Yeah, but then it's a really terrible metaphor which doesn't make sense.

It doesn't follow. A metaphor does not have to make sense literarily. It shows the primacy of Being by showing how Being triumphs over non-Being. The fact that you demand a metaphor to make literal sense, that is your problem, not mine.

No it doesn't make sense at all, literal or metaphorical. A reaction is a bad metaphor for an absolute creation.

Creation is itself a metaphor for the primacy of Being - what have I been saying all along? It's an allegorical way to show the primacy of Being.

Now I know you will yada yada me and say "Oh yeah, but wait a minute, because Creation implies a moment before creation, and so a moment when Being had not yet triumphed over non-Being, etc. etc." - misses the point of a metaphor. That's a literalist interpretation - technological, not poetic.

No that's almost the opposite of where I'm going with this. Naturally, there couldn't be a moment before creation. That's the point. It's the metaphor of triumph itself which relies on something preceding creation that must be triumphed over.

Serial-Killer-torture-as-metaphor-for-creation-as-metaphor-for-primacy-of-being does violence both to this:

1. Goodness is the standard of itself and of the bad.
: In other words we start from knowing the good, and then, only in comparison, discover the bad. — Agustino

& this

Pure Being has no opposite (non-Being doesn't exist)
: results from an understanding of Being and non-Being — Agustino

It may be 'just a metaphor' but, as a metaphor, it suggests a view of being and good antithetical to the one you profess to propose.

The point of all this is that you have this assertion of the primacy of good, but all you seem to talk about is retribution and retributive metaphors. There's a disconnect here.

Are you for real? I assert it constitutes justice? No. I argued it constitutes justice. Justice is giving to each what they deserve (read Plato's Republic). The serial killer deserves "inhumanity" and "cruelty". Thus justice is giving the serial killer what he deserves. — Agustino

Yes, I'm "for real". You're merely using one assertion to support another. I dismiss your assertion that it's what they deserve.

Right... you have the NHS LOL! :D Have you ever been seriously sick and had to be taken care of by... the NHS? I think you haven't... — Agustino

You're wrong. I don't know why you'd jump to that conclusion. Not very clever. You know very little about my personal life.

Go book yourself in a public hospital in, for ex., Bulgaria, and you will see it's a hundread times more efficient than NHS. — Agustino

Not according to some research which actually puts the NHS at the top of the list. I'm not aware of any research which puts Bulgaria way above the UK. I find that claim more than a little dubious.

There is nothing abhorrent about the law, if it is against something that the citizen can avoid. If the law is against eating - that is abhorrent, because it's not something a citizen can avoid. If the law is against adultery for example, nothing abhorrent, because it is something the citizen can avoid. — Agustino

I find that incredibly simplistic, unreasonable and heartless. I also think it frankly foolish to place such authority in the law, regardless of its content or the circumstances in which the crime was committed. Your criteria for judging the morality of a law is severely lacking, and leads to the subservient acceptance of gross injustice.

What determines "human rights"? The UN? Pff. No, the laws determine what your rights and obligations are. — Agustino

I'm sorry, but this is just dumb and unfit for modernity. If the law says "Jump of a cliff" would you jump of a cliff? Simon says "think for yourself". Rights and obligations are entirely separate from the law, and may or may not coincide with the law. There is such a thing as an unjust law, and citizens are not obligated to act in accordance with such laws - even Hobbes thought as much in at least some cases.

Yes, the UN sanctions human rights, and member states of the UN must accord with these human rights.

Why is it unjust and abhorrent? I see absolutely nothing unjust with it. Adultery is something that can be avoided. Adultery is something that harms people. Therefore it deserves to be punished. Stoning may be too harsh of a punishment, agreed. But it does not follow that the law is unjust. It is just, because it punishes what should be punished. It may be cruel, because the punishment is too harsh for the offence, but that's all. — Agustino

No, don't understate it. It's not just a harsher punishment, it's unjust and abhorrent, like I said, and if you can't see that then you ought to look deeper within yourself and examine your conscience.

Yes, adultery harms people, as do countless other acts which are not against the law, nor should be, so that's a very poor argument. There are certain acts which citizens deserve the right to privacy, and to be free from state oppression, and that is one of them. This is called liberalism, and it contrasts with totalitarianism.

It WAS an act of Justice. Those people, according to God, who was the supreme authority, and the supreme law, deserved that punishment. Who are you to say otherwise? Have you made thyself in some sort of God capable to judge everything according to standards of your choosing? — Agustino

This is just laughable. If you think that drowning almost everyone alive is an act that can be justified, then you've lost all moral credibility and your judgement cannot be relied upon.

I'm not a slave to a god that doesn't exist.

"War crimes" - there are no such things. NONSENSE! — Agustino

That's more credibility gone down the drain.

Thanks for admitting you think the serial killer is NOT inhuman, cruel and degrading. — Agustino

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. But yes, the serial killer is not inhuman. The serial killer is human. And it is debasing and uncivilised to treat the serial killer in the inhuman, cruel and degrading manner that you endorse - regardless of whether or not you are of the opinion that he or she deserves it.

Also, there is no "lack of restraint" or caving in to savage-like emotions. The punishment is done by law, not under the control of an emotional reaction. — Agustino

Yes there is: that's your motivation for desiring there to be such a law! Like csalisbury said, torture stems from psychological - not social - needs.

Yes, I'm "for real". You're merely using one assertion to support another. I dismiss your assertion that it's what they deserve. — Sapientia

Good, then I also dismiss everything you've ever said, with the same handwave you dismiss what I say. Let's see where we get with that :D

Failure to respond to arguments - you know that you are wrong Sapientia, you just don't want to admit it, and you would hold onto your liberalist fantasies regardless of whether they were shown to be absurd - I know you would, because this is an emotional matter for you. You WANT things to be this way. At least admit it. Admit that even if you were shown to be wrong, you would still believe it.

You're wrong. I don't know why you'd jump to that conclusion. Not very clever. You know very little about my personal life. — Sapientia

I didn't say I know anything about your personal life. All I said was that I think you haven't been sick, because it would mean you haven't been in touch with the NHS, and so you don't know how the NHS actually is (except from published "research"). So NO - I didn't jump to a conclusion. It's not a conclusion, it was a reasonable assumption, which if it is false, then I was wrong but not unreasonable in making it. The assumption was based on my knowledge that the NHS is bad, combined with your statement that it is good.

Not according to some research which actually puts the NHS at the top of the list. I'm not aware of any research which puts Bulgaria way above the UK. I find that claim more than a little dubious. — Sapientia

Right because this research is not biased :D Imagine if they put Bulgaria above UK - your own citizens would go crazy, revolution time! Research like this quite often does not correspond to the reality as told by people who interact with the system.

I'm sorry, but this is just dumb and unfit for modernity. If the law says "Jump of a cliff" would you jump of a cliff? Simon says "think for yourself". Rights and obligations are entirely separate from the law, and may or may not coincide with the law. There is such a thing as an unjust law, and citizens are not obligated to act in accordance with such laws. Yes, the UN sanctions human rights, and member states of the UN must accord with these human rights. — Sapientia

Right, an organisation which CANNOT enforce these on its member states determines what human rights are... what nonsense. A state can determine the laws because it has the means to enforce them. Being able to enforce them is what gives them legitimacy. The UN can't - and thus, when it comes to this subject, the UN really has no legitimacy. That's why things like Guantanamo happened, and will keep on happening until we take charge of our own states and politicians and stop expecting some fake global government body to do it.

If the law orders me to "jump off [two f's] a cliff" that would, under my "severely lacking" moral criteria be immoral, as it orders me to do something that will hurt me with no possibility to avoid it. That classifies as an immoral law in my system. Please at list think of better examples.

Yes, the UN sanctions human rights, and member states of the UN must accord with these human rights. — Sapientia

Yes, or else what? They do what they did to the US for Guantanamo, ie nothing?

No, don't understate it. It's not just a harsher punishment, it's unjust and abhorrent, like I said, and if you can't see that then you ought to look deeper within yourself and examine your conscience. — Sapientia

It's your opinion it is unjust and abhorrent. Fact of the matter is that justice simply is giving to each what they deserve. And so, justice is giving to the serial killer what he deserves. What does he deserve? He deserves to reap what he sowed. I've already laid out the argument before, and you have not responded to it in any thoughtful manner except repeat to me how it is abhorrent and yadda yadda yadda.

then you ought to look deeper within yourself and examine your conscience. — Sapientia

Yes, I did do this, and then I saw the suffering that the many families of the victims have felt, and the misery and betrayal they must feel towards society, and I realised that such pain is unacceptable, and as a state I must take the most severe action against it. I can't ignore the suffering of these people, and not give them the assuarance that at least, if something like this happens to them, justice will exist.

There are certain acts which citizens deserve the right to privacy, and to be free from state oppression, and that is one of them. — Sapientia

Justify this please. Also justify why the assumption that otherwise it would be state oppression?

This is called liberalism, and it contrasts with totalitarianism. — Sapientia

No it doesn't contrast with totalitarianism. It contrasts with conservatism, and with the way people have lived for the vast majority of history since we have been organised in societies. Liberalism is the fool's dream that man can be self-determined - and thus all means that prevent self-determination, such as gender (people are born of a certain gender) are evil and must be eliminated. That's why we allow and facilitate transexualism and the like. It's also the fool's dream that man's happiness requires that he become a self-sufficient island, instead of merely another link in the chain which we call society. That's why our communities are disintegrating - that's why alienation is a modern problem. You don't want to admit it, but we do have a serious problem with adultery for example. Look at your own country - it's disgusting.

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/130/590x/secondary/graph-378884.jpg

This is absolutely insane! A moral evil is allowed to exist in society, and we do nothing except sit with arms crossed while people are hurt, families are destroyed, etc. You claim you are moral - no, my dear friend, you are not moral. You are just selfish. It's all about "me me me, do as I want [of course in return for this you get to do as you want as well]". That's what you (and by this I mean people like you, not you in particular, so don't take this personally) do - you don't care about morality. All you care is that you are left free to do as you please, without regard for others. If you had any regard for people, you would be worried about the vast increase in adultery in Western societies over the last 50 years. You would be really worried, and you would be working on a solution. Fine, you don't like my proposed solution (legal sanctions for adultery), then what solution do you propose?? If you care about the people who are hurt, you must provide a solution. What is the solution? You offer no solution, to a glaringly obvious problem. Instead, you keep it under the carpet, so that it becomes culturally acceptable, and the people who are oppressed by it are marginalised. Because who knows, maybe one day you will commit adultery too, and you wanna get away from it easily. That, Sapientia, is the truth.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. But yes, the serial killer is not inhuman — Sapientia

Ahhh! There we go, finally the immorality shows itself! Fine, if you care for such brutes like the serial killer, I don't see how you can claim to be moral.

Yes there is: that's your motivation for desiring there to be such a law! Like csalisbury said, torture stems from psychological - not social - needs. — Sapientia

It's a social need based on the psychological needs of people in society - people are human and they have a morality, despite what you may think. People don't have to take all sorts of shit and suffer at the hands of a maniac and not even be granted the justice they deserve.

It may be 'just a metaphor' but, as a metaphor, it suggests a view of being and good antithetical to the one you profess to propose. — csalisbury

No more than me saying the sun is a golden ball does violence to it by suggesting you can play soccer with the sun...

The point of all this is that you have this assertion of the primacy of good, but all you seem to talk about is retribution and retributive metaphors. There's a disconnect here. — csalisbury

Is justice a good? Does justice give to the serial killer what he deserves? Is what the serial killer deserves exactly what he sowed? If so is retribution in this case Just? If so, then it follows that retribution is good in this case.

No more than me saying the sun is a golden ball does violence to it by suggesting you can play soccer with the sun...

Well, 'golden ball' is a good - if boring - metaphor, because the sun is both (roughly) golden and spherical. A black cube, for instance, is not a good metaphor for the sun. While metaphors, quite obviously, are not Identical stand-ins, they need to share something essential with the thing they're a metaphor for (etymologically, they need to transport some sort of meaning.) Your serial-killer-cum-creation metaphor seems to be of the 'black cube' sort. I can't see how a retributive response is a good metaphor for sui-generis creation. Can you explain how your metaphor works and why it's a good metaphor?

I can't see how a retributive response is a good metaphor for sui-generis creation. Can you explain how your metaphor works and why it's a good metaphor? — csalisbury

Okay I see your misunderstanding. As I showed before, Being can only have the structure of good. Furthermore, I will make the position stronger - Being not only can only have the structure of good, but it actually has it; not a particular being, but Being itself. If you grant this, then the moment of creation shows the primacy of Being and Good. Likewise, the destruction of the serial killer by society in a just manner illustrates the primacy of Good (of which Justice is a part) - and it illustrates it particularly well, because as we have agreed before, the serial killer comes very close to someone denuded of Being (and hence denuded of Good); to non-Being(and likewise to the opposite of Good).

I still don't get it Agustino. You appear to be using 'primacy' in two very different senses. In one sense, apropos of being and creation, you assert that being (and good) has 'primacy' because we can only have a sense of non-being (or of evil) through comparison to being (or good.)

In the case of torturing an serial killer, an evil act elicits a response. The only sort of primacy, here, is a primacy of strength. Once, again, this simply does not work work as a metaphor for creation. This is what you're saying: A destructive response is a renactment of a creative self-caused act

A destructive response is a renactment of a creative uncaused act. — csalisbury

Creation is destructive of non-Being on a metaphorical level. That's what primacy or triumph of Being over non-Being means.

In one sense, apropos of being and creation, you assert that being (and good) has 'primacy' because we can only have a sense of non-being (or of evil) through comparison to being (or good.) — csalisbury

No, I use that argument to assert the ontological primacy of Being (and Good).

Good, then I also dismiss everything you've ever said, with the same handwave you dismiss what I say. Let's see where we get with that. — Agustino

Well, you only have yourself to blame. It's no good blaming me for responding in kind.

Failure to respond to arguments - you know that you are wrong Sapientia, you just don't want to admit it, and you would hold onto your liberalist fantasies regardless of whether they were shown to be absurd - I know you would, because this is an emotional matter for you. You WANT things to be this way. At least admit it. Admit that even if you were shown to be wrong, you would still believe it. — Agustino

1. What arguments? You feel that they deserve it, and you've given reasons as to why. I feel otherwise, and have also given reasons as to why. There is no God or higher authority that we can appeal to here in order to resolve this dispute. You're deluded if you think otherwise.

It's quite remarkable that you appeal to me to just simply admit that you are right and I am wrong - even though you have not demonstrated anything of the sort. There is obviously just a difference of opinion here, and your "argument" has failed to convince me to abandon my position in favour of yours.

2. No, I'll not admit to something that I don't believe, and neither would you, so cut the crap.

I didn't say I know anything about your personal life. All I said was that I think you haven't been sick... — Agustino

Exactly, that's why it is a foolish thing to think. Not only do you know very little about my personal life, it is statistically likely that I would have been sick at some point in my life.

...because it would mean you haven't been in touch with the NHS, and so you don't know how the NHS actually is (except from published "research"). — Agustino

Yes, well, now you know that you were wrong to think that. I have personally experienced the NHS on more than one occasion, and I also know that regardless of whether I have found those personal experiences to be positive or negative, that sort of anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much, and is outweighed by stronger evidence.

So NO - I didn't jump to a conclusion. — Agustino

Yeah, you did, but don't worry, you don't have to admit it. I might have better luck trying to get blood out of a stone.

Right because this research is not biased :D Imagine if they put Bulgaria above UK - your own citizens would go crazy, revolution time! Research like this quite often does not correspond to the reality as told by people who interact with the system. — Agustino

If you expect me to take seriously your charge of bias, you'll have to do better than that. Show me some undeclared special interest or something which undermines the credibility of the research group.

Right, an organisation which CANNOT enforce these on its member states determines what human rights are... what nonsense. A state can determine the laws because it has the means to enforce them. Being able to enforce them is what gives them legitimacy. The UN can't - and thus, when it comes to this subject, the UN really has no legitimacy. That's why things like Guantanamo happened, and will keep on happening until we take charge of our own states and politicians and stop expecting some fake global government body to do it. — Agustino

Human rights need to be universal, so it can't be down to individual states. There are states which have a terrible record when it comes to human rights. It's funny that you say that we need to take charge of our own states, given that some states are undemocratic, and you have denied these citizens the right to disobey state law. How then do you expect this to happen? Divine intervention? A miracle?

Yes, or else what? They do what they did to the US for Guantanamo, i.e. nothing? — Agustino

But that isn't an argument against the UN, or any similar body, in principle; nor does it go in favour of your position. What has the US or any other individual nation state done to that effect? Nothing.

It's your opinion it is unjust and abhorrent. Fact of the matter is that justice simply is giving to each what they deserve. And so, justice is giving to the serial killer what he deserves. What does he deserve? He deserves to reap what he sowed. I've already laid out the argument before, and you have not responded to it in any thoughtful manner except repeat to me how it is abhorrent and yadda yadda yadda. — Agustino

Yawn. That's a lie. I've addressed your so-called argument and have responded in kind. My reply is no less thoughtful than the few simplistic assertions which, when grouped together, you call an argument. But, unlike you, I'll not readily repeat myself at the drop of a hat, because I try to avoid going round in circles and repeating myself ad nauseam.

Yes, I did do this, and then I saw the suffering that the many families of the victims have felt, and the misery and betrayal they must feel towards society, and I realised that such pain is unacceptable, and as a state I must take the most severe action against it. I can't ignore the suffering of these people, and not give them the assuarance that at least, if something like this happens to them, justice will exist. — Agustino

It's preposterous to equate stoning to death with adultery. They're not even close to being on the same level. That equation is disproved by your own principle of proportionate punishment. It's obvious to everyone but yourself that your views on sexual morality are biased, extreme and out of all proportion.

Justify this please. Also justify why the assumption that otherwise it would be state oppression? — Agustino

Adultery is evidently a matter which concerns the parties involved: at the very least, the husband, the wife, and the (other) adulterer. Furthermore, it's evidently a private matter, although it can be brought out into the public, although this is often rightly condemned, as it really has nothing to do with anyone other than the parties concerned, unless it is relevant to one's job role, for example, but even that is quite controversial, and there's an ongoing debate about where to draw the line.

It is you who needs to justify state intervention into the private affairs and sex lives of individuals.

It's obviously state oppression when the state intervenes into the private sex lives of individuals in order to severely punish by extreme, inhumane, arcane, and, in actuality, widely banned methods, for nothing other than consensual sex outside of marriage - which isn't a crime in most developed secular societies.

Individual freedoms and rights would be oppressed by the state. It is, therefore, state oppression. These rights are written into law, and can be found if you care enough to look them up.

No, it doesn't contrast with totalitarianism. — Agustino

Jesus, it's one ignorant and outright false statement after the other with you. Yes, they very clearly do. I'm not even going to waste my time defending that one.

And please do excuse me for skipping past your diatribe against transsexuals and promiscuity and the like. I've seen it all before. Blah de blah self-righteous, narrow-minded, judgemental claptrap.

Ahhh! There we go, finally the immorality shows itself! Fine, if you care for such brutes like the serial killer, I don't see how you can claim to be moral. — Agustino

There you go again, putting words into my mouth, and reading too much into my acknowledgment of the simple fact that serial killers are human too.

It's a social need based on the psychological needs of people in society - people are human and they have a morality, despite what you may think. People don't have to take all sorts of shit and suffer at the hands of a maniac and not even be granted the justice they deserve. — Agustino

So, then, why don't you just move to one of those backwards nations where they do dish out that kind of "justice"? Why have you chosen to remain a part of Western society with our Western values and justice system which you seem to deplore?

I feel otherwise, and have also given reasons as to why. — Sapientia

I have seen no reason as to why, except that you think it is immoral (cruel, inhuman, etc.). But that to begin with is what you should have justified. I have just shown how justice demands so punishing the serial killer. Are you against justice? You could say that the enactment of justice should not degrade the one who enacts it. That would indeed be a smart thing to say. But you haven't. BC stated it, and I said it's a fair point. In fact, that is THE ONLY fair point that was levelled against me in this thread, and at least BC had the dignity to admit that he could find no other reason. So maybe we should discuss that - even when csalisbury asked me whether I believe a rapist should be raped, I answer "No - because that is disgusting and would degrade the punisher". But obviously I don't think torture is in the same class as rape. Maybe that would be a more useful avenue for you to argue than this "it's immoral, it's cruel" or "serial killers are not inhuman" avenue.

Exactly, that's why it is a foolish thing to think. Not only do you know very little about my personal life, it is statically likely that I would have been sick at some point in my life. — Sapientia

Yes - that is why I specified "seriously sick", not just "sick".

I have found those personal experiences to be positive or negative, that sort of anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much, and is outweighed by stronger evidence. — Sapientia

Ok, I am curious as to why you think anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much, or is outweighed by stronger evidence. Afterall, this is not physics where statistical evidence trumps everything. This is something that deals with people - where anecdotal evidence may very well be the most accurate way to grasp findings which include data that simply cannot be analysed statistically. So for these reasons I don't think statistical evidence, and professional reports which are written for bureaucratic reasons can identify these problems.

Yeah, you did, but don't worry, you don't have to admit it. I might have better luck trying to get blood out of a stone. — Sapientia

How is it a conclusion when I specifically said "I THINK". That implies I could be wrong, and my statement isn't final... Don't make things up.

Show me some undeclared special interest or something which undermines the credibility of the research group. — Sapientia

The bias is that unless UK is shown to be higher in medical care than Bulgaria for example, then British people would be outraged and would push for immediate action to remedy the health care system. There is no money to do this, which is exactly why the NHS is also having trouble recently. You have very few doctors as well, compared to what you would need.

How then do you expect this to happen? Divine intervention? A miracle? — Sapientia

People can get into power in an undemocratic state as well. Just that the routes to power will be different.

Human rights need to be universal, so it can't be down to individual states. — Sapientia

That's why the concept of God, and a higher moral authority, higher than all humans exists.

But that isn't an argument against the UN, or any similar body, in principle; — Sapientia

Yes it is. The UN cannot have any legitimacy on its human rights if it can't enforce and guarantee protection of those rights.

What has the US or any other individual nation state done to that effect? Nothing. — Sapientia

Yes, and that is the problem. Only nation states can prevent this.

Yawn. That's a lie. I've addressed your so-called argument and have responded in kind. My reply is no less thoughtful than the few simplistic assertions which, when grouped together, you call an argument. But, unlike you, I'll not readily repeat myself at the drop of a hat, because I try to avoid going round in circles and repeating myself ad nauseam. — Sapientia

This is nonsense.

It's preposterous to equate stoning to death with adultery. They're not even close to being on the same level. That equation is disproved by your own principle of proportionate punishment. It's obvious to everyone but yourself that your views on sexual morality are biased, extreme and out of proportion. — Sapientia

This part wasn't about adultery, so why are you bringing this up. I haven't said the punishment for adultery should be stoning, only that a law would not be immoral if it set the punishment of adultery to be stoning. This was about serial killers.

Adultery is evidently a matter which concerns the parties involved: at the very least, the husband, the wife, and the adulterer. — Sapientia

Right. So what means does the victim in the adultery have of protecting themselves, or of having justice done in their case? What means is there available? None??

It is you who needs to justify state intervention in to the private affairs and sex lives of individuals. — Sapientia

Intervention solely to protect one party from being wronged and harmed. That's why the state always intervenes - to protect and guarantee the rights of one party.

It's obviously state oppression when the state intervenes into the private sex lives of individuals in order to severely punish by extreme, inhumane, arcane, and, in actuality, widely banned methods, for nothing other than consensual sex outside of marriage - which isn't a crime in most developed secular societies. Individual freedoms and rights would be oppressed by the state. Therefore, it's state oppression. These rights are written into law, and can be found if you care enough to look them up. — Sapientia

Many countries condemn adultery by their laws, just so you know. But regardless of that. The state does not intervene in the private sex lives of individuals except when something WRONG and HARMFUL is done. If people are harmed, the state should protect them. Especially by such a universal harm as adultery. Otherwise, these people simply have NO WAY to protect themselves. This just isn't right. You either give them a right to protect themselves in some way - or otherwise the state must intervene. We can't obviously say give people the right to punish their partner. That is just uncontrolled not to mention that one party will not be able to enforce the punishment on the other. So the state must intervene. As for severe punishment - I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm thinking about financial sanctions mainly + public (by the state) condemnation of the wrong-doer.

There you go again, putting words into my mouth, and reading to much into my acknowledgment of the fact that serial killers are human too. — Sapientia

You said it, don't be ashamed.

So, then, why don't you just move to one of those backwards nations where they do dish out that kind of "justice"? — Sapientia

Because killing serial killers in a just manner isn't the only thing that matters. I don't agree with those backward nations stoning women for adultery, or cutting hands off for theft, etc. I think these punishments, while lawful, are too harsh for the offence. Apart from this, I do not share in their religion, or values, and I care too much about our Western history and ideals, which have existed long before progressivism, and will exist long after. Our lands have produced the greatest geniuses who have ever lived, of the like of Plato, Aristotle, etc. Magnificent people. So I cannot abandon these people.

Why have you chosen to remain a part of Western society with our Western values which you seem to deplore? — Sapientia

I don't deplore Western values. I deplore modern "Western" (should really read progressive) values (and again, not all of them, just some of them). I don't deplore Plato's, Socrates', Aristotle's, Hume's, Aquinas', Spinoza's, Schopenhauer's, etc. values. I love Burke, Locke and the rest of our classical conservative thinkers. I value freedom of speech, and a life that allows personal liberties so long as those do not hurt or harm other people. I value community, and respecting other people, granting them reasonable privacy, and creating a society where people do not harm each other, and those who are wronged have means of protecting themselves through the state. I deplore the loss of those Western values. That I do. So, like Socrates in Ancient Athens, paradoxically, it is I who is the one who is truly loyal to Western values, and who dearly loves those values - and history is there to support me.

Why have you chosen to remain a part of Western society with our Western values and justice system which you seem to deplore? — Sapientia

I guess also because I have faith that the West can recover to its former glory. I would really like to see Aristotelian morality and Aristotelian values coming back.

Creation is destructive of non-Being on a metaphorical level. That's what primacy or triumph of Being over non-Being means.

Well, all I can do is say, one last time, A destructive response is the probably the worst metaphor I can imagine for a creative self-caused act, because everything about the two is antithetical. I guess that doesn't seem to bother you, but I still have no idea how you think it works as a metaphor. But, hey, I guess there's nowhere to go from here.

, A destructive response is the probably the worst metaphor I can imagine for a creative self-caused act, because everything about the two is antithetical — csalisbury

Creation is also destructive in-so-far as Being shows its primacy and triumph over non-Being. It appears you do not think that creation is destructive in this sense. So if you do not see it this way, then yes, the metaphor doesn't work for you.

Also, bringing in reaction and self-caused - nothing to do with it at all. In fact, I never talked about self-caused or sui-generis creation...

Creation | Torturing a serial killer
Creative | Destructive
Self-Caused | Response

Think about this for a second.

Non-being, you say, doesn't exist. There is nothing to destroy.

Good/being, you say, are defined on their own terms. Whence their primacy. Evil and non-being are only defined by reference to good. If we think of creation in terms of triumph or retribution, then we are thinking of good and being as being dependent on evil and non-being, which they require in order to triumph over.

In your metaphor, being does not have primacy, as you've defined it. This metaphor doesn't work man, I'm sorry. The metaphor rewrites everything you claim is important about being/good in terms of its opposite.

Also, bringing in reaction and self-caused - nothing to do with it at all. In fact, I never talked about self-caused or sui-generis creation...

No? So you think the cause of being lies outside itself? Interesting, wouldn't have guessed it

When the legal system uses harsh punishment and torture, it's primary purpose is not to "punish" the criminal, but to instill fear onto others.

And when it uses torture, it accepts and basically promotes torture. Period.

When there isn't a common acceptance to the rule of somebody or of some institution, then harsh punishment and torture is used. One great example are criminal organizations: just look at how they punish those members that do not obey their rules. The torture, the cruel ways to kill people are a way to instill fear and loyalty ...if you are immensely hated. Even if fear of punishment is effective, it isn't in the best way to make a society peaceful and make the society less violent.

And with torture you just succumb to the level of those doing the "horrendous crimes". It easily backfires. And the simple reason is that many people are against torture. But of course there are those who want to have public floggings.

(from earlier in the thread)

Why? You treat others humanely because they are human. If they give up their humanity by committing such atrocities, why treat them humanly? — Agustino

From this I can see that your definition or idea of just what is it to be humane, what does it mean, doesn't at all respond to my view about it. Because the above naturally means that you will be as rutheless and use torture to some that has committed atrocities as they have used. Not my idea of being humane.

Nondisfiguring torture is only useful for interrogation.

Disfiguring torture is never appropriate.

Nondisfiguring torture can be very harmful too.

The bottom fact is that torture is not a successfull interrogation method.

Now obviously a long interrogation can be torturous, but there the focus isn't on applying violence, with the intention of making the person hurt physically. For many the standard procedures how legal prisoners-of-war are handled even in Western countries when the rulebooks are followed, can feel like torture. Have someone put you handcuffs or tie your hands behind your back with plastic cable ties, then put against the wall blindfolded on your knees on alone in a room for while, and many will feel it's like torture.

It sounds like you are talking and thinking about routine torture.

Torture to obtain information is a totally different matter.

"Enhanced interrogation" helped to find UBL.

It sounds like you are talking and thinking about routine torture. — YIOSTHEOY

On the contrary, when talking about POWs, interrogation, the need to get intel, was what I had in mind here: the ones who have surrendered aren't themselves a big problem anymore and you could just sent them somewhere behind barbed wires and give them cigarettes and food. Things like segregation of the prisoners is important, just as is the speed the evacuation of POWs is done and how fast the interrogation is started.

"Enhanced interrogation" helped to find UBL. — YIOSTHEOY

And "enchanced interrogation" helped a lot of bullshit to be taken as intel.

And simply is a bad method. The whole concept of "enhanced interrogation" is just a sign of our times how easily the public discourse can be manipulated and how the general public falls to things that it wants to hear.

And OBL, well, let's remember that the Twin Towers Bombers from years earlier, some who were relatives to the 9/11 conspirators, were investigated by the NYPD, were picked by the FBI from Pakistan, then were put through the US legal system just like any other criminals and were sentenced to a jail inside the US.

Yeah, they just killed fewer people, but had they been successfull (which was quite close), a lot more would have been killed than in 9/11 as nobody would have made it out from the towers (even one tower collapsing straight away would have killed far more people than now). And it's only the number of people killed that made the difference: the US population was totally OK with the matter handled as a police matter, not a war. Yet if they would have been successfull, sure, the US would have gone to war and started it's War on Terror in 1993.

Hence the "enhanced interrogation methods", the GITMO's and basically the whole War on Terror was there basically there to please the American voter, to give him the feeling that the government was doing the most and that the terrorists would be punished.

What all the "take off the limitations", bend the rules to get intel "before the bomb goes off" and use of "enhanced interrogation methods" is just rhetoric given to the public... because the public wants revenge. And it sells well in politics... just as it sells in Hollywood movies.

Just look at your favorite populist, Donald Trump, now with his ideas where to draw the line after everything.

In addition to torture being ineffective, inhumane, immoral, and inefficient, there is also the corrupting effect. In order for ONE person to be tortured, paid employees of one's government must perform, oversee, approve of, pay for, and authorize the torture. Maybe 10 people will be engaged in the action of torturing just 1 person. Approving of and authorizing torture moves one's country out of the "does not torture" column into the "does torture" column. It's not good company.

Decisions have to be made about how much suffering to inflict, for how long, and on what part of the body. the process of deciding such matters is in itself dehumanizing. Just as setting up teams of mass murderers is a bad idea, it is a bad idea to set up torture squads. Eventually they come home, and they (and others) have to live with the sequelae of their former work.

That's why the concept of God, and a higher moral authority, higher than all humans exists. — Agustino

:D

The act of torture requires the complicity of a torturer, and the cold blooded execution of this punishment turns that person into a monster, and requires a monster to complete.

In this way the law, and by extension, the entire population is made criminal by such actions.

The act of torture requires the complicity of a torturer, and the cold blooded execution of this punishment turns that person into a monster, and requires a monster to complete. — Hogrider

Exactly.

In this way the law, and by extension, the entire population is made a criminal by such actions. — Hogrider

Official torture makes criminals of more than just the torturer holding the cattle prod, but criminality doesn't flow backward to the entire population. If it does, everybody is guilty and nobody is responsible. Better to leave it at "some people are guilty, and some people are responsible".

The laws are enacted and formulated by the will of the people, and with their implicit consent. In this sense everyone is responsible for the actions of their government.

Were this fact more widely accepted, rather than complacently ignored, atrocities would probably be more rare.

The laws are enacted and formulated by the will of the people, and with their implicit consent. In this sense everyone is responsible for the actions of their government.

Were this fact more widely accepted, rather than complacently ignored, atrocities would probably be more rare. — Hogrider

But that is no fact. The laws are enacted and formulated by the will of some people - not all people - and, in some cases, not even a majority, or even by a very small number of individuals who may or may not represent the general will of the citizenry.

Furthermore, it isn't merely the case that some people - and sometimes significantly large numbers of people - do not implicitly consent to such, but rather, they sometimes - oftentimes, even - in fact explicitly reject such laws.

It was the will of some other people - excluding myself and many, many others - who caused the current UK government, as well as the previous government, to get elected; and they did so on the basis of promises and commitments, some of which were (as they almost always are) broken - meaning that, in those cases, the government acted on their own will, and against the will of those who empowered them on such a basis.

One big example in recent years being the broken election pledge by the Liberal Democrats to scrap tuition fees. This pledge undoubtedly gained them significant support, particularly amongst young people, who voted them into power, only to be later betrayed. I can assure you, there was no "implicit consent" amongst these people when tuition fees not only remained, but in fact significantly increased. On the contrary, there were large-scale riots. It would be ludicrous to hold those people responsible for the governments actions.

That is merely one counterexample, but there are countless others - the most obvious being tyrannical states.