[quote=“puiwaihin”]Well, pretty much because they suck. Desiring another person to have bad things happen to them is my definition of evil. And don’t go confusing justice with revenge. The law has no desire to see anyone harmed, but executes punishment to keep civilization running.
Love turned to hate probably was never really love.[/quote]
Desiring bad things for another person is not evil. We desire the death penalty or life imprisonment for murderers and serial rapists and child molesters all the time. That’s hardly evil. Is it harmful to the person imprisoned for life or injected with sodium cyanide? You can be damn sure it is. The law TOTALLY desires to see these individuals harmed. Quite fundamentally, the law is determined by individuals. The people who create the laws, the people who enforce the laws, the people who determine guilt and innocence, the people who determine the punishment and the people who execute the punishment. We desire to see aberrent behavior punished and those with such behavior harmed. That is the whole idea of a consequence-based legal system. Hence, WE DO desire to see individuals harmed.
On a less dramatic bent relative to serial rapists and child molesters… If someone has had a history of emotionally hurting others through say, how shall we put this delicately…, BEING A RAVING FUCK SLUT, I should hope one day the same emotional trauma happens to that individual. That way, they get a dose of their medicine and personal experience on the other side of the relationship game. Also, perhaps, it would teach them to modify their behavior since they now know the effects of such behavior personally. As they say, “It’s all fun and games until YOU lose an eye.”
As far as “love turned to hate”, I like how you qualified it with “probably”. I can see love turning to hate quite easily, sadly enough. Passion needs an outlet and if love gets the forearm shiver, it’s not a far stretch to see it turning to hate.
On a lighter note, has anyone ever seen the revenge books put out by George Hayduke? You can find them on Amazon. They are pretty amusing. One of the best prescribed revenges I remember was the late night tie-the-1/2-inch-kevlar-rope-to-their-car’s-rear-axle-and-let-them-get-a-good-head-start-before-the-rope-pulls-taut-since-you-tied-the-other-end-to-the-lamp-post revenge. Ahhhhhh. For an extra 1000 dollars to be lying around for me to buy the necessary length of kevlar rope…
It also works with a length of heavy chain. Just be sure to wrap the chain with rags so the driver doesn’t hear the clinking.
Don’t ask me how I know this.
Do I personally want the murderer to be killed, or to have a person harmed? No. Do I want them not to murder other people and accept that the murderer is a danger to society? Yes.
I’d rather the murderer reform and no longer be a threat, become a productive citizen, etc. But since it isn’t likely, I accept the death penalty as a necessary means of protecting society.
I do have urges towards revenge. When someone harms me I want them harmed in return. But I believe this to be evil and I try and rid myself of these sorts of desires.
We create the law to put restraints on our own behavior-- both on what people can do within society and on what society can do in response to violations of these codes.
Law does not desire harm of the person. It just desires a cessation of anti-social behavior. There is no “revenge” involved. It is a simple consequence of actions, not a desire to harm others.
Motivation for the law does not come from a desire to see a person harmed. It comes from a desire to protect the rights of citizens and ensure fairness. This means a dispassionate approach.
On the one hand, you’re hoping they learn and stop acting evilly. On the other hand, you’re hoping they suffer so that it is “even”. I respect the former, but not the latter motivation.
But passion is not the same as love. Love is not a desire for someone, a need for them to fulfill something in you. It isn’t satisfaction of your own desire that constitutes love. Love is a desire for the well-being of another person, without regard to your own gain or your own fulfillment.
When a person hurts you and you still hope they are happy, then that is love, and not until then.
I said “probably” because it is possible that person did feel love, but that feeling was extinguished by pain. Or, more likely, covered up by the conflicting feelings. But that love doesn’t change to hate. It either goes away or gets buried. The nature of love is not fickle as some would make it out to be.
All the passion that is turning to hate is not part of love, but incidental to it. And a person who wants another person to hurt isn’t doing so because love has turned to hate, but because love was never all that strong (or likely non-existent) and the relationship was about them getting what they needed emotionally.
Do I personally want the murderer to be killed, or to have a person harmed? No. Do I want them not to murder other people and accept that the murderer is a danger to society? Yes.[/quote]
The fact you live as a member of a society which harms people is tacid approval of these methods. The fact that you do nothing to change these methods is overt approval.
[quote]
I do have urges towards revenge. When someone harms me I want them harmed in return. But I believe this to be evil and I try and rid myself of these sorts of desires.[/quote]
In biology, there is a term for certain members of a species which practice aberrent behavior, usually for their own gain. They are called, “cheaters”. Cheaters can persist in a species, but usually at low proportions because other members of their species punish their cheating. With consequences to their cheating behavior, their fitness is at normal or below-normal levels. These behaviors, without consequence or with little consequence, grant cheaters increased fitness, thereby allowing these individuals to pass their genes on in a higher proportion than other members of their cohort. Eventually, the species becomes nothing but cheaters.
Let that be a lesson to you the next time you think about turning that cheek.
[quote]
We create the law to put restraints on our own behavior-- both on what people can do within society and on what society can do in response to violations of these codes.
Law does not desire harm of the person. It just desires a cessation of anti-social behavior. There is no “revenge” involved. It is a simple consequence of actions, not a desire to harm others.
Motivation for the law does not come from a desire to see a person harmed. It comes from a desire to protect the rights of citizens and ensure fairness. This means a dispassionate approach.[/quote]
As I stated in my first post, a good revenge is cold-blooded and calculated. A synonym would be “dispassionate”.
I think you’re working under a false definition of “revenge”. Committing revenge, as defined at dictionary.com is, “To inflict punishment in return for (injury or insult).” Revenge IS a simple consequence of action. Penalties in the legal code ARE state mandated revenge. As I argued earlier, we, as a society which creates, enforces and executes the law, do desire these harmful acts on the perpetrators of aberrent behavior.
See above in the paragraph regarding “cheaters” for a biological reason for a desire for “even”. Also, I do believe Lady Justice holds a balanced scale in her left hand (and a sword in her right :help: ). Not to mention, “the punishment should fit the crime”, “eye for an eye”, etc. You’re entitled to your opinion regarding punishment and all, but I’d prefer society not degenerating into a bunch of advantage-taking assholes.
As far as the stuff on love, I’m not going to argue about something which I know inadequately. Suffice to say I think we’re both wrong in any description/definition of love we can provide and that without a clear definition, there’s no need in debating those points.
Do I personally want the murderer to be killed, or to have a person harmed? No. Do I want them not to murder other people and accept that the murderer is a danger to society? Yes.[/quote]
The fact you live as a member of a society which harms people is tacid approval of these methods. The fact that you do nothing to change these methods is overt approval.[/quote] #1- being a member of a society that harms others is not tacit approval of that harm. Doing nothing about it is tacit approval. Only as members of society can you have a voice in the society’s actions since a society is much greater than an individual’s power. Would you think members of Amnesty Int. are approving of the methods? #2- I state that I approve of the death penalty, imprisonment, etc. But if I found my government was torturing people, I would disapprove, vote those out of office as it fell within my power, etc. The punishments our government imposes inflict as little harm as possible while protecting the rights of society. I argue again that society does not desire the harm of individuals, even when it punishes them. The desire is to protect society, harming offenders is just a necessity.
I’ll need some research indicating that there is a genetic connection to people cheating on gfs/bfs/spouses. On this issue I would believe the behavior to be more the result of nurture than nature.
And I’d say this is a “slippery slope” argument.
Synonym. Not the same thing.
You’re still acting on your passion, just removing the error of it from the execution of the revenge. This is knowingly harming another person. Premeditated murder gets the death penalty/life while 2nd degree murder (acts of passion) get lighter sentences for a reason. I like to call it “evil”.
[quote]1 : a desire for revenge
2 : an act or instance of retaliating in order to get even
3 : an opportunity for getting satisfaction[/quote]
It’s the number three that is most telling. It’s the element of satisfaction does not exist for the law except as a metaphor. “The law is satisfied” and “justice is served” are a personification of something which has no such emotion.
You can see penalties in the legal code as state mandated revenge if you want, according to your definition stripped of the human emotions involved, but I reject it.
We desire the acts to happen to preserve society, not so that the perpetrators of aberrent behavior are harmed. They are necessarily harmed, but desire for their harm is not reason for their harm.
I’ll wait until you produce some evidence that there’s a biological connection. In the case of the insane, or a genetically passed mental disease, I can see the wisdom in locking people up and preventing their genes from being passed.
But you’re making a huge leap and a false analogy. I don’t buy it for an instant.
Well, clearly we don’t agree and I don’t expect you to be persuaded by a simple argument to believe in my view on love. And I’m surely not going to accept yours, even though my vision of love is likely incomplete-- at least in depth.
So, we’ll leave it at that.
I still hold that desiring others to come to harm is the nature of evil. If you desire someone to come to some minor harm so that they can learn and become better that is actually desiring good for them. That would not be evil. But hoping someone else comes to harm because you were hurt… well, I hope you get over feeling like that.
Do I personally want the murderer to be killed, or to have a person harmed? No. Do I want them not to murder other people and accept that the murderer is a danger to society? Yes.[/quote]
The fact you live as a member of a society which harms people is tacid approval of these methods. The fact that you do nothing to change these methods is overt approval.[/quote] #1- being a member of a society that harms others is not tacit approval of that harm. Doing nothing about it is tacit approval. Only as members of society can you have a voice in the society’s actions since a society is much greater than an individual’s power. Would you think members of Amnesty Int. are approving of the methods? #2- I state that I approve of the death penalty, imprisonment, etc. But if I found my government was torturing people, I would disapprove, vote those out of office as it fell within my power, etc. The punishments our government imposes inflict as little harm as possible while protecting the rights of society. I argue again that society does not desire the harm of individuals, even when it punishes them. The desire is to protect society, harming offenders is just a necessity.[/quote]
That’s a nice way of trying to deflect the fact that there are societies that imprison people with sociopaths or hangs them by the neck until dead. You might interpret that as a desire to protect society, I interpret it as a desire to harm those who bring harm on others. Again, if I might bring Lady Justice back into the picture… she carries a sword, not a shield.
Also, I do believe living in a society is tacit approval of the society’s actions. I guess I’m just a wacky social contracter in that way, but again, this is a disagreement on interpretation rather than fact.
I’ll need some research indicating that there is a genetic connection to people cheating on gfs/bfs/spouses. On this issue I would believe the behavior to be more the result of nurture than nature.
And I’d say this is a “slippery slope” argument.[/quote]
Cheating is not only sexually. Cheater behavior is any behavior which comes at the expense of others of the same species. And as far as research, you can find that yourself. It’s out there and it’s pretty well established in the biological community. I realize the burden of proof is on me, but I’m sick, can’t sleep and am not willing to go through the hassle of a google search right now.
As far as your claims it’s a “slippery slope” argument, probability has nothing to do with logical fallacies.
Synonym. Not the same thing.
You’re still acting on your passion, just removing the error of it from the execution of the revenge. This is knowingly harming another person. Premeditated murder gets the death penalty/life while 2nd degree murder (acts of passion) get lighter sentences for a reason. I like to call it “evil”.[/quote]
Even in cases of outright first degree murder, with the correct set of circumstances, society sees fit to free the murderer or give the murderer a decreased sentence. What sort of circumstances are these? Eye for an eye sorts.
[quote]1 : a desire for revenge
2 : an act or instance of retaliating in order to get even
3 : an opportunity for getting satisfaction[/quote]
It’s the number three that is most telling. It’s the element of satisfaction does not exist for the law except as a metaphor. “The law is satisfied” and “justice is served” are a personification of something which has no such emotion. [/quote]
And so you base your claims on the minor definition of revenge. ~sigh~
Utilizing your dictionary, “satisfaction” is defined as follows:
1 a : the payment through penance of the temporal punishment incurred by a sin b : reparation for sin that meets the demands of divine justice
2 a : fulfillment of a need or want b : the quality or state of being satisfied : c : a source or means of enjoyment
3 a : compensation for a loss or injury : b : the discharge of a legal obligation or claim c :
4 : convinced assurance or certainty
Not a whole lot about emotion here. And before you argue that 2a’s “want” is an emotion, I’ll point out that 3a is “most telling”.
I don’t. It has absolutely nothing to do with a desire for them to become better. It has everything to do with justice and balance. And with out justice and balance, I, again, foresee a future filled with advantage-taking assholes. Thank god for the dicks out there or everything would be covered in shit today.
Furthermore, I don’t desire minor harm necessarily. I desire an equal harm to befall them (granted, there are circumstances which may change this including a desire to hurt me, premeditation, etc. etc). Tit for tat.
[quote=“pissedpookie”][quote=“puiwaihin”] #1- being a member of a society that harms others is not tacit approval of that harm. Doing nothing about it is tacit approval. Only as members of society can you have a voice in the society’s actions since a society is much greater than an individual’s power. Would you think members of Amnesty Int. are approving of the methods? #2- I state that I approve of the death penalty, imprisonment, etc. But if I found my government was torturing people, I would disapprove, vote those out of office as it fell within my power, etc. The punishments our government imposes inflict as little harm as possible while protecting the rights of society. I argue again that society does not desire the harm of individuals, even when it punishes them. The desire is to protect society, harming offenders is just a necessity.[/quote]
That’s a nice way of trying to deflect the fact that there are societies that imprison people with sociopaths or hangs them by the neck until dead. You might interpret that as a desire to protect society, I interpret it as a desire to harm those who bring harm on others. Again, if I might bring Lady Justice back into the picture… she carries a sword, not a shield.[/quote]
The best defense is a good offense.
There is a deterrent value in making executions painful and public.
But most of the painful punishments have been done away with. Death by hanging has been removed from the books of most places. The deterrent value has in most cases been discarded in favor of choosing to cause the least harm (in the case of the death penalty, the least pain in administering the sentence) possible. Painless death. Humane living conditions for prisoners.
If someone accdientally cuts off the arm of another, the law does not allow the injured to cut the arm off of the perpetrator. Instead, it requires the one who did the cutting to compensate the one who was harmed for their loss. Here is justice, not revenge.
When a person is known to cut the arms off of people intentionally they are imprisoned so that they cannot continue to do this. Someone may want revenge, to be able to cut that person’s arm off, but they are denied.
There are governments that allow revenge. They just seek to limit revenge so that it does not escalate. But that isn’t my government.
You are a member of a family. Your father spits on the guy in front of him because he is wearing a Chicago Bulls t-shirt. So, because you don’t approve of what your father does you leave the family? Do you scream at your father? Lot of good that will do. If you offer an apology for the rudeness of your father, are you still approving of his actions?
I know that. But we’re not talking about bees, or ants, or what have you. We’re talking about human behavior, and specifically sexual cheating. Does cheating have a genetic connection in human behavior? I’ve never heard of that. You will definitely need proof.
Sure it does. Deductive fallacies, no, inductive fallacies yes.
“If this guy cheats he’ll breed more than other guys and pass on his genetic material more than other guys do and the cheating gene will increase in the population until everyone is a cheater!”
(That’s a paraphrase.)
That is clearly a slippery slope argument. Even if there were a “sexual cheating gene” and it was harmful to the population there would be a natural mechanism for containing it.
What sort of circumstances? When the perpetrator is not likely to do the same thing again. Lots of time when there is a “revenge killing” the person is acting on an extreme emotion that won’t likely be brought out again. But many others are not given the maximum penalty simply because society does not deem the threat to be large and the circumstances of the event are not the sort that society most wants to deter. Revenge killings are not the only times people aren’t given the maximum and revenge killers do get life in prison.
The 3rd defintion is not the “minor” definition. It is one of multiple definitions. A word carries with it a lot of meaning other than that just in the text of a word.
So you don’t think the word “satisfied” relates to emotional needs?
You don’t think revenge as you are discussing it is an emotional response? Your desire for harm is simply a desire to see justice served, and has nothing to do with your own emotional satisfaction?
Let’s talk about meaning, not piddle with words. You tried to use the dictionary to say that revenge has nothing to do with emotion so that you can apply revenge to law. Well, in that dry, unemotional, clinical sense of the word I will accept the use of “revenge” to apply to law. But only in that narrow sense.
I don’t. It has absolutely nothing to do with a desire for them to become better. It has everything to do with justice and balance.[/quote]
Well, if it is just a need to see justice, for the sake of the virtue of justice, not for the desire to see someone harmed, then revenge would not be evil.
But desiring to see another harmed is my basic definition of evil. What’s yours?
i think the people who do this kind of stuff(stalking, hoping for revenge, loss of self esteem) could help themselves by being the “first one out of the plane” as i said before. love is a plane with one parachute. whoever grabs it first leaves the plane with their self esteem intact. whoever doesn’t crashes with the plane. if you know a breakup is imminent, BEAT THEM TO THE PUNCH!break up with them first. then they’ll wonder “what the fuck??” and might even be trying to get you back. then all the cards will be in your court, cause everybody wants what they can’t have!
learned that off askmen.com!
[quote=“rantheman”]I think the people who do this kind of stuff(stalking, hoping for revenge, loss of self esteem) could help themselves by being the “first one out of the plane” as I said before. love is a plane with one parachute. whoever grabs it first leaves the plane with their self esteem intact. whoever doesn’t crashes with the plane. if you know a breakup is imminent, BEAT THEM TO THE PUNCH!break up with them first. then they’ll wonder “what the fuck??” and might even be trying to get you back. then all the cards will be in your court, cause everybody wants what they can’t have!
learned that off askmen.com![/quote]
Or…
Get them to break up with you… There are several non-lethal methods, you lads are big enough to figure that out for yourselves…
That way they think it’s their idea, no revenge or waiting for some wacko with a cup full of HCL acid.
And you still get what you wanted…
