Jokes about prison rape on men? Not a fan.

[Angra Mainyu]

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...

Yes, you "feel" like you just heard me you say that Jarhyn was unethical for saying that people who want retribution in the form of prison rape have a boner. But you have no good reason to "feel" that way. You are just attacking me. If this is not your attempt at retribution (grossly misplaced, but still), what is it? You are attacking me (obviously; what else would the "I did not see that coming..." rhetoric do, other than attack? )
Of course, you vastly misconstrue my words, and have no good reason for the attack. As many of my opponents, you attack a caricature. But leaving that aside, even if you were right about me saying that, you would still be attacking me. Again, why the attack, if not instinctive retribution for a perceived offense (even if in this case non-existent)?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The central issue is that they are saying or implying that they do not deserve the punishment in the first place.

Who here is saying that?

I said they're saying or implying it, so it does not need to be explicit. And it is implicit in what they are saying, given context. But if you haven't realized yet, let us begin with the OP.

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.”

She says she is always against retribution. When I read that - or her other posts - I take a look at the context in which it is said. And of course the context includes her posting history (unlike most of my opponents, I do try to understand what my opponents actually believe and want). And she's been absolutely clear about it in several posts, usually implicitly but also explicitly so. Take a look:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ive-Dissonance&p=525216&viewfull=1#post525216

I don’t believe in punishment. I don’t believe that anyone ever “deserves” it. It doesn’t work and it makes the punisher into the worst kind of hypocrite: I’m going to hurt you because you hurt someone. We don’t hurt people! Now I’ll show you hurt!” Nope, no punishment from me. Rehab, yes. Education, yes. Separation if no rehab is possible. But not punishment, not ever.

It does not get any more clear that that. Her advocacy and arguments in this thread are not disconnected from the rest of her posting history, and it is in light of that context that they should be interpreted, at least if one is familiar enough with that context and/or has the time to take a look (else, one should be more cautious when interpreting).


Let us now consider Jarhyn. Take a look at this post. It is pretty obvious to me that he's going against retribution, implying it is not deserved. And look at the rest of his posts in this thread. Perhaps, it's not obvious to you?
Look at another one. If it's not yet clear to you that he is saying that people do not deserve to be punished for their actions, then let us take a look at some more context from his posting history, to better interpret his words.

For example:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...risons-Anymore&p=325806&viewfull=1#post325806

Justice is restitution to the victim for the crime committed. Yes they can't be un-raped but the punishment for that is a form of restitution for the person who the crime was committed upon. And you ask, why. The other women who aren't raped because of the punishment is a reason why. We can't stop all of the crime, but we certainly do try and control the amounts.

So in other words, his rape of her justifies her incarceration of him. One bad turn deserves another. That his suffering is justified by the happy drugs her body gives her when he suffers, in addition to the drugs your body gives you in seeing her make him suffer. That sounds an awful lot like rape to me, namely the justifications rapists give for it. Your argument is telling in that her abuse of her rapist is entirely aside from your goal of segregating the rapist, which could be accomplished without his having to suffer; hell, it could be accomplished perhaps without having to permanently segregate him, let alone denying him an education and a future

He is crystal clear that he sees incarceration of a rapist as punishment for what he did as something akin to rape. And surely, he is implying it is not deserved.

 

[J842P]

I think we need to separate what can be considered ethical with potentially heuristic solutions to people living in large societies together.

I can understand the feeling that retribution is justified. Let's say someone kills your close family member, you see them do it. I wouldn't say you are unjustified in killing that person. However, as a society, this sort of vengeance, however justified, cannot be allowed on the grounds that it leads to things like blood fueds, where the violence continues often for generations, long after the original parties are dead and buried.

No doubt, the solution in our ancient past was simply to kill the person and everyone in their family. Which is no longer justified, but again, just a "heuristic". I think I prefer the one where no one is allowed to take part in the retribution, and the state doles out the punishment.

Indeed, this is sort of a trope, where someone kills a kid's father or mother, and even if it is justified, the killer tells the child "I'll be expecting you when you are older".

A scene from Kill Bill I:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mk_f75TS1A[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I think we need to separate what can be considered ethical with potentially heuristic solutions to people living in large societies together.

I can understand the feeling that retribution is justified. Let's say someone kills your close family member, you see them do it. I wouldn't say you are unjustified in killing that person. However, as a society, this sort of vengeance, however justified, cannot be allowed on the grounds that it leads to things like blood fueds, where the violence continues often for generations, long after the original parties are dead and buried.

No doubt, the solution in our ancient past was simply to kill the person and everyone in their family. Which is no longer justified, but again, just a "heuristic". I think I prefer the one where no one is allowed to take part in the retribution, and the state doles out the punishment.

Indeed, this is sort of a trope, where someone kills a kid's father or mother, and even if it is justified, the killer tells the child "I'll be expecting you when you are older".

I agree that for big wrongdoings that deserve big retributions, it is generally justified not to permit private retribution.
However, just retribution - or unjust one - in nearly all cases is small and for small wrongdoings or perceived wrongdoings. For example, if someone grossly misrepresents my posts, engages in character assassination against me and on top of that mocks me, I may decide to exact retribution by mocking them back (apart from tearing apart their arguments in self-defense, but that's another matter). Or I might choose not to, depending on different considerations. Many people seem to just go for retribution instinctively, perhaps without even realizing they're engaging in retributive behavior.

That sort of retribution happens around here all the time. It's sometimes misplaced due to ideology/religion, and sometimes it's just. I think in some cases it does lead to online virtual... 'bits feuds'? , so one needs to consider that too, but it's definitely within the realm of manageability for at least some societies, and it's fortunately not banned at least in part of the world.

I agree about 'big' retributions, as I mentioned. But I argue that the perpetrators still deserve the punishment, and it's generally better that the government inflicts it in accordance to some known rules. One of the reasons is to prevent private vengeance on a scale that results in more suffering for innocent people.

 

[Metaphor]

I think they want to find human moral bedrock and have settled on human nature, well, one very common aspect of it.
A.M. is male, by the way.

Jarhyn knows that, but Jarhyn's a moral hypocrite who believes people deserve to be called by their preferred pronouns, except when Jarhyn doesn't want to, in which case he is allowed to use 'they' and it's not misgendering and he isn't violating anybody's preferred pronoun usage. He's done it several times--to his opposition.

 

[J842P]

They used to have public hangings, and crowds would come. Now they don't have public hangings. I suppose you would say that's not a good thing, that it's made people worse, because people have been deprived of a natural behaviour.

I would actually argue that if you are going to have hangings then they should be public.

 

[J842P]

I think we need to separate what can be considered ethical with potentially heuristic solutions to people living in large societies together.

I can understand the feeling that retribution is justified. Let's say someone kills your close family member, you see them do it. I wouldn't say you are unjustified in killing that person. However, as a society, this sort of vengeance, however justified, cannot be allowed on the grounds that it leads to things like blood fueds, where the violence continues often for generations, long after the original parties are dead and buried.

No doubt, the solution in our ancient past was simply to kill the person and everyone in their family. Which is no longer justified, but again, just a "heuristic". I think I prefer the one where no one is allowed to take part in the retribution, and the state doles out the punishment.

Indeed, this is sort of a trope, where someone kills a kid's father or mother, and even if it is justified, the killer tells the child "I'll be expecting you when you are older".

I agree that for big wrongdoings that deserve big retributions, it is generally justified not to permit private retribution.
However, just retribution - or unjust one - in nearly all cases is small and for small wrongdoings or perceived wrongdoings. For example, if someone grossly misrepresents my posts, engages in character assassination against me and on top of that mocks me, I may decide to exact retribution by mocking them back (apart from tearing apart their arguments in self-defense, but that's another matter). Or I might choose not to, depending on different considerations. Many people seem to just go for retribution instinctively, perhaps without even realizing they're engaging in retributive behavior.

That sort of retribution happens around here all the time. It's sometimes misplaced due to ideology/religion, and sometimes it's just. I think in some cases it does lead to online virtual... 'bits feuds'? , so one needs to consider that too, but it's definitely within the realm of manageability for at least some societies, and it's fortunately not banned at least in part of the world.

I agree about 'big' retributions, as I mentioned. But I argue that the perpetrators still deserve the punishment, and it's generally better that the government inflicts it in accordance to some known rules. One of the reasons is to prevent private vengeance on a scale that results in more suffering for innocent people.

Yes, I think a big disconnect in this discussion is exactly what is meant by retribution.

For example, say someone throws coffee on you. It sounds like you would consider yelling at that person retribution, whereas others seem to think retribution means killing or maiming them or something.

Or say, someone insults you, and you decide to shun them for some time. That would also be retribution.

I think you have to understand, "retribution" is sort of bad word for the North American left-wing, in the face of restorative, as in restorative justice versus retributive justice. Of course, I think what you are talking about is potentially in line with either.

 

[Elixir]

They used to have public hangings, and crowds would come. Now they don't have public hangings. I suppose you would say that's not a good thing, that it's made people worse, because people have been deprived of a natural behaviour.

I would actually argue that if you are going to have hangings then they should be public.

Why not take it another step and institute Taliban-style executions; bury the offenders up to their necks and invite everyone to throw rocks at them. Not only would that provide an enhanced disincentivizing horror factor for some, it would provide outlets for the others who have revenge boners or just plain sadistic tendencies.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

No, it doesn't legitimise shit. The more horrible the act the more important to joke about it. There are acts that are so vile that the only way we can communicate honestly about it is through humour. Becuase it hurts too much.

This whole woke idea where some things are too awful to joke about is a backward view of humour. Humour isn't minimising a trauma. It's an acknowledgement. Jokes skirt around on the edge of taboos. It's things we're not allowed to talk about but we're all thinking. Humour is better than wearing a serious face, because humour makes us open up emotionally. It makes us more capable of emotionally acknoledging truly awful things.

I hate the idea that awful human acts stop happening because we stop talking about it and shame the people who do. Which is the result of what you are saying. I don't understand the common belief that this is a good thing.

 

[ruby sparks]

I said they're saying or implying it, so it does not need to be explicit. And it is implicit in what they are saying, given context. But if you haven't realized yet, let us begin with the OP.

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.”

She says she is always against retribution. When I read that - or her other posts - I take a look at the context in which it is said. And of course the context includes her posting history (unlike most of my opponents, I do try to understand what my opponents actually believe and want). And she's been absolutely clear about it in several posts, usually implicitly but also explicitly so. Take a look:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...ive-Dissonance&p=525216&viewfull=1#post525216

I don’t believe in punishment. I don’t believe that anyone ever “deserves” it. It doesn’t work and it makes the punisher into the worst kind of hypocrite: I’m going to hurt you because you hurt someone. We don’t hurt people! Now I’ll show you hurt!” Nope, no punishment from me. Rehab, yes. Education, yes. Separation if no rehab is possible. But not punishment, not ever.

It does not get any more clear that that. Her advocacy and arguments in this thread are not disconnected from the rest of her posting history, and it is in light of that context that they should be interpreted, at least if one is familiar enough with that context and/or has the time to take a look (else, one should be more cautious when interpreting).


Let us now consider Jarhyn. Take a look at this post. It is pretty obvious to me that he's going against retribution, implying it is not deserved. And look at the rest of his posts in this thread. Perhaps, it's not obvious to you?
Look at another one. If it's not yet clear to you that he is saying that people do not deserve to be punished for their actions, then let us take a look at some more context from his posting history, to better interpret his words.

For example:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...risons-Anymore&p=325806&viewfull=1#post325806

Justice is restitution to the victim for the crime committed. Yes they can't be un-raped but the punishment for that is a form of restitution for the person who the crime was committed upon. And you ask, why. The other women who aren't raped because of the punishment is a reason why. We can't stop all of the crime, but we certainly do try and control the amounts.

So in other words, his rape of her justifies her incarceration of him. One bad turn deserves another. That his suffering is justified by the happy drugs her body gives her when he suffers, in addition to the drugs your body gives you in seeing her make him suffer. That sounds an awful lot like rape to me, namely the justifications rapists give for it. Your argument is telling in that her abuse of her rapist is entirely aside from your goal of segregating the rapist, which could be accomplished without his having to suffer; hell, it could be accomplished perhaps without having to permanently segregate him, let alone denying him an education and a future

He is crystal clear that he sees incarceration of a rapist as punishment for what he did as something akin to rape. And surely, he is implying it is not deserved.

Ok, perhaps others here have views that are quite anti-retribution. I'm not sure they actually extend to saying offenders do not deserve punishment (I'd be surprised if they do), but in any case I'm not Rhea, Jarhyn, or a hypothetical woke person who has those views.

 

[ruby sparks]

They used to have public hangings, and crowds would come. Now they don't have public hangings. I suppose you would say that's not a good thing, that it's made people worse, because people have been deprived of a natural behaviour.

I would actually argue that if you are going to have hangings then they should be public.

You might make a case for that, yes. Off the top of my head I'd personally start by disagreeing, but I accept it's debatable.

 

[ruby sparks]

That 'is' already has an 'ought' in it.

It does not have an 'ought'. But the meaning is the same or at least implies it, which is why I pointed that out.

Thank you. So it effectively has the equivalent of or something very similar to an ought in it, in that it declares something is immoral as a premise.

But I also addressed the charge of deriving moral conclusions from nonmoral premises. I am not doing that, in the sense of deductive derivation. I am using all sorts of information - including, of course, empirical evidence - to make probabilistic assessments involving, among others, moral statements. But there is nothing logically or semantically flawed about that.

It's essentially getting an ought from an is, which is at least questionable.

By the way, some of my opponents here are clearly making moral assessments as well. They are making assessments about what is good, or better, or what is worse, etc. How do you think they go about making them? Do they use premises containing moral terms? If not, are they deriving 'oughts's from 'is's? Something else?

I don't know the answer to that.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, I think a big disconnect in this discussion is exactly what is meant by retribution.

For example, say someone throws coffee on you. It sounds like you would consider yelling at that person retribution, whereas others seem to think retribution means killing or maiming them or something.

Or say, someone insults you, and you decide to shun them for some time. That would also be retribution.

I think you have to understand, "retribution" is sort of bad word for the North American left-wing, in the face of restorative, as in restorative justice versus retributive justice. Of course, I think what you are talking about is potentially in line with either.

In my previous experience, there is a little bit more involved in AM's views than seems at first. I have found him to be vague and possibly even avoiding coming straight out with some of the real world implications at times.

 

[laughing dog]

You two keep treating A.M. as if his views mean he's some sort of alien or extremist. But he's expressing the opinion of the majority of the human race. A.M. is a statistical outlier only in that he's at least three standard deviations above average intelligence...

That is a real howler.

Those people are evidently capital punishment opponents; it does not follow that they are retribution opponents. Why would you suppose such a thing? Heck, I voted to abolish capital punishment in my state*; it doesn't mean I'd vote to abolish punishment. Life imprisonment is a pretty severe punishment.

It is pretty severe punishment. It is also a method to keep people outside of prison safe from murders. One can be against punishment but in favor of incarceration to keep others safe and perhaps to insure rehabilitation. Of course, our current prison system is not very successful at the rehabilitation part, but that is a problem with our current prison philosophies and operations, not necessarily with the notion of incarceration.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"I didn't see that coming." -- "that" is in reference to a thing, such as words written, not a person.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, there's been a lot of discussion about is/ought. There is, in my estimation one way to get there: adding goals.

If I AM on one side of a wall, AND it IS my goal to use the least energy to reach the other side, and it IS the case that the wall contains a locked door, and it IS the case that I have a paperclip in my pocket and it IS the case I know how to pick a lock, and it IS the case that I cannot walk around the wall, then it IS the case that the easiest way to get to the other side of the door IS to pick the lock, open the door, and walk through, and thus given my goal, I ought do that thing (it is the solution to the problem).

So, it all comes down to goals and the analysis of the strategies we use to accomplish/achieve those goals. If the goal is "achieving personal goals", this creates a metagoal: survive long enough, in a state capable of achieving those goals. It is a goal we must accept for everyone to the extent we accept it for ourselves.

Really, you have to ask, is it a valid goal to pursue the least negative outcome for yourself that makes your own behavior non-destructive with respect to the necessary meta-goals for general goal seeking? If this is true, then it cannot possibly be true that you have a right to impose more harm than is absolutely necessary (punishment, infliction of suffering, etc), because of the requirement for non-contradiction.

 

[J842P]

Yes, I think a big disconnect in this discussion is exactly what is meant by retribution.

For example, say someone throws coffee on you. It sounds like you would consider yelling at that person retribution, whereas others seem to think retribution means killing or maiming them or something.

Or say, someone insults you, and you decide to shun them for some time. That would also be retribution.

I think you have to understand, "retribution" is sort of bad word for the North American left-wing, in the face of restorative, as in restorative justice versus retributive justice. Of course, I think what you are talking about is potentially in line with either.

In my previous experience, there is a little bit more involved in AM's views than seems at first. I have found him to be vague and possibly even avoiding coming straight out with some of the real world implications at times.

I find A.M. is one of the most meticulous people on this board about being precise in his language and going out of his way to not equivocate. Almost tedious, in fact. But of course, English is not his first language, I'm pretty sure, so maybe things get lost in translation.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think they want to find human moral bedrock and have settled on human nature, well, one very common aspect of it.

A.M. is male, by the way.

Jarhyn knows that, but Jarhyn's a ...

To clarify, I was talking to ruby sparks. He said "they" because he didn't know which gender to use.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, I think a big disconnect in this discussion is exactly what is meant by retribution.

For example, say someone throws coffee on you. It sounds like you would consider yelling at that person retribution, whereas others seem to think retribution means killing or maiming them or something.

Or say, someone insults you, and you decide to shun them for some time. That would also be retribution.

I think you have to understand, "retribution" is sort of bad word for the North American left-wing, in the face of restorative, as in restorative justice versus retributive justice. Of course, I think what you are talking about is potentially in line with either.

In my previous experience, there is a little bit more involved in AM's views than seems at first. I have found him to be vague and possibly even avoiding coming straight out with some of the real world implications at times.

I find A.M. is one of the most meticulous people on this board about being precise in his language and going out of his way to not equivocate. Almost tedious, in fact. But of course, English is not his first language, I'm pretty sure, so maybe things get lost in translation.

I agree. But I'd still say what I said.

 

[Bomb#20]

A.M. is a statistical outlier only in that he's at least three standard deviations above average intelligence...

That is a real howler.

You're right, four is more likely. Sorry Angra, didn't mean to damn you with faint praise.

Those people are evidently capital punishment opponents; it does not follow that they are retribution opponents. Why would you suppose such a thing? ... Life imprisonment is a pretty severe punishment.

It is pretty severe punishment. It is also a method to keep people outside of prison safe from murders. One can be against punishment but in favor of incarceration to keep others safe and perhaps to insure rehabilitation. ...

Did you mean to express disagreement with me? What you wrote doesn't conflict with what I wrote. I was pointing out that Rhea's observation doesn't support the claim she offered it in support of. Of course the family in question may well agree with Rhea's views and only support imprisonment for non-retributive reasons; but then again they may not; there's simply no way to tell from the mere fact that they don't want the killer executed. Moreover, the fact that their not wanting the killer executed is newsworthy is evidence against Rhea's contention that punishing the guilty as an end in itself isn't a goal of vast swaths of humanity.