boner steer me into revenge" is not a rational process, it is an emotional one.
Instead of "revenge boner", you should perhaps call it your 'retributive justice moral faculty'. And no, attempting to destroy one of your moral faculties is a bad idea. It's not rational. Or morally acceptable.

Again begging the question. Are you going to actually provide reasonable arguments? No?

The first thing to do to get to the truth is to doubt. To doubt the correctness of something that evolved just-so in the Paleolithic age is right up at the top.

okay: 1. Do you believe that serious crimes should be punished? M. A. does, and conflates punishment with revenge. You seem to accept that conflation. Do you? I don't think they're quite the same thing.
2. Certain types of offenders are routinely in danger of being beaten by other inmates, and not necessarily raped, because of the nature of the offense.
3. What do you have against boners? "Revenge craving" or "revenge jones" or "revenge addiction" would make more sense, since you seem to be trying to make a point about revenge that covers more than rape as revenge.

1: no. Nothing needs to be "punished". Punishment, retribution, revenge are all the same thing, the same action to an outside observer, hurting people because they hurt others. Instead, we need to resolve one or more of how to ethically prevent/eliminate the will, the opportunity, and/or motive that drives criminal action (preferably, eliminating future motive and will, though sometimes prevention of opportunity is necessary). Punishment is, occasionally, a tool in the behavior modification toolbox, but it is the difficult to use and most easily abused tool in that box. There are plenty of places in the world where people do not punish criminals, but instead focus on will/motive/opportunity issues, and it works quite well.

2. Is does not establish ought.

3. Nothing, per se. But when you whip your boner out on the subway, or stick your boner in a non-consenting party, or rub it on someone else's pants, that's a big issue. Not every boner needs to be consummated. Some forms of boner ought never be consummated.
1. I disagree with you on there being no distinction between punishment and revenge. Predictable punishment is supposed to have a preventative value, though how much varies from person to person.
2. While prison rape is often sexual and asserting power rather than punishment or retribution meted out be other prisoners, other types of retribution are meted out in prison, a fact ignored by posters, including, implicitly by you and your introduction of "boners" into a discussion of revenge.
3. Ah, I see, a Freudian--how quaint and old fashioned. All cravings, all emotions are sexualized, it seems, in your world view, and the civilized superego is available to tamp those sexualized emotions down.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,403
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
By the same logic: locking someone up against their will and forcibly detaining them there is bad, so therefore prison is always bad.
i notice you snuck an 'always' into your conclusion, there, which is not supported by your premise.
I had to lock my two-year-old up against his will or he'd have gone to play in traffic. So, if that's not an ALWAYS bad thing, it's not logical to conclude prison is always bad.

looks like you snuck away from your post, of which mine was a parody. And i notice you cut out the rest of my post. Of course I disagree with my own parodic line, and with your position about certain types of jokes always being so bad they're not funny.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
looks like you snuck away from your post, of which mine was a parody.
what 'snuck away?' I didn't realize it was a parody.
Just saw a bad-logic attack on my logic. Sorry if that was the intent.
And i notice you cut out the rest of my post.
i didn't feel like responding to that. I am not under the impression i must respond to everything in a post.
and with your position about certain types of jokes always being so bad they're not funny.
Did i say that? That doesn't sound like my position. I feel everything is at least hypothetically fit for humor, though not always to every person's taste.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
nteresting. Good discussion though, because how does it differ from other gallows humor? For me, it seems to differ.
Well, there are a lot of facts about prison life that could be invoked in Bannon's dismal future.

The food. The schedule. The toilet in the middle of your shared bedroom. The slave labor. The need to join a gang to protect you from the white supremacist gang when they figure out who you committed your crimes against. That could be a reality show with a laugh track.

And you might send him a floral bouquet warning him to avoid becoming the property of a 300 lb weightlifter with LIVE and LOVE tattooed on his knuckles, an LA on his right hip, and GH on his left hip.

But that's all different than the suggestion that he deserves this treatment, and the warden should hopefully precipitate it.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
I find the notion that retributive justice is "genetically engineered" to ridiculous.

Indeed, as there is no engineer. But it's part of human morality. And you would need genetic engineering to change it - well, I guess you could also try forced artificial selection for sufficiently long, but that's even more difficult because humans will not enforce that for that long, and if you have a dictator AGI genetic engineering is more effective and much faster. On the other hand, if you only want to suppress it, the AGI need not bother with engineering - though it might find it simpler.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Jarhyn said:
That is a very big leap to make. I do not accept the unnecessary axiom that being pejorative of a common flaw in the system is unethical. Selfishness and tribalism are built into "human morality", too, and those are similarly bad.
That is not a flaw in the system. That is a key part of the system. It is a feature, not a bug. And it's not an axiom, it's an assessment. It's obvious both using one's own sense of right and wrong (if not damaged/blocked by ideology/religion), and by observing behavior of other human monkeys.


Jarhyn said:
Morality is not ethics. Ethics are not morality. 0/2
immoral=unethical.
morally wrong=unethical.

You could go with another definition of 'ethics', like denoting the study of morality, etc., but then you would be equivocating.

Jarhyn said:
begging the question.
Making an assessment.

By the way, do you realize that you're just making a claim that retribution is not just, not a part of human morality, etc.? I could tell you that you are begging the question.-


Jarhyn said:
you are just assetring the premise here again, as part of your argument...
I'm just making an assessment again. For that matter, you made your assessment too. It was a false one, but regardless, the point is that with your criterion, you are asserting your premises that retribution for wrongdoing is wrong, unjust, etc.

Jarhyn said:
Again begging the question. Are you going to actually provide reasonable arguments? No?
First, again I am making an assessment.
Second, you are making the claim that flies on the face of ordinary human moral experience.
If I point at a leaf that looks green to an ordinary human eye and I say it's green, but you tell me it's not green, well I would ask you to give the argument. I'm going with ordinary human moral assessments, as shown by observing how human monkeys behave. You condem ordinary human morality.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
jab said:
M. A. does, and conflates punishment with revenge. You seem to accept that conflation. Do you? I don't think they're quite the same thing.
Who is M. A.?
If you are talking about me, of course I do not conflate them. Revenge can be just or unjust. Moreover, in a increasingly common use (in my experience), it is always unjust by definition. Just retribution is a form of vengeance in the non-negative (but neutral) sense of the term. But there are forms of vengeance that are not just retribution. Murdering the children of a rapist in order to punish him would be a form of revenge, but it would not be a form of just retribution. Beating the rapist up for raping would be just retribution (assuming rape for fun, or any other ordinary motivation).
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,767
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,767
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
That is not a flaw in the system. That is a key part of the system. It is a feature, not a bug. And it's not an axiom, it's an assessment. It's obvious both using one's own sense of right and wrong (if not damaged/blocked by ideology/religion), and by observing behavior of other human monkeys.
No matter how many bald assertions you make, those assertions will not actually make what you say true. You sound like Derec, Trausti, Metaphor, or Angelo.

"Assessments" without an argument behind them are what is known as an assertion.

Whine, kick, cry all you want over the fact that you have not justified your beliefs with reason, but you haven't. Is does not create ought. If you knew even the first thing about ethical philosophy you would understand that.

It's literally my job to look at systems and figure out what is going wrong, what adjustments they need, how they fall away from a functional model. Plenty of people operate on pure "moral intuition" and plenty of such people are complete and utter monsters.

"It's obvious"
"It's common sense"
HA!

You have done no such thing. If human morality was so functional, we wouldn't have needed ethical philosophy in the first place. Or laws. Literally NOTHING in the universe operates in the way our ignorant intuitions would immediately suggest. Not from the biggest things, to the smallest. We are always wrong either in subtle or grand measure. Always.
immoral=unethical.
morally wrong=unethical.
More bald assertions, equivocation, begging the question. As I have pointed out, it is ridiculous to think that a mechanism that sprouted from selection pressures in the Paleolithic, before behavior modification, psychology, before secure prisons, before education, before the written word, before formal logic, before math or even consistent spoken language is somehow an accurate model of what is best for us to do with regards to when people behave badly.
You could go with another definition of 'ethics', like denoting the study of morality, etc., but then you would be equivocating.
LOL. "Not equivocating is equivocating". Fucking fantastic.

Let me spell this out for you in a way you won't understand but a six year old probably would: there are two concepts at discussion here, morality and ethics.

Morality is the way we feel about "what is right". It is in fact a cluster of systems, a set of early believed concepts passed on in society and deeper emotional structures that provide a "suggestion" of how to act to solve problems with regards to interpersonal conflict. The earlier part comes from traditions and rules of a form our brains are "primed" to accept as truth, and the later comes from the selective pressures of the Paleolithic era. Note that evolution does not target optimal solutions, merely 'functional enough' solutions.

Ethics, on the other hand, are an academic and philosophical modeling of the optimal strategies for interpersonal conflict resolution and behavior.

A serial killer who feels sex is immoral and punishment is moral is acting in a perfectly "moral" way to murder prostitutes. But it isn't very ethical. He could use his reason to see why his action against the consent of others is not reasonable or rational, but he does not. He is a slave to his emotional morality that drives him to kill prostitutes, much like you recommend others act as slaves to their primitive, base moral instincts.

Of course, I fully expect you to say "well, their .orality is 'broken', but you won't provide me anything to justify that view, except an appeal to the mean. While I can, if you would like, actually point to the mechanism, a framework of principles and understanding that create a reason why asymmetrical ethical systems (and moral machineries) are a problem, and the underlying mechanisms of reality and how they imply, in the presence of a goal, a strategy to accomplish the goal in a way that is possibly symmetrical (as opposed to mere morals).
Jarhyn said:
begging the question.
Making an assessment.
begging the question.

By the way, do you realize that you're just making a claim that retribution is not just, not a part of human morality, etc.? I could tell you that you are begging the question.-
You are the one making the assertion that there is nothing in ethics past "human morality". I point to the fact that "human morality" is an approximation (and a bad one, at that), of some real operant model.

It all really comes down to evolutionary strategies available to entities within a system. Darwinism systems create more pressure to permanent consequences for individuals, including execution. They heavily favor revenge

But humans don't evolve that way, not really. Our greatest gift from our darwinistic history is in fact that we evolved strong support for a new evolutionary model, and this new evolutionary model creates of each other peers. In this way, retributive justice is an artifact, much like a recurrent laryngeal nerve. Our game is not "evolve better, kill the weak or 'evil' to remove from gene pool". Ours is "try/invent/learn, test, teach." It's a different game in reality than the one that brought us the revenge drive, and it serves us all much better. Of course, the proof of that pudding is in the Nordic model, where these principles lead to lower recidivism, better outcomes for rehabilitated persons, and a more peaceful society at large.
Jarhyn said:
you are just assetring the premise here again, as part of your argument...
I'm just making an assessment again. For that matter, you made your assessment too. It was a false one, but regardless, the point is that with your criterion, you are asserting your premises that retribution for wrongdoing is wrong, unjust, etc.
I am asserting the null hypothesis on your assertions. You made a claim: "revenge is just". I've been asking you to prove it with more than "I and my buddies really fucking like it!"

You have not.

In the mean time, I point to the reality of better outcomes when we use non-retributive justice, the reality of the implications of neo-lamarckian ethical game theory, the logic of utilitarian goal planning. If the decision is between having another person available oay call friend (at the expense of some work or deep discussion or some behavior modification regiment that they have accepted to undertake), I have another perspective against problems, and potentially a valuable one. Or I could hurt them for actions they felt "justified" to take to the same extent that I felt "justified" to hurt them, have them resent me for doing it, not learn anything, and get more revenge in kind.
Jarhyn said:
Again begging the question. Are you going to actually provide reasonable arguments? No?
First, again I am making an assessment.
Second, you are making the claim that flies on the face of ordinary human moral experience.
If I point at a leaf that looks green to an ordinary human eye and I say it's green, but you tell me it's not green, well I would ask you to give the argument. I'm going with ordinary human moral assessments, as shown by observing how human monkeys behave. You condem ordinary human morality.

Of course I make claims that fly in the face of your bald assertions. Your analogy is cute, but has no bearing. I am doing nothing of the sort. You are pointing at a particle and saying "the electron is HERE, orbiting in this circle", and I am saying "elecrons are not in a location in that way, they are everywhere an nowhere in the probability curve defined by an election shell by a specific equation, though mostly in this area, in the same way that when I throw craps, you cannot say what number the dice are on until they have settled; the are not yet on the table though the probability curve falls around a mean of 7" and you say 'that flies in the face of how I and others understand things to exist at all, if the electron is real it must be somewhere and this is how it is" and I say "sorry, you are wrong, your understanding is wrong, your model is wrong, you can look at it in this way to see how you are wrong."

I absolutely condemn ignorant human morality because ignorant human morality is flawed, from the moment we pop out to the moment we end in the grave, in the same way I reject the planetary atomic model, and accept quantum mechanics as a system (among rejection of all other manner of intuitive but WRONG assumptions in society and human nature).
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Jarhyn said:
No matter how many bald assertions you make, those assertions will not actually make what you say true. You sound like Derec, Trausti, Metaphor, or Angelo.
3 out of 4 are correct much more often than you are. The arguments I am using here are pretty different from any of the points I've seen them make - but often their assessments are clearly correct, and yours are clearly wrong. Well, 3 out of 4; 1 is usually wrong.

Jarhyn said:
"Assessments" without an argument behind them are what is known as an assertion.
No, those are different things. But that is not the point. You seem to think argument is needed to back up any claims. Obviously, if that were the case, you would get infinite regress of arguments. There is such thing as the probability (not numerical, but approximate and intuitive) that it is proper to assign to a statement, claim, etc. When you make assessments that fly on the face of ordinary moral faculties, they are very, very improbable. And you are doing that.

However, I actually did give arguments:

1. I appealed to the moral sense of readers. Not yours, obviously, since it is failing due to ideology. But that is a human faculty they can use to assess what is just and what is not. That's a rational way of making moral assessments.

2. I provided empirical evidence from widespread human behavior. When people are morally outraged and demand justice, they demand usually that the perpetrators be punished for what they did. That is part of the human moral faculty. It's a feeling of moral outrage, which is accompanied by the intuitive assessment that what the perpetrators did was immoral and that they deserve to be punished accordingly.


Jarhyn said:
Whine, kick, cry all you want over the fact that you have not justified your beliefs with reason, but you haven't. Is does not create ought. If you knew even the first thing about ethical philosophy you would understand that.
The human moral sense is what it is. And of course, oughts follow from is. It is immoral of you to try to destroy the human moral faculty (even if you fail to realize that you are doing that). It follows that you ought not to do that. Even if my assessment were incorrect (which it is not), that would show that a moral 'ought' follows from an is, at least as long as the 'is' is 'is immoral'.

But this is not a relevant matter. The point is that by assessing the matters normally, using their sense of right and wrong, humans reckon that some other humans deserve to be punished for what they did. You are going up against the human moral sense. The burden is on you. Again, if I point at a leaf that looks green to an ordinary human eye and I say it's green, but you tell me it's not green, well I would ask you to give the argument. I'm going with ordinary human moral assessments, as shown by observing how human monkeys behave. You condem ordinary human morality.


Jarhyn said:
It's literally my job to look at systems and figure out what is going wrong, what adjustments they need, how they fall away from a functional model. Plenty of people operate on pure "moral intuition" and plenty of such people are complete and utter monsters.
Of course it is useful to think about a situation, who did what, consequences to be expected, etc. But in the end, the proper way of making moral assessments is to use one's intuitive sense of right and wrong. What else? Argument? From premises? How do you justify the premises? You put the cart before the horses.



Jarhyn said:
You have done no such thing. If human morality was so functional, we wouldn't have needed ethical philosophy in the first place. Or laws. Literally NOTHING in the universe operates in the way our ignorant intuitions would immediately suggest. Not from the biggest things, to the smallest. We are always wrong either in subtle or grand measure. Always.
When a philosopher comes up with a theory, there is one way to test it: see whether its predictions are true, while assessing them by means of the human moral sense.

If human morality were so dysfunctional, then ethical philosophy would be useless, because we would lack the means to tell whether a theory is correct. Philosophers come up with radically different theories. If the human moral sense is not the tool to test them , then there is no tool to test them, barring internal inconsistency, or false nonmoral predictions.

Jarhyn said:
More bald assertions, equivocation, begging the question.
No, that's a common usage of the terms. It's the most common usage. And in any event, it's what I meant by unethical. The same as immoral.


Jarhyn said:
As I have pointed out, it is ridiculous to think that a mechanism that sprouted from selection pressures in the Paleolithic, before behavior modification, psychology, before secure prisons, before education, before the written word, before formal logic, before math or even consistent spoken language is somehow an accurate model of what is best for us to do with regards to when people behave badly.
As I have pointed out, the mechanism that sprouted from selection pressures in the Paleolithic, before behavior modification, psychology, before secure prisons, before education, before the written word, before formal logic, before math or even consistent spoken language is our human moral sense; we do not have access to moral knowledge without it. Furthermore, moral terms track what it tracks

Don't you realize? Monkeys have a moral sense, and some other faculties. Monkeys become smart enough to talk. So, monkeys use words to talk about what they care, which is the verdicts of their faculties. Like, they talk about illness and health, about colors, about females and males, and about justice and injustice, right and wrong, and so on.
Jarhyn said:
Let me spell this out for you in a way you won't understand but a six year old probably would: there are two concepts at discussion here, morality and ethics.
Look at what you did. I used the word "unethical" and you then attacked my usage of the word. If you want to use them to mean something else, that does not affect my points.


Jarhyn said:
Morality is the way we feel about "what is right". It is in fact a cluster of systems, a set of early believed concepts passed on in society and deeper emotional structures that provide a "suggestion" of how to act to solve problems with regards to interpersonal conflict. The earlier part comes from traditions and rules of a form our brains are "primed" to accept as truth, and the later comes from the selective pressures of the Paleolithic era. Note that evolution does not target optimal solutions, merely 'functional enough' solutions.

Ethics, on the other hand, are an academic and philosophical modeling of the optimal strategies for interpersonal conflict resolution and behavior.
I, on the other hand, do not use your terminology. I use "immoral" and "unethical" to mean the same thing, and that is what human monkeys mean by those words if they speak English and are engaging in moral assessments - or ethical assessments, which is the same, i.e., assessing whether something is immoral, morally permissible, just, unjust, etc.


Jarhyn said:
A serial killer who feels sex is immoral and punishment is moral is acting in a perfectly "moral" way to murder prostitutes.
No, the serial killer in question has a malfunctioning sense of right and wrong, and is making a mistaken assessment. Usually, serial killers have other motivations by the way.


Jarhyn said:
But it isn't very ethical.
Sure, it's unethical=immoral. He believes his behavior is morally praiseworthy and/or obligatory (I do not know enough about your scenario), but it is not.

Jarhyn said:
He could use his reason to see why his action against the consent of others is not reasonable or rational, but he does not.
No, he could not, unless his sense of right and wrong tells him so. Aliens from another planet might visit the Earth and hunt humans for fun, and there is nothing irrational about it per se (it might depending on their own minds). The word "reasonable" already invokes a moral component. But the aliens might as well be amoral. And the serial killer is irrational because he fails to realize, observing the behavior of others, studying evolution, etc., that his own sense of right and wrong is failing.
Jarhyn said:
He is a slave to his emotional morality that drives him to kill prostitutes, much like you recommend others act as slaves to their primitive, base moral instincts.
What you want is to destroy part of human morality. But you do not realize it.


Jarhyn said:
Of course, I fully expect you to say "well, their .orality is 'broken', but you won't provide me anything to justify that view, except an appeal to the mean. While I can, if you would like, actually point to the mechanism, a framework of principles and understanding that create a reason why asymmetrical ethical systems (and moral machineries) are a problem, and the underlying mechanisms of reality and how they imply, in the presence of a goal, a strategy to accomplish the goal in a way that is possibly symmetrical (as opposed to mere morals).
The main goal of punishing the guilty is...punishing the guilty. It's an end in an of itself. There might be further goals, like protecting society. But it's still, on its own, a goal. Given by our own sense of right and wrong. Our moral sense. Whatever you mean by "assymetrical ethical systems", there is a human morality, and you are trying to break it.

Jarhyn said:
Our game is not "evolve better, kill the weak or 'evil' to remove from gene pool".
Of course not the weak or "evil". But rather, kill the evil (no quotation marks), if he's evil enough to deserve execution. Else, beat him up, or imprison him, etc., depending on what he did and the availability of punitive means.

Jarhyn said:
Of course, the proof of that pudding is in the Nordic model, where these principles lead to lower recidivism, better outcomes for rehabilitated persons, and a more peaceful society at large.
Of course, they too engage in retributive actions all the time, as they are humans. But when the do not, that results in injustice. Now, perhaps you could argue that injustice - in the form of letting the perpetrator get away with it and also prevent the victim and others from inflicting revenge - is still justified in order to protect the innocent. But that would be a very different argument.


Jarhyn said:
You made a claim: "revenge is just".
Misquote, and gross misrepresentation of my claims. Retribution is a significant part of morality. But not all forms of revenge are just. Obviously.

Jarhyn said:
I've been asking you to prove it with more than "I and my buddies really fucking like it!"
That is unreasonable. Imagine I point at a leaf that looks green to an ordinary human eye under ordinary light conditions and I say it's green, but you tell me it's not green, well I would ask you to give the argument. The rational assessment is that it is almost certainly green, barring significant evidence to the contrary.

Similarly, you are saying that all of the instances of retribution that look just to the ordinary human moral sense under ordinary social conditions, are unjust. The rational assessment is that your claim is vastly improbable. You would have to give evidence to the contrary. But you are just massively missing the point.


Jarhyn said:
In the mean time, I point to the reality of better outcomes when we use non-retributive justice, the reality of the implications of neo-lamarckian ethical game theory, the logic of utilitarian goal planning.
No, you are not pointing to the reality of better outcomes. You are claiming that an outcome is better, without explaining why it is so (which, obviously, one can only assess by means of the moral sense!!). I can tell you in which ways it is not better: it is unjust. The very fact that people who deserve punishment are not getting punished is something that makes the outcome worse all other things equal. Now, you might argue it's still overall better. But that would not make retribution unjust.


Jarhyn said:
Of course I make claims that fly in the face of your bald assertions. Your analogy is cute, but has no bearing. I am doing nothing of the sort. You are pointing at a particle and saying "the electron is HERE, orbiting in this circle", and I am saying "elecrons are not in a location in that way, they are everywhere an nowhere in the probability curve defined by an election shell by a specific equation, though mostly in this area, in the same way that when I throw craps, you cannot say what number the dice are on until they have settled; the are not yet on the table though the probability curve falls around a mean of 7" and you say 'that flies in the face of how I and others understand things to exist at all, if the electron is real it must be somewhere and this is how it is" and I say "sorry, you are wrong, your understanding is wrong, your model is wrong, you can look at it in this way to see how you are wrong."
No, that is not remotely what is happening. Humans do not have an electron-detecting sense. We do have a moral sense, as we have color vision.



Jarhyn said:
I absolutely condemn ignorant human morality because ignorant human morality is flawed, from the moment we pop out to the moment we end in the grave, in the same way I reject the planetary atomic model, and accept quantum mechanics as a system (among rejection of all other manner of intuitive but WRONG assumptions in society and human nature).
Morality is human morality. Aliens would not have morality, as they would not have color vision. They might have an analogue color* vision, and morality*, but those would be different things (well, if the universe is large enough some will be like us, but that's not what should be expected in the observable universe, but different things).

The human moral sense, like human color vision, is not perfect. But it both informs what we actually mean by moral/color terms, and is our guide to finding moral/color truth. You are going up against justice. And you're also going up against the windmills. Again, barring massive genetic engineering, you cannot eliminate this feature of human morality. And you can't even suppress it barring a dictator AGI or something like that.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,767
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Beating the rapist up for raping would be just retribution.

Naturalistic fallacy.

At this point, I think I'm fairly well justified writing AM off with the rest? I hate building such a collection. Like, what is it about conservatives assuming their premises?

It's like they have fallacy blindness. Which makes some sense, to me.

Like they claim all through this that it's tilting against windmills to expect people to be better when there are clear examples of people shifting to restorative justice rather than retributive justice functionally.

They can't seem to divorce culture from an issue. They cannot seem to understand... Much of anything beyond what they absolutely insist on believing.

Like, this person, with their idiotic posts, doesn't seem to understand that we use our reason to overcome our emotions all the time.

They don't seem to understand that we are not talking about how eyes or particular moral machinery works but rather about how math and systems of axioms work. Regardless, there's clearly nothing there beyond excuses. It's sad.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Beating the rapist up for raping would be just retribution.
how much justice is just, though?
If i rape one person, then i get raped, that seems just.
But if i rape three people, what's just? Each of my victims suffered one rape, one unit of mental and physical harm. Would my being raped once equal the harm i have inflicted on each victim? Or is it not just until i have been raped three times?
Or if i rape five people seven times? Where's the sweet spot for justice counter-rape?

And assuming that there are answers to these questions, how do the justice rapists know when they have achieved justice with justified rapes? When do they stop? Or do they just continue raping after justice us served?

Because that would be unjust, a justice raper throwing the scales to the rapist's favor, but they're both still in prison.

Or justice beaters.
Or justice bullies.
Or justice whatever we do
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,356
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Jarhyn said:
Yes. You have a "revenge boner". A lot of people do. In this case "revenge boner" is a pejorative description of the desire to consummate revenge and experience a drive relief. It is a pejorative for any aroused emotional drive. You get "horny" but instead of that horniness to rub your dick, it's horniness to see someone else suffer during an act of revenge. It is a base instinct and one that rational humans should learn to either overcome or redirect.

It is a pejorative description of a significant portion of human morality, and since you do that deliberately, it is unethical on your part to do that. It is also epistemically irrational on your part to fail to realize that this is part of human morality. Humans who are being epistemically rational will realize just retribution is, well, just.

I feel like I just heard you say that Jarhyn was unethical for saying that people who want retribution in the form of prison rape have a boner.

We’re talking about people who want to hurt other people in serious ways and the person who is mocking it is the bad guy in that equaltion?

I did not see that coming...
Clearly you have no idea what it means to be "epistemically rational". Apparently to the epistemically rational, that morality (redistributive justice") is part of our genetic makeup, so that we are "hardwired" to just brutal feelings. Experience, education and life experience cannot change our feelings.

Frankly, I find the argument that it is part of natural nature to handwaved defeatist nonsense. But then again, I am epistemically irrational.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,357
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Angra Manyu said:
2. I provided empirical evidence from widespread human behavior. When people are morally outraged and demand justice, they demand usually that the perpetrators be punished for what they did.

I don’t think you really provided any evidence here, and I do not accept your claim that it is widespread. If revenge punishment was widespread, society would look very different than it does. Road rage is the exception that proves the rule: The fact that it’s an exception demonstrates that lack of widespread retribution is the rule.

AM said:
As I have pointed out, the mechanism that sprouted from selection pressures in the Paleolithic, before behavior modification, psychology, before secure prisons, before education, before the written word, before formal logic, before math or even consistent spoken language is our human moral sense; we do not have access to moral knowledge without it. Furthermore, moral terms track what it tracks

This claim assumes that the conditions of paleolithic life are still present. They are not. There is significantly more security in life. There are many more ethical rules than then, No, you do not show that we are still compelled by the same reactions. Our urges are dulled by safety, no longer automatic, no longer unrestrained. Our moral sense is not the same due to the lack of stress and trauma - they simply do not express themselves, they are biologically not present, just like the domestication of dogs.


AM said:
I, on the other hand, do not use your terminology. I use "immoral" and "unethical" to mean the same thing,

I thought it was weird that you’d say you don’t use those words the same way, so to double check I looked up how the rest of the english speaking world uses them...

English Speaking People said:
While they're closely related concepts, morals refer mainly to guiding principles, and ethics refer to specific rules and actions, or behaviors. A moralprecept is an idea or opinion that's driven by a desire to be good. An ethical code is a set of rules that defines allowable actions or correct behavior.

You may want to develop your vocabulary in this area.

AM said:
The main goal of punishing the guilty is...punishing the guilty. It's an end in an of itself. There might be further goals, like protecting society. But it's still, on its own, a goal.

For you, perhaps. But not for vast swaths of humanity. It’s a little chilling to have you express that you find this obvious and universal, indicating that you behave this way on a regular basis, while the rest of us do not. Do you have to fight with yourself daily to avoid punishing those around you in road rage or anti-mask abuse or workplae violence? Most of us do not. We simply do not feel the need to punish.. There is no urge, we do not have to fight it.


AM said:
Now, perhaps you could argue that injustice - in the form of letting the perpetrator get away with it and also prevent the victim and others from inflicting revenge [...] Imagine I point at a leaf that looks green to an ordinary human eye under ordinary light conditions and I say it's green, but you tell me it's not green, well I would ask you to give the argument. The rational assessment is that it is almost certainly green, barring significant evidence to the contrary.

This response again assumes that your outlook is the norm. That your outlook is “ordinary,” and the rest of us are saying that grass is blue. Which, #1, can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you? And #2, is shown to be false by how many people do not walk around in a rage of unrequited punishment.
 
Top Bottom