(June 7, 2013 at 7:35 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 6, 2013 at 7:15 pm)Brakeman Wrote: So the prisoners that kill other fellow prisoners in jail should get a slap on the wrist because the lowest ranking person in society is an incarcerated prisoner.

Someone who kills another prisoner should (and would) get a lesser punishment than someone who killed the President of the United States, yes.

But you are wrong, they don't get a lesser punishment. The death penalty quickly enforced is the most severe punishment we have and as can be attested to by the names of executed prisoner roles, the quickest way to get this punishment is to kill a fellow prisoner, not a judge or a president. District Attorneys' are under social pressure to punish most severely those who attack the famous and powerful, but also they are pressured to punish more when the victims are young cute children or poor helpless elderly. When the assailant is already incarcerated, the DA.s take it as an attack on their authority and their ability to punish, so a prisoner gets no sympathy whatsoever, which is a worse position than if you had shot President Reagan and his crew.

The US justice system does not rank their punishments by the caste of the victims, otherwise this ranking would be written into the code.

Judging by the number of young black males in prison I could make a case for the justice system ranking punishments by the "caste" of the alleged perp.

(June 8, 2013 at 1:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Judging by the number of young black males in prison I could make a case for the justice system ranking punishments by the "caste" of the alleged perp.

That trend goes against Statler Waldorf's postulate though, as the majority of the black men in prison are there for crimes against non-ranking fellow blacks.
Remember, his claim is that the victim's rank is of primary importance, not the perpetrator's.

(June 6, 2013 at 4:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You may be able to demonstrate all of that, but that’s not the logical problem I think you’ll run into. The problem is that it’s not valid to argue from the way things are to the way things ought to be, but when you try to derive your morality from Nature that’s exactly what you are doing. Does that make sense?

I think I understand what you are saying. I think that what I consider as "ought to be" is only developed through experience and experimentation (I may have already said that). Not in the sense of determining objective moral standards as much as having our morals evolve along with us. So in that sense when I am thinking that "this is how things ought to be" I am applying a subjective standard. I can see where that contradicts; in moving from a set of absolute morals to those that develop along with society, there may not be a true "ought to be" set of morals.

(June 7, 2013 at 7:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: There is no dance to be had, and frankly, I wouldn't touch you at this point.

Ice cold.

Quote:Because the crime is compounded by being enacted against a minor -itself another type of crime.

Nope, even if both victims are minors, a crime against the younger victim warrants a harsher punishment.

Quote: The authority of the victim is not a part of our system of law.

Yes it is, I already gave you numerous examples; your assertions do not change that reality.

Quote:
I asked you to give me examples of crimes where the authority of the victim left the perp deserving of a greater or lesser sentence. You're telling me now that this isn't about what you think? You don't think that the offender deserved a greater sentence in the case of the cop due to his authority? Then just who are you having a conversation with while you quote me?

Justice is not determined by what I may or may not think is just, that’s not that hard to understand. Someone receiving a harsher sentence for killing a cop rather than a repeat offender does make sense though.

Quote:
She certainly received less justice than the cop, eh? You've proven that our system is fallible - which has never been an issue. I don't care what crimes against your god deserve. I'm only reminding you that your gods concept of justice fails to meet our own. Murderers deserve their due process. All people should receive the same treatment under law - that's what equality under the law means. It cuts to both the person committing the crime and the person who the crime is committed against. If you get railroaded for a crime due to the authority of your victim - while an identical crime has been committed by your cellmate against a less important person and this results in a lesser sentence - call a lawyer.

The right to due process does not ensure the right to equal sentencing. A great deal of sentencing is the judge’s discretion and judges often take into account the status of the victim, that’s the way it works here and you have no standard of justice to argue that it should work otherwise.

Quote:
It absolutely does, and again I'd never contend that it was infallible. Our standard of justice demands that it does not. Standards of justice aren't proven - they're set.

Now you’ve just destroyed what little remnant of an argument you had remaining. If standards of justice are set then God is free to set His own standard and you are in no position to argue that the concept of crimes against a higher authorities necessitating higher punishments is somehow an unjust standard (since any standard of justice that is set is now by definition just). It’s now a classic case of “heads I win, tails you lose.”

Quote: Are we done here?

Pretty much, what God does is just and you’re in no position to object to it.

(June 7, 2013 at 8:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You see, what matters is the color of your collar.

Everything you posted was utterly irrelevant to what we were discussing, try to keep up.

(June 7, 2013 at 8:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote: As if we actually needed any of Statlers "divinely inspired" problems fucking with our justice system. It's clearly bad enough without people such as himself attempting to re-write it to match their gods failures as an adjudicator.

Contradicting yourself again I see. If standards of justice are merely set, then you have no standard to judge whether or not our current system is good or bad from since it’s just another standard we set. All standards, according to you, are now equally just. When you make mankind autonomous and able to set his own standards it leads to logical absurdities. Nice job.

(June 8, 2013 at 9:49 am)Brakeman Wrote: But you are wrong, they don't get a lesser punishment. The death penalty quickly enforced is the most severe punishment we have and as can be attested to by the names of executed prisoner roles, the quickest way to get this punishment is to kill a fellow prisoner, not a judge or a president. District Attorneys' are under social pressure to punish most severely those who attack the famous and powerful, but also they are pressured to punish more when the victims are young cute children or poor helpless elderly. When the assailant is already incarcerated, the DA.s take it as an attack on their authority and their ability to punish, so a prisoner gets no sympathy whatsoever, which is a worse position than if you had shot President Reagan and his crew.

The US justice system does not rank their punishments by the caste of the victims, otherwise this ranking would be written into the code.

Nope, you’re wrong. Those who conspired to kill Abraham Lincoln (even the two men who did not go through with their roles in the plot) all received the death penalty, and that was merely for conspiracy to commit a crime against such an authority. Point me to an example where a man received the death penalty for merely conspiring to kill another prisoner, you will not find it. I am not sure why this concept seems so difficult for you all to grasp. It’s something that is taken into consideration in our courts daily.

(June 8, 2013 at 1:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Judging by the number of young black males in prison I could make a case for the justice system ranking punishments by the "caste" of the alleged perp.

No you couldn’t, we’re not talking about convictions; we’re talking about sentencing. Again, please try to keep up.

(June 10, 2013 at 11:04 am)Tonus Wrote: I think I understand what you are saying. I think that what I consider as "ought to be" is only developed through experience and experimentation (I may have already said that). Not in the sense of determining objective moral standards as much as having our morals evolve along with us. So in that sense when I am thinking that "this is how things ought to be" I am applying a subjective standard. I can see where that contradicts; in moving from a set of absolute morals to those that develop along with society, there may not be a true "ought to be" set of morals.

Thanks for the clarification; so is there no way to measure moral progress in your system?

(June 11, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Now you’ve just destroyed what little remnant of an argument you had remaining. If standards of justice are set then God is free to set His own standard and you are in no position to argue that the concept of crimes against a higher authorities necessitating higher punishments is somehow an unjust standard (since any standard of justice that is set is now by definition just). It’s now a classic case of “heads I win, tails you lose.”

Perhaps in fairy land. You can set your gods standard wherever you like, Comparing two things is pretty simple, if you have two things...you're "in a position" to argue. It's an unjust standard compared to ours.

Quote:
Pretty much, what God does is just and you’re in no position to object to it.

According to the standard you've set for him, which fails to meet our own.

Quote: If standards of justice are set then God is free to set His own standard

Except "god" doesn't set shit. Bible-thumping con artists set the standard. As it was in the beginning so it is now. Religion is a scam.

(June 11, 2013 at 6:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Thanks for the clarification; so is there no way to measure moral progress in your system?

I think that if we determine what the community's or society's goals are, we can measure moral progress.

(June 11, 2013 at 11:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Perhaps in fairy land. You can set your gods standard wherever you like, Comparing two things is pretty simple, if you have two things...you're "in a position" to argue. It's an unjust standard compared to ours.

No, according to you we can set our own standards of justice; so if two standards differ one cannot argue that one standard is more just than the other since both are completely arbitrary and they are therefore equal. Even more absurd is the fact that you have now rendered the very concept of something being “unjust” impossible since each person is free to act according to their own arbitrary standard of justice, thus making everything and anything they do just; no injustice, no miscarriages of justice, it’s all justice. What a wonderful and yet completely incoherent world you’ve created for yourself.

Quote:
According to the standard you've set for him, which fails to meet our own.

No, it fails to meet yours, but that’s irrelevant since your standard of justice is arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

(June 12, 2013 at 1:22 pm)Tonus Wrote: I think that if we determine what the community's or society's goals are, we can measure moral progress.

So if a society determines its goal (final solution) to be a society devoid of Jews then it is moral progress to exterminate all Jews? Yikes.

(June 12, 2013 at 7:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No, according to you we can set our own standards of justice; so if two standards differ one cannot argue that one standard is more just than the other since both are completely arbitrary and they are therefore equal. Even more absurd is the fact that you have now rendered the very concept of something being “unjust” impossible since each person is free to act according to their own arbitrary standard of justice, thus making everything and anything they do just; no injustice, no miscarriages of justice, it’s all justice. What a wonderful and yet completely incoherent world you’ve created for yourself.

Biblical morality is no less arbitrary than any other form. Even if we were generous enough to give the fiction credit as being more than that, the Bible merely reflects one being's opinions on what is moral and what is not, and the justification for his opinions is only that he holds them. Arbitrary morality is all that exists in reality, whether you believe in God or not.

Quote: So if a society determines its goal (final solution) to be a society devoid of Jews then it is moral progress to exterminate all Jews? Yikes.

It would be, according to Christianity, as the elimination of Jews was a Christian moral imperative for centuries.