The legality of shock sites isn’t really a glorification of brutal misogyny when there’s an equal amount of macabre misandry in a way that symbolises evil. The ethics of such websites might be strangely circular. Who knows if mass shootings could be reduced if evil people placated themselves to graphic media instead of perpetrating new crimes. Yet the dilemma is if we had gun control or a more cohesive society then such concessions to immoral people would never be necessary.
Manslaughter
-
Michael McMahon
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2023 2:46 pm
Re: Manslaughter
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Manslaughter
Lol wtf I never saw that movie but I know about the series. I remember parts of a couple but never watched one through even half way.
U can be corny af and still effectively humorous if the acting and scenes are done right.
U can be corny af and still effectively humorous if the acting and scenes are done right.
-
Michael McMahon
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2023 2:46 pm
Re: Manslaughter
Terrorism can be a limit of deterrence as a philosophy for sentencing other types of criminals. Terrorists can often view the state as evil whether through paranoia or simply a warped mindset. The state doesn’t have to be evil to be interpreted as evil when a lack of help can be subjectively interpreted as evil. Evil people don’t have a limit to whoever else they can sincerely perceive as evil. As such no amount of deterrence would work against a macho terrorist because they’re often willing to risk death. Being vengeful against terrorists risks consolidating the warped mindset of other terrorists that the state was evil. Yet the same argument applies in moderation to other forms of petty criminality when criminals can risk life sentences because the criminals are already misanthropic.
Re: Manslaughter
That sounds like the writings of a spin-doctor.Michael McMahon wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 11:19 pm Terrorism can be a limit of deterrence as a philosophy for sentencing other types of criminals. Terrorists can often view the state as evil whether through paranoia or simply a warped mindset. The state doesn’t have to be evil to be interpreted as evil when a lack of help can be subjectively interpreted as evil. Evil people don’t have a limit to whoever else they can sincerely perceive as evil. As such no amount of deterrence would work against a macho terrorist because they’re often willing to risk death. Being vengeful against terrorists risks consolidating the warped mindset of other terrorists that the state was evil. Yet the same argument applies in moderation to other forms of petty criminality when criminals can risk life sentences because the criminals are already misanthropic.
One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
You say their minds are wrapped.
They say "enough is enough".
You say "evil people don't have a limit".
They say "we will fight to the death for our freedom"
Sometimes the state is actually responsible for the harm necessary to manufacture terrorists/extremists.
Without good will on both sides - it's necessarily a zero-sum game.
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Manslaughter
Yo i didn't know it wasn't against forum rules to post pictures of mammalian protuberances.
That's a hard one there boss. Which would u choose? My choice would obviously be both, but if this were not an option, I'd resort to a coin toss.
That's a hard one there boss. Which would u choose? My choice would obviously be both, but if this were not an option, I'd resort to a coin toss.
Re: Manslaughter
[quote="Michael McMahon" post_id=628070 time=1678110653 user_id=23769]
Fairness and legal precedents are of utmost importance. Sentencing must be consistent for people convicted for similar crimes in order to be as democratic as possible. There’s too much deviation. Manslaughter unnecessarily complicates matters. It’s already difficult to harmonise sentencing for other crimes like assault so it’d be doubly difficult to be consistent in having two independent killing offences. The word of manslaughter instead of murder symbolically dehumanises victims as if you were killed for dinner! Some people may indeed be “out of character” when they commit a crime (they must of got the wrong script: we were all doing the Wizard of Oz while they learned Macbeth!). But in truth we can say the same about any criminal who changes and chooses to be repentant after a crime. So there’s no need for this distinction between murder and manslaughter (much like the nonexistence of the forced mating, coerced charity or kid borrowing crimes!).
The mitigating factors for murder are insufficient to justify there being two separate classes of the crime of killing a person. I acknowledge that there can sometimes be genuine accidents that causes deaths and cases of proportional self-defence. But there are other cases that don’t warrant this exemption. Another name for excessive self-defence is vigilantism. Once a person is seriously injured in an altercation they don't pose much of a threat due to their reduced mobility. There are 360 degrees around and above to fire a warning shot so if it just so happen to fatally hit the suspect then it's rather reckless. Even implementing a final blow to an incapacitated victim would be like justifying nonconsensual euthanasia. Firing at a fleeing suspect is dubious unless the perpetrator was at imminent risk of carrying out murder or serious assault. Vigilantes can be truly reckless and ungrateful by making the original victims feel guilty after getting revenge on their behalf without their permission. A vigilante often isn't even half-forgiving in their retribution by being under-proportional and slightly cautious. After all a slap in the face could technically be a form of mild vigilantism.
A synonym for negligence can be the intentional endangering of other society members in general; even when they didn’t intend to personally risk that victim individually. It sometimes feels as if death is mysterious and transcendent where there's nothing the legal system can really do to improve the situation. However if a victim of an assault or an accident was left in a lifelong coma instead of dying at the scene, would we feel more of a need to jail the perpetrator? In other words are we subconsciously making assumptions that a pleasant afterlife might be a mitigating factor? Anyway I agree with the insanity defence as a mitigating factor but not always as an exoneration. A psychotic experience will indeed confuse a person’s understanding of logic. But one would still need a small degree of understanding about causality and slyness just to carry out a complex crime. Anxiety is usually directed at one’s self. "Murderer-itus" isn't a medical diagnosis! The insanity defence is often used in violent crimes even though the slippery slope is fairly blatant to see if it were used in sexual crimes. A challenge with the insanity defence is that mental illnesses can contain the opposite delusions such that an altercation between different patients could become uncontrollable. For example autism contrasts with psychosis such that any physical fight between these patients could destabilise them. Perpetrating a crime would further destabilise a psychotic person if they were an ethical person at base. This means that any anxiety and disorientation of a psychotic patient following the perpetration of a crime would almost be punishment in and of itself. By contrast a sudden return back to normality following a crime might imply that the temporary psychosis occurred in an immoral person.
I understand that some people charged with manslaughter have very serious and legitimate grievances against the victim. But society would descend into a free-for-all if everyone were to decide to act violently against people who they perceive to have mistreated them. That would send the wrong message. Being vengeful against other admittedly vengeful people is to be yourself part of the problem. It’s about dissuading people from escalating a volatile situation rather than trying to somehow accommodate such pent-up emotions when determining a court sentence. I actually had in the back of my mind the notion of unprovoked fights and assaults when I wrote the first post in the thread. But I came across comments that disagreed strongly with my take on manslaughter for the opposite reason. They argued for the sake of the vigilante types of cases. This demonstrates the inherent risk of the manslaughter defence being exploited and abused in all non-accidental sorts of crimes. In my view it’s a lawless downward spiral. People might find rare borderline or tricky cases but overall this defence does far more harm than good. Unless you go by the name Romulus or Remus, no one was raised in the woods by wolves. Even when we make ethical arguments in favour of the manslaughter defence there is then the very real problem of taxation. So the victims of crimes are also taxpayers as are the perpetrators. So the state is obliged to defend people not only for moral reasons but also for commercial reasons if we'd to be cynical about it. It's unlikely any victim would rebel by tax avoidance but the problem is really when swathes of voters look for more extreme political parties or become anti-social in other ways. The sadness of evil is when true victims decide to scapegoat innocent people which is risks a never-ending cycle.
The flip side of manslaughter is that a conviction of plain murder simply results in a life sentence. So in being charitable to one section we ironically risk being uncharitable to those who are repentant in premeditated cases. I think either increasing the manslaughter sentence sometimes or decreasing the jail-time for murder would lead to more overall consistency. I don’t think there’s much point having a mandatory life sentence for murder if it results in most people simply being charged with manslaughter instead. I think we’d be better off coming to a rough consensus on a medium sentence length for killing someone rather than always aiming for a life sentence. Perhaps there's an argument that every case is unique and deserving of a wholly separate set of rules but unfortunately such divine oversight is far beyond the capacity of the state. From my partial understanding of Christianity it is claimed that God is all-forgiving and this doesn't mean that mortal beings have to be all-forgiving but merely relatively or generally-forgiving. As they say in the westerns, God can forgive you even if I don't! Christianity was founded in Ancient Rome when the vast majority of people were evil. Then it spread at a time of knights and serfs where people simply accepted abuse in the hope of a better afterlife. It made sense to be forgiving in the medieval era simply because you'd to appeal to evil people to commit to their faith. Having faith was almost like Ronald Reagan's realpolitik agenda where evil groups had to be tolerated to defeat larger evil groups! Moreover early Christianity had little perception of the material world. Perhaps it made little sense to care about vengefulness in the pre-scientific age because people were impoverished. Thus everyone was hopeful of a better afterlife given that earthly life already had too much hardship. Even when they weren't attacked by evil people there would still have been widescale hunger and homelessness. Unless we're living an ascetic lifestyle like the Amish community then it's unrealistic for many technologically indulgent citizens to not care at all about justice in the material world. King Henry VIII may have got away with formal honour killings of his wives in the medieval era but few Christians these days have any appeal to royal pardons. The irony is that in today's societies good people tend to vastly outnumber criminals. As such it seems like we could afford to be a bit stricter. Saying a serial killer isn't as bad as a genocidal serial killer doesn't seem like much of a consolation. Is an angry murderer less worse than a sexual murderer? Although who knows if we started taking the metaphysical system for granted that lots of people would reject faith altogether. There is a philosophical problem of evil that's intractable but the difference with the court system is that they've already been arrested. Should the court "surrender" to criminals who've actually already surrendered to the police? It's not like a mandatory sentence applies to those who weren't caught! The court system is logically unable to atone for the impunity of criminals on the run or historical war crimes. So nor should we expect the courts to defeat spiritual evil permanently as it'll always strike again in different forms. For example when we think of deterring misogyny the courts cannot simply impose mandatory life sentences on rapists. The same criminals would simply alter their aggression pre-emptively through assault instead. Most people would understand just how silly it'd be if raping a woman landed you with two years in prison while punching a woman would put you away for two months! Evil is like a drug and if the courts specially went all out punishing cocaine users then they'd just use another drug. That is to say we can't proportionately increase the sentence of every single crime category owing to limited jail space and ethical concerns. Perhaps women should get lighter sentences than men not because they're less self-aware but simply for society to over-compensate for masculine indulgences! They'll redeem themselves in other ways! Communism is deemed idealistic but so are anarchistic versions of capitalistic libertarianism. Likewise just because mandatory sentencing is too idealistic the same can also be said of unregulated individualistic sentencing. Erratic high sentences for rape might even deter rape victims from reporting it to the police if the victims don't hate the perpetrator to that extent. Objectively speaking the only thing more culpable for vigilantism than criminality is contempt of court. Truth be told there's much overlap between a criminal and a vigilante mindset when evil people find it much harder to forgive others than good people. Hence being lenient to one side of criminality or vigilantism will eventually end up being lenient to another side. This is proved ad absurdism in the Philippines war on drugs. Drug gangs want to kill rival drug gangs. A gang feud is really just a form of mutual vigilantism without any self-righteousness. As such these gangs don't seem to care when vigilantism has merely fuelled inter-gang warfare. Murder of poor people caught in the crossfire is now almost a more frequent crime than drug trafficking in the Philippines.
In summary, it’s not merely the length of the jail sentence but the potential multi-year disparity between murder and manslaughter that I find concerning. In rare instances there might even be a multi-decade difference for loosely similar non-defensive killings(*). We don't have second-class citizens and this applies to both the victims and the criminals. Provocation is a bit like crony capitalism in the sense of friendly and "crony" sentencing. Low sentences can result in apathetic recidivism and high sentences can lead to the criminal being a vengeful recidivist. Thus proportionality is a must! The problem with personalised sentences for the perpetrator is that it could also be personal against the victim. Inconsistent rape sentences is often a sign of amoral rather than immoral sentencing. For example high financial compensation to some victims doesn't scapegoat anyone but it has the effect of concealing all of the under-compensated cases. A wounded soldier mistreated in a makeshift battle hospital would get very little compensation compared to a civilian hospital. An underfunded hospital could almost sue the government for more staff if we took compensation culture to an extreme. Some low sentences or high compensation settlements could be deemed very loving rather than unfair. For example no one could ever hold a grudge against an injured person who gets high compensation from the government. Yet a judiciary in a limited state isn't expected to be loving. The problem with elevating kindness to love is that it's very difficult to love people equally. Much like a romantic relationship love can be fraught with betrayal. There'll always be a few bad sentences no matter how automated the decisions are. Nonetheless we can try to win the war even if we lose a battle with a poor sentence. Too many people give the right wing extra power by having to advocate the advocate the exact opposite left wing policy. Independence where you can just ignore the right wing can be more liberating than rebelliousness. People are free to be violent perfectionists who advocate hatred of the death penalty without having to endorse non-punishment of criminals. To avoid the trap of reverse psychology then just be violent without being a violent extremist! Viewing low recidivism as the only criterion for effective punishment is a flaw when some criminals have already got the violence all out of their system with their first crime despite having endorsed collective criminality. If everyone were allowed a 1 kill allowance then we'd probably have a lot less people rebelling against society as serial killers even if we'd have many more lone murderers. Discipline is about removing negative aspects of a criminal's metaphysical belief system rather than just their emotional mindset and rationality system. An Islamic extremist for example cannot ever be deprogrammed out of Islam in a secular society but a terrorist's interpretation of Islam can still be subject to judicial punishment in addition to the crime itself. The frequent atheism of the left wing means they're prone to ignore the spirituality of a crime rather than just the conservatively religious aspects of a crime. China is left-wing despite how they still have strict or even harsh punishments of criminals simply because they can't rely on a baseline of Christianity in their society to stop a collective descent into criminality. So high prison sentences in China are not of any dislike of egalitarianism or the western left wing but rather out of excessive pragmatism. The reduction of Christian adherents in the west into the future will mean that western left-wingers will have to be more self-reliant in their approach to criminal justice. We need to be proportionate in how evil we are to everyone! For all the criticism of right wingers playing God over the death penalty it's still the case that highly idiosyncratic sentencing is also a form of playing God through state glorification. Thankfully the soul leaves the body at death where we hide the decomposition of a dead body through cremation or burial. Yet if society had to be very physicalist in our perception then a rotting corpse is a deterrent to both the death penalty and unduly lenient murder sentences. Vigilantism and recidivism both have subjective elements to them relative to the fact they've rebelled against a subjective court system. Moreover the victims of vigilantism can give rise to recidivists in such a way that evil counteracts evil and no one should endorse such a system. Ironically a temperamental and unpredictable judge is best suited to sentencing the meta-complexities of recidivists and vigilantes!
[/quote]
Manslaughter is the killing of one person by another and has no ethical implications. Murder is a legal definition that implies moral wrong. The division between justified and unjustified is primary and the exact reason the words are differentiated. It's absolutely necessary, not weasel language.
Also there's no such thing as a soul.
Fairness and legal precedents are of utmost importance. Sentencing must be consistent for people convicted for similar crimes in order to be as democratic as possible. There’s too much deviation. Manslaughter unnecessarily complicates matters. It’s already difficult to harmonise sentencing for other crimes like assault so it’d be doubly difficult to be consistent in having two independent killing offences. The word of manslaughter instead of murder symbolically dehumanises victims as if you were killed for dinner! Some people may indeed be “out of character” when they commit a crime (they must of got the wrong script: we were all doing the Wizard of Oz while they learned Macbeth!). But in truth we can say the same about any criminal who changes and chooses to be repentant after a crime. So there’s no need for this distinction between murder and manslaughter (much like the nonexistence of the forced mating, coerced charity or kid borrowing crimes!).
The mitigating factors for murder are insufficient to justify there being two separate classes of the crime of killing a person. I acknowledge that there can sometimes be genuine accidents that causes deaths and cases of proportional self-defence. But there are other cases that don’t warrant this exemption. Another name for excessive self-defence is vigilantism. Once a person is seriously injured in an altercation they don't pose much of a threat due to their reduced mobility. There are 360 degrees around and above to fire a warning shot so if it just so happen to fatally hit the suspect then it's rather reckless. Even implementing a final blow to an incapacitated victim would be like justifying nonconsensual euthanasia. Firing at a fleeing suspect is dubious unless the perpetrator was at imminent risk of carrying out murder or serious assault. Vigilantes can be truly reckless and ungrateful by making the original victims feel guilty after getting revenge on their behalf without their permission. A vigilante often isn't even half-forgiving in their retribution by being under-proportional and slightly cautious. After all a slap in the face could technically be a form of mild vigilantism.
A synonym for negligence can be the intentional endangering of other society members in general; even when they didn’t intend to personally risk that victim individually. It sometimes feels as if death is mysterious and transcendent where there's nothing the legal system can really do to improve the situation. However if a victim of an assault or an accident was left in a lifelong coma instead of dying at the scene, would we feel more of a need to jail the perpetrator? In other words are we subconsciously making assumptions that a pleasant afterlife might be a mitigating factor? Anyway I agree with the insanity defence as a mitigating factor but not always as an exoneration. A psychotic experience will indeed confuse a person’s understanding of logic. But one would still need a small degree of understanding about causality and slyness just to carry out a complex crime. Anxiety is usually directed at one’s self. "Murderer-itus" isn't a medical diagnosis! The insanity defence is often used in violent crimes even though the slippery slope is fairly blatant to see if it were used in sexual crimes. A challenge with the insanity defence is that mental illnesses can contain the opposite delusions such that an altercation between different patients could become uncontrollable. For example autism contrasts with psychosis such that any physical fight between these patients could destabilise them. Perpetrating a crime would further destabilise a psychotic person if they were an ethical person at base. This means that any anxiety and disorientation of a psychotic patient following the perpetration of a crime would almost be punishment in and of itself. By contrast a sudden return back to normality following a crime might imply that the temporary psychosis occurred in an immoral person.
I understand that some people charged with manslaughter have very serious and legitimate grievances against the victim. But society would descend into a free-for-all if everyone were to decide to act violently against people who they perceive to have mistreated them. That would send the wrong message. Being vengeful against other admittedly vengeful people is to be yourself part of the problem. It’s about dissuading people from escalating a volatile situation rather than trying to somehow accommodate such pent-up emotions when determining a court sentence. I actually had in the back of my mind the notion of unprovoked fights and assaults when I wrote the first post in the thread. But I came across comments that disagreed strongly with my take on manslaughter for the opposite reason. They argued for the sake of the vigilante types of cases. This demonstrates the inherent risk of the manslaughter defence being exploited and abused in all non-accidental sorts of crimes. In my view it’s a lawless downward spiral. People might find rare borderline or tricky cases but overall this defence does far more harm than good. Unless you go by the name Romulus or Remus, no one was raised in the woods by wolves. Even when we make ethical arguments in favour of the manslaughter defence there is then the very real problem of taxation. So the victims of crimes are also taxpayers as are the perpetrators. So the state is obliged to defend people not only for moral reasons but also for commercial reasons if we'd to be cynical about it. It's unlikely any victim would rebel by tax avoidance but the problem is really when swathes of voters look for more extreme political parties or become anti-social in other ways. The sadness of evil is when true victims decide to scapegoat innocent people which is risks a never-ending cycle.
The flip side of manslaughter is that a conviction of plain murder simply results in a life sentence. So in being charitable to one section we ironically risk being uncharitable to those who are repentant in premeditated cases. I think either increasing the manslaughter sentence sometimes or decreasing the jail-time for murder would lead to more overall consistency. I don’t think there’s much point having a mandatory life sentence for murder if it results in most people simply being charged with manslaughter instead. I think we’d be better off coming to a rough consensus on a medium sentence length for killing someone rather than always aiming for a life sentence. Perhaps there's an argument that every case is unique and deserving of a wholly separate set of rules but unfortunately such divine oversight is far beyond the capacity of the state. From my partial understanding of Christianity it is claimed that God is all-forgiving and this doesn't mean that mortal beings have to be all-forgiving but merely relatively or generally-forgiving. As they say in the westerns, God can forgive you even if I don't! Christianity was founded in Ancient Rome when the vast majority of people were evil. Then it spread at a time of knights and serfs where people simply accepted abuse in the hope of a better afterlife. It made sense to be forgiving in the medieval era simply because you'd to appeal to evil people to commit to their faith. Having faith was almost like Ronald Reagan's realpolitik agenda where evil groups had to be tolerated to defeat larger evil groups! Moreover early Christianity had little perception of the material world. Perhaps it made little sense to care about vengefulness in the pre-scientific age because people were impoverished. Thus everyone was hopeful of a better afterlife given that earthly life already had too much hardship. Even when they weren't attacked by evil people there would still have been widescale hunger and homelessness. Unless we're living an ascetic lifestyle like the Amish community then it's unrealistic for many technologically indulgent citizens to not care at all about justice in the material world. King Henry VIII may have got away with formal honour killings of his wives in the medieval era but few Christians these days have any appeal to royal pardons. The irony is that in today's societies good people tend to vastly outnumber criminals. As such it seems like we could afford to be a bit stricter. Saying a serial killer isn't as bad as a genocidal serial killer doesn't seem like much of a consolation. Is an angry murderer less worse than a sexual murderer? Although who knows if we started taking the metaphysical system for granted that lots of people would reject faith altogether. There is a philosophical problem of evil that's intractable but the difference with the court system is that they've already been arrested. Should the court "surrender" to criminals who've actually already surrendered to the police? It's not like a mandatory sentence applies to those who weren't caught! The court system is logically unable to atone for the impunity of criminals on the run or historical war crimes. So nor should we expect the courts to defeat spiritual evil permanently as it'll always strike again in different forms. For example when we think of deterring misogyny the courts cannot simply impose mandatory life sentences on rapists. The same criminals would simply alter their aggression pre-emptively through assault instead. Most people would understand just how silly it'd be if raping a woman landed you with two years in prison while punching a woman would put you away for two months! Evil is like a drug and if the courts specially went all out punishing cocaine users then they'd just use another drug. That is to say we can't proportionately increase the sentence of every single crime category owing to limited jail space and ethical concerns. Perhaps women should get lighter sentences than men not because they're less self-aware but simply for society to over-compensate for masculine indulgences! They'll redeem themselves in other ways! Communism is deemed idealistic but so are anarchistic versions of capitalistic libertarianism. Likewise just because mandatory sentencing is too idealistic the same can also be said of unregulated individualistic sentencing. Erratic high sentences for rape might even deter rape victims from reporting it to the police if the victims don't hate the perpetrator to that extent. Objectively speaking the only thing more culpable for vigilantism than criminality is contempt of court. Truth be told there's much overlap between a criminal and a vigilante mindset when evil people find it much harder to forgive others than good people. Hence being lenient to one side of criminality or vigilantism will eventually end up being lenient to another side. This is proved ad absurdism in the Philippines war on drugs. Drug gangs want to kill rival drug gangs. A gang feud is really just a form of mutual vigilantism without any self-righteousness. As such these gangs don't seem to care when vigilantism has merely fuelled inter-gang warfare. Murder of poor people caught in the crossfire is now almost a more frequent crime than drug trafficking in the Philippines.
In summary, it’s not merely the length of the jail sentence but the potential multi-year disparity between murder and manslaughter that I find concerning. In rare instances there might even be a multi-decade difference for loosely similar non-defensive killings(*). We don't have second-class citizens and this applies to both the victims and the criminals. Provocation is a bit like crony capitalism in the sense of friendly and "crony" sentencing. Low sentences can result in apathetic recidivism and high sentences can lead to the criminal being a vengeful recidivist. Thus proportionality is a must! The problem with personalised sentences for the perpetrator is that it could also be personal against the victim. Inconsistent rape sentences is often a sign of amoral rather than immoral sentencing. For example high financial compensation to some victims doesn't scapegoat anyone but it has the effect of concealing all of the under-compensated cases. A wounded soldier mistreated in a makeshift battle hospital would get very little compensation compared to a civilian hospital. An underfunded hospital could almost sue the government for more staff if we took compensation culture to an extreme. Some low sentences or high compensation settlements could be deemed very loving rather than unfair. For example no one could ever hold a grudge against an injured person who gets high compensation from the government. Yet a judiciary in a limited state isn't expected to be loving. The problem with elevating kindness to love is that it's very difficult to love people equally. Much like a romantic relationship love can be fraught with betrayal. There'll always be a few bad sentences no matter how automated the decisions are. Nonetheless we can try to win the war even if we lose a battle with a poor sentence. Too many people give the right wing extra power by having to advocate the advocate the exact opposite left wing policy. Independence where you can just ignore the right wing can be more liberating than rebelliousness. People are free to be violent perfectionists who advocate hatred of the death penalty without having to endorse non-punishment of criminals. To avoid the trap of reverse psychology then just be violent without being a violent extremist! Viewing low recidivism as the only criterion for effective punishment is a flaw when some criminals have already got the violence all out of their system with their first crime despite having endorsed collective criminality. If everyone were allowed a 1 kill allowance then we'd probably have a lot less people rebelling against society as serial killers even if we'd have many more lone murderers. Discipline is about removing negative aspects of a criminal's metaphysical belief system rather than just their emotional mindset and rationality system. An Islamic extremist for example cannot ever be deprogrammed out of Islam in a secular society but a terrorist's interpretation of Islam can still be subject to judicial punishment in addition to the crime itself. The frequent atheism of the left wing means they're prone to ignore the spirituality of a crime rather than just the conservatively religious aspects of a crime. China is left-wing despite how they still have strict or even harsh punishments of criminals simply because they can't rely on a baseline of Christianity in their society to stop a collective descent into criminality. So high prison sentences in China are not of any dislike of egalitarianism or the western left wing but rather out of excessive pragmatism. The reduction of Christian adherents in the west into the future will mean that western left-wingers will have to be more self-reliant in their approach to criminal justice. We need to be proportionate in how evil we are to everyone! For all the criticism of right wingers playing God over the death penalty it's still the case that highly idiosyncratic sentencing is also a form of playing God through state glorification. Thankfully the soul leaves the body at death where we hide the decomposition of a dead body through cremation or burial. Yet if society had to be very physicalist in our perception then a rotting corpse is a deterrent to both the death penalty and unduly lenient murder sentences. Vigilantism and recidivism both have subjective elements to them relative to the fact they've rebelled against a subjective court system. Moreover the victims of vigilantism can give rise to recidivists in such a way that evil counteracts evil and no one should endorse such a system. Ironically a temperamental and unpredictable judge is best suited to sentencing the meta-complexities of recidivists and vigilantes!
[/quote]
Manslaughter is the killing of one person by another and has no ethical implications. Murder is a legal definition that implies moral wrong. The division between justified and unjustified is primary and the exact reason the words are differentiated. It's absolutely necessary, not weasel language.
Also there's no such thing as a soul.
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Manslaughter
Holy shit Ted wake up! That guy is so busted.
- 83ok08.jpg (36.92 KiB) Viewed 3522 times
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Manslaughter
"One risk of porn addiction is that no matter how toned a porn addict might become they still wouldn’t win an arm wrestling game against a larger person."
This may be true, but the porn addict is gonna have much more endurance and speed than the big guy who doesn't fap.
This may be true, but the porn addict is gonna have much more endurance and speed than the big guy who doesn't fap.
-
promethean75
- Posts: 5047
- Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm
Re: Manslaughter
That kid's like a regular Don Juan.
-
Michael McMahon
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2023 2:46 pm
Re: Manslaughter
There'll always be rapists due to sexual hedonism no matter how high the jail sentence is which limits the notion of deterrence for non-sexual crimes too. In the same way that many countries committed evil in history so too can some of their children side with evil before they're even sexual ensuring that as adults they'd have no limit to imagining sexual evil in a way that personifies original sin. As such harsh sentences against rapists can endanger victims to more frequent or violent rapes unless a country is adamant about self-defence as a belief system.
-
Michael McMahon
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2023 2:46 pm
Re: Manslaughter
If provocation is paradoxical it’s because academics who aren’t very talented sometimes have to express a lot of anger just to resolve a maths problem that if anger were interpreted as pain then no one would need to respond to immediate anger in the same way they can hold back a tummy bug. So a hidden factor in provocation defences is that the person who provoked the attack might have downplayed their ethics so thoroughly in expressing such hate that it inadvertently glorified the insulted person as still being truly ethical in a way that could be insubordinate to other ethical people and other religious people.
Re: Manslaughter
Your comment is an ethical VOID.Michael McMahon wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 10:52 pmSo many photos of former high school crushes can be found online that any unrequited love can be tamed without resorting to violence!promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 7:02 pm Holy shit Ted wake up! That guy is so busted.
83ok08.jpg
DB4065D9-B561-433D-B77B-0DB6818D9D5C.jpeg
B049FBFB-6774-4F64-BF88-7F2A28E333EB.jpeg
(I chose not to name the woman in case anyone meant her harm!)
Do you have permission from these women to post their images?
Re: Manslaughter
Has it yet ocurred to you that you might be trying to talk to an AI?Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2023 7:10 pm
Manslaughter is the killing of one person by another and has no ethical implications. Murder is a legal definition that implies moral wrong. The division between justified and unjustified is primary and the exact reason the words are differentiated. It's absolutely necessary, not weasel language.
Also there's no such thing as a soul.
Have you yet had a response from this person which reflects your points or questions?
Re: Manslaughter
[quote=Sculptor post_id=677149 time=1698852909 user_id=17400]
[quote=Advocate post_id=674979 time=1698084617 user_id=15238]
Manslaughter is the killing of one person by another and has no ethical implications. Murder is a legal definition that implies moral wrong. The division between justified and unjustified is primary and the exact reason the words are differentiated. It's absolutely necessary, not weasel language.
Also there's no such thing as a soul.
[/quote]
Has it yet ocurred to you that you might be trying to talk to an AI?
Have you yet had a response from this person which reflects your points or questions?
[/quote]
The answer is valid for anyone who reads it, even AI.
[quote=Advocate post_id=674979 time=1698084617 user_id=15238]
Manslaughter is the killing of one person by another and has no ethical implications. Murder is a legal definition that implies moral wrong. The division between justified and unjustified is primary and the exact reason the words are differentiated. It's absolutely necessary, not weasel language.
Also there's no such thing as a soul.
[/quote]
Has it yet ocurred to you that you might be trying to talk to an AI?
Have you yet had a response from this person which reflects your points or questions?
[/quote]
The answer is valid for anyone who reads it, even AI.
-
Michael McMahon
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2023 2:46 pm
Re: Manslaughter
A limit of manslaughter is collective evil where criminals tempted to be racist have a potentially unlimited to hate other countries. As punishing individual people for manslaughter as if it were murder isn’t really evil if the criminal was at risk of intoxication into more evil where the criminal would be spared grief and guilt were they to capitalise on more evil.