What is justice?

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, MigL said:

You would then think a lot more people would be moving to Finland.
Yet, approximately 18000 people left Finland last year, and 16800 moved there.
Maybe they don't take that many immigrants.

Findlands immagration pollicy seems fairly typical.

Quote

Immigration to Finland is the process by which people migrate to Finland to reside in the country. Some, but not all, become Finnish citizens. ... As of 2018, there are 402,600 foreigners people residing in Finland, which corresponds to 7.3% of the population.

19 hours ago, MigL said:

How is that justice; Is it their choice not to be born in Finland ?

That seems a pretty desperate argument... 

An accident of birth is how we measure luck, not justice.

 

[MigL]

It's the same argument you used when you said
"Is it your choice to be in the high risk category?"

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

It's the same argument you used when you said
"Is it your choice to be in the high risk category?"

Is it?

Your argument relies on subsequent choices, that implies the initial conditions are equal, which (unless you're completly deluded) is axiomatically false.

[dimreepr]

It seems you've got to get mad first...

[koti]

On 9/21/2019 at 1:49 PM, dimreepr said:

Gee Koti, since this is not in the lounge (or joke) section, you could also go with not replying.

Okay, I apologize for my snip, could you explain to me what you mean by the below?

 

On 9/17/2019 at 4:26 PM, dimreepr said:

What is justice?

Punishment for the previously punished?

or

Revenge for the victims of the previously punished?

Or??? 

Because it sounds to me completely detached from any coherence. 

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, koti said:

Okay, I apologize for my snip, could you explain to me what you mean by the below?

Because it sounds to me completely detached from any coherence. 

Well now that's a rather backhanded apology, if you actually want me to clarify, then why the adition this rather unneeded jibe (not the first time, there are some rules about civility here).

swansont managed to question my use of "previously punished" (without resorting to this tactic) and perhaps he was right, but essentially my meaning is that some people are, almost, forced into a life of crime by the circumstances of their life, which can be pretty brutal/punishing.

[koti]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Well now that's a rather backhanded apology, if you actually want me to clarify, then why the adition this rather unneeded jibe (not the first time, there are some rules about civility here).

swansont managed to question my use of "previously punished" (without resorting to this tactic) and perhaps he was right, but essentially my meaning is that some people are, almost, forced into a life of crime by the circumstances of their life, which can be pretty brutal/punishing.

I’m sory you didn’t like my appology and feel offended, I will make sure you feel more cozy and warm next time. 

So let me understand your line of thinking better as to what justice is or should be; What you seem to be saying is that people who are less fortunate in life and are pushed into crime by circumstances should be treated differently than upper middle class felons?

On 9/17/2019 at 4:26 PM, dimreepr said:

Revenge for the victims of the previously punished?

And btw revenge is not the right word here - responsibility for own actions and consequences seem a lot more fit. 

[dimreepr]

14 hours ago, koti said:

Because it sounds to me completely detached from any coherence. 

1 minute ago, koti said:

I’m sory you didn’t like my appology and feel offended, I will make sure you feel more cozy and warm next time.

Perhaps you're unaware of the irony here, but it made me laugh.

3 minutes ago, koti said:

So let me understand your line of thinking better as to what justice is or should be; What you seem to be saying is that people who are less fortunate in life and are pushed into crime by circumstances should be treated differently than upper middle class felons?

That's a false dichotomy, not only because the upper middle/posh/aristocats can also sufer due to their circumstances, but also because that's not what I'm argueing.

Perhaps you should read the thread.

 

[koti]

33 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Perhaps you're unaware of the irony here, but it made me laugh.

That's a false dichotomy, not only because the upper middle/posh/aristocats can also sufer due to their circumstances, but also because that's not what I'm argueing.

Perhaps you should read the thread.

 

Youre right, I'm not aware of the irony you see in this. I'm trying to find out what youre arguing and this is what you wrote.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

...essentially my meaning is that some people are, almost, forced into a life of crime by the circumstances of their life, which can be pretty brutal/punishing.

Since what you wrote is not what I think you mean since you clearly see a false dichotomy in my understanding of your argument, then COULD YOU CLARIFY what you mean?

[dimreepr]

43 minutes ago, koti said:

And btw revenge is not the right word here - responsibility for own actions and consequences seem a lot more fit. 

What word would you prefer,  given coherence is questionable?

[koti]

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What word would you prefer,  given coherence is questionable?

And btw revenge is not the right word here - "responsibility for own actions" and "consequences" seem a lot more fit. 

I don't know how I can be more clear.

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, koti said:

Since what you wrote is not what I think you mean since you clearly see a false dichotomy in my understanding of your argument, then COULD YOU CLARIFY what you mean?

FFS justice should be clarification on it's own, but to be clear the reason for an action should be judged as of equal importance to the consequense.

[koti]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

FFS justice should be clarification on it's own, but to be clear the reason for an action should be judged as of equal importance to the consequense.

Could you skip on the „FFS” as my feelings are hurt and this agression doesn’t do me well in general, thanks.

The equall importance part which you wrote is exactly right but this is not what I am asking you to clarify. „action should be judged as of equal importance to the consequense” and everything you wrote in the OP stand in direct contradiction to each other.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, koti said:

and everything you wrote in the OP stand in direct contradiction to each other.

How? I just asked questions, it's you that has made contradictory statements.

9 minutes ago, koti said:

Could you skip on the „FFS” as my feelings are hurt and this agression doesn’t do me well in general, thanks.

Like I said initially, you're more than welcome to not post; but I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings. 

While I'm happy to answer your questions, can you please stop loading them with innuendo, so we can get back on topic, FFS.

[koti]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How? I just asked questions, it's you that has made contradictory statements.

Okay, its time to explain;

”...action should be judged as of equal importance to the consequense”

and

”Punishment for the previously punished?

or

Revenge for the victims of the previously punished?”

stand in contradiction to each other would you agree? So which is it? You seem to be confused with the very core idea of justice and it drives me nuts. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, koti said:

Okay, its time to explain;

”...action should be judged as of equal importance to the consequense”

and

”Punishment for the previously punished?

or

Revenge for the victims of the previously punished?”

stand in contradiction to each other would you agree? So which is it? You seem to be confused with the very core idea of justice and it drives me nuts. 

Oh FFS

2 minutes ago, koti said:

”...action should be judged as of equal importance to the consequense”

I didn't say that in the OP...Look, I understand your need to belittle me, I hit a nerve (perhaps), I really didn't mean to, but ironically that's the point, we can stab at each other ad infinitum, but ultimately it will solve nothing; real justice is a combination of pragmatic acceptance.

[koti]

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Oh FFS

I didn't say that in the OP...Look, I understand your need to belittle me, I hit a nerve (perhaps), I really didn't mean to, but ironically that's the point, we can stab at each other ad infinitum, but ultimately it will solve nothing; real justice is a combination of pragmatic acceptance.

Dim I swear the only nerve you hit is with your original post which just makes no f sense. 

[dimreepr]

15 minutes ago, koti said:

Dim I swear the only nerve you hit is with your original post which just makes no f sense. 

It's not that complicated, am I justified to take revenge pretty much covers it...

[iNow]

Get a room, you two

[koti]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Get a room, you two

I see what you did there.

 

[dimreepr]

57 minutes ago, iNow said:

Get a room, you two

TBH I'd be happy too, but I'm sure Oscar Wilde would object.

[koti]

43 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

TBH I'd be happy too, but I'm sure Oscar Wilde would object.

I’d be more than happy to give room to Wilde, have a blast you two.

Edited September 23, 2019 by koti

[jajrussel]

On 9/17/2019 at 10:26 AM, dimreepr said:

Punishment for the previously punished?

or

Revenge for the victims of the previously punished?

Or??? 

A question of seemingly infinite possibility’s, yet limited to two choices? Three? Possibly a few more?

 Hmm, both choices are generally frowned  upon yet both choices can be justified by the giver when given and cried foul by the receiver, or possibly the victim.

 Sometimes justice is deserved, but it is also possible that the receiver of justice is simply a victim of circumstance. 
 

A person who steals a sandwich would only be the victim by matter of opinion. A thief will always accept victim by matter of opinion, over the label thief. It acts as a self motivator to continue. 

 You can substitute many labels for thief, the label  victim by matter of opinion will always be preferred.

Yet, it us true that victim’s exist.

A relative who happens to be an addict, I cannot, will not justify. My  mother, on the otherhand justifies his every act by his addiction.

I believe he sees himself as the receiver of infinite punishment for his addiction. If he keeps spending the money given to him to pay his bills on drugs then has to steal, over and over. The continued acts of punishment is for each act of theft, not for the one act of addiction.

 In my opinion justice is a matter of personal,  and, or public opinion, each with infinite possibilities. Each generally defined by a finite amount of time which, apparently, usually falls somewhat short of the preferred goal. 

I do find it somewhat ironic that justice will often demand the exact letter of the law yet the specified amount of time given in judgment is seldom ever exact. It’s usually time given plus parole and parole is often subject to opinion of someone other than a judge.

[jajrussel]

On 9/20/2019 at 1:20 PM, Curious layman said:

Im in the high risk category for future homelessness, and if I were to become homeless, I've already decided I would rather steal food than go hungry. But that couldn't be seen as me getting justice. I'm homeless for the choices I've made, nobody else. 

For me it is not a matter of if, but when, I will be homeless. Also a matter of poor past choices. I will put it off as long as possible but a has been pointed out they do feed you in jail. I’ve also read that they keep your retirement check from social security should you wind up in jail for any length of time, so in perspective the trade off might be preferred to dying in the street from starvation and the elements. If there is another way, afterThe fact, they don’t exactly knock your door down trying to give you the information.

 It has been pointed out that there are a lot of good  reasons to avoid prison but I have also noticed that a lot of people seem to prefer to go back to prison at the first opportunity. The choices they make speak against any other preference they present.

Edited October 2, 2019 by jajrussel

[iNow]

43 minutes ago, jajrussel said:

I’ve also read that they keep your retirement check from social security should you wind up in jail for any length of time

Benefits are withheld while in jail, but can be reinstated after release. Also, so long as they’re eligible, benefits will continue to spouse or children even during ones incarceration.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10133.pdf