pop morality

[Drich]

So simple...

Is it the will of the prisoners to be in prison? who keeps them in who signs the release who sets the menus, who over see the facilities, who makes the sleeping arrangements too hot or too cold, who has final say on every aspect of their detainment?

Is your simple mind telling you that is someone had complete control over every aspect of your daily life (even who you will most likely be raped by) that no one see fit to complain, that no one would see the treatment unfair or one sided? That no one would judge a man with such complete power of thousands to be immoral?

If you really think no one in a prison has ever thought the warden to be immoral, then I will let you have this win. Go on, take it do your victory lap.

As the resident "person who has been in prison", I can answer this one:

No, prisoners do not assume the Warden is immoral. Indeed, a good vs a bad Warden can make all the difference in the world in how the inmates are treated, and all they expect from the Warden is that (s)he do the job with equanimity and be fair when enforcing rules that A) make sense and B) are enforced equally.

It's not a question of whether no one will judge that Warden, but whether or not prisoners will assume the Warden to be immoral simply because he is in control of them. It's an easy assumption to make, if you don't know jack about the prison environment, but the only way prisoners give a crap about the Warden is if he is known for having vague rules that are arbitrarily and/or unfairly enforced. If the Warden is indeed immoral (and many are!), then the prisoners will judge on that basis, based upon the actions and stated policies of that individual.

In other words, your argument is moot. We're pointing out that per the Warden's own stated policies, per your analogy here, Warden God is a deeply immoral being who is unfit to hold the position, and certainly unfit to be respected.

As for your citation of the Judaism website, it's clear that the person who wrote that summary is glossing over what was actually stated in the verses. Being a Rabbi does not make one invulnerable to whitewashing via apologetics. The literal translation of the verse, despite the phrase "of a dog", is very clear in its reference to not allowing prostitutes (male or female), or the money earned by same, into the Temple. It has nothing to do with marriage contracts, and to claim it is would be dishonesty-- smoke-and-mirrors.

The point people are making with the "50 sheckels" isn't whether or not there's a penalty at all for rape, but that the money (we'll take your figure of a year's salary as accurate, for the sake of this argument) goes to the father of the victim. In other words, it's a civil penalty in a country that gives out the Death Penalty for free speech crimes (blasphemy, talking back to parents, etc.), making it obvious that the only value of a woman in that culture--which you claim is based on the Eternal Morality of Gawd--is her financial value to the man who "owns" her. We, using our modern (or "pop") moral system which actually values women as equal to men, find this morally abhorrent.

Your ability to justify a law which treats rape as a civil action rather than a criminal one is why we find YOU morally abhorrent.

You know I use prison analogies just for the opportunity to push your buttons right? and like a Swiss watch you keep near perfect time.

While I'm sure your an expert on what goes one behind closed cell room doors.. at night.. But, unless you spent time in a 23 hour lock down for 20 years I'm going to have to ask you to put your prison card back in your... where ever they make you keep it. the analogy I used was place on a shelf above your pay grade.

I got to hear the other side of things. My dad spent 15 years? maybe 20 as a teacher/guard/program director, and while he was in a min security area most of the time, they did have 'lock down' and he even had the power to send inmates there. those he sent to lock down (especially those he sent away for weeks at a time for stupid stuff) defiantly thought him 'immoral.'

The deal was though he knew certain people did not play well with others, and while "I maybe sitting on to of a keg of dynamite if I pull the fuse out, and get rid of it, me and everyone else is safe." (Till it all blows up in your face.)
so he looked hard at certain people to violate them, and send them away in an effort to pull the fuse. I can promise you those people who had their freedoms all taken away and put in a hole 23 hours aday for weeks on end (As per my original senerio, and not your wonderful life experience) did not see him as a moral person. Despite the reasons and relative safety he bought with his actions to personnel and inmate alike.