RE: "Why is it reasonable to believe in prisons, but not in the hell?"
January 5, 2021 at 1:37 pm
(This post was last modified: January 5, 2021 at 1:38 pm by FlatAssembler.)
The Grand Nudger Wrote:it's not authoritarianism to suggest that some crimes are committed by people who simply don't know any better or have nothing better.Then what is authoritarianism? And why punishing adultery with prison would not be authoritarianism? That is what you are suggesting, right? If you ask me, such a suggestion has far less merit than the suggestion that people should be thrown into jail for eating meat.
The Grand Nudger Wrote:They didn't have the benefit of hindsight as you and I do now, and that certainly wasn't their expectation.I am not sure what you mean? What was their expectation? That they will be remembered as heroes for joining an illegal army that attacked a hospital? Makes zero sense.
The Grand Nudger Wrote:A thing being bad does not suggest imply or demonstrate that it does not exist.Sure. But prisons existing would contradict the Principle of Rationality. Massacres and terrorist attacks happening does not contradict the Principle of Rationality because it does not require any group of people to be systemically biased. In massacres, it does not matter that most soldiers desert, as long as there are some soldiers who do not desert, a massacre will happen. But prisons existing requires politicians to be systemically biased towards believing prisons should exist.
(January 5, 2021 at 1:15 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:(January 5, 2021 at 9:36 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: The same reason I am more likely to listen to somebody speaking English than somebody speaking Croatian. If somebody is speaking English, he is likely more intelligent (enough to master a second language) and has probably studied foreign literature on the subject.
I barely squeaked out a 123 on my last IQ test, I have no talent for languages. I am good at spotting pomposity.
Well, my IQ is not a lot higher, it is 125.
