Goodkind XVIII: Naked Mole Rats of Discord

[Quincy]

Do you know that it's painful? I would think that there are very few people who could possibly make that claim, and they are all dead. So what the hell makes you think that you can claim that the death penalty is painful? You haven't been there, I assume, so where do you get this idea?

Here's a link:

http://www.economist.com/world/internation...tory_id=9084818

The findings about lethal injections gathered lots of steam when they were released.

[Moosicus]

Here's a link:

http://www.economist.com/world/internation...tory_id=9084818

The findings about lethal injections gathered lots of steam when they were released.

A few moments of pain and terror is a small price to pay for some of these people.

[Quincy]

Punishments are intended to 'punish', which in the psychological sense, are designed to prevent or reduce the likelyhood of a similar action (read: crime) from happening again in the future. Yeah, beating on someone might work if you could do it immediately after they committed the crime, but since that is never really an option, the alternative is to isolate an individual in an impoverished environment, in the hopes that it'll make them think about it and reduce the likelyhood of the same thing happening in the future. The issue is not choosing an acceptable level of cruelty, it's about making the same act less likely in the future. Anyway, I'm slipping between definitions and meanings without defining things very well, as is this conversation.

If you punish someone, you are far more likely to make them dislike you rather than reduce the likelyhood of the act. Punishment make the punishing person a secondary (conditioned) punisher. As the time and connection between the act the law is meant to punish and the punishment becomes more tenuous, the less likely the body will, on a visceral level, be disuaded from re-offending. Instead, again, the punisher or punishment becomes the focus. Why do you think inmates try to get revenge on guards, lawyers and judges rather than not thinking about re-offending or the victim? The guards, lawyers and judges are the most proximal link to the punishment itself, the victim and crime can become secondary. Violence after the fact is illogical and ineffective. Instead, focus should be placed upon a) isolation rehabilitation and c) punishment last.

And you're mixing up (physical) punishment from rape and torture with legal punishment - (good) legal punishment is meant to a) isolate rehailitate and c) punish last. Even as a punishment, incarceration is a bad thing, but it does have the immediate benefit of removing the individual from society. Northern Europe (can't cite a country) has a huge emphasis on skills and job training (from my vague recall) and I believe their recidivism rate is far, far lower than North America. Clever. High suicide rates though. Odd.

First, your view of the purpose of punishment is attractive. Sign me up. However, when you exhaust options a) and , what methods of last resort (punishment for punishment's sake) do you propose? Isolated confinement in a sweatbox? Whipping? Execution? All these are exercises in cruelty, as are rape and torture. If you concede that punishment for its own sake is allowable, then it's really just a matter of degrees of cruelty.

I'd say rape and torture are far worse. Rape and torture hurt. Murder, the passage from life to death, you're just dead, there is no pain, there's nothing. It may hurt more or less leading to that transition, but the death itself just means an end to suffering. In my mind, but perhaps there really is a hell and I'm just too thick to realize it. The two worst things about murder or death are the anticipation and the finality.

Given the choice between a session of rape/torture or being murdered, I think most people would choose the first option. You make murder sound like no big deal.

I find it illogical that you can accept rape and torture but conflate them with murder. Very different. In my mind. But I can't even spell prairie, so how far can you trust me?

I accept rape and torture about as much as I accept murder.

[Quincy]

A few moments of pain and terror is a small price to pay for some of these people.

So now length of time is your metric for allowable cruelty? What if we just made it a really quick rape or torture session?

EDITED to add: And again, you're ignoring the fact that the real downside to murder is permanently and prematurely ending someone's life.

[tzanth]

Also, this raises an interesting question regarding moral clarity. There has been a lot of talk about gang raping Hitler recently, but what if you could rehabilitate Hitler by making him raise goats?

As ive already mentioned, i think hitler was clearly full of moral celery; the goats would love him.

In response to WLU, I believe killing people needlessly is cruel regardless of how painless it is.

[Quincy]

I bashed Yeardi above, but we appear to have the sole SoT fan capable of forming a rational argument on the phone, so let's not hang up on him. Her. It. Them. Quincy. I'm always happy to hear someone argue against me, and in this venue it's rare to actually talk to someone with teeth. Or a brain. Usually we just get ~sigh~-ed at. YOU all know who I'm talking about. Can't even come up with new posts, has to copy and paste his old ones.

I read the first 3-4 SoT books. Didn't like them. I've been on this board (and its predecessor) since about 2000. I just posted in this thread because I was peeved by the lack of fair play (stronger term needed) in these Goodkind threads.

Bed time, I look forward to the board as of 9 am tomorrow.

I head to Vegas tomorrow. Feel free to spend the weekend coming up with more convincing arguments .

[rado907]

What do you mean saying 'fair play'?

[Quincy]

What do you mean saying 'fair play'?

Sorry for the vague term. I was pretty disgusted that no one here was making even a half-hearted attempt to understand what the other side was saying, instead choosing to make broadly sweeping generalizations of moral superiority. Threads like these piss me off in general, and generally I do a better job of staying away from them.

[Jaxom 1974]

That was so 12 threads ago though. We gave up after realizing it was easier to choose death, rahter than try to make sense of any arguments made by the O'ists. You know who I mean.

[Quincy]

That was so 12 threads ago though.

Like I said, I got to this thread late in the day .

We gave up after realizing it was easier to choose death, rahter than try to make sense of any arguments made by the O'ists. You know who I mean.

I'm not sure what you mean. Were the Objectivists' arguments so confusing that you chose suicide instead? You should talk to someone before you act on that decision.

[tzanth]

I'm not sure what you mean. Were the Objectivists' arguments so confusing that you chose suicide instead? You should talk to someone before you act on that decision.

Anyone who refuses to grow a yeard and frolic with the goats is obviously a commie and has thus sacrificed their right to a free, wholesome and manly life: They are death choosers.

[Selkie]

So now length of time is your metric for allowable cruelty? What if we just made it a really quick rape or torture session?

EDITED to add: And again, you're ignoring the fact that the real downside to murder is permanently and prematurely ending someone's life.

Exactly. As a society, do we really have a right to end a person's life?

Another problem with the death penalty is that our justice system is fallible - we may potentially make mistakes and occasionally sentance innocent people to death. If we give some the benefit of the doubt, must we not give the same treatment to even the most obvious offenders, for the sake of justice?

[chionophile]

I'm not sure what you mean. Were the Objectivists' arguments so confusing that you chose suicide instead? You should talk to someone before you act on that decision.

"Choosing death" is what Richard's enemies do. Whereas he chooses life and Truth. Uh huh.

Anyways, the reason I decided to come out of lurk mode is because ya'll are about 25 posts away from the next thread and I just wanted to note that you skipped Goodkind XI (Back in September. Yes, I've been working my way through the archives recently). This is actually Goodkind XVII. My apologies for setting your Goodkind hatred back a thread.

[Spectralist]

I'm not sure what you mean. Were the Objectivists' arguments so confusing that you chose suicide instead? You should talk to someone before you act on that decision.

Most of the time they didn't really have arguments. Just circular reasoning and insults.

Hell, there was one guy, on a thread at the goodkind board that was linked earlier in this(or the previous) thread that argued that a character clearly deserved to be raped simply because she was raped.

On the matter of punishments. I see it as a problem solving scenario. Problem: you have a hitler. Solution: you kill the hitler. Torture, rape, and punishment don't really enter into it. They have no purpose, they do not solve anything.

[Moosicus]

...I just wanted to note that you skipped Goodkind XI (Back in September. Yes, I've been working my way through the archives recently). This is actually Goodkind XVII. My apologies for setting your Goodkind hatred back a thread.

That can't be so. Check it again.

[WLU]

I read the first 3-4 SoT books. Didn't like them. I've been on this board (and its predecessor) since about 2000. I just posted in this thread because I was peeved by the lack of fair play (stronger term needed) in these Goodkind threads.

Dammit! The search for a rational SoT fan continues. Perhaps I'm just asking spaghetti to bounce on this one.

My apologies for implying that you were a SoT fan, and by implication, a fucking nutter.

First, your view of the purpose of punishment is attractive. Sign me up. However, when you exhaust options a) and , what methods of last resort (punishment for punishment's sake) do you propose? Isolated confinement in a sweatbox? Whipping? Execution? All these are exercises in cruelty, as are rape and torture. If you concede that punishment for its own sake is allowable, then it's really just a matter of degrees of cruelty.

They aren't really my views, a crim student would have to confirm but I believe those are the espoused purposes of punishment within most Western European-style justice systems. And given isolation from society is in itself punishment, a) and c) happen simultaneously. I am opposed to any further 'punishment' beyond imprisonment and especially don't support any state-based punishment beyond imprisonment.

Given the choice between a session of rape/torture or being murdered, I think most people would choose the first option. You make murder sound like no big deal.

I accept rape and torture about as much as I accept murder.

I was trying to express my preference for murder over rape/torture as punishment. However, my actual preference is that punishment stops at imprisonment.

I'm not sure what you mean. Were the Objectivists' arguments so confusing that you chose suicide instead? You should talk to someone before you act on that decision.

The majority aren't actually objectivists, they are Yeardi fans. And they can't actually argue in any way, shape or form. Paper bags are sufficient to confuse their logic and trap them within.

Echoing Spectralist on all points.

I think the next thread should be Goodkind 11, with a title of "Now 50% more retro"

Checking, GKXI did exist, thus. GKXI was entitled (BBHN) or something similar. Someone's trying to make us choose death!

[Quincy]

Hell, there was one guy, on a thread at the goodkind board that was linked earlier in this(or the previous) thread that argued that a character clearly deserved to be raped simply because she was raped.

I saw that post. As far as I can tell, the poster meant that she deserved to be raped because her actions led directly to the act, not simply because she was raped. Seems harsh, but I didn't read the book so I kept my posts to discussing punishment in general.

They aren't really my views, a crim student would have to confirm but I believe those are the espoused purposes of punishment. And given isolation from society is in itself punishment, a) and c) happen simultaneously. I am opposed to any further 'punishment' beyond imprisonment. I don't support any state-based punishment beyond imprisonment.

I was trying to express my preference for murder over rape/torture as punishment. However, my actual preference is that punishment ceases after imprisonment.

Fair enough. I'd be interested to learn what deterrent effects (if any) various forms of punishment have.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Gone for a few days, and you people get serious.

It's almost enough to make me kick a Goodkind fan in the jaw.

[WLU]

I'd be interested to learn what deterrent effects (if any) various forms of punishment have.

Ask and yeard shall receive. Thus, and thus (2). I've edited the second one fairly extensively, so I trust it as far as I can throw the yeard. Actual punishment, in the strict psychological sense, is 100% effective as a deterrent; the problem is that people consider things to be punishment when really they aren't (i.e. spanking and BDSM-ers). For punishment to be most effective, it must be contingent and immediate; prison is neither of those things, but then again, neither would post-crime state-rape.

We're getting near the end of the thread, and it's time for new titles! I present again the suggestion (someone else's I think) of:

Don't feed the Yeard (before, or after midnight)

or possibly

Feed the yeard more fiber (he looks like he needs it)

However, given the following, I have a new suggestion. Uh, following...

Tairy Goodkind has expressed contempt at humanity in general (through his wizard's rules) for being stupid, for having bad outcomes to good intentions, for passion ruling reason, for being unforgiving, for using words to lie, for (again) passion ruling reason, for living in the past, for being lazy, for believing in contradictions and for lying to ourselves. However, it is my contention that Yeardy himself has violated virtually every one of these rules, via his characters, or via his own speeches or internet chats. Thus:

1) People are stupid - He keeps mouthing off at his audience and belittling them. That's stupid.

2) The greatest harm can result from the best intentions - he tried to write a didactic series informing others of the wonder of Objectivism. The result is the literary abortion that is the Sword of Truth series, and over 7000 posts on this website alone that directly or indirectly besmirch this 'philosophy for mouth-breathers'.

3) Passion rules reason - it is through his passion for Ayn Rand that he ended up fucking her in the ass. Metaphorically. Though without digging up her corpse, we will never know for sure. Had he let reason rule him, he'd get more input from his editors.

4) There is magic in sincere forgiveness - Yeardi, and his characters NEVER forgive their enemies. They are willing to use them if they decide to switch sides. Apparently Richard did forgive Violet briefly (I think, that whole turning the sword white thing?) and used it to kick her in the jaw. Is this the magic he's talking about?

5) Mind what people do, not only what they say, for deeds will betray a lie - now, having never met Yeardy, I can't speak for him, but I can say that if you watch RR's actions, there's a lot of deeds which make his statements about reason a lie. Richard Rahl is a self-obsessed psychopath who exists only to indulge his anger.

6) The only sovereign you can allow to rule you is reason - COME ON, THIS CONTRADICTS NUMBER 3!!! AT THE VERY LEAST, PUT IN A 'SHOULD'. And again, both Yeardi and Richie allow their arrogance, self-importance and anger get the better of them repeatedly.

7) Life is the future, not the past - In which case, Richie should be worried about ruling his countries, not playing jangaball, and Yeardi should worry about how his current actions and writing will impact his audience and his characters. Have a little continuity you tard!

8) Deserve victory - this isn't even a rule, it's an imperative command in a list of rules! Contradiction!

9) A contradiction can not exist in reality. Not in part, nor in whole - there are contradictions in this list, moron. Contradictions are rife due to the subjective limitations of human perception.

10) Willfully turning aside from the truth is treason to one's self - I got nothin' here.

Anyway, Yeardi has in the past referred to the baby/spaghetti incident as the desire to have one's wishes override the reality of ones actions and the rules of physics. I refer to this as 'bouncing the spaghetti'. So, as a title for Goodkind XIX, I suggest:

Goodkind XIX: Bouncing the spaghetti since 1994

Christ I'm long-winded.

[WLU]

Gone for a few days, and you people get serious.

It's almost enough to make me kick a Goodkind fan in the jaw.

Count your blessings, whenever I leave the conversation invariably turns to rape. :/