Peterkin

No, it's nothing to do with crime against police. Shooting a fleeing teenager in the back does not qualify as self-defence. Sometimes suspects, people being evicted from their homes, armed robbers and other people the police are trying to arrest do shoot back, but there are very few unprovoked attacks on police. There are very many shootings of suspects and rough handling of subdued prisoners by police, who tend to be far better armed. Spitting isn't nice, but neither is it life-threatening. He was just angry. Anyone would be angry, but law-enforcement officers are supposed to keep their cool and not lash out like provoked six-year-olds. They often have to deal with people who are emotionally unstable, mentally ill, desperate, inebriated or drugged and not in control of themselves. It's not about crime at all. It's about the culture of police forces and the social climate of the communities they police. Giving them more leeway to use force against the citizenry is rarely a constructive solution to crime.

Some posts on this thread are ambiguous, lacking the courage of their author's convictions - and not necessarily on topic.

The lines between legal and illegal, acceptable and unacceptable, punishment and torture (for that matter, enhanced interrogation and torture) may be so fine that people who get off on hurting other people, or believe hurting other people will accomplish desirable outcomes, can quibble over them all century. People who prefer to avoid hurting other people have no such difficulty figuring out what the word means. Beating children was never a good idea. Even a slap on the cheek or buttocks that doesn't cause much physical pain can cause shame far out of proportion to the infraction it's intended to correct. A slap on the wrist, arm, leg or back of the head is less humiliating. Much worse than any of these mild physical reprimands is the underlying assumption: "They're dumb animals; hitting is all they understand." You think children don't get that? And resent it? And learn to imitate it? Dogs and horses resent it and learn it. Corporal punishment is nowhere near as effective a teaching tool as understanding how the student's mind works.

At that age, he was afraid of fireworks, so when he tried to play with electrical outlets, she told him it would explode; every time he needed reminding, she (or I) would say "Boom!!" He'd been sickly baby, so he was afraid of needles and hospitals. When he tried to put bad things in his mouth, my mother would say, "If you get sick, we'll have to take you to the hospital." Her threats were never fantastical, but were always tailored to the mind of the child and the situation. That also depends on the circumstances, but it would probably escape the legal definition - like many psychological abuses prison guards and police get away with every day. I can see that 18-year-old joy-rider who had his hand smacked every morning, to the amusement of his hardened armed robber cell-mate reforming after his two year stretch - becoming a law abiding alcoholic recluse. From the International Justice Research Center article, which also says It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to list every possible way people can torture one another ... If humans put the half the ingenuity they use for the invention of devices to kill, maim, hurt and damage others into crime-prevention, we probably wouldn't have any crime.

Do you happen to know how the video was made? Sight unseen, I'll guess it was done secretly and the person who made it was taking a risk. And it was probably illegal, so if that person is caught and convicted, he'll suffer a most unenviable fate. Not sure we can categorize that as Justice. This might work.

How should i know? I'm not familiar with any of the people involved. Nor am i in the business of making excuses. I do try, however, to look at each case on its own merits, rather than lump all Americans (as many as 3% of the population) who are, or have at some time been, incarcerated into the word "criminal". I asked how prevalent is the crime you cited (to the exclusion of all the burglaries, embezzlement, shoplifting and car theft) for the same reason: before applying any judgement derived from that case to "criminals" generally, we need to know how broadly it applies. My guess is, it tells us very little about lawbreaking and criminilatity in the UK. That would depend on a number of factors: 1. Perspective - "worse" for whom, in what way? 2. The nature of the crime. 3. The soundness of investigative and legal process. 4. The state of mind of the perpetrator. 5. The nature of the prison. 6. The method of execution being considered. noted. I hope you never become a prison warden. How does that follow from asking what the person's practical options were in each particular situation where a law was broken? If individuals are not part of a society, what is society? The individuals in concert, under the auspices of a social structure which predates them and which they learn how to inhabit during maturation, create the problems. Who else can solve those problems? In fact, the wise parent does neither. My younger brother was just such a curious child. Whenever she caught him flirting with a danger he didn't understand, she scared him off it with a threat he did understand. She never hit and taught us a great deal about living; my father struck out all the time (was a bully who never, afaik, broke a law beyond traffic infractions) and taught us very little besides how to avoid him.

I asked what does. Being a law abiding citizen? Being is not optional; specific actions are. When you broke the jaywalking law, you had the option of going to the crosswalk. When that person in prison was confronted, at that moment, with that decision, he was not choosing between good citizenship and criminality, he was choosing between available options: take the car or let the gang shoot him? march for civil rights or give up any chance at the vote? recruit the underage escorts or disappoint his millionaire friends? drive an unlicensed cab or starve waiting for a permit? Some criminals are also bullies. Some bullies are also criminals. It's not synonymous. How? What were they before they were crazed killers? And how typical is their crime?

You can't tell who is "going to be" anything, because nobody's future is cast in concrete at birth. But you certainly can see tendencies and proclivities in early childhood; you can see a temperament forming and you can definitely see most of the risk factors in their environment. What is a criminal, anyway? Someone who has broken a law? Or someone who habitually breaks a particular law? Or someone who breaks many laws? Is there any reason to suppose that all laws are good and should be respected, or that it's even possible for all people to obey all laws? What are the other available options for each criminal before he or she breaks the law for the first time? Many criminals are brave, even foolhardy. Most are not bullies, but thieves. No action is without a long chain causation behind it: nobody wakes up one morning and decides to start bullying people. Children don't raise themselves - and their parents don't raise them, either, though the parents contribute most to the child's development - the whole society immerses its children in its economy, legal structure, hierarchy, customs and culture, education and pastimes, beliefs and values. Children are surrounded by examples of adult behaviour to imitate; they generally keep imitating the behaviours that see rewarded in some way. There are also many kinds of mental illness, some even caused by a genetic error. A very small percent of those result in antisocial behaviour, and a very small percent of that small percent is untreatable if diagnosed early. Most mental illness is a result of environmental factors that are overlooked, or discounted, or accepted as "just how things are", all the while twisting people's minds. Not a question; a suggestion.

How do you tell which are incorrigible? If you can be quite certain that a particular criminal will never be able to function as a citizen, then a quick and tidy death (preferably carried out remotely by an unwitting layman chosen randomly, rather than a designated executioner) would be more practical and less damaging to society than torture. Better yet, organize a society that doesn't turn out so many vicious criminally insane.

There are several kinds of "peace" cited here. By "civil peace and order" I meant to the (relatively) tranquil operation of a society, with a minimum of conflict and discord among the citizens. Societies have invented various kinds of legal system to accomplish some version of that. I'm not sure what dimreepr meant by "peace"; from the context, I assumed spiritual peace as experienced by a human. It that can be "granted" through forgiveness, that must be done by some other conscious entity - another human or a god - and I think the one in need of this kind of peace is the wrongdoer, whose spirit is disturbed by his own evil deed. Sensei, otoh, seems to be referring to the disquiet of the victim's spirit. Revenge, justice, retribution are difficult concepts to communicate, since they have such very different degrees and kinds of significance on the individual, communal and societal level level. One thing is clear, though: torture falls partly in revenge category, but extends ominously beyond its scope, into oppression and terror - neither of which plays any part in civil peace, order and sound governance.

The role of government is to maintain civil peace and order. Whether that's achieved through the punishment, correction, exclusion or elimination of law-breakers depends on the philosophy underlying its mandate. Torture has, in many societies, been part of the the punishment for crime, and even more often, a means of discovering crime - whether any was committed or not. The supporters of cruel-as-usual system of justice claim it as a deterrent. It has never, afaik, reduced the absolute amount of crime nor eliminated any category of crime, from any society. This also seems to hold for the killing of lawbreakers. Retribution, otoh, is the moral prerogative of the victim (or the wrongdoer's god), and nobody else. It's also usually against the law, as a habit of personal revenge spreads to vendettas and feuding tends to undermine peace and order.

You convicted the wrong guy! The executioner enjoys his work so much, he takes it home. The warden likes to keep strict order in his fiefdom. Etc. It's a bad idea for the same reason that official encouragement of any destructive human trait is a bad idea: it produces a destructive culture populated by destructive people and makes a short-lived, evil society.

Indeed, that's the only aspect of human society on which you have focused throughout, except for the references to "science". I agree that you have made your conviction on this topic perfectly clear.

If that's what you read, I have utterly failed to convey what I think. If India and Pakistan were able to sublimate their hostility in tennis, and if North and South Korea have reunited, those are excellent outcomes and I'll be happy to hear that more such reconciliations take place.

The graphs I'v seen correlated party affiliation and educational level, which isn't at all the same thing as intelligence. I found one that you can use as a starting point. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289620300350 I'd approach it warily, however, as they seem to be looking for genetic factors.

Fair assessment. (Q. Which is more likely to start thinking about a refill before the bar closes?) Where did I say that sport and science were "bad"? These are not things that exist in themselves or have any intrinsic value or quality - these are just activities in which people engage; what people do. (There isn't much evil you can do with music, but people still find a way to abuse it.) Sorry! I'm happy to learn that South Africa was united by sport.

I know whom you mean. And, it's true, most people don't know how science is involved, but they're quite aware that they themselves are using technology. What they generally don't distinguish is the fiction of "Science" as a big monolithic entity that speaks with a single voice and follows a single agenda, from the reality of piecemeal, uncoordinated scientific activities aimed at disparate outcomes for disparate reasons. How are they relevant? I was responding to: Who are this "we" that use science? And those are two different spheres: organization of society and improving living standards. Science has no role in the organization of societies. It can help people (some people) improve their living standard - but sometimes kills them instead, and quite often kills many in order to improve the living standard of a few. That makes no difference if it's ignored or abused by the people in power. And many more desirable examples in everyday life. Do you really believe that missiles and solar panels are equally desirable? I would rather say: and many other examples of effective means to both harmful and beneficial ends. I know. And I replied that the social media spreading that toxin are also a product of scientific activity. Science supplies media and weapons for its enemies, as well as its friends. Science is just a tool for getting things done - good things, bad things, dumb things, fun things, all kinds of things. Science is not inherently right, good and noble - any more than it is inherently wrong, evil and despicable. It's just one of the methods people use to get what they want.

We can't help being aware. The contempt is deliberately manufactured by unscrupulous actors who want to co-opt some function of science to their own benefit, while turning their followers away from understanding it. who! Those are two very different purposes. Organization is not at all the same as improvement. Some application of science plays a part in just about every aspect of modern life, but Science as a way of approaching reality doesn't: it tends to be pushed aside by politics, monetary self-interest and religion. In all regards. Solar panels and 'smart' missiles; truth serum and insulin; disease resistant crops and a pathogen that kills caterpillars. Both social media and vaccines are examples of applied science. Science is a means to find out things - like how to design machines and molecules. It can serve any agent to accomplish any goal - harmful, beneficial, pointless of frivolous.

In defence of the community: in a flood relief or fire-fighting or evacuation effort. In shared projects for mutual benefit, such as building a bridge or inventing a vaccine. In support of some vulnerable, weaker entity - like polar bears or monarch butterflies. In overcoming a threat or recovering from a crisis that affects everyone. In the wise use of resources. (not in blind, unthinking zeal for a demagogue or simplistic ideal) I'm nut sure how Science can be enlisted to support social organization. I think the understanding has to come first and the use of some aspect of science afterward, for an agreed-on purpose.

Depend on the "something", my relationship with the person or persons I might tell it to and the affect of that truth on their knowing it or not knowing it. I'm not always in position to judge the truth value of a datum that's come my way; nor am I confident of judging accurately the general good. Sometimes people are upset when told something they really need to know (Dad, I'm gay.) and later come to terms with far more easily than if they had been kept in the dark. Sometimes, OTOH, potentially upsetting knowledge is better withheld. (The grandfather you idolized thought you were a twit.) Some things that one might inadvertently discover are not in one's province to divulge. (Your big sister is really your mother.) Sometimes they already know and being told that others know, too, only makes it more painful. Sometimes they suspect and are seeking the truth in their way, in their own time. Sometimes telling a secret arms the other person against diasappointment; at other times, blurting merely spoils a surprise I'm not married to Truth, a truth or the truth: I have some respect for each of them, but no special reverence. Communication has a purpose involving one or more other sentient being(s): to educate, inform, warn, negotiate, solicit, assess, correct, convince, beguile, rebuke, control; to elicit information from them, to compare their views with mine, to collaborate on a project or form a plan, to share an experience or emotion, to entertain or amuse them, or simply to hold their attention. This means that I don't have to tell everybody everything I know; don't have to tell anyone everything I know - just the bits that serve a particular purpose at a given time. As for opinions, I have so many, on so many subjects, attempting to share them all might well place me in jeopardy. That's not entirely facetious: in today's social climate, you never can anticipate how disgreement will be expressed.

Sure - anything we share a positive enthusiasm about. Unfortunately, while we're often positive and enthusiastic about the same things, we're not that good at the sharing part.

You know how something you think, hear, read, notice, smell or taste can conjure up a picture in your mind? it happens all the time and it's nearly always a fleeting, trivial image that you forget right away. But once in a while, something triggers a really powerful response. You get a clear, bright, significant picture that's worth storing in long-term memory. That you either want to look at, again and again, like a photo album, or else that pops up, uninvited, in association with new input. Some of these graphic images are horrific, but you can't turn them off. Some, on the other hand, are pleasant, useful or amusing. Like Doctor Who's wibbly wobbly timey wimey thing. I have several graphics that give me at least a smile whenever something evokes them. I'd like to take this opportunity to express gratitude. I invite you to do likewise, for your own good images. Thank you, William Gibson, for the picture I superimpose every time I see one of those big ugly container ships that I got in the novel Spook Country. {Spoiler: they killed the money}

It can be both. in fact, if it is not both, it's useless. Loving has nothing to do with ethics. What you need ethics for is to prescribe how you ought to treat the people you don't love, or particularly care about, and even more significantly, the people who get in your way, whom you can use, whom you fear. It's about what allows a society to survive, prosper and thrive - all quite reasonable aims. So the "study" of ethics is really concerned with how disparate human beings can coexist. The "ought" is added later, when the "how" is fitted to the philosophical principles on which a particular society is organized. I think it isn't.

See, they have that in common, too! Well, I sometimes come back to it - does that count?

Disappointed about the cuckoo clock! But when I bethink the Swiss and Bavarian geography, customs, architecture, lifestyle... I guess it's all right.