Why I Could Never Be a Christian (or Muslim)

[Jollybear]

First of all, there is no reason at all why a god that creates a universe, couldn't be an evil douche. Being capable of creating a universe in no way or form necessitates being benevolent.​

Why would a eternal, perfect in knowledge being be a douche?

I agree. I would do that too.
You know who does that too? The citizens of north korea.

Not all the citizens of korea do.

I'ld surely submit. Just like I'ld also do in North Korea.

Id submit to God, not north korea.

One thing I could not do however, is change my heart. The entire thing would strike me as deeply evil and immoral. And if this god would be completely omniscient and be able to "read my thoughts" or whatever, this god would surely know this. I would not be able to hide it.

Since you couldent change your heart and God would see your heart, would you ask him to change your heart? Because, well, logically, hed have power to do that too.

That doesn't follow.
Morality is an inescapable phenomena in social species that depend on cooperation for survival.
Without morality, society collapses. The more moral a society, the better it'll thrive.
Morality isn't "made". At best, it is developed over time.

Thats correct. The more moral a society is, the better it thrives. Thats great. I agree. And thats precisely why torture is moral, because it KEEPS AT BAY immorality from having incentive.

All social species have some form of morality.

So are you then saying this God would have morality then?

It causes suffering.
It causes permanent, or at least lasting, psychological harm.
It decentizes the torturer's trait of empathy (that, or it also psychologically harms him/her)

In short: no good can come from it.

I disagree with all of that. But, why does inflicting suffering to an evil doer immoral?

You see what you just did? You asserted that torture is immoral because it causes suffering, therefore suffering is immoral.

Why is inflicting a punishable suffering immoral?

Case in point: name me one society where torture is common practice and acceptable where you would rather live as opposed to a society where such isn't the norm.

I dont study enough of other countries to be able to give you an example. But i can paint you a picture of a society id agree with.

One where there is basic laws and the punishment for breaking those basic laws is very, very severe. Basic laws would mean theres not excessive laws where it stifles freedom.

I said: it's ALSO illegal. That word "also" points to the fact that it's not the only reason, nore the primary reason. I never said that legality is the same as morality. Many immoral things aren't illegal.

Good.

Euh.... no. The police would only be allowed to use deadly force if you'ld tried to finish them off, or if it was the only way to prevent you from finishing him off.

True.

And that you wouldn't care is.... very unsettling.

Why is it unsetling?

No. I just understand that our standards today are just a wee bit higher then they were several centuries ago.

Or, mayby our punishments have been made less severe, our freedoms have been robbed and our standards (laws) have become excessive.

You on the other hand, seem to still be stuck in the barbaric mentality of millenia ago.

Do you think there was no intelligence behind barbaric punishments? Oh there surely was. Destroy incentive to do wrong. Punish only the evil doer, not everyone else with excessive laws, stifling freedom.​

 

[Muffled]

God as understood by Islam is nothing like God as understood by Christians, you can't work under the assumptions that because you've argued with Christians about God on this forum that you'll magically understand Islamic theology and philosophy, they're completely different fields of ideas there about monotheism. Our God is not a guy, nor an anthropomorphic deity either, so practically all of your criticisms here are by default not applicable.

I believe then that Muslims do not understand God.

I believe that is true but that does not prevent God from inhabiting a body and that is Jesus.

 

[Muffled]

A marvelous post.
Regards

I believe sharing fictitious fantasies doesn't make them any more true.

 

[Muffled]

Shift of the burden of proof.
It's upto those claim that those things ARE "spirits", to support it.

Failing that, and considering everything we actually know about hallucinations, we have no reason at all to believe otherwise.

So tell me, are "spirits" allergic the anti-psychotic medicine? Because the voices that such people hear, tend to disappear when taking such medication.



Evidence.

I believe there are medicines that can block spiritual communication just as there are medicines that can put a person in a coma but why would a person want that unless there is an actual problem?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why would a eternal, perfect in knowledge being be a douche?​

Why not?

Is there some rule that states that eternal beings can only be benevolent flower power goodie-goodies?

Not all the citizens of korea do.

Not all, correct.
Do you know what happens to those that don't?

Id submit to God, not north korea.

WOOSH.
That's the sound of the analogy flying over your head.

Since you couldent change your heart and God would see your heart, would you ask him to change your heart? Because, well, logically, hed have power to do that too.

So he'ld use some god magic on me so that I suddenly think it's okay and not at all evil to submit people to eternal torture?

What would be the point of that, other then me not being bothered anymore to having to worship a deeply evil monster because of no longer being able to recognise it as such monster due to what-i-can-only-describe as magical brainwashing?

Thats correct.

You say "that's correct", but it directly contradicts what you stated previously....

The more moral a society is, the better it thrives. Thats great. I agree. And thats precisely why torture is moral, because it KEEPS AT BAY immorality from having incentive.

/facepalm

Name me one society where torture is legal and permitted, under any circumstances, where life is better then in the country where you currently reside in, where it is not permitted (assuming you live in some western secular humanist democracy)

I'll go ahead and assume that you'll completely fail to name me such a country that has objectively better statistical "societal health" indexes. The real world once again doesn't seem to be in line with your morally bankrupt views.

Why is life better in a society where such barbarism and/or "eye for an eye" mentality isn't permitted, objectively better then in societies where it is?

It's once again in direct contradiction with your statements.

So are you then saying this God would have morality then?

Your god isn't a "species". It's a fantastical, unfalsifiable, unsupportable character that only seems to exist in bronze age stories and thus is indistinguishable from imagination.

No, I'm talking about actual biological creatures that demonstrably exist.

I disagree with all of that

All of it are demonstrable facts. You can disagree as much as you want. It won't change the facts.

But, why does inflicting suffering to an evil doer immoral?

Because it turns you into an evil doer as well.....
This "eye for an eye" nonsense is pre-medieval bs and the world has moved on from it, for good reason.

The only countries that still premit it, or permit things close to it, are backwards nations where oppression, suffering and misery are the norm.

You see what you just did? You asserted that torture is immoral because it causes suffering, therefore suffering is immoral.

Causing suffering, is immoral.

Why is inflicting a punishable suffering immoral?

I already told you.
But you choose to disbelief the facts.
If you won't accept the facts, then there's really not much else to tell you.

I dont study enough of other countries to be able to give you an example.

In other words: you can't name me a single country where life is better and torture is acceptable, then in a country where things like torture isn't acceptable.

But i can paint you a picture of a society id agree with.

One where there is basic laws and the punishment for breaking those basic laws is very, very severe. Basic laws would mean theres not excessive laws where it stifles freedom.

We have several examples of such. Not a single one even rises to the ankles of humanist western secular democracies in terms of societal health.

We also know for a fact that harsher punishments aren't a deterrent to crime at all.
For example: the US has capital punishment for certain types of crimes.
Yet, those specific types of crimes are A LOT MORE COMMON in the US as opposed to western democracies that do NOT have capital punishment at all.

Having said that, you also completely ignore the mental/psychological damage such practices cause on society at large.

Your view is extremely narrow and it sounds like you are completely oblivious on the history of how secular humanism developed and why it is the norm these days in the civilised first world.

Yes, there are very good reasons why such countries (except the US) don't have capital punishment anymore. There are very good reasons why such countries no longer use physical punishments like lashes, eye for an eye, torture and other such barbaric nonsense.

And better societies with better societal health are a direct result of leaving such barbarism behind.

Why is it unsetling?

Because it sounds very psychopathic/sociopathic.

Or, mayby our punishments have been made less severe, our freedoms have been robbed and our standards (laws) have become excessive.

Or maybe you just haven't thought any of this through. Still waiting on you to name me a single country where stuff like torture is acceptable and where life is better then in a secular humanist society where such barbarism is condemned to history and considered extremely immoral.

Do you think there was no intelligence behind barbaric punishments? Oh there surely was. Destroy incentive to do wrong. Punish only the evil doer, not everyone else with excessive laws, stifling freedom.

More backwards assertions with no evidence.
And again rather unsettling to see the complete lack of any hint of a proper moral compass whatsoever.


I find myself on an internet forum in the 21st century talking to a christian, having to explain to him that torture is immoral. And this guy wants to lecture me about morality....

Mindblowing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe there are medicines that can block spiritual communication just as there are medicines that can put a person in a coma but why would a person want that unless there is an actual problem?

Ow boy.

So do you believe that there is no such thing as actual hallucination?

 

[Jollybear]

Why not?

Is there some rule that states that eternal beings can only be benevolent flower power goodie-goodies?​

Theres no rule, but, it seams it be reasonable to assume an eternal, perfect God would be benevolent, goodie goodie.

Not all, correct.
Do you know what happens to those that don't

Probably really painfull things, like torture?

So he'ld use some god magic on me so that I suddenly think it's okay and not at all evil to submit people to eternal torture?

What would be the point of that, other then me not being bothered anymore to having to worship a deeply evil monster because of no longer being able to recognise it as such monster due to what-i-can-only-describe as magical brainwashing?

The point in him changing your heart would be because you asked and because he and you know you would not be able to serve him forever with a heart that thinks hes a monster.

But, you still havent answered my question. Would you ask him to change your heart if you found out eternal torture was real and he gave you that option?

You say "that's correct", but it directly contradicts what you stated previously....

I dont see how.

/facepalm

Name me one society where torture is legal and permitted, under any circumstances, where life is better then in the country where you currently reside in, where it is not permitted (assuming you live in some western secular humanist democracy)

I'll go ahead and assume that you'll completely fail to name me such a country that has objectively better statistical "societal health" indexes. The real world once again doesn't seem to be in line with your morally bankrupt views.

My reason for not naming one isnt because there isnt one, its because i have not studied it in order to know. And even if i did study it, i have not lived there to see it.

Why is life better in a society where such barbarism and/or "eye for an eye" mentality isn't permitted, objectively better then in societies where it is?

Because justice is where people pay by what they met out thenselves.

It's once again in direct contradiction with your statements.

I dont see how an eye for an eye type punishment is a contradiction?

Your god isn't a "species". It's a fantastical, unfalsifiable, unsupportable character that only seems to exist in bronze age stories and thus is indistinguishable from imagination.

Thats not true. Intelligent design in nature reveals God, just like a car reveals an engineer.

Also near death experiences reveal this God as well.

No, I'm talking about actual biological creatures that demonstrably exist.

You still did not answer my question.

Assume God exists for a moment. Would you think he has morals, atleast to some extent?

All of it are demonstrable facts. You can disagree as much as you want. It won't change the facts.

Your facts are way oversimplified and in alot of ways misrepresent alot of good religion and spirituality and religious believers. I think you KNOW this as well. Why do i think you know this? Because i think your smart.

Because it turns you into an evil doer as well.....
This "eye for an eye" nonsense is pre-medieval bs and the world has moved on from it, for good reason.

The whole world has moved on from it?

Its BS only be assertion?

It makes me a evil doer as well? How?

Lets go back to my scenario where wife gets kidnapped, rapped, tortured, killed and robbed. Then i find the killer and torture him in the same ways he did to my wife. How does that make me an evil doer when he is simply being punished for his evil? Are you saying punishing is evil? If theres no punishment, there is no justice. And no justice, THAT is evil.

The only countries that still premit it, or permit things close to it, are backwards nations where oppression, suffering and misery are the norm.

I dont know that, id need proof theres no country that does torture, and its citazins dont like the system.

suffering, is immoral.

Ok, so in the current system, man tortures wife and simply goes to jail, but is not tortured in return.

Is being jailed for life, or capital punishment, are those things a form of suffering?

I already told you.
But you choose to disbelief the facts.
If you won't accept the facts, then there's really not much else to tell you.

No, you failed at answering my new question. First i asked why is torturing immoral? You DID answer that by saying because it causes suffering. Then i asked you a new question. I asked why is inflicting suffering on another as a form of pubishment for there evil, why is that evil? You did NOT answer THAT.

We also know for a fact that harsher punishments aren't a deterrent to crime at all.

For example: the US has capital punishment for certain types of crimes.
Yet, those specific types of crimes are A LOT MORE COMMON in the US as opposed to western democracies that do NOT have capital punishment at all.

Do you have proof of that? I remember talking to a muslim lady once, from kuwaite. She told me the crime rate was vertually none existent due to the severe punishments put on crime.

Having said that, you also completely ignore the mental/psychological damage such practices cause on society at large.

I think it would give relief to the people who have been wronged.

Your view is extremely narrow and it sounds like you are completely oblivious on the history of how secular humanism developed and why it is the norm these days in the civilised first world.

Lol, i think YOUR view is narrow.

Yes, there are very good reasons why such countries (except the US) don't have capital punishment anymore. There are very good reasons why such countries no longer use physical punishments like lashes, eye for an eye, torture and other such barbaric nonsense.

Ok, and what are those so called good reasons these countries throw out severe punishment?

And better societies with better societal health are a direct result of leaving such barbarism behind.

Example? Also, what do you mean by societal health? Sounds a bit subjective to me.

Because it sounds very psychopathic/sociopathic.

This is merely your description. Your not telling me an actual reason why me torturing my wifes torturer is actually wrong.​

I find myself on an internet forum in the 21st century talking to a christian, having to explain to him that torture is immoral. And this guy wants to lecture me about morality....

Mindblowing.

I find myself on an internet forum in the 21st century talking to a naturalist, having to explain to him that torture in the form of punishment is moral. And this guy wants to lecture me about morality....

Mindblowing

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Theres no rule, but, it seams it be reasonable to assume an eternal, perfect God would be benevolent, goodie goodie. ​

Why?
What possible valid reasoning could lead to such an assumption?

It seems to me that you just assume that, because that is what you WANT to be true. Or simply because your are required to actually believe that due to the religious doctrines you are requird to adhere to.

Objectively though, I don't see how assuming that would be any more vaid then to assume a douche.

Even more in line with the actual evidence though, is to assume no gods exist at all. ;-)

The point in him changing your heart would be because you asked and because he and you know you would not be able to serve him forever with a heart that thinks hes a monster.

My heart pumps blood. It's my brain that does the thinking.

But, you still havent answered my question. Would you ask him to change your heart if you found out eternal torture was real and he gave you that option?

To me this sounds like asking him to brainwash me into thinking that unethical things are not unethical at all. Perhaps you can rephrase your question without using vague poetic language like "changing my heart" - because I don't know what that means.

Now, it sounds to me like you are saying that I should ask him to make me believe that 2+2 equals 5 instead of 4. His God magic might be able to make me think that, but I'ld just be wrong off course.

I dont see how.

You said morality was created by your god. That would mean that your god created some kind of rulebook about what is moral and what isn't.
Then you agreed to the idea that morality is developped over time by humans. It's one or the other. Both statements can't be correct as they are mutually exclusive.

My reason for not naming one isnt because there isnt one, its because i have not studied it in order to know. And even if i did study it, i have not lived there to see it.

In other words, just like I said, you have NO such examples and you can't demonstrate or support your nonsense. You're thus just making assertions and assuming them to be true - not even bothering to check how nations that permitted torture and eye-for-an-eye mentality compare to nations that don't allow such.

Maybe you should do your homework first and then try again.

Because justice is where people pay by what they met out thenselves.

No idea what that is supposed to mean.

I dont see how an eye for an eye type punishment is a contradiction?

Please read with a bit more attention.
REALITY is in contradiction with your statements. Because not a single country that allows such practices is better off then countries that doesn't. ALL nations, bar none, that does NOT allow such barbarism performs better then nations that do. It's that simple.

Off course, you wouldn't know because, as per your own admission, you never even bothered to look it up. You just have your beliefs and you assume they are true and correct, never bothering to actually check if they are actually correct.

Thats not true

Yes it is.

Intelligent design in nature reveals God, just like a car reveals an engineer.

More baseless assertions.

Also near death experiences reveal this God as well.

Except that NDE people always tend to experience those things in context of the religions they happen to follow or be surrounded with. By definition, they can't all be correct.

And off course, if you are going to ignore, or not bother to look up, the scientific understanding of these experiences... well....

Yet another example of an assumed conclusion based on a priori faith based, unsupported, beliefs.

You still did not answer my question.
Assume God exists for a moment. Would you think he has morals, atleast to some extent?

I don't have a clue. You'ld have to show me this god first so I can study it.
How could I draw objective conclusions from things that are indistinguishable from imagination?

At best, I can look at specific gods in various religious and judge / evaluate their ethics from the mythologies, just like we can evaluate the ethics of characters like Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, based on how the books and movies depict them.

So when it comes to Jawhe in the bible, I'ld have to say that this dude is rather evil.

He's petty, commands and carries out genocides, explicitly allows and even regulates slavery, etc.

Your facts are way oversimplified

No, they aren't. They are factual conclusions of studies in psychology, psychiatry, etc.

and in alot of ways misrepresent alot of good religion and spirituality and religious believers.

???

I was giving you facts concerning the consequences of people torturing people. It matters not if the motivations to do so are religious or if the torturerer is religious or the tortured is religious.

The outcome is the same.

The whole world has moved on from it?

Its BS only be assertion?

It makes me a evil doer as well? How?

I already told you. You choose to ignore the facts.

Lets go back to my scenario where wife gets kidnapped, rapped, tortured, killed and robbed. Then i find the killer and torture him in the same ways he did to my wife. How does that make me an evil doer when he is simply being punished for his evil? Are you saying punishing is evil? If theres no punishment, there is no justice. .

You're not talking about punishment.
You are talking about gruesome revenge.

And no justice, THAT is evil

Then your god is evil when he forgives, since forgiveness is the suspension of justice. ;-)

I dont know that

That's because you never bothered to look it up, as per your own admission.
Perhaps you should.

, id need proof theres no country that does torture, and its citazins dont like the system.

Plenty of examples to choose from.
Like North Korea or some middle eastern hellhole.

Go to look up a top 20 of "best countries to live in" (in terms of security, peace, personal freedom, life expectancy, literacy, prosperity, overall well being, etc). I guarantee you that not a single one of them will be permitting things like torture, eye-for-an-eye, "street justice", etc.

At the same time, ALL of them will have a very high presence of secular humanism in its overall policies and culture.

Why do you think that is?

Ok, so in the current system, man tortures wife and simply goes to jail, but is not tortured in return.
Is being jailed for life, or capital punishment, are those things a form of suffering?

Jail time is being robbed of personal freedom and being confined to a cell. The point here is not to cause suffering. The point is to remove them from society both as punishment as well as making society safer, while at the same time some form of rehabilitation as preparation to return to society when jail time is over.

I'm opposed to capital punishment, for much the same reason as I am opposed to eye for an eye or torture.

Does it cause suffering? Well, it certainly doesn't cause happiness and well-being. What it doesn't do, is cause lasting suffering. There's no permanent trauma on either side. If people would be tortured in jail, they'ld come out worse then when they entered.

It's also a question of leading by example.
The point is to treat humans humanely. If you try fighting fire with fire, you're only going to cause more fire.
As is shown every day in every country that engages in such gruesome practices.

No, you failed at answering my new question. First i asked why is torturing immoral? You DID answer that by saying because it causes suffering. Then i asked you a new question. I asked why is inflicting suffering on another as a form of pubishment for there evil, why is that evil? You did NOT answer THAT.

My answer is that it's evil for the exact same reasons.
For me there are no circumstances in which torture would ever be the ethical thing to do.
No good comes of it. Ever.

Do you have proof of that?

Are you kidding?
Just compare the proportional murder count, or just overal crime rates, of the US to any other western secular democracy that does not have capital punishment.

I think it would give relief to the people who have been wronged.

You think that, but all studies and practice show otherwise, which is why civilised nations where life is good do not allow it.

Lol, i think YOUR view is narrow.

Because I actually only believe those things that are supported by evidence and don't just "assume" I'm right without actually looking things up and doing research like you are doing?

Ok, and what are those so called good reasons these countries throw out severe punishment?

I already gave them. Essentially the same reasons why torture is immoral.
But you don't accept the facts, so yea.....

Example? Also, what do you mean by societal health? Sounds a bit subjective to me.

It's an overal "rating" of a society through various parameters / statistical indexes.
Things like: safety, security, crime rates, overal literacy, health, well-being, prosperity,....

This is merely your description. Your not telling me an actual reason why me torturing my wifes torturer is actually wrong.

I already told you. You didn't accept the facts.​

I find myself on an internet forum in the 21st century talking to a naturalist

I'm not a naturalist.

, having to explain to him that torture in the form of punishment is moral. And this guy wants to lecture me about morality....

Mindblowing

You're not explaining that. You're just asserting it. And when asked for examples, you say you can't give them because you haven't looked into it.....

 

[Jollybear]

Why?
What possible valid reasoning could lead to such an assumption?

It seems to me that you just assume that, because that is what you WANT to be true. Or simply because your are required to actually believe that due to the religious doctrines you are requird to adhere to.

Objectively though, I don't see how assuming that would be any more vaid then to assume a douche.

Even more in line with the actual evidence though, is to assume no gods exist at all. ;-)




My heart pumps blood. It's my brain that does the thinking.



To me this sounds like asking him to brainwash me into thinking that unethical things are not unethical at all. Perhaps you can rephrase your question without using vague poetic language like "changing my heart" - because I don't know what that means.

Now, it sounds to me like you are saying that I should ask him to make me believe that 2+2 equals 5 instead of 4. His God magic might be able to make me think that, but I'ld just be wrong off course.



You said morality was created by your god. That would mean that your god created some kind of rulebook about what is moral and what isn't.
Then you agreed to the idea that morality is developped over time by humans. It's one or the other. Both statements can't be correct as they are mutually exclusive.



In other words, just like I said, you have NO such examples and you can't demonstrate or support your nonsense. You're thus just making assertions and assuming them to be true - not even bothering to check how nations that permitted torture and eye-for-an-eye mentality compare to nations that don't allow such.

Maybe you should do your homework first and then try again.




No idea what that is supposed to mean.



Please read with a bit more attention.
REALITY is in contradiction with your statements. Because not a single country that allows such practices is better off then countries that doesn't. ALL nations, bar none, that does NOT allow such barbarism performs better then nations that do. It's that simple.

Off course, you wouldn't know because, as per your own admission, you never even bothered to look it up. You just have your beliefs and you assume they are true and correct, never bothering to actually check if they are actually correct.




Yes it is.



More baseless assertions.



Except that NDE people always tend to experience those things in context of the religions they happen to follow or be surrounded with. By definition, they can't all be correct.

And off course, if you are going to ignore, or not bother to look up, the scientific understanding of these experiences... well....

Yet another example of an assumed conclusion based on a priori faith based, unsupported, beliefs.




I don't have a clue. You'ld have to show me this god first so I can study it.
How could I draw objective conclusions from things that are indistinguishable from imagination?

At best, I can look at specific gods in various religious and judge / evaluate their ethics from the mythologies, just like we can evaluate the ethics of characters like Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, based on how the books and movies depict them.

So when it comes to Jawhe in the bible, I'ld have to say that this dude is rather evil.

He's petty, commands and carries out genocides, explicitly allows and even regulates slavery, etc.



No, they aren't. They are factual conclusions of studies in psychology, psychiatry, etc.



???

I was giving you facts concerning the consequences of people torturing people. It matters not if the motivations to do so are religious or if the torturerer is religious or the tortured is religious.

The outcome is the same.



I already told you. You choose to ignore the facts.



You're not talking about punishment.
You are talking about gruesome revenge.



Then your god is evil when he forgives, since forgiveness is the suspension of justice. ;-)



That's because you never bothered to look it up, as per your own admission.
Perhaps you should.



Plenty of examples to choose from.
Like North Korea or some middle eastern hellhole.

Go to look up a top 20 of "best countries to live in" (in terms of security, peace, personal freedom, life expectancy, literacy, prosperity, overall well being, etc). I guarantee you that not a single one of them will be permitting things like torture, eye-for-an-eye, "street justice", etc.

At the same time, ALL of them will have a very high presence of secular humanism in its overall policies and culture.

Why do you think that is?


Jail time is being robbed of personal freedom and being confined to a cell. The point here is not to cause suffering. The point is to remove them from society both as punishment as well as making society safer, while at the same time some form of rehabilitation as preparation to return to society when jail time is over.

I'm opposed to capital punishment, for much the same reason as I am opposed to eye for an eye or torture.

Does it cause suffering? Well, it certainly doesn't cause happiness and well-being. What it doesn't do, is cause lasting suffering. There's no permanent trauma on either side. If people would be tortured in jail, they'ld come out worse then when they entered.

It's also a question of leading by example.
The point is to treat humans humanely. If you try fighting fire with fire, you're only going to cause more fire.
As is shown every day in every country that engages in such gruesome practices.




My answer is that it's evil for the exact same reasons.
For me there are no circumstances in which torture would ever be the ethical thing to do.
No good comes of it. Ever.



Are you kidding?
Just compare the proportional murder count, or just overal crime rates, of the US to any other western secular democracy that does not have capital punishment.

View attachment 28735




You think that, but all studies and practice show otherwise, which is why civilised nations where life is good do not allow it.



Because I actually only believe those things that are supported by evidence and don't just "assume" I'm right without actually looking things up and doing research like you are doing?





I already gave them. Essentially the same reasons why torture is immoral.
But you don't accept the facts, so yea.....





It's an overal "rating" of a society through various parameters / statistical indexes.
Things like: safety, security, crime rates, overal literacy, health, well-being, prosperity,....



I already told you. You didn't accept the facts.​

I'm not a naturalist.



You're not explaining that. You're just asserting it. And when asked for examples, you say you can't give them because you haven't looked into it.....

I got an idea. How about i shorten this and ask you one, very specific question, that way you can devout proper attention to the point.

Give me solid reasons why torturing my wifes torturer is wrong?

You said because its revenge.

Ok, yea, and your point being? So what if its revenge? Its still punishing the killer and thus is justice.

How is it evil on my part?

 

[Jollybear]

Why?
What possible valid reasoning could lead to such an assumption?

It seems to me that you just assume that, because that is what you WANT to be true. Or simply because your are required to actually believe that due to the religious doctrines you are requird to adhere to.

Objectively though, I don't see how assuming that would be any more vaid then to assume a douche.

Even more in line with the actual evidence though, is to assume no gods exist at all. ;-)




My heart pumps blood. It's my brain that does the thinking.



To me this sounds like asking him to brainwash me into thinking that unethical things are not unethical at all. Perhaps you can rephrase your question without using vague poetic language like "changing my heart" - because I don't know what that means.

Now, it sounds to me like you are saying that I should ask him to make me believe that 2+2 equals 5 instead of 4. His God magic might be able to make me think that, but I'ld just be wrong off course.



You said morality was created by your god. That would mean that your god created some kind of rulebook about what is moral and what isn't.
Then you agreed to the idea that morality is developped over time by humans. It's one or the other. Both statements can't be correct as they are mutually exclusive.



In other words, just like I said, you have NO such examples and you can't demonstrate or support your nonsense. You're thus just making assertions and assuming them to be true - not even bothering to check how nations that permitted torture and eye-for-an-eye mentality compare to nations that don't allow such.

Maybe you should do your homework first and then try again.




No idea what that is supposed to mean.



Please read with a bit more attention.
REALITY is in contradiction with your statements. Because not a single country that allows such practices is better off then countries that doesn't. ALL nations, bar none, that does NOT allow such barbarism performs better then nations that do. It's that simple.

Off course, you wouldn't know because, as per your own admission, you never even bothered to look it up. You just have your beliefs and you assume they are true and correct, never bothering to actually check if they are actually correct.




Yes it is.



More baseless assertions.



Except that NDE people always tend to experience those things in context of the religions they happen to follow or be surrounded with. By definition, they can't all be correct.

And off course, if you are going to ignore, or not bother to look up, the scientific understanding of these experiences... well....

Yet another example of an assumed conclusion based on a priori faith based, unsupported, beliefs.




I don't have a clue. You'ld have to show me this god first so I can study it.
How could I draw objective conclusions from things that are indistinguishable from imagination?

At best, I can look at specific gods in various religious and judge / evaluate their ethics from the mythologies, just like we can evaluate the ethics of characters like Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, based on how the books and movies depict them.

So when it comes to Jawhe in the bible, I'ld have to say that this dude is rather evil.

He's petty, commands and carries out genocides, explicitly allows and even regulates slavery, etc.



No, they aren't. They are factual conclusions of studies in psychology, psychiatry, etc.



???

I was giving you facts concerning the consequences of people torturing people. It matters not if the motivations to do so are religious or if the torturerer is religious or the tortured is religious.

The outcome is the same.



I already told you. You choose to ignore the facts.



You're not talking about punishment.
You are talking about gruesome revenge.



Then your god is evil when he forgives, since forgiveness is the suspension of justice. ;-)



That's because you never bothered to look it up, as per your own admission.
Perhaps you should.



Plenty of examples to choose from.
Like North Korea or some middle eastern hellhole.

Go to look up a top 20 of "best countries to live in" (in terms of security, peace, personal freedom, life expectancy, literacy, prosperity, overall well being, etc). I guarantee you that not a single one of them will be permitting things like torture, eye-for-an-eye, "street justice", etc.

At the same time, ALL of them will have a very high presence of secular humanism in its overall policies and culture.

Why do you think that is?


Jail time is being robbed of personal freedom and being confined to a cell. The point here is not to cause suffering. The point is to remove them from society both as punishment as well as making society safer, while at the same time some form of rehabilitation as preparation to return to society when jail time is over.

I'm opposed to capital punishment, for much the same reason as I am opposed to eye for an eye or torture.

Does it cause suffering? Well, it certainly doesn't cause happiness and well-being. What it doesn't do, is cause lasting suffering. There's no permanent trauma on either side. If people would be tortured in jail, they'ld come out worse then when they entered.

It's also a question of leading by example.
The point is to treat humans humanely. If you try fighting fire with fire, you're only going to cause more fire.
As is shown every day in every country that engages in such gruesome practices.




My answer is that it's evil for the exact same reasons.
For me there are no circumstances in which torture would ever be the ethical thing to do.
No good comes of it. Ever.



Are you kidding?
Just compare the proportional murder count, or just overal crime rates, of the US to any other western secular democracy that does not have capital punishment.

View attachment 28735




You think that, but all studies and practice show otherwise, which is why civilised nations where life is good do not allow it.



Because I actually only believe those things that are supported by evidence and don't just "assume" I'm right without actually looking things up and doing research like you are doing?





I already gave them. Essentially the same reasons why torture is immoral.
But you don't accept the facts, so yea.....





It's an overal "rating" of a society through various parameters / statistical indexes.
Things like: safety, security, crime rates, overal literacy, health, well-being, prosperity,....



I already told you. You didn't accept the facts.​

I'm not a naturalist.



You're not explaining that. You're just asserting it. And when asked for examples, you say you can't give them because you haven't looked into it.....

Your also saying countries that dont torture are more prosperious and healthy.

Heres the thing too about that, your not being very specific when you say this. On top of it, theres MANY reasons why a country would be healthy or prosperious. It would not just be one reason, like how they punish there criminals.

So, your way oversimplifying how a country is built.

This does not surprise me though that you do this.

For instence, do you really believe that if tomorow the united states changed some of there punishment laws to torturing a torturer, killing a killer, ect, that all there technological advancements, health and prosperity would go away?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your also saying countries that dont torture are more prosperious and healthy.

Heres the thing too about that, your not being very specific when you say this.

That's because I'm not being specific.
Overall countries that prohibit barbarism like torture provide a better life to citizens then countries that don't.
And "better life" here, is all-encompassing. From rates of literacy to low infant mortality, lower poverty rates, low famine, high life expectancy, good mental health and happiness indexes, individual freedoms, equality among citizens, etc etc etc etc.

Is one caused by the other? No. Or not necessarily. However, the correlation is clearly there.
Allowing torture in any form, speaks to what one can and cannot expect from such leaders - and what you can expect is not much good...

On top of it, theres MANY reasons why a country would be healthy or prosperious.

Sure.
I don't know of any country where life is upto a standard so that I would want to live there, while allowing barbaric things like torture.

The point. You're missing it.

It would not just be one reason, like how they punish there criminals.

How they punish their criminals, speaks to their humanity (or lack thereof).
And that, in and of itself, tells you something. If they think torture is okay, you may be quite sure that they are going to find other gruesome things okay as well. It's a mentality and state of mind that penetrates all their policies.

It's not about the torture itself. It's about the kind of mind that thinks torture is okay.

So, your way oversimplifying how a country is built.

No, you're just missing the point entirely.

For instence, do you really believe that if tomorow the united states changed some of there punishment laws to torturing a torturer, killing a killer, ect, that all there technological advancements, health and prosperity would go away?

Let's switch that around...

Do you believe it would have become the country that it is today, with all that prosperity, if they never would have abolished slavery, would always have considered things like torture okay, would have placed headless bloody bodies of publicly executed criminals, in gruesome ways, on display for all to see until they start to decompose etc etc etc? I say it most definatly wouldn't.

Because freedom, security, peacefullness, respect for human rights, etc etc is what forms the feeding ground to prosper as a nation. And by that I mean, the people prospering and having equal opportunity for doing so - not the state itself.

If the US would today make torture normal, and allow guys like you to torture the dude who murdered your wife or whatever, then it would completely poison their society.
A new generation growing up in that society will lack social empathy skills etc.

It's detrimental to society.

No, it wouldn't turn overnight, obviously it would take time for a superpower to slip into irrelevancy.


Still waiting on an example of a country in which barbaric practices like torture are legal, while it performs on equal level as secular humanist democracies in terms of overall societal health. Not holding my breath though.

 

[Jollybear]

That's because I'm not being specific.

Thats the problem, not being specific. Its a bit pointless debating generalities.

Overall

countries that prohibit barbarism like torture provide a better life to citizens then countries that don't.
And "better life" here, is all-encompassing. From rates of literacy to low infant mortality, lower poverty rates, low famine, high life expectancy, good mental health and happiness indexes, individual freedoms, equality among citizens, etc etc etc etc.

See what you just did AGAIN? You correlated all those things together. Wer not talking about literacy to low infant mortality, lower poverty rates, low famine, high life expectancy, good mental health and happiness indexes, individual freedoms, equality among citizens, etc etc etc etc, were talking about a very specific kind of punishment. But you want to add in all these rabbit trail correlations that have no proven causations.

Is one caused by the other? No. Or not necessarily.

Glad you see that, now, would you mind getting off it?

However, the correlation is clearly there.

How you punish a criminal has no bearing on how people will innovate and prosper there lives. How do you figure otherwise?

Allowing torture in any form, speaks to what one can and cannot expect from such leaders - and what you can expect is not much good...

Thats your assumption, whats your reason dor it, a solid reason, make it very specific.

Sure, i don't know of any country where life is upto a standard so that I would want to live there, while allowing barbaric things like torture.

There you go again. People cant be healthy, innovative, good, prosperious if they punish SOME criminals via torture.

The point. You're missing it.

Help me get the point then.

How they punish their criminals, speaks to their humanity (or lack thereof).
And that, in and of itself, tells you something.

Tells you something? Tells me WHAT?

If they think torture is okay, you may be quite sure that they are going to find other gruesome things okay as well. It's a mentality and state of mind that penetrates all their policies.

Really? How do you know that? Another assumption.

I dont find other gruesome things okey. But, in the case of very evil criminals, they must get a taste of there own medicine. It dont mean i take pleasure or delight in the torture of them. It means i believe this person needs to feel what its like to get done to him what he did to others.

It's not about the torture itself. It's about the kind of mind that thinks torture is okay.

Oh so you know what kind of mind i have huh? What kind of mind then would desire torture to someone who tortured my wife? A mind bent on justice, or a mind that takes pleasure in it?

Let's switch that around...

Do you believe it would have become the country that it is today, with all that prosperity, if they never would have abolished slavery, would always have considered things like torture okay, would have placed headless bloody bodies of publicly executed criminals, in gruesome ways, on display for all to see until they start to decompose etc etc etc? I say it most definatly wouldn't.

Why wouldnt it? All your doing is assuming this.

And again, you keep stubbornly doing this, you keep bringing into my specific issue, all these other issues.

Because freedom, security, peacefullness, respect for human rights, etc etc is what forms the feeding ground to prosper as a nation. And by that I mean, the people prospering and having equal opportunity for doing so - not the state itself.

If the US would today make torture normal, and allow guys like you to torture the dude who murdered your wife or whatever, then it would completely poison their society.
A new generation growing up in that society will lack social empathy skills etc.

Again, how do you know that?

It's detrimental to society.

How do you know that?

No, it wouldn't turn overnight, obviously it would take time for a superpower to slip into irrelevancy.


Still waiting on an example of a country in which barbaric practices like torture are legal, while it performs on equal level as secular humanist democracies in terms of overall societal health. Not holding my breath though.

Still waiting on you to give me specific reasons why torturing my wifes torturer/killer is wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tells you something? Tells me WHAT?

It tells you that you are dealing with people with low empathy and high barbarity levels.
When such a mentality dominates a society, it is never good news for that society. Or its neighbours.

Really? How do you know that? Another assumption.

No, not an assumption.

This is why you don't see torture being normal in societies that consider humanistic values and human rights important.

Oh so you know what kind of mind i have huh?

If you defend the practice of torture and think it should be okay to do it, then that surely tells me something about your mindset, yes.

And again, you keep stubbornly doing this, you keep bringing into my specific issue, all these other issues.

Because the underlying issue is larger then just the one specific example.

Again, how do you know that?
How do you know that?

Basic human psychology and the evidence of reality of every society that ever existed and still exists.
You know... the data you previously said that you didn't bother looking into.

I'm not making assumptions: I'm basing my stance on actual evidence and data from what we know about human psychology and the evidence of reality - what actually happens in the world and how it correlates to eachother.

YOU are the one making assumptions as per your own admission that you never looked into how allowing things like torture might / will affect a society or cultur at large.

Can you see the irony here?

Still waiting on you to give me specific reasons why torturing my wifes torturer/killer is wrong.

I already gave them. You choose to disagree with the facts.

 

[Jollybear]

It tells you that you are dealing with people with low empathy and high barbarity levels.
When such a mentality dominates a society, it is never good news for that society. Or its neighbours.

Were not talking about torturing every crime. Were talking about torture of SOME crimes. The intent for this kind of punishment isnt because of low empathy, but because of high justice.

No, not an assumption.

This is why you don't see torture being normal in societies that consider humanistic values and human rights important.

So whos rights should overide the others right? The husband who says he has a right to torture his wifes torturer/killer or the torturer/killers right to have a free ride in jail at the tax payers expense? Whos right should overide here and WHY?

If you defend the practice of torture and think it should be okay to do it, then that surely tells me something about your mindset, yes.

Ok, so what does it tell you about my mindset? Ill tell you what it really tells you, it tells you that i have high priority for justice, people get a dose of there own medicine. People pay for there crimes. Society dont pay for it via tax dollars.

Because the underlying issue is larger then just the one specific example.

And how do you know that?

Basic human psychology and the evidence of reality of every society that ever existed and still exists.
You know... the data you previously said that you didn't bother looking into.

Your data wont say no such thing, every country is severely complicated in all there issues.

Im appealing to you on the grounds of simple logic here.

Also i gave you an example of a woman in kuwaite, sge said the crime rate was vertually none due to severe punishment laws.

I'm not making assumptions: I'm basing my stance on actual evidence and data from what we know about human psychology and the evidence of reality - what actually happens in the world and how it correlates to eachother.

Your oversimplifying things.

YOU are the one making assumptions as per your own admission that you never looked into how allowing things like torture might / will affect a society or cultur at large.

The whole country at large is not just made up of how they punish there criminals! Come on.

Can you see the irony here?

Can you?

I already gave them. You choose to disagree with the facts.

Like hell you showed facts, you havent even given me a straight answer to a logical question of why its wrong for a husband to torture his wifes torturer/killer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Were not talking about torturing every crime. Were talking about torture of SOME crimes. The intent for this kind of punishment isnt because of low empathy, but because of high justice.

I'm just talking about torture, no matter the excuse given.

So whos rights should overide the others right?

Nobody's rights override the rights of others.
That's kind of the whole concept of equal rights...

The husband who says he has a right to torture his wifes torturer/killer or the torturer/killers right to have a free ride in jail at the tax payers expense? Whos right should overide here and WHY?

Street justice and eye-for-an-eye barbarity, is not a right.
Your question is invalid.

Ok, so what does it tell you about my mindset?

I already told you.
That, and in case of the specific example you have given: that you are letting your emotions get the better of you. Which, incidently, is exactly the underlying reason of having an impartial justice system like we do....

Ill tell you what it really tells you, it tells you that i have high priority for justice

No. It tells me you have high priorities on personal revenge and eye-for-an-eye street justice barbarity.
Justice and revenge are not the same thing.

And how do you know that?

Because unlike you, I actually looked into it.

Your data wont say no such thing, every country is severely complicated in all there issues.

Every statistic tells me exactly that.
I know of no society that does well in societal health indexes, which also allows barbarity like torture.
This is a fact.

I asked you for a single example where that isn't true. Did you find one already?

Also i gave you an example of a woman in kuwaite, sge said the crime rate was vertually none due to severe punishment laws.

That's an anecdote, not actual data.
Kuwait furthermore pledged to respect human rights.
if they are serious about that, then torture shouldn't be legal or common practice there.

Also:
Kuwait (Ranked 66th) :: Legatum Prosperity Index 2018

It doesn't seem to be performing all that well.

Take a look at the overall ranking as well:

Rankings :: Legatum Prosperity Index 2018

Look at what type of countries dominate the top 20.
Now look what type of countries dominate the bottom 20.

And honestly ask yourself the question in which of these 40 countries you are more likely to witness legal barbarity like torture etc.



You don't seem to understand that the various policies on a wide range of topics, are all extension from a central core theme / ideology / mentality.

You can work your way backwards to that core them, if all you know are a couple of the specific policies.
In that sense, specific policies become "symptoms" of certain political/societal ideals.

So yes, knowing to form of rule, you can make educated guesses about what kind of policies you are likely to find there or not. And the reverse is also the case: knowing certain policies, you can make educated guesses about what forms of rule they come from or which forms they won't be a part of.

Your oversimplifying things.

No. Instead, you seem in complete denial.

The whole country at large is not just made up of how they punish there criminals! Come on.

Please read my statement as I actually wrote it, instead of replying to some strawman please.

I repeat:
YOU are the one making assumptions as per your own admission that you never looked into how allowing things like torture might / will affect a society or cultur at large.

Note that I wasn't even talking about criminals. I wasn't even talking about WHY or WHEN torture were to be used. I'm just talking about the act of torture itself - no matter in what context you do it.

And I pointed out that you, as per your own admission, have never looked into how allowing things LIKE torture ("like", thus means, among other things like it) might or will affect a society at large.


I advice you to actually do so before continuing.

Name me a country where torture, for whatever reason, is just a-okay and that finds itself in top countries to live in according to societal health indexes (which is about the most objective data you can use to evaluate life in countries).


Also, not that here I am even throwing you a bone and JUST talking about AUTHORITIES being able to use torture for whatever reason. While the example YOU are advocating here, is about YOU, "just" a citizen", being allowed to torture someone as an act of revenge in quite literally "street justice" vengefull ways.

Like hell you showed facts, you havent even given me a straight answer to a logical question of why its wrong for a husband to torture his wifes torturer/killer.

I did plenty of posts ago.
Post 98 to be exact:

It causes suffering.
It causes permanent, or at least lasting, psychological harm.
It decentizes the torturer's trait of empathy (that, or it also psychologically harms him/her)

In short: no good can come from it.

Case in point: name me one society where torture is common practice and acceptable where you would rather live as opposed to a society where such isn't the norm.


By the way: I'm still waiting on the name of such a society.
When are you going to meet that challenge?

I mean, your stance is that allowing things like torture do not have any negative impact on society, right?
Then surely you'ld be able to name at least one country where they have torture and where life is good.

Correlation does not imply causation, sure.
But why is it, that out of the top X countries with high societal health indexes, not a SINGLE ONE allows torture?

And why is, that out of the BOTTOM X countries, practically all of them do?

 

[Jollybear]

I'm just talking about torture, no matter the excuse given.

Thats the problem, your being too general and not accounting for my specific so called "excuse" given.

In discussions of disagreement, things need to be taken into account on the perit of there reasoning.

Nobody's rights override the rights of others.
That's kind of the whole concept of equal rights...

Thats hogwash and flies in the face of pure common sense.

The husband wants the right to have that man tortured, that man wants the right to have a lesser sentence or hell, no sentence.

Whos right should be taken into effect, the husband whos wife was tortured and killed or that evil man who tortured and killed the wife?

Street justice and eye-for-an-eye barbarity, is not a right.
Your question is invalid.

My question is VERY valid. Im not just talking about street justice, im talking about the system should have it that the torturer to the innocents be tortured as there punishment. Whats wrong with that? If its part of the governing system, then its not chaotic street justice.

I already told you.
That, and in case of the specific example you have given: that you are letting your emotions get the better of you. Which, incidently, is exactly the underlying reason of having an impartial justice system like we do....

No, i think your letting your emotions get the better of you. Your all, oh my gosh, you got a psycho mind, bla, bla. Thats the real emotional response. Your not giving a solid reason against what im saying. Mayby because you dont know what im saying, lol.

No. It tells me you have high priorities on personal revenge and eye-for-an-eye street justice barbarity.

Wrong, i think the SYSTEM should ALLOW torture to SOME criminals. But, even THOSE criminals should have a fair trial FIRST. Then after there proven guilty, THEY get tortured.

Justice and revenge are not the same thing.

Ok, tell me the difference between justice and revenge?

Because unlike you, I actually looked into it.

Ok, i did a quick google search, what about argintina?

Every statistic tells me exactly that.
I know of no society that does well in societal health indexes, which also allows barbarity like torture.
This is a fact.

I did a quick google search and russia was known to have tortured some criminals, probably the USA somewhere has too, true, it was elligal, but it was done, are those countries prooerity gone to hell? Nope. Life and business continues on.

What about argintina too?

I asked you for a single example where that isn't true. Did you find one already?

Argintina?

That's an anecdote, not actual data.

Eh where does data come from, but by a whole bunch of anecdotes, duuuuh. Lol

Kuwait furthermore pledged to respect human rights.
if they are serious about that, then torture shouldn't be legal or common practice there.

Actually if i remember her correctly, its been awhile, she told me theives get there hands cut off. And theift is vertually none existent. She lives there. Also from what she describes, prosperity dont seam to be a problem either.

Also:
Kuwait (Ranked 66th) :: Legatum Prosperity Index 2018

It doesn't seem to be performing all that well.

Take a look at the overall ranking as well:

Rankings :: Legatum Prosperity Index 2018

That site didnt say everything bad about ut. Take a better look >

"In the Prosperity Pillar rankings, Kuwait performs best on Social Capital and Health and scores lowest on the Personal Freedom pillar. The biggest positive change, compared to last year, came in Safety & Security increasing by 6 places, whereas they dropped 10 places"

And if i may add, these graphs dont mean anything to me because i have no idea how they derive these conclusions. I also dont like reading graphs, isnt my style.

Look at what type of countries dominate the top 20.
Now look what type of countries dominate the bottom 20.

And honestly ask yourself the question in which of these 40 countries you are more likely to witness legal barbarity like torture etc.

Your asking me a question that does not interest me nor do i study other countries.

You don't seem to understand that the various policies on a wide range of topics, are all extension from a central core theme / ideology / mentality.

How do you know that? Give me a proven example of that so i understand what in the world your talking about.

You can work your way backwards to that core them, if all you know are a couple of the specific policies.
In that sense, specific policies become "symptoms" of certain political/societal ideals.

So yes, knowing to form of rule, you can make educated guesses about what kind of policies you are likely to find there or not. And the reverse is also the case: knowing certain policies, you can make educated guesses about what forms of rule they come from or which forms they won't be a part of.

I dont understand what your saying.

No. Instead, you seem in complete denial.

Its the other way around.

Please read my statement as I actually wrote it, instead of replying to some strawman please.

I repeat:
YOU are the one making assumptions as per your own admission that you never looked into how allowing things like torture might / will affect a society or cultur at large.

Note that I wasn't even talking about criminals. I wasn't even talking about WHY or WHEN torture were to be used. I'm just talking about the act of torture itself - no matter in what context you do it.

Dont say im strawmaning you when in fact you admit your not dealing with the form of torture im advocating for. For CERTAIN criminals. Generalizing my point, THAT is a strawman argument. So, eat your own words there, budy.

And I pointed out that you, as per your own admission, have never looked into how allowing things LIKE torture ("like", thus means, among other things like it) might or will affect a society at large.

It wont effect it at large, look at russia, argintina.

I advice you to actually do so before continuing.

Name me a country where torture, for whatever reason, is just a-okay and that finds itself in top countries to live in according to societal health indexes (which is about the most objective data you can use to evaluate life in countries).

Lets put it like this, what about turture to a certain kind of criminal causes that country to be poor and in bad health?

Also, not that here I am even throwing you a bone and JUST talking about AUTHORITIES being able to use torture for whatever reason. While the example YOU are advocating here, is about YOU, "just" a citizen", being allowed to torture someone as an act of revenge in quite literally "street justice" vengefull ways.

No, im saying that IF the system allowed torture to my wifes torturer, then i would not need to torture him.

You understand?

I did plenty of posts ago.
Post 98 to be exact:

It causes suffering.

Well of course it causes suffering, but my point is, so what? Hes getting a dose of his own medicine. Aka, pays for his crime via by what he did.

It causes permanent, or at least lasting, psychological harm.

Again, so? Why is that important?

It decentizes the torturer's trait of empathy (that, or it also psychologically harms him/her)

Again, so what? The torturer needs to just torture the criminal as a form of duty, that this would be justice. The psychological harm he has to get over, that or get a different job.

As fare as empathy goes, its not his job to be empathetic, its his job to met out the justice of torture to this very specific kind of criminal.

In short: no good can come from it.

Yea, good can come of it, the criminal pays for his horrendous crime of torturing the mans innocent wife, thus showing no TRUE empathy of his own. And maybe he gets hehabilated in his mind via paying for his crime this way.

Case in point: name me one society where torture is common practice and acceptable where you would rather live as opposed to a society where such isn't the norm.

Just tell me why this man who tortures the other mans wife should not have tge same thing happen to him?

By the way: I'm still waiting on the name of such a society.
When are you going to meet that challenge?

I mean, your stance is that allowing things like torture do not have any negative impact on society, right?
Then surely you'ld be able to name at least one country where they have torture and where life is good.

Correlation does not imply causation, sure.
But why is it, that out of the top X countries with high societal health indexes, not a SINGLE ONE allows torture?

And why is, that out of the BOTTOM X countries, practically all of them do?

Look, i read about an american who went to north korea and said he liked it there more then in america.

So, what gives?

But, look, your graphs dont tell me NOTHING!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thats the problem, your being too general and not accounting for my specific so called "excuse" given.

It's called seeing the big picture.
The problem is that you don't see the big picture. You're too busy focussing on the pixel.
Your pixel however, is like pandora's box.

Thats hogwash and flies in the face of pure common sense.

The husband wants the right to have that man tortured, that man wants the right to have a lesser sentence or hell, no sentence.

Whos right should be taken into effect, the husband whos wife was tortured and killed or that evil man who tortured and killed the wife?

Neither of these "rights" are actually rights.

My question is VERY valid

It's not. Torturing someone as an act of revenge, is not a right.

Im not just talking about street justice, im talking about the system should have it that the torturer to the innocents be tortured as there punishment. Whats wrong with that? If its part of the governing system, then its not chaotic street justice.

I already told you, and explained, what is wrong with that.
But you're too dense to have it sink through.

There are countries where it is part of the governing system. You can find these countries in the bottom half of societal health rankings.

No, i think your letting your emotions get the better of you. Your all, oh my gosh, you got a psycho mind, bla, bla. Thats the real emotional response.

No. That's the rational response.
It's not emotional, just like it's not emotional to say that Nazi hatred and extermination of Jews was immoral and unethical. It's quite reasonable to say that those Nazi's were wrong, gruesome and psychopathic - especially those directly involved with that extermination and who didn't have trouble sleeping at night.

Your not giving a solid reason against what im saying

Except that I do. I argued with facts of both societal health rankings and human psychology.
But you choose to dismiss those facts and just ignore them, while even acknowledging that you never bothered to look into how such practices affect societies.

The only argument I heared from you is to be summed up as "I want to be able to freely torture my wife's murderer to satisfy my lust for revenge and I'll call that 'justice' ".

Wrong, i think the SYSTEM should ALLOW torture to SOME criminals. But, even THOSE criminals should have a fair trial FIRST. Then after there proven guilty, THEY get tortured.

Yes, yes, you like torture, we've covered that already.
Still waiting on an example of a healthy society that allows such practices.

Ok, tell me the difference between justice and revenge?

Justice is just and driven by facts and evidence.
Revenge is vindictive and driven by emotion.

Ok, i did a quick google search, what about argintina?

What about it?

I did a quick google search and russia was known to have tortured some criminals, probably the USA somewhere has too, true, it was elligal, but it was done, are those countries prooerity gone to hell? Nope. Life and business continues on.

Maybe you should look up where Russia finds itself on societal health rankings.
And "probably the USA too"? Perhaps you should first establish the facts instead of arguing by assumption because it suits your case.

Eh where does data come from, but by a whole bunch of anecdotes, duuuuh. Lol

No.
They come from objective data, not just someone's opinions. Number of deaths caused by X, number of graduates in high school, number of infants born dead, number of rape victims in period Y, etc etc etc.

Actually if i remember her correctly, its been awhile, she told me theives get there hands cut off. And theift is vertually none existent. She lives there. Also from what she describes, prosperity dont seam to be a problem either.

Personal freedom on the other hand....

"In the Prosperity Pillar rankings, Kuwait performs best on Social Capital and Health and scores lowest on the Personal Freedom pillar. The biggest positive change, compared to last year, came in Safety & Security increasing by 6 places, whereas they dropped 10 places"

You do realise that "performs best" here means that in kuwait, their best scores are in those 2 area's, right? And that's it not "best" as compared to other countries?

There overall score puts them on spot 66. It could be way worse, but it's not exactly good either.

But, look, your graphs dont tell me NOTHING!

Yeah, facts don't seem to resonate properly in your head