Jokes about prison rape on men? Not a fan.

[laughing dog]

Do you also judge your students' intelligence based on whether they agree with you?

I don't judge intelligence - I try to assess their level of learning.

Hmm, yes. Most of those so-common-it-isn't-news families who want their loved one's murderer executed are thinking about the potential future deaths of strangers, not the actual recent death of their loved one. Good theory.

It is not a theory - dead people do not commit crimes after they are dead. My point is that it is just as possible that you have no clue what the families are thinking.

 

[Toni]

Do you also judge your students' intelligence based on whether they agree with you?

I don't judge intelligence - I try to assess their level of learning.

Hmm, yes. Most of those so-common-it-isn't-news families who want their loved one's murderer executed are thinking about the potential future deaths of strangers, not the actual recent death of their loved one. Good theory.

It is not a theory - dead people do not commit crimes after they are dead. My point is that it is just as possible that you have no clue what the families are thinking.

Victim's family members think different things and have different ideas about what justice for their family member looks like. Some want the harshest sentence possible, including the death penalty. Some abhor the death penalty and do not wish to see it imposed. It's not always easily predictable who feels what. I'm not entirely certain how much what the victim's family wants, in terms of sentencing, should have on sentencing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, they did it the same time everybody else in the west did, in the 1960'ies.

Ok so before the oil profits, unlike what you said.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. No, not before the oil profits. The oil profits allowed the Norwegian government to keep an expensive programme going into our current day. Without the oil money it would most likely have been scrapped, or made into a cheaper, and less effective model. Sweden is still going strong with the same policies, unsuccessfully, but that doesn't seem to deter them. Sweden does not have the oil money, so can't afford quite the same policies. It's a policy with cut corners = not working.

You are talking about the Norwegian prison model as if it hasn't been tried and tested around the world.

In USA it lead to greatly increased crime and a rapidly expanding prison population.

I am not sure if it was a decreased focus on punishment that led to the inflated prison population in the US.

For example:

"From the 1940s onward, public officials and policy makers at all levels of government—from federal to state to local—increasingly sought changes in judicial, policing, and prosecutorial behavior and in criminal justice policy and legislation. These changes ultimately resulted in major increases in the government’s capacity to pursue and punish lawbreakers and, beginning in the 1970s, in an escalation of sanctions for a wide range of crimes. Furthermore, criminal justice became a persistent rather than an intermittent issue in U.S. politics. To a degree unparalleled in U.S. history, politicians and public officials beginning in the 1960s regularly deployed criminal justice legislation and policies for expressive political purposes as they made “street crime”—both real and imagined—a major national, state, and local issue".

The Underlying Causes of Rising Incarceration: Crime, Politics, and Social Change
https://www.nap.edu/read/18613/chapter/6

Which was my original point in my first reply. The Norwegian and American contexts are wildly different. USA has a different society, different problems, different incentives and a much larger population.

edit: the Norwegian (and Swedish) model can only work in a society with lots of welfare. Norway has the benefit of a large well functioning government owned company where they can put newly released criminals and have them get jobs immediately. Sweden can't do that. So in Sweden the same policies just lead to people living off welfare year in and year out. Or after release they move to Berlin or Amsterdam for work. Which is very common.

My point is that the prison system works in concert with policies in the rest of society. Policies that USA isn't anywhere near ready to impliment.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

Yes, that is obvious. And it was using as a means of attacking me, implying that what I had done was ridiculous, absurd, bad, or something like that. Do you actually not see the animosity in these threads, all over the place? People are attacking each other - not physically attacking, of course.

In this thread, that was a very mild attack, comparatively speaking. A much bigger one was the implication that it was reasonable to ask where I lived in order to avoid the area to remain safe.

Smart people sometimes do stupid things. Being surprised by the thing they did is not necessarily an attack on the smart person. In fact, it's fairly consistent with how we are to behave here--address the argument, not the person. For example, here I am addressing the argument. It is not an attack on you. There is no implication you are stupid just because I am writing you are wrong.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I agree that there are differences between Norway and the U.S. And it's even possible that some of those differences make it impossible to implement Norway in the U.S. However, none of that detracts from my core argument. Across the board, any country, ... rehabilitation afforded to criminals and deterrence as a goal reduces crime. Norway may be some kind of unachievable utopia but there's a long continuum of possiblilities between the current U.S. criminal justice system and Norway...a million different improvements. In any case, we're specifically talking about advocacy of prison rape on sex offenders.

That itself is illegal. That creates even more sex offender rapists. The victims and victimizers may start to normalize it. And if ordinary citizens are advocating it, they participate in a culture where raping for revenge is condoned. The criminals who get out of prison are all worse off mentally. They are told by a contingent of society to obey the law and by another that one can make personal exceptions to the law by reasoning it out, but their abilities to reason these things will be distorted by normalized traumas.

Now could there be some weird exceptions to these general rules where prison rape is a good thing? I suppose it's possible in some system of anarchy where people are arrested randomly and laws are dysfunctional...but then they would still become worse persons...even in that situation, wouldn't just beating the crap out of them be preferred?

Wow. I must finally say prison rape as a form of retribution being good has got to be the second weirdest thing I have ever read in this forum. The weirdest was a thread I started about molesting kittens but it was consensual and not something I seriously advocated for--I was making a point. In the case of this thread, some people are so given to liking the debate for debate's sake and to read their own arguments, they've abandoned everything else. I mean, we're talking about prison rape here!

 

[ruby sparks]

Wow. I must finally say prison rape as a form of retribution being good has got to be the second weirdest thing I have ever read in this forum.

I don't think I've seen anyone here saying that though? It wouldn't be the first thing I've missed, to be fair.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

Yes, that is obvious. And it was using as a means of attacking me, implying that what I had done was ridiculous, absurd, bad, or something like that. Do you actually not see the animosity in these threads, all over the place? People are attacking each other - not physically attacking, of course.

In this thread, that was a very mild attack, comparatively speaking. A much bigger one was the implication that it was reasonable to ask where I lived in order to avoid the area to remain safe.

Smart people sometimes do stupid things. Being surprised by the thing they did is not necessarily an attack on the smart person. In fact, it's fairly consistent with how we are to behave here--address the argument, not the person. For example, here I am addressing the argument. It is not an attack on you. There is no implication you are stupid just because I am writing you are wrong.

No, read the post. She was surprised by something she falsely and without good reason attributed to me. But look at both the tone and the words. Obviously it's an attack. And again, a mild one at that, compared to her other attack, namely the implication that it was reasonable to ask where I lived in order to avoid the area to remain safe (" Which, #1, can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you?", how would that not be an attack?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Ok, but still I don't see Jarhyn advancing his case in quite the way you do though.

Of course not. As I pointed out, he makes plenty of errors that I don't make, he makes claims that fly on the face of ordinary human moral intuitions, raises accusations not remotely based on the available evidence, etc, whereas he fails to make the good points I make.

But that is not the point I was making in this part of my post. In fact, my point wes not about Jarhyn in particular. He was an example, because you do not raise the same charge against him. My point is that the objection you make against my moral assessments, if successful, would work against any moral assessments made by any humans, under any circumstances. Why? For the same reason it applies to Jarhyn. But let me explain it again:


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', 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 afoul of your 'naturalistic fallacy', and taints the rest of the conclusions as they are based on an unwarranted starting point.

In other words, your standard , if correct, hits all human morality. If you prefer not to do that, then you would have to withdraw it and choose another way of criticizing my position (or stop criticizing it).

 

[laughing dog]

Smart people sometimes do stupid things. Being surprised by the thing they did is not necessarily an attack on the smart person. In fact, it's fairly consistent with how we are to behave here--address the argument, not the person. For example, here I am addressing the argument. It is not an attack on you. There is no implication you are stupid just because I am writing you are wrong.

No, read the post. She was surprised by something she falsely and without good reason attributed to me. But look at both the tone and the words. Obviously it's an attack. And again, a mild one at that, compared to her other attack, namely the implication that it was reasonable to ask where I lived in order to avoid the area to remain safe (" Which, #1, can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you?", how would that not be an attack?

Easily, avoidance of an accident that might harm you or her or both of you comes to mind as not an attack.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Wow. I must finally say prison rape as a form of retribution being good has got to be the second weirdest thing I have ever read in this forum.

I don't think I've seen anyone here saying that though? It wouldn't be the first thing I've missed, to be fair.

You did not miss anything in this case. No one here said or implied that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Smart people sometimes do stupid things. Being surprised by the thing they did is not necessarily an attack on the smart person. In fact, it's fairly consistent with how we are to behave here--address the argument, not the person. For example, here I am addressing the argument. It is not an attack on you. There is no implication you are stupid just because I am writing you are wrong.

No, read the post. She was surprised by something she falsely and without good reason attributed to me. But look at both the tone and the words. Obviously it's an attack. And again, a mild one at that, compared to her other attack, namely the implication that it was reasonable to ask where I lived in order to avoid the area to remain safe (" Which, #1, can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you?", how would that not be an attack?

Easily, avoidance of an accident that might harm you or her or both of you comes to mind as not an attack.

Again, read the post. That has nothing to do with what she said. Even when asked, "Nay, it is merely caution. You have stated that you think it is right to inflict punishment when you think people have wronged you. I feel it’s prudent to stay away from people who think like that."

Seriously, you are not making sense.

 

[laughing dog]

Easily, avoidance of an accident that might harm you or her or both of you comes to mind as not an attack.

Again, read the post. That has nothing to do with what she said. Even when asked, "Nay, it is merely caution. You have stated that you think it is right to inflict punishment when you think people have wronged you. I feel it’s prudent to stay away from people who think like that."

Seriously, you are not making sense.

You asked how a particular statement " can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you?" could not be an attack. I showed how it could not be an attack.

Whether Rhea meant it as an attack - only she knows for sure. It is clear you feel that it was an attack, even though it is possible it was not. Your response indicates a problem with basic reasoning.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Easily, avoidance of an accident that might harm you or her or both of you comes to mind as not an attack.

Again, read the post. That has nothing to do with what she said. Even when asked, "Nay, it is merely caution. You have stated that you think it is right to inflict punishment when you think people have wronged you. I feel it’s prudent to stay away from people who think like that."

Seriously, you are not making sense.

You asked how a particular statement " can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you?" could not be an attack. I showed how it could not be an attack.

Whether Rhea meant it as an attack - only she knows for sure. It is clear you feel that it was an attack, even though it is possible it was not. Your response indicates a problem with basic reasoning.

That particular statement made in the thread, of course. Not that particular statement made by any person under any circumstances. That would not be relevant.

Obviously, my assessment does not indicate any problems with basic reasoning.

 

[laughing dog]

You asked how a particular statement " can you tell me where you live so that I can never stumble across you?" could not be an attack. I showed how it could not be an attack.

Whether Rhea meant it as an attack - only she knows for sure. It is clear you feel that it was an attack, even though it is possible it was not. Your response indicates a problem with basic reasoning.

That particular statement made in the thread, of course. Not that particular statement made by any person under any circumstances. That would not be relevant.

Obviously, my assessment does not indicate any problems with basic reasoning.

This response does not. Your previous one did. Now that is settled, perhaps you are willing deal with the actual content of the OP instead of your pique.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wow. I must finally say prison rape as a form of retribution being good has got to be the second weirdest thing I have ever read in this forum.

I don't think I've seen anyone here saying that though? It wouldn't be the first thing I've missed, to be fair.

Why even bring retribution up at all?

Let's agree that some people making jokes about it, actually want it to happen for retribution purposes.

So why are arguments for prison murder, prison assaults, and other prison violence so different than prison rape?

I think it's different but the arguments are the same...prison rape is so unpopular no one here is going to try to defend it, but it's implicitly being defended by trying to defend prison violence.

Here is what I wrote before:

In any case, we're specifically talking about advocacy of prison rape on sex offenders.

That itself is illegal. That creates even more sex offender rapists. The victims and victimizers may start to normalize it. And if ordinary citizens are advocating it, they participate in a culture where raping for revenge is condoned. The criminals who get out of prison are all worse off mentally. They are told by a contingent of society to obey the law and by another that one can make personal exceptions to the law by reasoning it out, but their abilities to reason these things will be distorted by normalized traumas.

I am going to stand by this. I will go one step further and stand by its more generic form:

In any case, we're specifically talking about advocacy of prison X on criminals where X is illegal retribution.

That itself is illegal. That creates even more habitual criminals. The victims and victimizers may start to normalize illegal violence. And if ordinary citizens are advocating it, they participate in a culture where assaulting for revenge is condoned. The criminals who get out of prison are all worse off mentally. They are told by a contingent of society to obey the law and by another that one can make personal exceptions to the law by reasoning it out, but their abilities to reason these things will be distorted by normalized traumas.

 

[ruby sparks]

...prison rape is so unpopular no one here is going to try to defend it, but it's implicitly being defended by trying to defend prison violence.

No, I don't think any of those are being defended here, implicitly or otherwise. A reasonable Retributivist might say they are not just retribution, that they are unjust retribution. They might say, for example, that being put in prison is just retribution enough. Now, if the retributivist was deriving the distinctions involved from human retributive intuitions and also declaring them universal moral facts on that basis, I might disagree with them quite a lot. Which is what I am doing with Angra (again).

 

[ruby sparks]

In other words, your standard , if correct, hits all human morality. If you prefer not to do that, then you would have to withdraw it and choose another way of criticizing my position (or stop criticizing it).

I disagree and I have already explained my specific reasons to you, which include accepting that yes, it would hit all human morality. But it would not necessarily hit all versions in the same way or to the same extent. It would hit a strong, dogmatic position more than it would hit a weak, flexible one. I disagree with yours in particular for specific reasons given. As far as I know, no one else here is making the strong (and imo simplistic) claims you do about universal, realist, moral facts being derivable from human retributive intuitions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...prison rape is so unpopular no one here is going to try to defend it, but it's implicitly being defended by trying to defend prison violence.

No, I don't think any of those are being defended here, implicitly or otherwise.

I do. You can't get away from it if you condone prison violence. Rape is violence. There is nothing special about sex except that it is treated specially culturally, more taboo, and likewise homophobia makes men raping men an extremely unpopular thing. But again, the logical arguments in favor of prison violence are exactly the same. So if one condones prison violence, there is an implicit condoning of prison rape. It is not something coming out of someone's mouths, but it is implied by the arguments.

 

[ruby sparks]

But again, the logical arguments in favor of prison violence are exactly the same. So if one condones prison violence, there is an implicit condoning of prison rape. It is not something coming out of someone's mouths, but it is implied by the arguments.

I definitely don't think it is necessarily implied by the arguments at all. Though I suppose Angra comes closest when he says beatings may be appropriate in certain cases.