What is one of your deeply held opinions and what would it take to change it? -

Emperor Julian

kiwifarms.net
Mostly rudementry moral stuff like murder is wrong, their arnt any good reasons to violate a human being. As well as obvious imperical truths such as fire burns, I will die.
These could only really be changed by a extreme revelations about the nature of the universe such as I'm the dreams of sleeping god or some weird shit like that. Or if I developed some sort of psychosis.

The only one I can really think of is that consistancy and stability must begin with oneself as a foundational point.
That could probably be revised by life experiances. contradicted this and I went through a period of personal growth on the subject.

Beyond that I always try to remain open to growth. Saying you're completly impossible to persuade you about as complex nuanced subects like politics, philosophy or science implies especially if your opinion is really incendary, absolutist or goes against the grain implies you've got shit for brains. Since you've tacitly implied being proved completly wrong will not sway you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CeleryBread

Senior Lexmechanic

Shitposting displeases the Omnissiah
kiwifarms.net
Reform justice is the best model of justice and should form the basis of the penal system. Punitive and retributive justice are the result of animal instincts trying to foster prosocial behavior, but we can use our forebrains to devise better incentive schemes than "If a man steals, he shall have a hand cut off" or "If a man steals, he shall be flayed to death".
To change my mind, you would have to produce solid evidence that punitive or retributive justice schemes produce a healthier society were people are more prosocial, instead of creating a perverse incentive for antisocial behavior.
 
Reform justice is the best model of justice and should form the basis of the penal system. Punitive and retributive justice are the result of animal instincts trying to foster prosocial behavior, but we can use our forebrains to devise better incentive schemes than "If a man steals, he shall have a hand cut off" or "If a man steals, he shall be flayed to death".
To change my mind, you would have to produce solid evidence that punitive or retributive justice schemes produce a healthier society were people are more prosocial, instead of creating a perverse incentive for antisocial behavior.
I used to think that way, but have more recently considered that the primary purpose of a justice system is to convince the populace that justice has been done, so they don't take it into their own hands, as this rapidly leads to escalations of violence and revenge. If all that mattered to the justice system were the perpetrators of crime then a reform based approach would be best, like you say. However I think really the main purpose of the justice system is to keep our animal behavior at bay. Even if we don't all like the outcome of every trial, at least we're not usually going after the criminals ourselves when dissatisfied with the penalty.

I don't have anything like the data needed to prove this idea though, so I don't think I'll change your mind here. Just saying I used to think very similarly, but I think at the time I wasn't looking at an important piece of the picture.
 

Senior Lexmechanic

Shitposting displeases the Omnissiah
kiwifarms.net
I used to think that way, but have more recently considered that the primary purpose of a justice system is to convince the populace that justice has been done, so they don't take it into their own hands, as this rapidly leads to escalations of violence and revenge. If all that mattered to the justice system were the perpetrators of crime then a reform based approach would be best, like you say. However I think really the main purpose of the justice system is to keep our animal behavior at bay. Even if we don't all like the outcome of every trial, at least we're not usually going after the criminals ourselves when dissatisfied with the penalty.

I don't have anything like the data needed to prove this idea though, so I don't think I'll change your mind here. Just saying I used to think very similarly, but I think at the time I wasn't looking at an important piece of the picture.
I understand the importance of justice-as-social-rage-outlet, but I personally believe that:
1. A reform-based approach to justice can be implemented that's seen as reasonable by the average person and still serve as an outlet for their anger (Because, to be honest, there's always going to be people who even if God himself came down and said "This person should be punished X for their crimes", would punish x+1 because of their animal instincts) and
2. The punitive justice system, at least certainly as it exists in America, is an unconscionable atrocity that objectively lowers the quality of life for everyone across the board. For-profit prisons, I think, are something everyone can agree have no reason to exist.
 

Sofonda Cox

Antinatalist, reality enthusiast, witness.
kiwifarms.net
Procreation is inherently immoral, due to creating suffering and death for another person who cannot consent.

In order for this change, there would need to be an elimination of evolution itself (which requires much suffering), elimination of a percentage of mundane suffering, a loving "god", or a definitive way to measure suffering and pleasure that proved there was more pleasure to the vast majority of lives than suffering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nonvir_1984

HeyYou

seriousposter
kiwifarms.net
Anyone can be an American. Someone who was naturalized yesterday is now just as American as somebody who can trace their lineage back to the Mayflower.
What about British, or French? Your point doesn't seem to apply to either side of the issue because even immigrants complain in quite a few European countries that they feel no attachment or compulsion to learn about the history of the current country they live in. They don't even consider themselves British in the same way British people who've lived there for hundreds of years consider themselves British. How do you reconcile those two beliefs?
 

nonvir_1984

Never amount to anything! And they were right.
kiwifarms.net
Procreation is inherently immoral, due to creating suffering and death for another person who cannot consent.

In order for this change, there would need to be an elimination of evolution itself (which requires much suffering), elimination of a percentage of mundane suffering, a loving "god", or a definitive way to measure suffering and pleasure that proved there was more pleasure to the vast majority of lives than suffering.
And remove the anxiety and fear of death so many experience.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sofonda Cox

WinterMoonsLight

J'ai une âme solitaire
kiwifarms.net
States that have enacted the death with dignity act should allow clinically depressed people to opt for euthanasia in addition to terminally ill people.

If someone has made plans to end their life, and bent on carrying it out, they'll find a way to do it. Why not allow them a way to go through it with as little pain or chance of fucking it up as possible? A gunshot doesn't always work, and can leave you alive but disfigured or brain damaged. Pills and slitting wrists is an incredibly painful and drawn out death that can last hours. Running into traffic will traumatize the poor person who ends up running them over, and that's a cruel thing to do. You get the idea. Give people a way to put their affairs in order and leave with some degree of dignity and peace.

As for changing my mind, I'm open to opposing arguments.
 

ProgKing of the North

^^^^FUCKTARD^^^^
kiwifarms.net
What about British, or French? Your point doesn't seem to apply to either side of the issue because even immigrants complain in quite a few European countries that they feel no attachment or compulsion to learn about the history of the current country they live in. They don't even consider themselves British in the same way British people who've lived there for hundreds of years consider themselves British. How do you reconcile those two beliefs?
Honestly, I don't really give a shit about Britain or France. They can have whatever (likely dumb, seeing as they are, in fact, Britain and France) standard they want. But for me an important point of America is that all citizens are equal and that you aren't automatically a "better American" just because you were born here or have the right ancestors. We don't have aristocracy.

As for history, it's both good and fascinating to know, but not knowing much more than the basics isn't going to keep you from living your day-to-day life or being a productive citizen.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino