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

Jokes about prison rape on men? Not a fan.

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,221
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Which was my original point in my first reply.

But we were not doing your original point from your first reply. We were doing what you said about the introduction of similar policies to those introduced in Norway, the comparative experiment you referred to, except that you said it failed in the USA because the policies led to greatly increased crime and a rapidly expanding prison population.

For simplicity I gave the short version. It was of course more complicated. But overall the more lenient treatment of prisoners and reduced sentencing in the 1960'ies led to more violence since criminals weren't as afraid of jail. That's the story Stephen Pinker gives in "Better Angels of our Nature". It was after this that sanctions increased (as a reaction), which then rapidly increased the prison population. They're connected. The effect stopped in the 1990'ies when violent crime dramatically was reduced (for other complicated reasons).

My point is that you can't take the Norwegian prison system and only reform the US prison system and expect similar results. It'll be a disaster. Unless you also change the entire US society, culture and economy to match it. Good luck with that.

For whatever reason, the American culture requires criminals to be hit hard with a very big stick, or things go bad.

edit: I'm not an essentialist. I don't think it's the American race, or any sillyness like it. I think it's a matter of incentives. Economic incentives encourage certain behaviours which leads to a culture that make it work. Norway and USA have different economic incentives.
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,798
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Which was my original point in my first reply.

But we were not doing your original point from your first reply. We were doing what you said about the introduction of similar policies to those introduced in Norway, the comparative experiment you referred to, except that you said it failed in the USA because the policies led to greatly increased crime and a rapidly expanding prison population.

For simplicity I gave the short version. It was of course more complicated. But overall the more lenient treatment of prisoners and reduced sentencing in the 1960'ies led to more violence since criminals weren't as afraid of jail.
That is one hell of a leap. In fact, the suggested mechanisms for the increase in crime is actually suggested as lead poisoning, not incarceration changes. And this is in an era where regardless of changes in incarceration OR lead exposure, there was still no significant push towards actual rehabilitation.
My point is that you can't take the Norwegian prison system and only reform the US prison system and expect similar results. It'll be a disaster.
Special pleading.
For whatever reason, the American culture requires criminals to be hit hard with a very big stick, or things go bad.
No. I am not buying the shit you are slinging. You can either provide a mechanism or you can pound sand
edit: I'm not an essentialist. I don't think it's the American race, or any sillyness like it. I think it's a matter of incentives. Economic incentives encourage certain behaviours which leads to a culture that make it work. Norway and USA have different economic incentives.
I think it is nothing of the sort. The differences lay entirely in what we do to them once we have them (rape, assault, torture), vs what Norway does to them (protect, house, treat as human, council, and teach career skills).

Well, that and the lead. Interestingly, that's the one thing I think the US will have a hard time with, both now and in the future: lead removal is expensive.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
For simplicity I gave the short version. It was of course more complicated. But overall the more lenient treatment of prisoners and reduced sentencing in the 1960'ies led to more violence since criminals weren't as afraid of jail. That's the story Stephen Pinker gives in "Better Angels of our Nature". It was after this that sanctions increased (as a reaction), which then rapidly increased the prison population. They're connected. The effect stopped in the 1990'ies when violent crime dramatically was reduced (for other complicated reasons).

Telling me second-hand that you read a book is not really a proper citation at all and even if it were, it would seem to differ substantially from what my citation suggested, so at this point you have not given me enough of a basis to judge which is more accurate.

And your saying that there is more or less nothing to be done just because of the cultural differences is just negativity. Of course there are things with could be done even if at the same time you have a partial point about the differences in culture.
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,798
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I can tell you I would stomp the bread into the ground so we could both die before I let anyone try letting might make right.

People like you just make human morality even harder to pin down than it already is. :)

Personally, I think I'd take the bread. I'd feel bad about the other guy starving to death though. I think I'd feel really bad actually. At least for a while. Or maybe I'd only do that if anyone else found out.

All other things being equal, obviously. One could come up with additional details that would nuance the matter.

So, ethics all boils down to game theory for me. The universe is a game where the goal is to maximize what I have been calling X. It is notably NOT to "minimise suffering", though for many people that is inclusive within their personal resolution of X.

To that end, I only have one way to guarantee that you won't try for the bread, and will respect the coin toss: to destroy the bread. It's a pretty tragic outcome if you ask me. But it only comes IFF you lose the coin toss and you choose to abandon your civility. If nobody allows any "cheater" to succeed (and note, it isn't about punishment but preventing the logic of "cheating"), then cheating becomes something that people can readily identify as something not to be done. It doesn't absolve society of the need to continue applying the mechanism that causes cheating to fail, but it does absolve us of the costs of people widely choosing to cheat.

Look at it this way: the bread is mine, if we get to the point I described. I only stomp the bread if I win the coin toss and you try anyway, because it is my bread and dying for my principles is within X.

You would have known this right at the start, before the coin toss, that the game is "a random one between us gets to eat, and if randomness is not respected, the bread is destroyed".

Would you still try it? Really? Because there is no "taking the bread" if you are there with me. There is only Kai Bai Bo and taking your random chance or staring at a lump of inedible mud. I am not the one dooming us, you are the one attempting to doom me, assuming I win the (randomized) game. I'm just doing the extent of work necessary to defend my rights.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
For simplicity I gave the short version. It was of course more complicated. But overall the more lenient treatment of prisoners and reduced sentencing in the 1960'ies led to more violence since criminals weren't as afraid of jail.
That is one hell of a leap. In fact, the suggested mechanisms for the increase in crime is actually suggested as lead poisoning, not incarceration changes. And this is in an era where regardless of changes in incarceration OR lead exposure, there was still no significant push towards actual rehabilitation.

So are you saying you think his (somewhat general) citation is inaccurate, that the suggested mechanisms were not lenient judicial processes?

Personally, I can say that I have not heard his claim previously. I am more familiar with the opposite. The War on Drugs which was initiated in the early 1970's, I believe, springs to mind for example.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,798
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
For simplicity I gave the short version. It was of course more complicated. But overall the more lenient treatment of prisoners and reduced sentencing in the 1960'ies led to more violence since criminals weren't as afraid of jail.
That is one hell of a leap. In fact, the suggested mechanisms for the increase in crime is actually suggested as lead poisoning, not incarceration changes. And this is in an era where regardless of changes in incarceration OR lead exposure, there was still no significant push towards actual rehabilitation.

So are you saying you think his citation is inaccurate, that the suggested mechanisms were not lenient judicial processes?

Personally, I can say that I have not heard his claim previously. I am more familiar with the opposite. The War on Drugs springs to mind for example.

Yes, I think his citation is inaccurate. I had heard it and it was widely used to increase incarceration straight into the 90's along with all other manner of racist policies pushed in the US.

Of course, nobody here suggesting the end of retributive justice is suggesting "leniency" with regards to what was done in the US anyway. We are suggesting aggressive rehabilitation, that incarceration become indefinite and the bar for ending it being that they are considered rehabilitated rather than "suitably punished".

Notice how he handwaved away the reduction that conveniently aligns with the time delayed effect of the removal of lead from gasoline.

There are difficulties in doing this in America. Those difficulties are, well, mostly people like Bomb and AM who have been brought up slavering for revenge rather than better utility of outcomes. What that tells me though is that Dr Z Bomb, AM and any other revengist need more is to be put at the pointy end of a public information and propaganda campaign that depopularizes the idea.

I have heard his claim plenty, and in fact it was the ridiculousness of it that prompted the later study into lead exposure.

Of course, I refuse to believe that DZ was not already aware of this competing explanation; his omission of it and stating the previous theory as a fact without even mention of the much more strongly evidenced theory seems telling to me.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
That is a snipped quote taken out of context which thereby distorts its meaning.

That's not what I called a theory. You were blatantly offering the theory that pro-execution families are motivated by "protection of civilians", as an alternative to the prima facie presumption that they're motivated by retributive urges.
I offered it as a possible alternative. There are also other possible alternatives.

For any individual family, so stipulated. But, as noted upthread, pro-execution families are so numerous as to not be newsworthy, which means the law of large numbers comes into play.
Your "notation above" about pro-execution families is handwaved speculation.
Like anyone who doesn't insulate himself from the world in an ideological bubble, I have quite a bit of clue as to what typical people commonly think.
Confidence is not knowledge.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,221
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
My point is that you can't take the Norwegian prison system and only reform the US prison system and expect similar results. It'll be a disaster.
Special pleading.

I find this comment absurd. The two societies are extremely different. Radically different on almost every level. I think it's on you to defend why it's special pleading.

For whatever reason, the American culture requires criminals to be hit hard with a very big stick, or things go bad.
No. I am not buying the shit you are slinging. You can either provide a mechanism or you can pound sand


A lot of people have speculated on that. It was tried in USA and didn't work for whatever reason. I'm sorry reality doesn't like your pet theory.

They had leaded petrol in Norway as well. I think your lead petrol -> violence argument is weak. It's got the post hoc ergo propter hoc issue, all over it. If you want to go the medical route you could argue that we were heavily prescribed sedatives and sleeping pills back then. This leads to all kinds of mental problems. Which we stopped doing. It's at least less now. But even that isn't particularly strong. I think a better explanation is that our society is richer now. There's fewer people desperately poor. A person who is a fuck up and who's life is out of control will have a softer landing in a strong economy, which means less overall stress in life. And no country on Earth (probably) has a softer landing for fuckups than Norway.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I find this comment absurd. The two societies are extremely different. Radically different on almost every level. I think it's on you to defend why it's special pleading.

I rather think it's you who needs to defend saying "there is nothing as regards Norway that can be applied elsewhere". We all agree there are differences between countries that may mean some things can't be done (or learned) but yours is the initial overstatement.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It was tried in USA and didn't work for whatever reason.

I think you need to back that up a lot more than you have done so far. The suggestion that the USA engaged in such 'enlightened, soft-landing' policies and that they resulted in increased crime and greatly increased prison populations is genuinely new to me. On the face of it, it seems that the prison population rose dramatically during or after a time when they...what...weren't putting people in prison so readily, or for so long, or what?

I know nothing about the claims regarding lead poisoning.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,798
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It was tried in USA and didn't work for whatever reason.

I think you need to back that up a lot more than you have done so far. The suggestion that the USA engaged in such 'enlightened, soft-landing' policies and that they resulted in increased crime and greatly increased prison populations is genuinely new to me. On the face of it, it seems that the prison population rose dramatically during or after a time when they...what...weren't putting people in prison so readily, or for so long, or what?

I know nothing about the claims regarding lead poisoning.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkn...americas-violent-crime-epidemic/#27265aec12c4

This Forbes article has a pretty good look at the data for annarmchaor data consumer, though primary sources are readily available. The correlation in the data is a researcher's wet dream, and most notably it is a well established causal relationship that has been established through clinical testing in animal models: lead exposure to most mammals is causal to the outcome of social insensitivity. So we have a correlation in the presence of a known causative effect.

The question is, can hitting someone cure them of the effects of childhood lead exposure? If I had this exposure, I would want to know that my violent urges were the result of brain damage, and in turn to develop strategies for mitigating the results, up to and including being segregated if I could not control my impulses.

Also, as I may point out to DZ, Norway absolutely shows the same effect. So NYAH!
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,225
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
That is a snipped quote taken out of context which thereby distorts its meaning.
Not at all. You meant your students; you'd recently put your inclination to casually judge other people's intelligence on full display; and what, we're supposed to believe that you just turn it off with your students? You do not have plausible deniability.

I offered it as a possible alternative. There are also other possible alternatives.
No doubt. And in the event that you present one of those other possible alternatives, hopefully it will be a good enough theory to not elicit a "Good theory." retort. :)
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,225
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Of course, nobody here suggesting the end of retributive justice is suggesting "leniency" with regards to what was done in the US anyway. We are suggesting aggressive rehabilitation, that incarceration become indefinite and the bar for ending it being that they are considered rehabilitated rather than "suitably punished".
So, life imprisonment just for getting in a bar fight, provided some government official with a psychology degree labels a convict "not yet rehabilitated". And yet somehow retributionists are supposed to be the barbarians.

There are difficulties in doing this in America. Those difficulties are, well, mostly people like Bomb and AM who have been brought up slavering for revenge rather than better utility of outcomes. What that tells me though is that Dr Z Bomb, AM and any other revengist need more is to be put at the pointy end of a public information and propaganda campaign that depopularizes the idea.
Yes, if there's anything that's going to rehabilitate us and make us safe to be around decent folk it's yet another lecture from our betters. You know where penitentiaries actually came from? It was 19th-century Quaker prison-reformers' notion that if you locked up a criminal alone with nothing to do but read and nothing to read but the Bible, he'd convert -- become penitent -- and being a Christian would make him no longer a threat.

Why do you write such nonsensical drivel about people you've never met? I have not been brought up "slavering for revenge"; you have no reason to believe AM has either. You just made that up about us because you're making the same mistake as those Quaker religious chauvinists: you're mistaking your own faith-based dogma for proven fact. The actual reason I agree with retribution is the same reason I agree with all manner of other opinions the common people take for granted and the enlightened sophisticated people typically disagree with and like to consider themselves better than the rest of us for thinking: it's because the arguments the enlightened sophisticated people offer for their superior opinion are uniformly abysmal. I'm a professional logician; I can spot a lame argument a mile off.

Upthread, I asked you a question:

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 need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome.
How do you imagine you are forming your opinions as to what "rational humans should" do, and what things "aren't good enough", and which is "the best outcome", other than by "aroused emotional drive"?

Jarhyn said:
<crickets>
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Would you still try it? Really? Because there is no "taking the bread" if you are there with me. There is only Kai Bai Bo and taking your random chance or staring at a lump of inedible mud. I am not the one dooming us, you are the one attempting to doom me, assuming I win the (randomized) game. I'm just doing the extent of work necessary to defend my rights.

Act 1, scene 1. A jungle. Two starving men, Ruby & Jarhyn, enter stage left, and encounter a piece of bread lying on the ground.

Jarhyn: Let's toss a coin for it.

(Ruby eats bread).

Jarhyn: (sighs) I think you missed my whole point.

(Jarhyn collapses from hunger and exhaustion. Ruby, despite feeling some remorse, goes in search of more bread).
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
That is a snipped quote taken out of context which thereby distorts its meaning.
Not at all. You meant your students
Yes, it was specific to that situation. Taking it out of context does distort its meaning, regardless of your own beliefs. Your defense is laughable.
you'd recently put your inclination to casually judge other people's intelligence on full display; and what, we're supposed to believe that you just turn it off with your students? You do not have plausible deniability.
Of course, I could just have it off and it was turned on by your howler of an observation.

You are entitled to your false conclusions and beliefs. Your disbelief reflects as much on you as it does on the truth of my statement. It is intellectually honest to state "I do not believe that". It is disingenuous to snip a response and use it out of context to support or express one's belief. I am surprised you are unable to understand that.

No doubt. And in the event that you present one of those other possible alternatives, hopefully it will be a good enough theory to not elicit a "Good theory." retort. :)
I know people who think capital punishment is a kindness to the criminal because they feel life imprisonment is a worse alternative. And, I know someone who thinks capital punishment in an ideal world is less onerous on the taxpayer. The point was and is that your handwaved claim is nothing more than that - you have no real evidence to support your assumption.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,798
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So, life imprisonment just for getting in a bar fight, provided some government official with a psychology degree labels a convict "not yet rehabilitated". And yet somehow retributionists are supposed to be the barbarians.


Yes, if there's anything that's going to rehabilitate us and make us safe to be around decent folk it's yet another lecture from our betters. You know where penitentiaries actually came from? It was 19th-century Quaker prison-reformers' notion that if you locked up a criminal alone with nothing to do but read and nothing to read but the Bible, he'd convert -- become penitent -- and being a Christian would make him no longer a threat.

Why do you write such nonsensical drivel about people you've never met? I have not been brought up "slavering for revenge"; you have no reason to believe AM has either. You just made that up about us because you're making the same mistake as those Quaker religious chauvinists: you're mistaking your own faith-based dogma for proven fact. The actual reason I agree with retribution is the same reason I agree with all manner of other opinions the common people take for granted and the enlightened sophisticated people typically disagree with and like to consider themselves better than the rest of us for thinking: it's because the arguments the enlightened sophisticated people offer for their superior opinion are uniformly abysmal. I'm a professional logician; I can spot a lame argument a mile off.

Upthread, I asked you a question:

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 need a goal to get there, and then select the path from (situation) to (goal) that has the best outcome.
How do you imagine you are forming your opinions as to what "rational humans should" do, and what things "aren't good enough", and which is "the best outcome", other than by "aroused emotional drive"?

Jarhyn said:
<crickets>

Look at the Norse model. Incarceration there is potentially indefinite. I don't see anyone calling Norwegians monsters. Maybe reevaluate your position.

At any rate I answered your inane questions in my discussions targeted at RS, with respect to what is the best outcome. Perhaps you should go back and actually read some of those posts, but the gist of it is that there is a metagoal that can be defined such that "maximizing the ability to pursue the goals you wish to pursue" wherein goals that are unilaterally/mutually exclusive get rejected (ie "Gary wants to kill Bob; Bob has goals that require being alive", Gary's goal is invalidated), where a certain probability of damage at a certain extent to the metagoal is deemed acceptable through social consensus, and where the disposition of limited resources is agreed on through some mechanism of allocation.

In this way it is not about what I, personally, want. Instead it is about determining the limit of which of my wants are justifiable generally, in the context of what others want; thus if I want to kill (someone, but any someone), I can only do it when (sum total of goals of given someone = to die by [Jarhyn,...]'s hand).

Punishing is by definition harming the goals of others, as a goal in and of itself, agnostic to other effects. It is trivially evil.

Of course, there can be better standards to whether some person gets released than "some guy says 'good enough'" or not. It's already a solved problem particularly within the Norse model, so why should I give a shit as to what you think about it? It works, it works better than our model, and that's all that really matters
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
ruby sparks said:
Did I say illegal beatings? No, I didn't. And yet you waste time objecting on that basis and then go on to explain how what I said was actually correct. You did the same thing when I said your is already had an ought in it, before accepting that it pretty much did. Hair-splitting. This sort of thing is why I am a bit sceptical about some of your convoluted 'precision'.
No, you said beatings, which are illegal in prison, and you said that in response to a post considering prison violence. In that context, it looked like prison beatings, which again are illegal.

And I do not waste time objecting on that particular basis. I just point out I did not defend those.

But if you meant legalizing prison beatings, I'm not in favor. One reason is this: prison is a just punishment. If you want prison+beatings to be just, you need to reduce the prison time significantly (and make the beatings weaker than with no prison, but that aside). And then, the perpetrator is on the streets much sooner. While both would be just punishments, prison only seems better.

And what you call "hair-splitting" is actually being extra careful, given the repeated and gross misrepresentations of my views. But then I get a reply like this, so I have to spend time considering legalization of prison beatings.

Now, if you did not mean legalizing prison beatings, and by "beatings" you just meant those I was actually talking about, then you should not have said "Though I suppose Angra comes closest when he says beatings may be appropriate in certain cases.", in reply to a post about prison violence and prison rape.


I have to go; I will get to the rest of your points later.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Okay, so here's a brief post in self-defense againt laughing dog's repeated personal attacks.

laughing dog said:
That is a real howler.

laughing dog said:
You've got the sign wrong.

laughing dog said:
Of course, I could just have it off and it was turned on by your howler of an observation.
Seriously, will you ever stop attacking me? Or do you actually have a belief I'm probably at least 4 standard deviations below average? And even if you are so ridiculously deluded, it's still an attack to put it that way. If a person has such a very, very low intelligence, it is still an attack to go around making fun of them with comments like "You've got the sign wrong". You should not laugh at me for having low intelligence, even if you are called "laughing dog".

Now, I didn't want to say anything about my intelligence. I'm not comfortable having to fight back attacks like this. And I don't like doing tests generally, so also generally I have avoided them. But once I did an intelligence test - Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices. It was in the early 2000s, so I might be less intelligent now that I'm older; also I don't remember the details of the conditions, but I did get all of the answers right. So, obviously I'm not four standard deviations below average. You believe I'm lying? Whatever. Just stop attacking me.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,636
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
I agree with laughing dog.

Your IQ is above the mean minus 4 standard deviations.

No, that doesn't mean what you thought. It means I reject certainty you are a genius. You might be. You also might be an idiot. Or average intellect. Or some gradation in between.

So, basically, it's a rejection of your friend Bomb#20's certainty that you are a genius as it is not an established fact, nor do I necessarily agree with how much weight we put into IQ test results as a means to measure inherent intellectual potential.

But due to your ability to login to the forum and present arguments, we can surely say your IQ is not LESS THAN 4 stdevs below the mean. That case would be changing more than the sign...it'd also be changing the equality from >= to <=....not something laughing dog proposed.
 

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.
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.

Let me quote the post of mine that you quoted above, but in full.

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.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,099
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
O
I will you ever stop attacking me?... Or do you actually have a belief I'm probably at least 4 standard deviations below average?
I was making fun of bomb#20's observation. Sorry, I offended you - that was not my intent.

BTW - IMO, it takes a pretty thin skin to think disputing whether someone is 3 standard deviations above the mean as an attack.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
ruby sparks said:
Look, the point is, when you say you think beatings are ok if there is no alternative but not ok if there is, or that rape of a rapist is not a just retribution, or whether this or that is just, permissible, or acceptable, or whatever words you choose to deploy, you are in the end just telling us what Angra's personal call on the matter is (and maybe that of others who would agree with you).
One of the things that would be good would be that my words were not misrepresented. If you and others kept replying that that is just my personal call on the matter, but at least did not represent my position as something very different from what it is, that would be good.

As to whether it is just my personal call, like everyone else, I make moral assessments. But I also offered evidence in this particular thread in the form of evidence about what the human moral sense says in the vast majority of cases. Bomb#20 did that too by the way, and better.

ruby sparks said:
But you're not demonstrating an independent, real moral fact based on human intuitions as to which is better or more correct, or right, or permissible, or acceptable, etc.
If you take a look at the disagreement between people who oppose retribution and those who support it (in this thread and elsewhere), you will see that people on both sides believe they are correct, and claim or imply so. It is implicitly accepted in the context of the debate - even if they do not explicitly recognize it - that there is a fact of the matter as to which one is correct. In particular, evidence of that is abundant in the thread and others.
But for example:

Jarhyn said:
The fact is, we can get better outcomes without revenge in the picture at all.
Note that he says "the fact is".

ruby sparks said:
By all means have a moral framework, just don't kid yourself you've found actual, independent bedrock that makes you really, actually right and others really, actually mistaken. That's what's wrong with your whole approach, imo. By all means preface what you say with 'in my view'.
The people who oppose retribution do not always or generally preface what they say with 'in my view'. In general, when humans engage in moral debate, they do not preface their moral assessments with 'in my view', or any similar expressions. When you demand that I do that, I see two problems:

1. You are indicting the ordinary human practice of moral debate. It has been like this well since there are humans at least. It is like this generally in philosophy, when professional philosophers debate first-order ethics. It is like this in politics, as you can see all around today, purely for example both by rioters and those who support them as well as by those who oppose them, but furthermore, all around the globe and for different causes. Now there are some philosophers who disagree, as you can find for nearly any view. But if they - or you - believe that there is something improper in the entire framework, and that people are making some sort of epistemic error in believing that the practice is correct and that they have a reasonable chance of finding moral truth, the burden is on them.

2. Related to 1., for some reason you demand that I do this or that, but you do not not my opponents. You do not demand that they append "in my opinion" to their views. They too believe that they are actually correct and others mistaken.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
I agree with laughing dog.

Your IQ is above the mean minus 4 standard deviations.
No, that is not what laughing dog said. Read the posts.

Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
No, that doesn't mean what you thought.
Read the posts. He said what I said he said. Granted, he was almost certainly not being serious about the number. But he was mocking me, for not being smart enough, in his assessment. Now, as it happens, it is not morally wrong not to be smart. It is not morally wrong to be far below average, either. Mockery is not appropriate however you slice it.

Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
So, basically, it's a rejection of your friend Bomb#20's certainty that you are a genius as it is not an established fact, nor do I necessarily agree with how much weight we put into IQ test results as a means to measure inherent intellectual potential.
A rejection would have been to say he does not have sufficient information to tell. That would have been okay. Instead, he mocked me repeatedly. That is not okay, and would not be so even if his statements minus the mockery were correct, and even if he believed all of them.

Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
That case would be changing more than the sign...it'd also be changing the equality from >= to <=....not something laughing dog proposed.
You are interpreting this in a clearly mistaken manner. It should be obvious to you what he meant (come on, seriously, you really want to object on even something this obvious? ). But I grant that he almost certainly did not mean the number seriously (he is not that deluded). Rather, that was just more sarcasm, in the general context of mockery. Still not okay, though.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
O
I will you ever stop attacking me?... Or do you actually have a belief I'm probably at least 4 standard deviations below average?
I was making fun of bomb#20's observation. Sorry, I offended you - that was not my intent.
Okay, accepted (ETA: while I reckon you should not have made fun of B20's observation, I accept you did not intend to offend me).

laughing dog said:
BTW - IMO, it takes a pretty thin skin to think disputing whether someone is 3 standard deviations above the mean as an attack.

I would not have considered it as such if you had said 'I do not have enough information to tell', or even 'In my assessment, that is not probable'. Or similar things. But the tone of what you said in those posts was very different. Anyway, if it's okay with you, let's get back to debating the substantive matters at hand?
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Jarhyn said:
There are difficulties in doing this in America. Those difficulties are, well, mostly people like Bomb and AM who have been brought up slavering for revenge rather than better utility of outcomes. What that tells me though is that Dr Z Bomb, AM and any other revengist need more is to be put at the pointy end of a public information and propaganda campaign that depopularizes the idea.
First, you have no good reason to believe that either B20 or I was brought up "slavering for revenge". Moreover, I was brought up a Catholic. I am not a Catholic. I don't just believe what I was brought up to believe. And while I do not know what B20 was told when as a kid (and neither do you; you just made that up), obviously he thinks for himself.

Second, I'm not in America, as I already said. I'm not American. And I do not vote in America.

Third, one problem with your idea (apart from the fact that it is unjust) is that just as humans get color vision, or a sex drive, they get a moral sense, which includes the ability to make moral assessments, and also motivations. The motivation to do justice is part of the human psychological makeup. Ideology/religion can damage that, sure, but there is a limit to what you can do with indoctrination. You will not get rid of the human drive for justice, unless you get rid of humans, either by killing them, or changing them into something else. Genetic engineering would be much faster than selective breeding, but still difficult.
By the way, you do not have to believe me. Look at human behavior all over the world, today and historically.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Jarhyn said:
At any rate I answered your inane questions in my discussions targeted at RS, with respect to what is the best outcome. Perhaps you should go back and actually read some of those posts, but the gist of it is that there is a metagoal that can be defined such that "maximizing the ability to pursue the goals you wish to pursue" wherein goals that are unilaterally/mutually exclusive get rejected (ie "Gary wants to kill Bob; Bob has goals that require being alive", Gary's goal is invalidated), where a certain probability of damage at a certain extent to the metagoal is deemed acceptable through social consensus, and where the disposition of limited resources is agreed on through some mechanism of allocation.

In this way it is not about what I, personally, want. Instead it is about determining the limit of which of my wants are justifiable generally, in the context of what others want; thus if I want to kill (someone, but any someone), I can only do it when (sum total of goals of given someone = to die by [Jarhyn,...]'s hand).
You do realize that the "metagoal" is the metagoal of your choice?
Nearly all humans also have the goal that justice be done, and in particular, that perpetrators of serious offenses get punished for their crimes.

But let's leave that aside for a moment:


Jarhyn said:
(ie "Gary wants to kill Bob; Bob has goals that require being alive", Gary's goal is invalidated)
Gary wants to incarcerate Bob indefinitely, until he is rehabilitated. But Bob has goals that require being free. Gary's goal is invalidated. But you said

Jarhyn said:
We are suggesting aggressive rehabilitation, that incarceration become indefinite and the bar for ending it being that they are considered rehabilitated rather than "suitably punished".
Chances are all of the people being incarcerated have goals that require them being free.
Granted, those goals probably conflict with the goals of others. But that happens all the time, all around. Just one more example:

Donald has the goal of winning the election. Joe has the goal of winning the election. Goals are mutually exclusive, so they get invalidated.


Jarhyn said:
Punishing is by definition harming the goals of others, as a goal in and of itself, agnostic to other effects. It is trivially evil.
The vast majority of humans do not see it as evil, including many philosophers (historically, most) so clearly it is not trivially evil. Or do you mean that you propose to assess what is evil by the procedure above? If so, then one way to test that procedure is to see whether it gives outcomes compatible with the human moral sense. It does not. But if you think that's not a way of testing it, then what is?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,798
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
O
I will you ever stop attacking me?... Or do you actually have a belief I'm probably at least 4 standard deviations below average?
I was making fun of bomb#20's observation. Sorry, I offended you - that was not my intent.

BTW - IMO, it takes a pretty thin skin to think disputing whether someone is 3 standard deviations above the mean as an attack.

Honestly, it's some serious Dunning-Krueger territory to ever bring up how smart you are(n't) in a conversation. Or to try to claim how smart someone else is. Just, never try to claim you or anyone else is particularly "smart". It's a bad look.

Smart speaks for itself.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
O
I will you ever stop attacking me?... Or do you actually have a belief I'm probably at least 4 standard deviations below average?
I was making fun of bomb#20's observation. Sorry, I offended you - that was not my intent.

BTW - IMO, it takes a pretty thin skin to think disputing whether someone is 3 standard deviations above the mean as an attack.

Honestly, it's some serious Dunning-Krueger territory to ever bring up how smart you are(n't) in a conversation. Or to try to claim how smart someone else is. Just, never try to claim you or anyone else is particularly "smart". It's a bad look.

Smart speaks for itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

"the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability"

That did not happen in this thread - not from B20, anyway.

And yes, smart - when not blinded by religion/ideology/anger/something else - speaks for itself, but religious/ideologue/angry often fails to listen.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,221
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It was tried in USA and didn't work for whatever reason.

I think you need to back that up a lot more than you have done so far. The suggestion that the USA engaged in such 'enlightened, soft-landing' policies and that they resulted in increased crime and greatly increased prison populations is genuinely new to me. On the face of it, it seems that the prison population rose dramatically during or after a time when they...what...weren't putting people in prison so readily, or for so long, or what?

I know nothing about the claims regarding lead poisoning.

Oh, look. I found my source itself available on the net. As you can see it's quite complicated with a variety of factors not easy to sum up in a short forum post.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig...ilization-in-the-1960s?rgn=main;view=fulltext

edit: bottom line, we need social mechanics with which to whip violent young men into line early. Without it they will lead a life of crime. It's completely analogous to the social mechanics among chimpanzees. Chimpanzees can only afford one alpha male. So once one male is dominant, the rest of the flock conspire to whip the others in line. Bonobos are similar, but there the females conspire to also whip the alpha male in line. Just a bit less than the other males.

In the 1960'ies and the movement of free love we dismanteled these social mechanics, a part of that was the prison reforms. Which in USA went bad immediately. I put that down to the entrepenourial spirit of USA. The entire culture revolvs around getting a husstle and exploiting holes in the market, in a way we don't have in Europe. Here's it's generally frowned upon not to be obedient and do what it's expected of you. Especially in places like Scandinavia.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
As to whether it is just my personal call, like everyone else, I make moral assessments.

Sure, and on the face of it, that seems reasonable, but in other discussions, you go further. I get that you are not doing that here. You are not presenting the full extent of your arguments here, in this thread, not yet at least. I get that. But I have discussed with you before. To you, moral assessments are not personal calls, and if someone has one you don't agree with, they are factually wrong. Etc. That is how it works for you, because you claim the existence of independent, universal, real moral facts, and that you know what they are.

Even if the prevalence of retributive urges was as pronounced and widespread as you say (and I think you overstate and oversimplify a complex situation to at least some extent) it is still a jump to claiming universal, independent morally realist rightness for them. I have called it the naturalistic fallacy and getting an ought from an is, and you have quibbled about that with much of your usual hair-splitting precision, but in essence, it's effectively what it more or less is.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,012
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
Feisty thread. Wouldn't want to drop the soap around here, if you know what I mean, wink.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It was tried in USA and didn't work for whatever reason.

I think you need to back that up a lot more than you have done so far. The suggestion that the USA engaged in such 'enlightened, soft-landing' policies and that they resulted in increased crime and greatly increased prison populations is genuinely new to me. On the face of it, it seems that the prison population rose dramatically during or after a time when they...what...weren't putting people in prison so readily, or for so long, or what?

I know nothing about the claims regarding lead poisoning.

Oh, look. I found my source itself available on the net. As you can see it's quite complicated with a variety of factors not easy to sum up in a short forum post.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig...ilization-in-the-1960s?rgn=main;view=fulltext

edit: bottom line, we need social mechanics with which to whip violent young men into line early. Without it they will lead a life of crime. It's completely analogous to the social mechanics among chimpanzees. Chimpanzees can only afford one alpha male. So once one male is dominant, the rest of the flock conspire to whip the others in line. Bonobos are similar, but there the females conspire to also whip the alpha male in line. Just a bit less than the other males.

In the 1960'ies and the movement of free love we dismanteled these social mechanics, a part of that was the prison reforms. Which in USA went bad immediately. I put that down to the entrepenourial spirit of USA. The entire culture revolvs around getting a husstle and exploiting holes in the market, in a way we don't have in Europe. Here's it's generally frowned upon not to be obedient and do what it's expected of you. Especially in places like Scandinavia.

First, thank you for the citation.

It seems to support what you say at least partially. There is not that much to show that 'legal leniency' (or whatever we call the sorts of policies that Norway enacted) was a big factor, and most of the article is devoted to other things. But it is implied in that article that courts were more reluctant to incarcerate, yes. Actually, I would like to read about that in more detail. It is not something I had heard before. I had heard that society was more permissive, but not the courts (especially not when it came to black people, but that is probably a slightly separate issue here in some ways).

Also, Pinker is not the last word. Here, for example, is an article suggesting his ideas in that book are fatally flawed:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/tr...e-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/

And of course there is the book I posted a chapter of earlier, which has quite a different view.

So beware of taking your conclusions from a limited number of sources.

One thing that does strike me is that you are content to say that similar approaches were taken in Norway and the USA (I think you called it the comparative experiment) but it seems, even from reading the Pinker article, that what happened in the USA was quite different in many ways. So I think it's inconsistent of you to favourably compare the two in one sense but then say they are irreconcilably different in another.

My own view, having now looked into this a bit more, is to be agnostic. Jarhyn's 'lead poisoning' explanation seems as plausible as yours (and I do accept that you have a point, I just think you should neither overstate it or rush to a conclusion about it) as does one I had read previously, as expounded by Stephen Levitt in the book 'Freakonomics' that had to do with a different explanation (arising from the legalising of abortion). In a nutshell, there seem to be many competing explanations, and I wouldn't myself feel sure about picking one of them. I think it's bound to be more complicated that that, so I would keep an open mind.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,798
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Oh, look. I found my source itself available on the net. As you can see it's quite complicated with a variety of factors not easy to sum up in a short forum post.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig...ilization-in-the-1960s?rgn=main;view=fulltext

edit: bottom line, we need social mechanics with which to whip violent young men into line early. Without it they will lead a life of crime. It's completely analogous to the social mechanics among chimpanzees. Chimpanzees can only afford one alpha male. So once one male is dominant, the rest of the flock conspire to whip the others in line. Bonobos are similar, but there the females conspire to also whip the alpha male in line. Just a bit less than the other males.

In the 1960'ies and the movement of free love we dismanteled these social mechanics, a part of that was the prison reforms. Which in USA went bad immediately. I put that down to the entrepenourial spirit of USA. The entire culture revolvs around getting a husstle and exploiting holes in the market, in a way we don't have in Europe. Here's it's generally frowned upon not to be obedient and do what it's expected of you. Especially in places like Scandinavia.

First, thank you for the citation.

It seems to support what you say at least partially. There is not that much to show that 'legal leniency' (or whatever we call the sorts of policies that Norway enacted) was a big factor, and most of the article is devoted to other things. But it is implied in that article that courst were more reluctant to incarcerate, yes. Actually, I would like to read about that in more detail. It is not something I had heard before. I had heard that society was more permissive, but not the courts.

Also, Pinker is not the last word. Here, for example, is an article suggesting his ideas in that book are fatally flawed:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/tr...e-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/

And of course there is the book I posted a chapter of earlier, which has quite a different view.

So beware of taking your conclusions from a limited number of sources.

One thing that does strike me is that you are content to say that similar approaches were taken in Norway and the USA (I think you called it the comparative experiment) but it seems, even from reading the Pinker article, that what happened in the USA was quite different in many ways. So I think it's inconsistent of you to favourably compare the two in one sense but then say they are irreconcilably different in another.

My own view, having now looked into this a bit more, is to be agnostic. Jarhyn's 'lead poisoning' explanation seems as plausible as yours (and I do accept that you have a point, I just think you should neither overstate it or rush to a conclusion about it) as does one I had read previously, as expounded by Stephen Levitt in the book 'Freakonomics' that had to do with a different explanation (arising from the legalising of abortion). In a nutshell, there seem to be many competing explanations, and I wouldn't myself feel sure about picking one of them. I think it's bound to be more complicated that that, so I would keep an open mind.

"As plausible". Lead is a 90+% correlation that holds internationally, right down to the neighborhood level, not merely echoing the overall line, but echoing the exceptions in exposure.

It is already known with clinical certainty that lead has the effects documented.

We have an effect that correlates with exposure and a documented causal link between exposure and result. What more do you want, a talking bar of lead walking into a police station and signing a full confession?

The question is, if I were to correct for "the lead effect", how does DZ's claim correlate with the remaining variance? Because while their claims put together a bunch of proposed causes to construct an explanation of the data, there is always the possibility that the remaining curve shows that the effect of remaining factors exacerbates the problem instead.

But I don't think he's going to pony up because that's a lot of work.

And for the record, when it comes to intractably violent people, oftentimes "denying opportunity" is going to have the same general appearance as incarceration, albeit with a focus on NOT being shitty to them, even when we "feel" like they "deserve" it.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,221
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Oh, look. I found my source itself available on the net. As you can see it's quite complicated with a variety of factors not easy to sum up in a short forum post.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig...ilization-in-the-1960s?rgn=main;view=fulltext

edit: bottom line, we need social mechanics with which to whip violent young men into line early. Without it they will lead a life of crime. It's completely analogous to the social mechanics among chimpanzees. Chimpanzees can only afford one alpha male. So once one male is dominant, the rest of the flock conspire to whip the others in line. Bonobos are similar, but there the females conspire to also whip the alpha male in line. Just a bit less than the other males.

In the 1960'ies and the movement of free love we dismanteled these social mechanics, a part of that was the prison reforms. Which in USA went bad immediately. I put that down to the entrepenourial spirit of USA. The entire culture revolvs around getting a husstle and exploiting holes in the market, in a way we don't have in Europe. Here's it's generally frowned upon not to be obedient and do what it's expected of you. Especially in places like Scandinavia.

First, thank you for the citation.

It seems to support what you say at least partially. There is not that much to show that 'legal leniency' (or whatever we call the sorts of policies that Norway enacted) was a big factor, and most of the article is devoted to other things. But it is implied in that article that courst were more reluctant to incarcerate, yes. Actually, I would like to read about that in more detail. It is not something I had heard before.

Also, Pinker is not the last word. Here, for example, is an article suggesting his ideas in that book are fatally flawed:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/tr...e-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/

And of course there is the book I posted a chapter of earlier, which has quite a different view.

meh... this is just the standard lazy leftist attack on anything that doesn't affirm our sacred leftist tenets. It makes me sad when leftists don't understand Marx. This is a conservative type analysis using the Great Man reading of history but overlain with leftist tropes. Ie, seeing what you want to see. This is an incredibly lazy attack on capitalism IMHO, and then the baby goes with the bathwater. I strongly dislike the woke "what about the blacks"-slant. As if Pinker had forgotten about them. He didn't. It's a lazy attack on him.

Yes, it's fair to say that Pinker is overly optimistic. Yes, obviously progress doesn't mean progress for everyone. That is not a profound statement and nothing Pinker has claimed.

The main problem with the decline of violence in the modern west is that the same society underwent the most dramatic social and economic transformation in human history. There's a lot of moving parts. Any explanation, no matter how much detail you add, will always, in some way, be simplistic, and miss things. So to have that as a demand is stupid.

So beware of taking your conclusions from a limited number of sources.

I used to agree with you and make the same arguments as you. On this forum. It's the other way around. It's the leftist narrative that takes conclusions from a limited number of sources. They/we so desperately want this to be true, that we're willing to ignore reality. There's many sacred cows for the left that make us... frankly... stupid.

One thing that does strike me is that you are content to say that similar approaches were taken in Norway and the USA (I think you called it the comparative experiment) but it seems, even from reading the Pinker article, that what happened in the USA was quite different in many ways. So I think it's inconsistent of you to favourably compare the two in one sense but then say they are irreconcilably different in another.

We had the same cultural liberal and progressive movement all over the west. USA tried to liberalise best they could, and so did Norway. With strong popular support. And this is how far they got. That's what I mean by that it was tried in both countries.

My own view, having now looked into this a bit more, is to be agnostic. Jarhyn's 'lead poisoning' explanation seems as plausible as yours (and I do accept that you have a point, I just think you should neither overstate it or rush to a conclusion about it) as does one I had read previously, as expounded by Stephen Levitt in the book 'Freakonomics' that had to do with a different explanation (arising from the legalising of abortion). In a nutshell, there seem to be many competing explanations, and I wouldn't myself feel sure about picking one of them. I think it's bound to be more complicated that that, so I would keep an open mind.

Yes, there's many competing explanations and the truth will be some mix between them... obviously. I also believe in the abortion theory. Because it's supported by evidence.

My personal theory is that humans are just a bunch of clever monkeys and will behave like monkeys. Just with the ability to be more sneaky and sophisticated about it. Since humans is a primate, I'd say any theory that doesn't include primate instincts is special pleading, ie good ol' religious human specialness. That's why I like Pinker. He includes it in his theory. But I don't treat him like the prophet on this. I just like him... now. Until something better comes along.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
"As plausible". Lead is a 90+% correlation that holds internationally, right down to the neighborhood level, not merely echoing the overall line, but echoing the exceptions in exposure.

It is already known with clinical certainty that lead has the effects documented.

We have an effect that correlates with exposure and a documented causal link between exposure and result. What more do you want, a talking bar of lead walking into a police station and signing a full confession?

The question is, if I were to correct for "the lead effect", how does DZ's claim correlate with the remaining variance? Because while their claims put together a bunch of proposed causes to construct an explanation of the data, there is always the possibility that the remaining curve shows that the effect of remaining factors exacerbates the problem instead.

But I don't think he's going to pony up because that's a lot of work.

And for the record, when it comes to intractably violent people, oftentimes "denying opportunity" is going to have the same general appearance as incarceration, albeit with a focus on NOT being shitty to them, even when we "feel" like they "deserve" it.

Honestly, I really do not feel I am in any position to say which of the two explanations, or any other, is the correct one, or whether they all partially contribute.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,225
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Honestly, it's some serious Dunning-Krueger territory to ever bring up how smart you are(n't) in a conversation. Or to try to claim how smart someone else is.
Um, no, the latter is not what Dunning and Kruger were on about.

Just, never try to claim you or anyone else is particularly "smart". It's a bad look.
Let's review the bidding, shall we? I brought it up in the first place because you wrote:

I honestly wonder at this point whether AM has, at some point, assaulted and/or killed someone.
That is a jack-ass thing to write about another poster. You are in no position to lecture others about what's a "bad look". You have a smug patronizing tendency to present yourself as some sort of superior life form whose role in this world is to drag the rest of us kicking and screaming out of the Middle Ages. You needed to be reminded that other people are not the cartoon characters of your self-congratulatory fantasies.

The rest of it was just laughing dog's and my ever-recurring dynamic of taking snarky potshots at each other's posts, and should be ignored by everyone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,798
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Um, no, the latter is not what Dunning and Kruger were on about.


Let's review the bidding, shall we? I brought it up in the first place because you wrote:

I honestly wonder at this point whether AM has, at some point, assaulted and/or killed someone.
That is a jack-ass thing to write about another poster. You are in no position to lecture others about what's a "bad look". You have a smug patronizing tendency to present yourself as some sort of superior life form whose role in this world is to drag the rest of us kicking and screaming out of the Middle Ages. You needed to be reminded that other people are not the cartoon characters of your self-congratulatory fantasies.

The rest of it was just laughing dog's and my ever-recurring dynamic of taking snarky potshots at each other's posts, and should be ignored by everyone else.

Ah, I see, you don't like other people showing you how you look bad. If you don't want other people to comment on how bad a look you shine on yourself, maybe quit shining a palor on yourself. Maybe take it to DM if you want to avoid comments from the peanut gallery.

I'm not going to apologise for pointing out how bad you make yourself look.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,830
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Um, no, the latter is not what Dunning and Kruger were on about.


Let's review the bidding, shall we? I brought it up in the first place because you wrote:

I honestly wonder at this point whether AM has, at some point, assaulted and/or killed someone.
That is a jack-ass thing to write about another poster. You are in no position to lecture others about what's a "bad look". You have a smug patronizing tendency to present yourself as some sort of superior life form whose role in this world is to drag the rest of us kicking and screaming out of the Middle Ages. You needed to be reminded that other people are not the cartoon characters of your self-congratulatory fantasies.

The rest of it was just laughing dog's and my ever-recurring dynamic of taking snarky potshots at each other's posts, and should be ignored by everyone else.

Ah, I see, you don't like other people showing you how you look bad. If you don't want other people to comment on how bad a look you shine on yourself, maybe quit shining a palor on yourself. Maybe take it to DM if you want to avoid comments from the peanut gallery.

I'm not going to apologise for pointing out how bad you make yourself look.

You won't apologise and you won't stop, because you're a retributionist.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
ruby sparks said:
Even if the prevalence of retributive urges was as pronounced and widespread as you say (and I think you overstate and oversimplify a complex situation to at least some extent) it is still a jump to claiming universal, independent morally realist rightness for them. I have called it the naturalistic fallacy and getting an ought from an is, and you have quibbled about that with much of your usual hair-splitting precision, but in essence, it's effectively what it more or less is.
a. It would be an error to try to derive a conclusion containing a moral statement from consistent premises that do not use any moral terms (i.e., no 'immoral', 'morally permissible', 'morally good', 'just', etc.) and by that I mean derive them by means of a deductive argument. The argument would either be invalid, or have implicit premises containing false claims about the meaning of some moral terms.
However, there is no similar error (or any other) in making probabilistic assessments - even probable enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt - about moral facts, using information that can be stated in non-moral facts. In particular, it is proper to use one's own moral sense to make those assessments. This is what humans properly do nearly all of the time. But additionally, it is also proper to use information based on observations of other humans, and what their respective moral senses say.

If you disagree with 1., please explain why.

b. The people who oppose retribution are also making moral claims and/or implications. In particular, they claim that their proposed system is better, and they also claim or imply that those who believe retribution is deserved or just are mistaken. Of course, they can only make those assessments using information that contains no moral statements, or else there is a chain that leads to that.


c. I already explained that your "naturalistic fallacy" or "ought from and is" objection fails, or else hits every moral assessment made by every human ever. Let us see why:

Suppose A says B behaved immorally when he did X.
1. If A uses her own moral sense to make the assessment, then her assessment falls within the scope of your 'naturalistic fallacy' or 'is-ought' problem, because it does not logically follow from the fact that A's moral sense gives the verdict 'B's doing X was immoral', that B's doing X was immoral.
2. If A uses the moral sense of other humans, then the same holds.
3. If A derives her judgment from some moral premises P1, ...Pn , and some other premises Q, then the question is: How does A derive P1,..Pn.


As there is no infinite regress in A's argumentation or thought (she is human), then at some point A is basing her moral assessments on something that is not a moral premise. That falls afaul of your 'naturalistic fallacy', and taints the rest of the conclusions as they are based on an unwarranted starting point.


If you have any counterarguments at all, please state them, and I will explain why they fail.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Ah, I see, you don't like other people showing you how you look bad. If you don't want other people to comment on how bad a look you shine on yourself, maybe quit shining a palor on yourself. Maybe take it to DM if you want to avoid comments from the peanut gallery.

I'm not going to apologise for pointing out how bad you make yourself look.

You won't apologise and you won't stop, because you're a retributionist.
Yes, well because of that and because he mistakenly believes B20 did something that deserves punishment, even though Jarhyn has no good reason to even suspect B20 did that.

Jarhyn is of course a retributivist, because he is human; no fault there. The problem is he is engaging in retribution for the wrong reasons, and does not realize that he is engaging in retribution.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Here's even an example of a judgment that people deserve some punishment, in this case mild:


https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?16360-And-here-we-go-again&p=690294&viewfull=1#post690294

Update in the Patrick Kimmons case:
Man shot by friend in downtown Portland parking lot pleads guilty to being a felon with a gun

The "friend" in question is the dead guy Patrick Kimmons. He was shooting at somebody else, but also hit his friend and fellow Rolling 60 Crip in the thigh.

Nice guys all around. I can see why the Left in Portland would protest dindu Patrick Kimmons getting shot by police and then throw vegan "milk" shakes at anyone who disagrees.

Something racist fucks seem to have a hard time understanding: we can have both. Yes, Kimmons is a shitty person, and what made him that way is shitty. But nobody deserves to be shot, especially when they aren't shooting back. Sometimes people need to be shot, but they still don't deserve it. What everyone everywhere deserves is a good education, economic opportunities, and to enjoy the freedom to use whatever substances they fancy... So long as those substances do not weaponize them or enslave them.

This means that the people who did something were the people who criminalized his economic activity and community. They failed to respect his autonomy and freedom, or to support him like humans should be expected to do for each other.

For that, yeah, the cops deserve some milkshakes to the face. It's not like people are shooting and killing them simply because they buy and enjoy and engage in economic activity involving alcohol...
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
ruby sparks said:
Even if the prevalence of retributive urges was as pronounced and widespread as you say (and I think you overstate and oversimplify a complex situation to at least some extent) it is still a jump to claiming universal, independent morally realist rightness for them. I have called it the naturalistic fallacy and getting an ought from an is, and you have quibbled about that with much of your usual hair-splitting precision, but in essence, it's effectively what it more or less is.
a. It would be an error to try to derive a conclusion containing a moral statement from consistent premises that do not use any moral terms (i.e., no 'immoral', 'morally permissible', 'morally good', 'just', etc.) and by that I mean derive them by means of a deductive argument. The argument would either be invalid, or have implicit premises containing false claims about the meaning of some moral terms.
However, there is no similar error (or any other) in making probabilistic assessments - even probable enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt - about moral facts, using information that can be stated in non-moral facts. In particular, it is proper to use one's own moral sense to make those assessments. This is what humans properly do nearly all of the time. But additionally, it is also proper to use information based on observations of other humans, and what their respective moral senses say.

If you disagree with 1., please explain why.

b. The people who oppose retribution are also making moral claims and/or implications. In particular, they claim that their proposed system is better, and they also claim or imply that those who believe retribution is deserved or just are mistaken. Of course, they can only make those assessments using information that contains no moral statements, or else there is a chain that leads to that.


c. I already explained that your "naturalistic fallacy" or "ought from and is" objection fails, or else hits every moral assessment made by every human ever. Let us see why:

Suppose A says B behaved immorally when he did X.
1. If A uses her own moral sense to make the assessment, then her assessment falls within the scope of your 'naturalistic fallacy' or 'is-ought' problem, because it does not logically follow from the fact that A's moral sense gives the verdict 'B's doing X was immoral', that B's doing X was immoral.
2. If A uses the moral sense of other humans, then the same holds.
3. If A derives her judgment from some moral premises P1, ...Pn , and some other premises Q, then the question is: How does A derive P1,..Pn.


As there is no infinite regress in A's argumentation or thought (she is human), then at some point A is basing her moral assessments on something that is not a moral premise. That falls afaul of your 'naturalistic fallacy', and taints the rest of the conclusions as they are based on an unwarranted starting point.


If you have any counterarguments at all, please state them, and I will explain why they fail.

I hardly even know where to start with that. I would refer you back to previous times when I replied regarding those at length, both here and in previous threads, and explained why I think your arguments are flawed, particularly when taking human instincts to represent moral facts.

And if what I am saying hits all moralities, then in some ways, yes, that is exactly the point. Though as I said previously, it hits some harder than others, particularly the more dogmatic ones with strong claims to real, universal, independent moral facts that it is claimed are known by the person asserting them, such as yours.

I'm seeing quite a lot of your 'precision' as pedantry and sophistry that hides an underlying intransigence and presumption. And in an odd way, it reminds me in some ways at least of the ways academic and learned theologians go about their business. Endless 'precision', logic and convolution, even citing evidence, in order to arrive at conclusions already assumed. Which is why I think you should be careful about levelling such criticisms at others as if you were immune. There's none so blind as those who think only others can't see.
 
Last edited:

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Here's even an example of a judgment that people deserve some punishment, in this case mild:

By all means tell us your opinions. Opinions can be useful and reasonable, and I broadly think yours are both. Just ease back on claiming that you know that you are talking about real, independent, universal moral facts and that if anyone disagrees with you, they are mistaken. That's essentially your underlying dogma, or perhaps your ideology, possibly even your secular religion in some ways, imo.
 

ruby sparks

Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
9,167
Location
Northern Ireland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,798
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
ruby sparks said:
Even if the prevalence of retributive urges was as pronounced and widespread as you say (and I think you overstate and oversimplify a complex situation to at least some extent) it is still a jump to claiming universal, independent morally realist rightness for them. I have called it the naturalistic fallacy and getting an ought from an is, and you have quibbled about that with much of your usual hair-splitting precision, but in essence, it's effectively what it more or less is.
a. It would be an error to try to derive a conclusion containing a moral statement from consistent premises that do not use any moral terms (i.e., no 'immoral', 'morally permissible', 'morally good', 'just', etc.) and by that I mean derive them by means of a deductive argument. The argument would either be invalid, or have implicit premises containing false claims about the meaning of some moral terms.
However, there is no similar error (or any other) in making probabilistic assessments - even probable enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt - about moral facts, using information that can be stated in non-moral facts. In particular, it is proper to use one's own moral sense to make those assessments. This is what humans properly do nearly all of the time. But additionally, it is also proper to use information based on observations of other humans, and what their respective moral senses say.

If you disagree with 1., please explain why.

b. The people who oppose retribution are also making moral claims and/or implications. In particular, they claim that their proposed system is better, and they also claim or imply that those who believe retribution is deserved or just are mistaken. Of course, they can only make those assessments using information that contains no moral statements, or else there is a chain that leads to that.


c. I already explained that your "naturalistic fallacy" or "ought from and is" objection fails, or else hits every moral assessment made by every human ever. Let us see why:

Suppose A says B behaved immorally when he did X.
1. If A uses her own moral sense to make the assessment, then her assessment falls within the scope of your 'naturalistic fallacy' or 'is-ought' problem, because it does not logically follow from the fact that A's moral sense gives the verdict 'B's doing X was immoral', that B's doing X was immoral.
2. If A uses the moral sense of other humans, then the same holds.
3. If A derives her judgment from some moral premises P1, ...Pn , and some other premises Q, then the question is: How does A derive P1,..Pn.


As there is no infinite regress in A's argumentation or thought (she is human), then at some point A is basing her moral assessments on something that is not a moral premise. That falls afaul of your 'naturalistic fallacy', and taints the rest of the conclusions as they are based on an unwarranted starting point.


If you have any counterarguments at all, please state them, and I will explain why they fail.

I hardly even know where to start with that. I would refer you back to previous times when I replied regarding those at length, both here and in previous threads, and explained why I think your arguments are flawed.

And if what I am saying hits all moralities, then in some ways, yes, that is exactly the point. Though as I said previously, it hits some harder than others, particularly the more dogmatic ones with strong claims to real, universal, independent moral facts that it is claimed are known by the person asserting them, such as yours.

I'm seeing quite a lot of your 'precision' as pedantry and sophistry that hides an underlying intransigence and presumption. And in an odd way, it reminds me in some ways at least of the ways academic and learned theologians go about their business. Endless 'precision', logic and convolution, even citing evidence, in order to arrive at conclusions already assumed. Which is why I think you should be careful about levelling such criticisms at others as if you were immune. There's none so blind as those who think only others can't see.

Thank you for articulating that last paragraph there. It's a problem I tend to have with a good number of "philosophers" and it's admittedly a problem I've had in the past largely an infection I picked up from, well, pedantic sophists before I realized it was just pedantic sophistry.

My original ethical derivations came from a pretty radical idea: that there is some principle in nature, some thing derived from the context of our existence in the universe, that caused the emergence of ethics in humans, that our theories and ethics are attempts to approximate in the same way that there, in fact, mere approximations.

I really do think that there is a game theoretic approach possible to ethical philosophy, to make it strategic.

Let's look at Tic Tac Toe. There are things that "are". "Marks are owned by players", "marks are placed in alternating sequence", "marks are placed on a three by three grid", "marks once placed are set". There is a GOAL, "place three marks in a line", and a secondary goal "prevent three marks that are not your own from being placed in a line." From these 'is' things, one can derive an OUGHT wherein every single action made by the player is predetermined. It creates a strategy, and the players who use that strategy will invariably meet the inferior goal and if their opponent makes any mistake at all, they will get their superior goal. This creates an ought: IF your goal is to win (and not lose), you OUGHT apply that strategy as perfectly as possible.

Of course, I expect such an axiom to be controversial. I expect people to not want it, to reject it. I used the transform to a simple game to illustrate the point in a simple rather than hellishly complicated context such as ethics, though it was originally thinking about Tic Tac Toe that I actually came to understand the mechanism by which goals derive oughts from "is".

Other games have different rules. Sometimes those rules imply that there can be no strategy: that there is no way to achieve any particular goal and the results of the game are random (like the card game WAR).

So to me this says that some of the fundamental elements of moral philosophy have to be approached from the examination of goals... hence my metagoal. Because it can't just be about what I want, if I want general strategy.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,221
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
b. The people who oppose retribution are also making moral claims and/or implications. In particular, they claim that their proposed system is better, and they also claim or imply that those who believe retribution is deserved or just are mistaken. Of course, they can only make those assessments using information that contains no moral statements, or else there is a chain that leads to that.

My stance on retribution is not a moral one, it rests entirely and solely on effectiveness.

Human brains see injustice, they amplify it, they have biased perceptions about it. It will often have unintended consequences (always?)
Retribution inspires - nearly always - conclusions about righteousness and retaliation.
Rehabilitation does not. You try to fix what you can fix.
When you cannot fix it, you protect against it by incarceration.
If you punish in incarceration, people see that and react to it.
If you merely isolate without punishment, it diminishes that causes of further retaliation, further retribution, further vigilane punishment.


Your moral/ethical hairsplitting are not relevant to the ideas that drive my stance on this issue.
 
Top Bottom