Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset1

like 0

[ "Light up Belarus💥🇧🇾" ]

[ "Light up Belarus💥🇧🇾", ">\n\n\nAs Ukrainian forces sustained intensified Russian attacks in the east of the country, the top U.S. and Ukrainian military officers met for the first time at a secret location in southeastern Poland as Kyiv pressed the need for increased supplies of Western arms in its defense against Moscow’s full-scale invasion.\nA U.S. military spokesman said Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, met with General Valeriy Zaluzhniy, Ukraine's military chief, at a base near Poland's border with Ukraine on January 17.\n\n...\n\nZaluzhniy confirmed the meeting, writing on Twitter: \"My first personal meeting with #GenMilley, Chairman of @thejointstaff happened in Poland.\"\nHe said he \"extended my gratitude for the unwavering support & assistance\" provided by the United States and other allies. He added that he \"outlined the urgent needs\" of the Ukrainian military that \"will accelerate our victory.\"" ]

[ "Light up Belarus💥🇧🇾", ">\n\n\nAs Ukrainian forces sustained intensified Russian attacks in the east of the country, the top U.S. and Ukrainian military officers met for the first time at a secret location in southeastern Poland as Kyiv pressed the need for increased supplies of Western arms in its defense against Moscow’s full-scale invasion.\nA U.S. military spokesman said Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, met with General Valeriy Zaluzhniy, Ukraine's military chief, at a base near Poland's border with Ukraine on January 17.\n\n...\n\nZaluzhniy confirmed the meeting, writing on Twitter: \"My first personal meeting with #GenMilley, Chairman of @thejointstaff happened in Poland.\"\nHe said he \"extended my gratitude for the unwavering support & assistance\" provided by the United States and other allies. He added that he \"outlined the urgent needs\" of the Ukrainian military that \"will accelerate our victory.\"", ">\n\nRussians are fked within coming days!" ]

[ "Light up Belarus💥🇧🇾", ">\n\n\nAs Ukrainian forces sustained intensified Russian attacks in the east of the country, the top U.S. and Ukrainian military officers met for the first time at a secret location in southeastern Poland as Kyiv pressed the need for increased supplies of Western arms in its defense against Moscow’s full-scale invasion.\nA U.S. military spokesman said Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, met with General Valeriy Zaluzhniy, Ukraine's military chief, at a base near Poland's border with Ukraine on January 17.\n\n...\n\nZaluzhniy confirmed the meeting, writing on Twitter: \"My first personal meeting with #GenMilley, Chairman of @thejointstaff happened in Poland.\"\nHe said he \"extended my gratitude for the unwavering support & assistance\" provided by the United States and other allies. He added that he \"outlined the urgent needs\" of the Ukrainian military that \"will accelerate our victory.\"", ">\n\nRussians are fked within coming days!", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nAs Ukrainian forces sustained intensified Russian attacks in the east of the country, the top U.S. and Ukrainian military officers met for the first time at a secret location in southeastern Poland as Kyiv pressed the need for increased supplies of Western arms in its defense against Moscow's full-scale invasion.\nThe meeting came as Ukrainian cities and troops faced relentless Russian attacks, mainly in the east of the country, over the past 24 hours and as Western allies prepared to meet in Germany to discuss giving Ukraine offensive armaments such as tanks, a major desire of leaders in Kyiv.\nU.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is preparing to visit Berlin on January 19 and then host a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group the following day at the U.S. military base in Ramstein to discuss further support - including military aid - for Ukraine with allies.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: January^#1 Ukraine^#2 military^#3 Ukrainian^#4 Russian^#5" ]

[]

[ "Wait till I tell you what people posting unpopular opinions are seeking" ]

[ "Wait till I tell you what people posting unpopular opinions are seeking", ">\n\nWell personally, just voicing an unpopular opinion to see if anyone agrees. I see it is unpopular lol" ]

[ "Wait till I tell you what people posting unpopular opinions are seeking", ">\n\nWell personally, just voicing an unpopular opinion to see if anyone agrees. I see it is unpopular lol", ">\n\nThat’s…that’s the whole point. People don’t cosplay just to sit at home alone and have nobody see it. The whole point of cosplay is to have others see you in costume." ]

[ "Wait till I tell you what people posting unpopular opinions are seeking", ">\n\nWell personally, just voicing an unpopular opinion to see if anyone agrees. I see it is unpopular lol", ">\n\nThat’s…that’s the whole point. People don’t cosplay just to sit at home alone and have nobody see it. The whole point of cosplay is to have others see you in costume.", ">\n\nYou didn’t get what I meant. Someone cosplaying as their favorite character vs someone who doesn’t know shit about that character but only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes" ]

[ "Wait till I tell you what people posting unpopular opinions are seeking", ">\n\nWell personally, just voicing an unpopular opinion to see if anyone agrees. I see it is unpopular lol", ">\n\nThat’s…that’s the whole point. People don’t cosplay just to sit at home alone and have nobody see it. The whole point of cosplay is to have others see you in costume.", ">\n\nYou didn’t get what I meant. Someone cosplaying as their favorite character vs someone who doesn’t know shit about that character but only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes", ">\n\n\nbut only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes\n\nTo be fair...those outfits are generally skimpy in the show too. The cosplayers don't have to really try hard for that. Japan sure loves them some 14 year old girls in skimpy clothing." ]

[ "Wait till I tell you what people posting unpopular opinions are seeking", ">\n\nWell personally, just voicing an unpopular opinion to see if anyone agrees. I see it is unpopular lol", ">\n\nThat’s…that’s the whole point. People don’t cosplay just to sit at home alone and have nobody see it. The whole point of cosplay is to have others see you in costume.", ">\n\nYou didn’t get what I meant. Someone cosplaying as their favorite character vs someone who doesn’t know shit about that character but only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes", ">\n\n\nbut only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes\n\nTo be fair...those outfits are generally skimpy in the show too. The cosplayers don't have to really try hard for that. Japan sure loves them some 14 year old girls in skimpy clothing.", ">\n\nWasn’t specifically speaking about Japanese characters but you get the gist." ]

[ "Wait till I tell you what people posting unpopular opinions are seeking", ">\n\nWell personally, just voicing an unpopular opinion to see if anyone agrees. I see it is unpopular lol", ">\n\nThat’s…that’s the whole point. People don’t cosplay just to sit at home alone and have nobody see it. The whole point of cosplay is to have others see you in costume.", ">\n\nYou didn’t get what I meant. Someone cosplaying as their favorite character vs someone who doesn’t know shit about that character but only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes", ">\n\n\nbut only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes\n\nTo be fair...those outfits are generally skimpy in the show too. The cosplayers don't have to really try hard for that. Japan sure loves them some 14 year old girls in skimpy clothing.", ">\n\nWasn’t specifically speaking about Japanese characters but you get the gist.", ">\n\nSame for female characters in American media too." ]

[ "Wait till I tell you what people posting unpopular opinions are seeking", ">\n\nWell personally, just voicing an unpopular opinion to see if anyone agrees. I see it is unpopular lol", ">\n\nThat’s…that’s the whole point. People don’t cosplay just to sit at home alone and have nobody see it. The whole point of cosplay is to have others see you in costume.", ">\n\nYou didn’t get what I meant. Someone cosplaying as their favorite character vs someone who doesn’t know shit about that character but only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes", ">\n\n\nbut only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes\n\nTo be fair...those outfits are generally skimpy in the show too. The cosplayers don't have to really try hard for that. Japan sure loves them some 14 year old girls in skimpy clothing.", ">\n\nWasn’t specifically speaking about Japanese characters but you get the gist.", ">\n\nSame for female characters in American media too.", ">\n\nLooks at female armor styles in many RPGs." ]

[ "Wait till I tell you what people posting unpopular opinions are seeking", ">\n\nWell personally, just voicing an unpopular opinion to see if anyone agrees. I see it is unpopular lol", ">\n\nThat’s…that’s the whole point. People don’t cosplay just to sit at home alone and have nobody see it. The whole point of cosplay is to have others see you in costume.", ">\n\nYou didn’t get what I meant. Someone cosplaying as their favorite character vs someone who doesn’t know shit about that character but only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes", ">\n\n\nbut only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes\n\nTo be fair...those outfits are generally skimpy in the show too. The cosplayers don't have to really try hard for that. Japan sure loves them some 14 year old girls in skimpy clothing.", ">\n\nWasn’t specifically speaking about Japanese characters but you get the gist.", ">\n\nSame for female characters in American media too.", ">\n\nLooks at female armor styles in many RPGs.", ">\n\nAh yes the super heavy armor that exposes the characters belly, thighs and other various body parts...\nGuess the armor is mAgIcAl!" ]

[ "Wait till I tell you what people posting unpopular opinions are seeking", ">\n\nWell personally, just voicing an unpopular opinion to see if anyone agrees. I see it is unpopular lol", ">\n\nThat’s…that’s the whole point. People don’t cosplay just to sit at home alone and have nobody see it. The whole point of cosplay is to have others see you in costume.", ">\n\nYou didn’t get what I meant. Someone cosplaying as their favorite character vs someone who doesn’t know shit about that character but only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes", ">\n\n\nbut only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes\n\nTo be fair...those outfits are generally skimpy in the show too. The cosplayers don't have to really try hard for that. Japan sure loves them some 14 year old girls in skimpy clothing.", ">\n\nWasn’t specifically speaking about Japanese characters but you get the gist.", ">\n\nSame for female characters in American media too.", ">\n\nLooks at female armor styles in many RPGs.", ">\n\nAh yes the super heavy armor that exposes the characters belly, thighs and other various body parts...\nGuess the armor is mAgIcAl!", ">\n\nOf course, maybe there are people that dress up and chill on the couch all day, but people that dress up like that and go to conventions are obviously looking for attention. Going online is no different." ]

[ "Wait till I tell you what people posting unpopular opinions are seeking", ">\n\nWell personally, just voicing an unpopular opinion to see if anyone agrees. I see it is unpopular lol", ">\n\nThat’s…that’s the whole point. People don’t cosplay just to sit at home alone and have nobody see it. The whole point of cosplay is to have others see you in costume.", ">\n\nYou didn’t get what I meant. Someone cosplaying as their favorite character vs someone who doesn’t know shit about that character but only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes", ">\n\n\nbut only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes\n\nTo be fair...those outfits are generally skimpy in the show too. The cosplayers don't have to really try hard for that. Japan sure loves them some 14 year old girls in skimpy clothing.", ">\n\nWasn’t specifically speaking about Japanese characters but you get the gist.", ">\n\nSame for female characters in American media too.", ">\n\nLooks at female armor styles in many RPGs.", ">\n\nAh yes the super heavy armor that exposes the characters belly, thighs and other various body parts...\nGuess the armor is mAgIcAl!", ">\n\nOf course, maybe there are people that dress up and chill on the couch all day, but people that dress up like that and go to conventions are obviously looking for attention. Going online is no different.", ">\n\nall cosplayers are attention seekers. everyone who enjoy doing anything noticeable publicly is. \nbut it's not always a bad thing." ]

[ "Wait till I tell you what people posting unpopular opinions are seeking", ">\n\nWell personally, just voicing an unpopular opinion to see if anyone agrees. I see it is unpopular lol", ">\n\nThat’s…that’s the whole point. People don’t cosplay just to sit at home alone and have nobody see it. The whole point of cosplay is to have others see you in costume.", ">\n\nYou didn’t get what I meant. Someone cosplaying as their favorite character vs someone who doesn’t know shit about that character but only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes", ">\n\n\nbut only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes\n\nTo be fair...those outfits are generally skimpy in the show too. The cosplayers don't have to really try hard for that. Japan sure loves them some 14 year old girls in skimpy clothing.", ">\n\nWasn’t specifically speaking about Japanese characters but you get the gist.", ">\n\nSame for female characters in American media too.", ">\n\nLooks at female armor styles in many RPGs.", ">\n\nAh yes the super heavy armor that exposes the characters belly, thighs and other various body parts...\nGuess the armor is mAgIcAl!", ">\n\nOf course, maybe there are people that dress up and chill on the couch all day, but people that dress up like that and go to conventions are obviously looking for attention. Going online is no different.", ">\n\nall cosplayers are attention seekers. everyone who enjoy doing anything noticeable publicly is. \nbut it's not always a bad thing.", ">\n\n\nThis is not an unpopular opinion, its just facts. 2. You're saying this with a tone that implies its a bad thing. What is the problem with people cosplaying for money, attention, etc.? Are you saying that because they seek attention somehow their work looks bad? If anything, the more attention they get, the more money they get, the more attention to detail they can add to the cosplay. What is the point of this opinion? 3. Two things can be true: people can cosplay for attention as well as because they are imagining themselves in that world." ]

[ "Wait till I tell you what people posting unpopular opinions are seeking", ">\n\nWell personally, just voicing an unpopular opinion to see if anyone agrees. I see it is unpopular lol", ">\n\nThat’s…that’s the whole point. People don’t cosplay just to sit at home alone and have nobody see it. The whole point of cosplay is to have others see you in costume.", ">\n\nYou didn’t get what I meant. Someone cosplaying as their favorite character vs someone who doesn’t know shit about that character but only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes", ">\n\n\nbut only cosplaying for attention and getting that by unnecessarily skimpy costumes\n\nTo be fair...those outfits are generally skimpy in the show too. The cosplayers don't have to really try hard for that. Japan sure loves them some 14 year old girls in skimpy clothing.", ">\n\nWasn’t specifically speaking about Japanese characters but you get the gist.", ">\n\nSame for female characters in American media too.", ">\n\nLooks at female armor styles in many RPGs.", ">\n\nAh yes the super heavy armor that exposes the characters belly, thighs and other various body parts...\nGuess the armor is mAgIcAl!", ">\n\nOf course, maybe there are people that dress up and chill on the couch all day, but people that dress up like that and go to conventions are obviously looking for attention. Going online is no different.", ">\n\nall cosplayers are attention seekers. everyone who enjoy doing anything noticeable publicly is. \nbut it's not always a bad thing.", ">\n\n\nThis is not an unpopular opinion, its just facts. 2. You're saying this with a tone that implies its a bad thing. What is the problem with people cosplaying for money, attention, etc.? Are you saying that because they seek attention somehow their work looks bad? If anything, the more attention they get, the more money they get, the more attention to detail they can add to the cosplay. What is the point of this opinion? 3. Two things can be true: people can cosplay for attention as well as because they are imagining themselves in that world.", ">\n\nCosplayers online? How about every single \"content creator\". Internet people don't even realize that we are feeding all the value produced by society into entertainers. And what do we get in return? Usually cheap content like a react of a react of a react. I could bet there is even an inflation factor involved. There is no way we can funnel so much value into valueless people and dont get punished with massive inflation." ]

[]

[ "Shooter in custody as of 4:10pm Eastern." ]

[ "Shooter in custody as of 4:10pm Eastern.", ">\n\n\nResidents in the area report receiving a reverse 911 call telling them to shelter in place.\n\nGood to know this exists, I have never heard of it." ]

[ "Shooter in custody as of 4:10pm Eastern.", ">\n\n\nResidents in the area report receiving a reverse 911 call telling them to shelter in place.\n\nGood to know this exists, I have never heard of it.", ">\n\nYep got one at 3 in the morning one time because gangster shot a cop in the sketchy apartment complex over the hill (vest saved cop) and ran into my neighborhood. Asked me to turn on outside lights and lock doors, obviously don't let anyone in. Next day I found the crawl space door of the rental house next door was standing wide open, so you know, nothing to be nervous about." ]

[ "Shooter in custody as of 4:10pm Eastern.", ">\n\n\nResidents in the area report receiving a reverse 911 call telling them to shelter in place.\n\nGood to know this exists, I have never heard of it.", ">\n\nYep got one at 3 in the morning one time because gangster shot a cop in the sketchy apartment complex over the hill (vest saved cop) and ran into my neighborhood. Asked me to turn on outside lights and lock doors, obviously don't let anyone in. Next day I found the crawl space door of the rental house next door was standing wide open, so you know, nothing to be nervous about.", ">\n\nJust another day in the dream factory." ]

[ "Shooter in custody as of 4:10pm Eastern.", ">\n\n\nResidents in the area report receiving a reverse 911 call telling them to shelter in place.\n\nGood to know this exists, I have never heard of it.", ">\n\nYep got one at 3 in the morning one time because gangster shot a cop in the sketchy apartment complex over the hill (vest saved cop) and ran into my neighborhood. Asked me to turn on outside lights and lock doors, obviously don't let anyone in. Next day I found the crawl space door of the rental house next door was standing wide open, so you know, nothing to be nervous about.", ">\n\nJust another day in the dream factory.", ">\n\nSure seems that way lately. I love Colorado, I love living here but these nuts are harshing my mellow." ]

[ "Shooter in custody as of 4:10pm Eastern.", ">\n\n\nResidents in the area report receiving a reverse 911 call telling them to shelter in place.\n\nGood to know this exists, I have never heard of it.", ">\n\nYep got one at 3 in the morning one time because gangster shot a cop in the sketchy apartment complex over the hill (vest saved cop) and ran into my neighborhood. Asked me to turn on outside lights and lock doors, obviously don't let anyone in. Next day I found the crawl space door of the rental house next door was standing wide open, so you know, nothing to be nervous about.", ">\n\nJust another day in the dream factory.", ">\n\nSure seems that way lately. I love Colorado, I love living here but these nuts are harshing my mellow.", ">\n\nlol if we ever get to gun cases in public areas with \"break in case of active shooter\"" ]

[ "Shooter in custody as of 4:10pm Eastern.", ">\n\n\nResidents in the area report receiving a reverse 911 call telling them to shelter in place.\n\nGood to know this exists, I have never heard of it.", ">\n\nYep got one at 3 in the morning one time because gangster shot a cop in the sketchy apartment complex over the hill (vest saved cop) and ran into my neighborhood. Asked me to turn on outside lights and lock doors, obviously don't let anyone in. Next day I found the crawl space door of the rental house next door was standing wide open, so you know, nothing to be nervous about.", ">\n\nJust another day in the dream factory.", ">\n\nSure seems that way lately. I love Colorado, I love living here but these nuts are harshing my mellow.", ">\n\nlol if we ever get to gun cases in public areas with \"break in case of active shooter\"", ">\n\nWouldn’t that be an active shooter starter kit?" ]

[ "Shooter in custody as of 4:10pm Eastern.", ">\n\n\nResidents in the area report receiving a reverse 911 call telling them to shelter in place.\n\nGood to know this exists, I have never heard of it.", ">\n\nYep got one at 3 in the morning one time because gangster shot a cop in the sketchy apartment complex over the hill (vest saved cop) and ran into my neighborhood. Asked me to turn on outside lights and lock doors, obviously don't let anyone in. Next day I found the crawl space door of the rental house next door was standing wide open, so you know, nothing to be nervous about.", ">\n\nJust another day in the dream factory.", ">\n\nSure seems that way lately. I love Colorado, I love living here but these nuts are harshing my mellow.", ">\n\nlol if we ever get to gun cases in public areas with \"break in case of active shooter\"", ">\n\nWouldn’t that be an active shooter starter kit?", ">\n\nNope. It's Good Guy with a Gun finishing kit.\n/s" ]

[ "Shooter in custody as of 4:10pm Eastern.", ">\n\n\nResidents in the area report receiving a reverse 911 call telling them to shelter in place.\n\nGood to know this exists, I have never heard of it.", ">\n\nYep got one at 3 in the morning one time because gangster shot a cop in the sketchy apartment complex over the hill (vest saved cop) and ran into my neighborhood. Asked me to turn on outside lights and lock doors, obviously don't let anyone in. Next day I found the crawl space door of the rental house next door was standing wide open, so you know, nothing to be nervous about.", ">\n\nJust another day in the dream factory.", ">\n\nSure seems that way lately. I love Colorado, I love living here but these nuts are harshing my mellow.", ">\n\nlol if we ever get to gun cases in public areas with \"break in case of active shooter\"", ">\n\nWouldn’t that be an active shooter starter kit?", ">\n\nNope. It's Good Guy with a Gun finishing kit.\n/s", ">\n\nActive Shooter Announcement, or as we call it in the US. \nSimply Tuesday." ]

[ "Shooter in custody as of 4:10pm Eastern.", ">\n\n\nResidents in the area report receiving a reverse 911 call telling them to shelter in place.\n\nGood to know this exists, I have never heard of it.", ">\n\nYep got one at 3 in the morning one time because gangster shot a cop in the sketchy apartment complex over the hill (vest saved cop) and ran into my neighborhood. Asked me to turn on outside lights and lock doors, obviously don't let anyone in. Next day I found the crawl space door of the rental house next door was standing wide open, so you know, nothing to be nervous about.", ">\n\nJust another day in the dream factory.", ">\n\nSure seems that way lately. I love Colorado, I love living here but these nuts are harshing my mellow.", ">\n\nlol if we ever get to gun cases in public areas with \"break in case of active shooter\"", ">\n\nWouldn’t that be an active shooter starter kit?", ">\n\nNope. It's Good Guy with a Gun finishing kit.\n/s", ">\n\nActive Shooter Announcement, or as we call it in the US. \nSimply Tuesday.", ">\n\nUnlike Massacre Monday." ]

[ "Shooter in custody as of 4:10pm Eastern.", ">\n\n\nResidents in the area report receiving a reverse 911 call telling them to shelter in place.\n\nGood to know this exists, I have never heard of it.", ">\n\nYep got one at 3 in the morning one time because gangster shot a cop in the sketchy apartment complex over the hill (vest saved cop) and ran into my neighborhood. Asked me to turn on outside lights and lock doors, obviously don't let anyone in. Next day I found the crawl space door of the rental house next door was standing wide open, so you know, nothing to be nervous about.", ">\n\nJust another day in the dream factory.", ">\n\nSure seems that way lately. I love Colorado, I love living here but these nuts are harshing my mellow.", ">\n\nlol if we ever get to gun cases in public areas with \"break in case of active shooter\"", ">\n\nWouldn’t that be an active shooter starter kit?", ">\n\nNope. It's Good Guy with a Gun finishing kit.\n/s", ">\n\nActive Shooter Announcement, or as we call it in the US. \nSimply Tuesday.", ">\n\nUnlike Massacre Monday.", ">\n\nWetwork Wednesday" ]

[ "Shooter in custody as of 4:10pm Eastern.", ">\n\n\nResidents in the area report receiving a reverse 911 call telling them to shelter in place.\n\nGood to know this exists, I have never heard of it.", ">\n\nYep got one at 3 in the morning one time because gangster shot a cop in the sketchy apartment complex over the hill (vest saved cop) and ran into my neighborhood. Asked me to turn on outside lights and lock doors, obviously don't let anyone in. Next day I found the crawl space door of the rental house next door was standing wide open, so you know, nothing to be nervous about.", ">\n\nJust another day in the dream factory.", ">\n\nSure seems that way lately. I love Colorado, I love living here but these nuts are harshing my mellow.", ">\n\nlol if we ever get to gun cases in public areas with \"break in case of active shooter\"", ">\n\nWouldn’t that be an active shooter starter kit?", ">\n\nNope. It's Good Guy with a Gun finishing kit.\n/s", ">\n\nActive Shooter Announcement, or as we call it in the US. \nSimply Tuesday.", ">\n\nUnlike Massacre Monday.", ">\n\nWetwork Wednesday", ">\n\nNo way to stop this, says only country that regularly has shootings." ]

[]

[ "I'm not a liberal and I believe in collective justice.\n\nThat's just racism when applied to something like this." ]

[ "I'm not a liberal and I believe in collective justice.\n\nThat's just racism when applied to something like this.", ">\n\nI'm a person of color, and I don't believe in racism." ]

[ "I'm not a liberal and I believe in collective justice.\n\nThat's just racism when applied to something like this.", ">\n\nI'm a person of color, and I don't believe in racism.", ">\n\nOk, well, it doesn't change that it's racist just because you don't believe in it.\nA person of color who doesn't believe in racism? I mean... you care to explain that? Like... that is really hard to even take seriously at all as a coherent thing to say." ]

[ "I'm not a liberal and I believe in collective justice.\n\nThat's just racism when applied to something like this.", ">\n\nI'm a person of color, and I don't believe in racism.", ">\n\nOk, well, it doesn't change that it's racist just because you don't believe in it.\nA person of color who doesn't believe in racism? I mean... you care to explain that? Like... that is really hard to even take seriously at all as a coherent thing to say.", ">\n\nI don't believe racism is a real thing. People hardly hate because of skin color and those that do are usually immature and young. People hate you because of your culture and civilisation and what you stand for. Culturalism or civilizationism are better terms. Westerners say they're tolerant of people of diverse backgrounds, except when they offer an opinion tied to their culture contrary to theirs." ]

[ "I'm not a liberal and I believe in collective justice.\n\nThat's just racism when applied to something like this.", ">\n\nI'm a person of color, and I don't believe in racism.", ">\n\nOk, well, it doesn't change that it's racist just because you don't believe in it.\nA person of color who doesn't believe in racism? I mean... you care to explain that? Like... that is really hard to even take seriously at all as a coherent thing to say.", ">\n\nI don't believe racism is a real thing. People hardly hate because of skin color and those that do are usually immature and young. People hate you because of your culture and civilisation and what you stand for. Culturalism or civilizationism are better terms. Westerners say they're tolerant of people of diverse backgrounds, except when they offer an opinion tied to their culture contrary to theirs.", ">\n\nOk, well let's go with that idea.\nYour view appears to be bigoted then, not racist.\nDoes that somehow make it better?" ]

[ "I'm not a liberal and I believe in collective justice.\n\nThat's just racism when applied to something like this.", ">\n\nI'm a person of color, and I don't believe in racism.", ">\n\nOk, well, it doesn't change that it's racist just because you don't believe in it.\nA person of color who doesn't believe in racism? I mean... you care to explain that? Like... that is really hard to even take seriously at all as a coherent thing to say.", ">\n\nI don't believe racism is a real thing. People hardly hate because of skin color and those that do are usually immature and young. People hate you because of your culture and civilisation and what you stand for. Culturalism or civilizationism are better terms. Westerners say they're tolerant of people of diverse backgrounds, except when they offer an opinion tied to their culture contrary to theirs.", ">\n\nOk, well let's go with that idea.\nYour view appears to be bigoted then, not racist.\nDoes that somehow make it better?", ">\n\n\nI'm also reinforced by the fact that many islamic countries have also backed China on this issue.\n\nChinese Muslims are Turks, and you are listening to Arab nationalists. Arab nationalists want genocide of all non-arabs, see how Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds because the Kurds are Persian, despite being Sunni Muslims the same as Arab Iraqis. The fact that it was an Islamic Country doing the An-Anfal Genocide does not lessen the fact that it was genocide, and the fact that these same types of people support genocide abroad does not lessen any genocide" ]

[ "I'm not a liberal and I believe in collective justice.\n\nThat's just racism when applied to something like this.", ">\n\nI'm a person of color, and I don't believe in racism.", ">\n\nOk, well, it doesn't change that it's racist just because you don't believe in it.\nA person of color who doesn't believe in racism? I mean... you care to explain that? Like... that is really hard to even take seriously at all as a coherent thing to say.", ">\n\nI don't believe racism is a real thing. People hardly hate because of skin color and those that do are usually immature and young. People hate you because of your culture and civilisation and what you stand for. Culturalism or civilizationism are better terms. Westerners say they're tolerant of people of diverse backgrounds, except when they offer an opinion tied to their culture contrary to theirs.", ">\n\nOk, well let's go with that idea.\nYour view appears to be bigoted then, not racist.\nDoes that somehow make it better?", ">\n\n\nI'm also reinforced by the fact that many islamic countries have also backed China on this issue.\n\nChinese Muslims are Turks, and you are listening to Arab nationalists. Arab nationalists want genocide of all non-arabs, see how Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds because the Kurds are Persian, despite being Sunni Muslims the same as Arab Iraqis. The fact that it was an Islamic Country doing the An-Anfal Genocide does not lessen the fact that it was genocide, and the fact that these same types of people support genocide abroad does not lessen any genocide", ">\n\nI'm saying it is not genocide as commonly understood by people. I do not support genocide. Who does? I do support re-education though." ]

[ "I'm not a liberal and I believe in collective justice.\n\nThat's just racism when applied to something like this.", ">\n\nI'm a person of color, and I don't believe in racism.", ">\n\nOk, well, it doesn't change that it's racist just because you don't believe in it.\nA person of color who doesn't believe in racism? I mean... you care to explain that? Like... that is really hard to even take seriously at all as a coherent thing to say.", ">\n\nI don't believe racism is a real thing. People hardly hate because of skin color and those that do are usually immature and young. People hate you because of your culture and civilisation and what you stand for. Culturalism or civilizationism are better terms. Westerners say they're tolerant of people of diverse backgrounds, except when they offer an opinion tied to their culture contrary to theirs.", ">\n\nOk, well let's go with that idea.\nYour view appears to be bigoted then, not racist.\nDoes that somehow make it better?", ">\n\n\nI'm also reinforced by the fact that many islamic countries have also backed China on this issue.\n\nChinese Muslims are Turks, and you are listening to Arab nationalists. Arab nationalists want genocide of all non-arabs, see how Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds because the Kurds are Persian, despite being Sunni Muslims the same as Arab Iraqis. The fact that it was an Islamic Country doing the An-Anfal Genocide does not lessen the fact that it was genocide, and the fact that these same types of people support genocide abroad does not lessen any genocide", ">\n\nI'm saying it is not genocide as commonly understood by people. I do not support genocide. Who does? I do support re-education though.", ">\n\n\nI do support re-education though.\n\nBut you also say:\n\nI'm not a blind defender of its government, or any government for that matter.\n\nYet you're a supporter of them running re-education camps?" ]

[ "I'm not a liberal and I believe in collective justice.\n\nThat's just racism when applied to something like this.", ">\n\nI'm a person of color, and I don't believe in racism.", ">\n\nOk, well, it doesn't change that it's racist just because you don't believe in it.\nA person of color who doesn't believe in racism? I mean... you care to explain that? Like... that is really hard to even take seriously at all as a coherent thing to say.", ">\n\nI don't believe racism is a real thing. People hardly hate because of skin color and those that do are usually immature and young. People hate you because of your culture and civilisation and what you stand for. Culturalism or civilizationism are better terms. Westerners say they're tolerant of people of diverse backgrounds, except when they offer an opinion tied to their culture contrary to theirs.", ">\n\nOk, well let's go with that idea.\nYour view appears to be bigoted then, not racist.\nDoes that somehow make it better?", ">\n\n\nI'm also reinforced by the fact that many islamic countries have also backed China on this issue.\n\nChinese Muslims are Turks, and you are listening to Arab nationalists. Arab nationalists want genocide of all non-arabs, see how Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds because the Kurds are Persian, despite being Sunni Muslims the same as Arab Iraqis. The fact that it was an Islamic Country doing the An-Anfal Genocide does not lessen the fact that it was genocide, and the fact that these same types of people support genocide abroad does not lessen any genocide", ">\n\nI'm saying it is not genocide as commonly understood by people. I do not support genocide. Who does? I do support re-education though.", ">\n\n\nI do support re-education though.\n\nBut you also say:\n\nI'm not a blind defender of its government, or any government for that matter.\n\nYet you're a supporter of them running re-education camps?", ">\n\nYes. That's not genocide to me. I know some definitions try to say it is, but I simply disagree because that's not how the common people understand it." ]

[ "I'm not a liberal and I believe in collective justice.\n\nThat's just racism when applied to something like this.", ">\n\nI'm a person of color, and I don't believe in racism.", ">\n\nOk, well, it doesn't change that it's racist just because you don't believe in it.\nA person of color who doesn't believe in racism? I mean... you care to explain that? Like... that is really hard to even take seriously at all as a coherent thing to say.", ">\n\nI don't believe racism is a real thing. People hardly hate because of skin color and those that do are usually immature and young. People hate you because of your culture and civilisation and what you stand for. Culturalism or civilizationism are better terms. Westerners say they're tolerant of people of diverse backgrounds, except when they offer an opinion tied to their culture contrary to theirs.", ">\n\nOk, well let's go with that idea.\nYour view appears to be bigoted then, not racist.\nDoes that somehow make it better?", ">\n\n\nI'm also reinforced by the fact that many islamic countries have also backed China on this issue.\n\nChinese Muslims are Turks, and you are listening to Arab nationalists. Arab nationalists want genocide of all non-arabs, see how Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds because the Kurds are Persian, despite being Sunni Muslims the same as Arab Iraqis. The fact that it was an Islamic Country doing the An-Anfal Genocide does not lessen the fact that it was genocide, and the fact that these same types of people support genocide abroad does not lessen any genocide", ">\n\nI'm saying it is not genocide as commonly understood by people. I do not support genocide. Who does? I do support re-education though.", ">\n\n\nI do support re-education though.\n\nBut you also say:\n\nI'm not a blind defender of its government, or any government for that matter.\n\nYet you're a supporter of them running re-education camps?", ">\n\nYes. That's not genocide to me. I know some definitions try to say it is, but I simply disagree because that's not how the common people understand it.", ">\n\nI'm saying your view is contradictory. You don't support the CCP in (some? Many?) aspects, but you're perfectly fine with them practicing enforced doctrination of their beliefs/tenets. \nWhy?" ]

[ "I'm not a liberal and I believe in collective justice.\n\nThat's just racism when applied to something like this.", ">\n\nI'm a person of color, and I don't believe in racism.", ">\n\nOk, well, it doesn't change that it's racist just because you don't believe in it.\nA person of color who doesn't believe in racism? I mean... you care to explain that? Like... that is really hard to even take seriously at all as a coherent thing to say.", ">\n\nI don't believe racism is a real thing. People hardly hate because of skin color and those that do are usually immature and young. People hate you because of your culture and civilisation and what you stand for. Culturalism or civilizationism are better terms. Westerners say they're tolerant of people of diverse backgrounds, except when they offer an opinion tied to their culture contrary to theirs.", ">\n\nOk, well let's go with that idea.\nYour view appears to be bigoted then, not racist.\nDoes that somehow make it better?", ">\n\n\nI'm also reinforced by the fact that many islamic countries have also backed China on this issue.\n\nChinese Muslims are Turks, and you are listening to Arab nationalists. Arab nationalists want genocide of all non-arabs, see how Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds because the Kurds are Persian, despite being Sunni Muslims the same as Arab Iraqis. The fact that it was an Islamic Country doing the An-Anfal Genocide does not lessen the fact that it was genocide, and the fact that these same types of people support genocide abroad does not lessen any genocide", ">\n\nI'm saying it is not genocide as commonly understood by people. I do not support genocide. Who does? I do support re-education though.", ">\n\n\nI do support re-education though.\n\nBut you also say:\n\nI'm not a blind defender of its government, or any government for that matter.\n\nYet you're a supporter of them running re-education camps?", ">\n\nYes. That's not genocide to me. I know some definitions try to say it is, but I simply disagree because that's not how the common people understand it.", ">\n\nI'm saying your view is contradictory. You don't support the CCP in (some? Many?) aspects, but you're perfectly fine with them practicing enforced doctrination of their beliefs/tenets. \nWhy?", ">\n\nYou used the phrase “harsh measures” several times. Would you please list those harsh measures?" ]

[ "I'm not a liberal and I believe in collective justice.\n\nThat's just racism when applied to something like this.", ">\n\nI'm a person of color, and I don't believe in racism.", ">\n\nOk, well, it doesn't change that it's racist just because you don't believe in it.\nA person of color who doesn't believe in racism? I mean... you care to explain that? Like... that is really hard to even take seriously at all as a coherent thing to say.", ">\n\nI don't believe racism is a real thing. People hardly hate because of skin color and those that do are usually immature and young. People hate you because of your culture and civilisation and what you stand for. Culturalism or civilizationism are better terms. Westerners say they're tolerant of people of diverse backgrounds, except when they offer an opinion tied to their culture contrary to theirs.", ">\n\nOk, well let's go with that idea.\nYour view appears to be bigoted then, not racist.\nDoes that somehow make it better?", ">\n\n\nI'm also reinforced by the fact that many islamic countries have also backed China on this issue.\n\nChinese Muslims are Turks, and you are listening to Arab nationalists. Arab nationalists want genocide of all non-arabs, see how Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds because the Kurds are Persian, despite being Sunni Muslims the same as Arab Iraqis. The fact that it was an Islamic Country doing the An-Anfal Genocide does not lessen the fact that it was genocide, and the fact that these same types of people support genocide abroad does not lessen any genocide", ">\n\nI'm saying it is not genocide as commonly understood by people. I do not support genocide. Who does? I do support re-education though.", ">\n\n\nI do support re-education though.\n\nBut you also say:\n\nI'm not a blind defender of its government, or any government for that matter.\n\nYet you're a supporter of them running re-education camps?", ">\n\nYes. That's not genocide to me. I know some definitions try to say it is, but I simply disagree because that's not how the common people understand it.", ">\n\nI'm saying your view is contradictory. You don't support the CCP in (some? Many?) aspects, but you're perfectly fine with them practicing enforced doctrination of their beliefs/tenets. \nWhy?", ">\n\nYou used the phrase “harsh measures” several times. Would you please list those harsh measures?", ">\n\nAnd what are your thoughts on Forced birth control, abortion, and sterilization?" ]

[ "I'm not a liberal and I believe in collective justice.\n\nThat's just racism when applied to something like this.", ">\n\nI'm a person of color, and I don't believe in racism.", ">\n\nOk, well, it doesn't change that it's racist just because you don't believe in it.\nA person of color who doesn't believe in racism? I mean... you care to explain that? Like... that is really hard to even take seriously at all as a coherent thing to say.", ">\n\nI don't believe racism is a real thing. People hardly hate because of skin color and those that do are usually immature and young. People hate you because of your culture and civilisation and what you stand for. Culturalism or civilizationism are better terms. Westerners say they're tolerant of people of diverse backgrounds, except when they offer an opinion tied to their culture contrary to theirs.", ">\n\nOk, well let's go with that idea.\nYour view appears to be bigoted then, not racist.\nDoes that somehow make it better?", ">\n\n\nI'm also reinforced by the fact that many islamic countries have also backed China on this issue.\n\nChinese Muslims are Turks, and you are listening to Arab nationalists. Arab nationalists want genocide of all non-arabs, see how Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds because the Kurds are Persian, despite being Sunni Muslims the same as Arab Iraqis. The fact that it was an Islamic Country doing the An-Anfal Genocide does not lessen the fact that it was genocide, and the fact that these same types of people support genocide abroad does not lessen any genocide", ">\n\nI'm saying it is not genocide as commonly understood by people. I do not support genocide. Who does? I do support re-education though.", ">\n\n\nI do support re-education though.\n\nBut you also say:\n\nI'm not a blind defender of its government, or any government for that matter.\n\nYet you're a supporter of them running re-education camps?", ">\n\nYes. That's not genocide to me. I know some definitions try to say it is, but I simply disagree because that's not how the common people understand it.", ">\n\nI'm saying your view is contradictory. You don't support the CCP in (some? Many?) aspects, but you're perfectly fine with them practicing enforced doctrination of their beliefs/tenets. \nWhy?", ">\n\nYou used the phrase “harsh measures” several times. Would you please list those harsh measures?", ">\n\nAnd what are your thoughts on Forced birth control, abortion, and sterilization?", ">\n\nFamily planning. For example China had a one child policy before. Now they removed it because of falling birth rates. During that time, Uyghurs didn't have that policy applied to them.\nAnyway, as an anti-malthusian, I disagree with population control, but I also know that China can feed their people today because their population isn't like 2 billion or something." ]

[]

[ "The plaintiff, who is listed as John Doe in the lawsuit, alleges that in the wake of his coming forward there were “dishonest efforts” by the Schlapps and “others associated with and acting in concert with them, to discredit Mr. Doe.”\nThe lawsuit says as a result of the Schlapps’ alleged conspiracy, “Mr. Doe suffered damages, including and without limitation embarrassment, humiliation, stress, and reputational harm.”\n\nSounds \"on brand\" for a Republican." ]

[ "The plaintiff, who is listed as John Doe in the lawsuit, alleges that in the wake of his coming forward there were “dishonest efforts” by the Schlapps and “others associated with and acting in concert with them, to discredit Mr. Doe.”\nThe lawsuit says as a result of the Schlapps’ alleged conspiracy, “Mr. Doe suffered damages, including and without limitation embarrassment, humiliation, stress, and reputational harm.”\n\nSounds \"on brand\" for a Republican.", ">\n\nDoe slaps Schlapp with suit after Schlapp slaps Doe's suit." ]

[ "The plaintiff, who is listed as John Doe in the lawsuit, alleges that in the wake of his coming forward there were “dishonest efforts” by the Schlapps and “others associated with and acting in concert with them, to discredit Mr. Doe.”\nThe lawsuit says as a result of the Schlapps’ alleged conspiracy, “Mr. Doe suffered damages, including and without limitation embarrassment, humiliation, stress, and reputational harm.”\n\nSounds \"on brand\" for a Republican.", ">\n\nDoe slaps Schlapp with suit after Schlapp slaps Doe's suit.", ">\n\nTo be clear, this is not a slap suit" ]

[ "The plaintiff, who is listed as John Doe in the lawsuit, alleges that in the wake of his coming forward there were “dishonest efforts” by the Schlapps and “others associated with and acting in concert with them, to discredit Mr. Doe.”\nThe lawsuit says as a result of the Schlapps’ alleged conspiracy, “Mr. Doe suffered damages, including and without limitation embarrassment, humiliation, stress, and reputational harm.”\n\nSounds \"on brand\" for a Republican.", ">\n\nDoe slaps Schlapp with suit after Schlapp slaps Doe's suit.", ">\n\nTo be clear, this is not a slap suit", ">\n\nSchlapp Slapped with lawsuit for unwanted schlong fondling." ]

[]

[ "two great boards! what do you have in the Q60?" ]

[ "two great boards! what do you have in the Q60?", ">\n\nMX Clears from years ago." ]

[ "two great boards! what do you have in the Q60?", ">\n\nMX Clears from years ago.", ">\n\nSomething about the bezel width being the same everywhere is really off putting for me. Love the layout though." ]

[ "two great boards! what do you have in the Q60?", ">\n\nMX Clears from years ago.", ">\n\nSomething about the bezel width being the same everywhere is really off putting for me. Love the layout though.", ">\n\nCertainly not as elegant as the HHKB, maybe just me, but it does have some M0110 vibes, which I like." ]

[ "two great boards! what do you have in the Q60?", ">\n\nMX Clears from years ago.", ">\n\nSomething about the bezel width being the same everywhere is really off putting for me. Love the layout though.", ">\n\nCertainly not as elegant as the HHKB, maybe just me, but it does have some M0110 vibes, which I like.", ">\n\nThat's definitely the vibe they were going for." ]

[ "two great boards! what do you have in the Q60?", ">\n\nMX Clears from years ago.", ">\n\nSomething about the bezel width being the same everywhere is really off putting for me. Love the layout though.", ">\n\nCertainly not as elegant as the HHKB, maybe just me, but it does have some M0110 vibes, which I like.", ">\n\nThat's definitely the vibe they were going for.", ">\n\nHell yeah, love my Q60. The stabs (especially the spacebar) need a lot of work of the the box though." ]

[]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child", ">\n\nThen I guess he falls into the second category." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child", ">\n\nThen I guess he falls into the second category.", ">\n\nCool, no laws. I'll just kill you take your stuff and kidnap/rape any hot chicks in your immediately vicinity. \nThe reason I don't do that stuff is because a significant number of people with bigger guns than I have would come and capture/kill me and they'd strike when I'm most vulnerable on top of that. \nMost people are more that than will admit." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child", ">\n\nThen I guess he falls into the second category.", ">\n\nCool, no laws. I'll just kill you take your stuff and kidnap/rape any hot chicks in your immediately vicinity. \nThe reason I don't do that stuff is because a significant number of people with bigger guns than I have would come and capture/kill me and they'd strike when I'm most vulnerable on top of that. \nMost people are more that than will admit.", ">\n\nThen you just have to be more powerfulthan the bigger gun guy. Then it becomes rule of power vs rule of law. Things is right now it's really rule of power via rule of law because currently that is how it works, but the guys with the biggest guns are the lawmakers and the law enforcers" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child", ">\n\nThen I guess he falls into the second category.", ">\n\nCool, no laws. I'll just kill you take your stuff and kidnap/rape any hot chicks in your immediately vicinity. \nThe reason I don't do that stuff is because a significant number of people with bigger guns than I have would come and capture/kill me and they'd strike when I'm most vulnerable on top of that. \nMost people are more that than will admit.", ">\n\nThen you just have to be more powerfulthan the bigger gun guy. Then it becomes rule of power vs rule of law. Things is right now it's really rule of power via rule of law because currently that is how it works, but the guys with the biggest guns are the lawmakers and the law enforcers", ">\n\nSo what's the difference between what we have now and what you are proposing?" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child", ">\n\nThen I guess he falls into the second category.", ">\n\nCool, no laws. I'll just kill you take your stuff and kidnap/rape any hot chicks in your immediately vicinity. \nThe reason I don't do that stuff is because a significant number of people with bigger guns than I have would come and capture/kill me and they'd strike when I'm most vulnerable on top of that. \nMost people are more that than will admit.", ">\n\nThen you just have to be more powerfulthan the bigger gun guy. Then it becomes rule of power vs rule of law. Things is right now it's really rule of power via rule of law because currently that is how it works, but the guys with the biggest guns are the lawmakers and the law enforcers", ">\n\nSo what's the difference between what we have now and what you are proposing?", ">\n\nBoy, if you think our current system is bad, you're gonna hate what happens when Bezos and Musk and Gates and the like get to decide what is and is not moral." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child", ">\n\nThen I guess he falls into the second category.", ">\n\nCool, no laws. I'll just kill you take your stuff and kidnap/rape any hot chicks in your immediately vicinity. \nThe reason I don't do that stuff is because a significant number of people with bigger guns than I have would come and capture/kill me and they'd strike when I'm most vulnerable on top of that. \nMost people are more that than will admit.", ">\n\nThen you just have to be more powerfulthan the bigger gun guy. Then it becomes rule of power vs rule of law. Things is right now it's really rule of power via rule of law because currently that is how it works, but the guys with the biggest guns are the lawmakers and the law enforcers", ">\n\nSo what's the difference between what we have now and what you are proposing?", ">\n\nBoy, if you think our current system is bad, you're gonna hate what happens when Bezos and Musk and Gates and the like get to decide what is and is not moral.", ">\n\nI would enjoy pillaging and burning the cities on the way down, so that seems like a win to me" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child", ">\n\nThen I guess he falls into the second category.", ">\n\nCool, no laws. I'll just kill you take your stuff and kidnap/rape any hot chicks in your immediately vicinity. \nThe reason I don't do that stuff is because a significant number of people with bigger guns than I have would come and capture/kill me and they'd strike when I'm most vulnerable on top of that. \nMost people are more that than will admit.", ">\n\nThen you just have to be more powerfulthan the bigger gun guy. Then it becomes rule of power vs rule of law. Things is right now it's really rule of power via rule of law because currently that is how it works, but the guys with the biggest guns are the lawmakers and the law enforcers", ">\n\nSo what's the difference between what we have now and what you are proposing?", ">\n\nBoy, if you think our current system is bad, you're gonna hate what happens when Bezos and Musk and Gates and the like get to decide what is and is not moral.", ">\n\nI would enjoy pillaging and burning the cities on the way down, so that seems like a win to me", ">\n\nOr, more likely, you'll get shot by one of their hired security goons.\nEveryone thinks they're gonna be the raiders in post apocalypse and not the people those raiders prey on." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child", ">\n\nThen I guess he falls into the second category.", ">\n\nCool, no laws. I'll just kill you take your stuff and kidnap/rape any hot chicks in your immediately vicinity. \nThe reason I don't do that stuff is because a significant number of people with bigger guns than I have would come and capture/kill me and they'd strike when I'm most vulnerable on top of that. \nMost people are more that than will admit.", ">\n\nThen you just have to be more powerfulthan the bigger gun guy. Then it becomes rule of power vs rule of law. Things is right now it's really rule of power via rule of law because currently that is how it works, but the guys with the biggest guns are the lawmakers and the law enforcers", ">\n\nSo what's the difference between what we have now and what you are proposing?", ">\n\nBoy, if you think our current system is bad, you're gonna hate what happens when Bezos and Musk and Gates and the like get to decide what is and is not moral.", ">\n\nI would enjoy pillaging and burning the cities on the way down, so that seems like a win to me", ">\n\nOr, more likely, you'll get shot by one of their hired security goons.\nEveryone thinks they're gonna be the raiders in post apocalypse and not the people those raiders prey on.", ">\n\nI accept that I could be either, I never said I would be top of the food chain. What I would want is for there to be no top at all, but I'm not praying for the apocalypse, and I think you would also have to also accept that the apocalypse is far from guaranteed in this scenario. It read more as catastrophizing than anything" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child", ">\n\nThen I guess he falls into the second category.", ">\n\nCool, no laws. I'll just kill you take your stuff and kidnap/rape any hot chicks in your immediately vicinity. \nThe reason I don't do that stuff is because a significant number of people with bigger guns than I have would come and capture/kill me and they'd strike when I'm most vulnerable on top of that. \nMost people are more that than will admit.", ">\n\nThen you just have to be more powerfulthan the bigger gun guy. Then it becomes rule of power vs rule of law. Things is right now it's really rule of power via rule of law because currently that is how it works, but the guys with the biggest guns are the lawmakers and the law enforcers", ">\n\nSo what's the difference between what we have now and what you are proposing?", ">\n\nBoy, if you think our current system is bad, you're gonna hate what happens when Bezos and Musk and Gates and the like get to decide what is and is not moral.", ">\n\nI would enjoy pillaging and burning the cities on the way down, so that seems like a win to me", ">\n\nOr, more likely, you'll get shot by one of their hired security goons.\nEveryone thinks they're gonna be the raiders in post apocalypse and not the people those raiders prey on.", ">\n\nI accept that I could be either, I never said I would be top of the food chain. What I would want is for there to be no top at all, but I'm not praying for the apocalypse, and I think you would also have to also accept that the apocalypse is far from guaranteed in this scenario. It read more as catastrophizing than anything", ">\n\nAll justice is revenge. You are right.\nThere is a natural order as well, it's just society. It's not like society just recently came up with these rules. Almost all the rules we have are easily traced back to even neanderthals, and further than that to pre evolution animals before humans even were a thing. Herd pack animals follow their own little 'rules' even though they have no concept of 'rules'. It's a very natural order.\nOther than those two points I'm not sure I get what you want. You kinda describe no laws, but you describe how that wouldn't work anyway..." ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child", ">\n\nThen I guess he falls into the second category.", ">\n\nCool, no laws. I'll just kill you take your stuff and kidnap/rape any hot chicks in your immediately vicinity. \nThe reason I don't do that stuff is because a significant number of people with bigger guns than I have would come and capture/kill me and they'd strike when I'm most vulnerable on top of that. \nMost people are more that than will admit.", ">\n\nThen you just have to be more powerfulthan the bigger gun guy. Then it becomes rule of power vs rule of law. Things is right now it's really rule of power via rule of law because currently that is how it works, but the guys with the biggest guns are the lawmakers and the law enforcers", ">\n\nSo what's the difference between what we have now and what you are proposing?", ">\n\nBoy, if you think our current system is bad, you're gonna hate what happens when Bezos and Musk and Gates and the like get to decide what is and is not moral.", ">\n\nI would enjoy pillaging and burning the cities on the way down, so that seems like a win to me", ">\n\nOr, more likely, you'll get shot by one of their hired security goons.\nEveryone thinks they're gonna be the raiders in post apocalypse and not the people those raiders prey on.", ">\n\nI accept that I could be either, I never said I would be top of the food chain. What I would want is for there to be no top at all, but I'm not praying for the apocalypse, and I think you would also have to also accept that the apocalypse is far from guaranteed in this scenario. It read more as catastrophizing than anything", ">\n\nAll justice is revenge. You are right.\nThere is a natural order as well, it's just society. It's not like society just recently came up with these rules. Almost all the rules we have are easily traced back to even neanderthals, and further than that to pre evolution animals before humans even were a thing. Herd pack animals follow their own little 'rules' even though they have no concept of 'rules'. It's a very natural order.\nOther than those two points I'm not sure I get what you want. You kinda describe no laws, but you describe how that wouldn't work anyway...", ">\n\nI guess what I want to know is what the least law possible that would be sustainable would be. Surely it's leagues less than what we have presently" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child", ">\n\nThen I guess he falls into the second category.", ">\n\nCool, no laws. I'll just kill you take your stuff and kidnap/rape any hot chicks in your immediately vicinity. \nThe reason I don't do that stuff is because a significant number of people with bigger guns than I have would come and capture/kill me and they'd strike when I'm most vulnerable on top of that. \nMost people are more that than will admit.", ">\n\nThen you just have to be more powerfulthan the bigger gun guy. Then it becomes rule of power vs rule of law. Things is right now it's really rule of power via rule of law because currently that is how it works, but the guys with the biggest guns are the lawmakers and the law enforcers", ">\n\nSo what's the difference between what we have now and what you are proposing?", ">\n\nBoy, if you think our current system is bad, you're gonna hate what happens when Bezos and Musk and Gates and the like get to decide what is and is not moral.", ">\n\nI would enjoy pillaging and burning the cities on the way down, so that seems like a win to me", ">\n\nOr, more likely, you'll get shot by one of their hired security goons.\nEveryone thinks they're gonna be the raiders in post apocalypse and not the people those raiders prey on.", ">\n\nI accept that I could be either, I never said I would be top of the food chain. What I would want is for there to be no top at all, but I'm not praying for the apocalypse, and I think you would also have to also accept that the apocalypse is far from guaranteed in this scenario. It read more as catastrophizing than anything", ">\n\nAll justice is revenge. You are right.\nThere is a natural order as well, it's just society. It's not like society just recently came up with these rules. Almost all the rules we have are easily traced back to even neanderthals, and further than that to pre evolution animals before humans even were a thing. Herd pack animals follow their own little 'rules' even though they have no concept of 'rules'. It's a very natural order.\nOther than those two points I'm not sure I get what you want. You kinda describe no laws, but you describe how that wouldn't work anyway...", ">\n\nI guess what I want to know is what the least law possible that would be sustainable would be. Surely it's leagues less than what we have presently", ">\n\nIt definitely is, but you probably would not like the world anymore if you lived in that world.\nThe least laws we need probably?\nDon't Kill unless it's to save the life of yourself or others.\nDon't physically harm others.\nDon't steal including fraud and scams.\nProbably a few others.\nThat world would be a disaster, but likely sustainable for society. Such as \"Brave New World\" or some dystopian hellscape.\nYou can look at some shitholes like the Congo and they are 'sustaining', but it sure as fuck sucks for everyone but warlords and the top folks. The slaves are 'sustaining' though..\nDepends on what you want from \"sustaining\"" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child", ">\n\nThen I guess he falls into the second category.", ">\n\nCool, no laws. I'll just kill you take your stuff and kidnap/rape any hot chicks in your immediately vicinity. \nThe reason I don't do that stuff is because a significant number of people with bigger guns than I have would come and capture/kill me and they'd strike when I'm most vulnerable on top of that. \nMost people are more that than will admit.", ">\n\nThen you just have to be more powerfulthan the bigger gun guy. Then it becomes rule of power vs rule of law. Things is right now it's really rule of power via rule of law because currently that is how it works, but the guys with the biggest guns are the lawmakers and the law enforcers", ">\n\nSo what's the difference between what we have now and what you are proposing?", ">\n\nBoy, if you think our current system is bad, you're gonna hate what happens when Bezos and Musk and Gates and the like get to decide what is and is not moral.", ">\n\nI would enjoy pillaging and burning the cities on the way down, so that seems like a win to me", ">\n\nOr, more likely, you'll get shot by one of their hired security goons.\nEveryone thinks they're gonna be the raiders in post apocalypse and not the people those raiders prey on.", ">\n\nI accept that I could be either, I never said I would be top of the food chain. What I would want is for there to be no top at all, but I'm not praying for the apocalypse, and I think you would also have to also accept that the apocalypse is far from guaranteed in this scenario. It read more as catastrophizing than anything", ">\n\nAll justice is revenge. You are right.\nThere is a natural order as well, it's just society. It's not like society just recently came up with these rules. Almost all the rules we have are easily traced back to even neanderthals, and further than that to pre evolution animals before humans even were a thing. Herd pack animals follow their own little 'rules' even though they have no concept of 'rules'. It's a very natural order.\nOther than those two points I'm not sure I get what you want. You kinda describe no laws, but you describe how that wouldn't work anyway...", ">\n\nI guess what I want to know is what the least law possible that would be sustainable would be. Surely it's leagues less than what we have presently", ">\n\nIt definitely is, but you probably would not like the world anymore if you lived in that world.\nThe least laws we need probably?\nDon't Kill unless it's to save the life of yourself or others.\nDon't physically harm others.\nDon't steal including fraud and scams.\nProbably a few others.\nThat world would be a disaster, but likely sustainable for society. Such as \"Brave New World\" or some dystopian hellscape.\nYou can look at some shitholes like the Congo and they are 'sustaining', but it sure as fuck sucks for everyone but warlords and the top folks. The slaves are 'sustaining' though..\nDepends on what you want from \"sustaining\"", ">\n\nI would say that brave new world is actually a utopia with a few caveats. If people knew they had the option to opt out to the Wildlands with the savages at any time and the conditioning didn't start until like right before puberty when it could still have the desired effect but you had until then to leave the society without any of the socializing genetic effects and even still the option to leave after. That's honestly sound like close to perfect in every way" ]

[ "/u/ineedhelpfromgod (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\nUnlike revenge, justice is institutionalized (or, at least, more institutionalized; justice does not necessarily correlate with legality). Also, revenge is usually applied by people who were wronged, or who were related to those who were. Justice is applied by people with no stake in the manner.\nThis means it has a deterrent factor. If you do something bad, the individual you did it to may or may not be able to get revenge on you, but justice is more internally consistent than \"what someone thinks you should be punished for\", because it's usually applied by large groups of people.\n\nBut if the point of justice is the punish the deserving than I hardly see the difference unless there's a natural order in the world like God or something similar handing down what does and doesn't warrant action.\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nHumans decide what the rules are. Just because some higher power doesn't does not make those rules illegitimate.\n\nIf people are inherently moral, than the most moral of rules will be enforced by the most passionate of people uninhibited by a militarized police force.\n\nBut people are not inherently moral. They can't be, because morality, however useful and necessary for a functioning society, is subjective. Most people tend to follow what they think is morally right, but that's very different from \"most people are moral\".\nWhat happens, for instance, when someone else's morals conflict with yours, and they're not willing to live or let live, or negotiate? Are they moral, or immoral? The Nazis thought mass murder was quite moral indeed, but I doubt you share that perspective.\nWhat happens when you have someone with brain damage that makes them think morality is a restraint? They sure as hell aren't going to engage with you in good faith. How are you going to stop them?\nAnd how do these \"most passionate of people\" enforce their will, other than by violence?\n\nPeople can still form a militia in that case, but I feel that it would only take one rich freedom loving egalitarian with a nuke or some other suppression capability to keep it mostly level after that.\n\nTheir definition of freedom might very much differ from yours. Also, one person is much easier to subvert than an entire command chain of military officers. Also, the world isn't a closed system. What happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important because the justice system isn't just and doesn't represent everyone.\n\nDepending on the country you live in, that's likely what the current system is. It's just that modern societies usually delegate it to certain trained specialists.", ">\n\nIf you need some form of outside force to tell you not to — for instance — murder people, you're probably part of the problem. Certain people need a threat of retribution\nIf laws are threats of retribution, and those only exist to deter people who havent the compass to decide on their own than how will justice ever make the world better, if that's it's goal, if those people can't by definition be rehabilitated. If that's the case wouldnt it actually just be better to, of that group of unscrupulous people and furthermore of the undeterred of that group, just kill them and be done with it? Like everything the society deems unacceptable from rape to forgery to jaywalking. Just kill them and be rid of them if they can't resist the urge under that threat of death or let them live if they want to but can tamp it down. That and basically just get rid of all the conspiracy laws and other shit that's basically minority report just to simplify it even more\nWhat happens when someone less moral builds their own nuke?\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them", ">\n\n\nWhatever they want, it's theirs. They could end humanity if they really wanted and they had enough of them\n\nEverything else aside: I sense a flaw in your idea.", ">\n\nWithout the rule of law society would break down. Laws are what govern a civilized society. Whenever someone asks a question like this I always turn to a passage from Crito in which Crito and Socrates are discussing this exact thing:\n\"Consider, Socrates, if this is true, that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. For, after having brought you into the world, and nurtured and educated you, and given you and every other citizen a share in every good that we had to give, we further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the state, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents; secondly, because we are the authors of his education; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands; and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrong; and we do not rudely impose them, but give him the alternative of obeying or convincing us; that is what we offer\"\nJustice is being held accountable for your actions. You cannot just go around and do as you will. If you disobey the laws you have agreed to live in then you deserve the consequences which are also laid out for you. Both law and consequences you have knowledge of and agree to live within.", ">\n\nI don't believe that opting out and living in isolation is really an option though, is the problem. We are born into a system, that's not a choice. I'm familiar with Socrates and the rule of law, and what you said is very true and relevant, however your outlay isnt counter to my point;it is the point. I WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.", ">\n\n\nI WANT the breakdown of society. I don't want cooperation, I want separation.\n\nSo move to Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, or Somalia. Let us know how it turns out.", ">\n\n!delta\nI guess I don't have to convince anyone if what I want already exists elsewhere and I can just go there. See ya", ">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RelaxedApathy (20∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards", ">\n\n\nBasically a world where we govern ourselves and we enforce what rules WE think personally are important\n\nThose rules would be laws. That is no different than the current system. You would replace the current justice system with a new justice system, and so laws and justice would remain, only redefined.\nAlso, is your argument limited to criminal law only? It sounds you are only talking about criminal law. Property law or maritime law for example have really little to do with revenge. If I write a will, what revenge am I invoking?", ">\n\nYeah I guess just criminal law. \nWell when does a rule become a law?", ">\n\nWhen it is written down and enforced by someone in power.", ">\n\nTechnically, it does not even need to be written down. Common law is often unwritten.", ">\n\nTrue true!", ">\n\nI'm worried about misinterpreting your positions. To help me avoid that, can you provide clarity by answering a true or false question?\nTrue or False: You're one of the people who thinks there shouldn't be age of consent laws.\n(in your reply, please answer with either \"True\" or \"False\")", ">\n\nFalse , but it really is a little more complicated than that even though I do t think that's what you wanted in a response. What I mean by that is I would only be able to answer for myself in the world I'm describing where all people govern themselves so if I'm enforcing my law I would say as an asexual person there would be no consent at all because I wouldn't be having sex or giving permission for anyone else to have sex with me. But also in that world there could be other people who don't want consent minimums and if they personally dont believe that there would be nothing stopping them legally because there would be no laws.\nBut if your asking me in the present system that we have right now if there should be a minimum, I would say still false but only assuming that there had to be laws.", ">\n\n\nFalse\n\nAward a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view.\nOriginal view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge and we shouldn't have laws\n\nNew view:\n\ncmv: all justice is revenge but we should have age of consent laws", ">\n\nLeviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, Thomas Hobbes, 1651.\nMaybe you don’t have time to read the entire book, but even its Wikipedia page should offer you some good points.", ">\n\nCounterpoint: a \"might makes right\" system of governance is incredibly stupid and inefficient, and lead to the almost immediate collapse of whatever civilization is idiotic enough to attempt it. The survivors would then form new governments and pass laws to ensure the operation and stability of said government, because civilization cannot work without some degree of restricting the actions of people \nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.", ">\n\n\nThere is a good reason why the only anarchists are children and people who dont understand the human mind: anarchy doesn't work.\n\nLooks pretty old for a child", ">\n\nThen I guess he falls into the second category.", ">\n\nCool, no laws. I'll just kill you take your stuff and kidnap/rape any hot chicks in your immediately vicinity. \nThe reason I don't do that stuff is because a significant number of people with bigger guns than I have would come and capture/kill me and they'd strike when I'm most vulnerable on top of that. \nMost people are more that than will admit.", ">\n\nThen you just have to be more powerfulthan the bigger gun guy. Then it becomes rule of power vs rule of law. Things is right now it's really rule of power via rule of law because currently that is how it works, but the guys with the biggest guns are the lawmakers and the law enforcers", ">\n\nSo what's the difference between what we have now and what you are proposing?", ">\n\nBoy, if you think our current system is bad, you're gonna hate what happens when Bezos and Musk and Gates and the like get to decide what is and is not moral.", ">\n\nI would enjoy pillaging and burning the cities on the way down, so that seems like a win to me", ">\n\nOr, more likely, you'll get shot by one of their hired security goons.\nEveryone thinks they're gonna be the raiders in post apocalypse and not the people those raiders prey on.", ">\n\nI accept that I could be either, I never said I would be top of the food chain. What I would want is for there to be no top at all, but I'm not praying for the apocalypse, and I think you would also have to also accept that the apocalypse is far from guaranteed in this scenario. It read more as catastrophizing than anything", ">\n\nAll justice is revenge. You are right.\nThere is a natural order as well, it's just society. It's not like society just recently came up with these rules. Almost all the rules we have are easily traced back to even neanderthals, and further than that to pre evolution animals before humans even were a thing. Herd pack animals follow their own little 'rules' even though they have no concept of 'rules'. It's a very natural order.\nOther than those two points I'm not sure I get what you want. You kinda describe no laws, but you describe how that wouldn't work anyway...", ">\n\nI guess what I want to know is what the least law possible that would be sustainable would be. Surely it's leagues less than what we have presently", ">\n\nIt definitely is, but you probably would not like the world anymore if you lived in that world.\nThe least laws we need probably?\nDon't Kill unless it's to save the life of yourself or others.\nDon't physically harm others.\nDon't steal including fraud and scams.\nProbably a few others.\nThat world would be a disaster, but likely sustainable for society. Such as \"Brave New World\" or some dystopian hellscape.\nYou can look at some shitholes like the Congo and they are 'sustaining', but it sure as fuck sucks for everyone but warlords and the top folks. The slaves are 'sustaining' though..\nDepends on what you want from \"sustaining\"", ">\n\nI would say that brave new world is actually a utopia with a few caveats. If people knew they had the option to opt out to the Wildlands with the savages at any time and the conditioning didn't start until like right before puberty when it could still have the desired effect but you had until then to leave the society without any of the socializing genetic effects and even still the option to leave after. That's honestly sound like close to perfect in every way", ">\n\nThe entire point I would suggest (considering it's entirely subjective art) is showing you the two ends of the spectrum, comfort vs freedom, and you as reader are supposed to understand the middle ground is the goal.\nDo you think your argument is based on some anarchy thing where you might end up being a warlord? The chances are more likely you'd just end up dead or struggling and living under the grip of a warlord. \nIf you like that sort of thing you can do that even today, it would cost next to nothing to go to the Congo and see how that life works out for you right?" ]

[]

[ "The Tehran-based family of the executed British-Iranian dual national Alireza Akbari have been prevented from seeing his body or burying him in the grave in which he had asked to be laid to rest in Shiraz, his birthplace, family members have told the Guardian.\nAkbari was executed for spying for M16, charges he vehemently denied and for which there is no substantive evidence, save a confession extracted under torture.\nIn a final humiliation for the family, Akbari’s sister and daughter went to the Tehran cemetery where the officials had said he must be buried to collect the body, and to place him in the allocated grave site, only to be told by officials that a man with the same name and details had been buried at the cemetery on Thursday, and there was no body to collect." ]

[ "The Tehran-based family of the executed British-Iranian dual national Alireza Akbari have been prevented from seeing his body or burying him in the grave in which he had asked to be laid to rest in Shiraz, his birthplace, family members have told the Guardian.\nAkbari was executed for spying for M16, charges he vehemently denied and for which there is no substantive evidence, save a confession extracted under torture.\nIn a final humiliation for the family, Akbari’s sister and daughter went to the Tehran cemetery where the officials had said he must be buried to collect the body, and to place him in the allocated grave site, only to be told by officials that a man with the same name and details had been buried at the cemetery on Thursday, and there was no body to collect.", ">\n\nIsn’t it MI6, not M16 like the gun?" ]

[ "The Tehran-based family of the executed British-Iranian dual national Alireza Akbari have been prevented from seeing his body or burying him in the grave in which he had asked to be laid to rest in Shiraz, his birthplace, family members have told the Guardian.\nAkbari was executed for spying for M16, charges he vehemently denied and for which there is no substantive evidence, save a confession extracted under torture.\nIn a final humiliation for the family, Akbari’s sister and daughter went to the Tehran cemetery where the officials had said he must be buried to collect the body, and to place him in the allocated grave site, only to be told by officials that a man with the same name and details had been buried at the cemetery on Thursday, and there was no body to collect.", ">\n\nIsn’t it MI6, not M16 like the gun?", ">\n\nYeah it is. The article got it wrong" ]

[ "The Tehran-based family of the executed British-Iranian dual national Alireza Akbari have been prevented from seeing his body or burying him in the grave in which he had asked to be laid to rest in Shiraz, his birthplace, family members have told the Guardian.\nAkbari was executed for spying for M16, charges he vehemently denied and for which there is no substantive evidence, save a confession extracted under torture.\nIn a final humiliation for the family, Akbari’s sister and daughter went to the Tehran cemetery where the officials had said he must be buried to collect the body, and to place him in the allocated grave site, only to be told by officials that a man with the same name and details had been buried at the cemetery on Thursday, and there was no body to collect.", ">\n\nIsn’t it MI6, not M16 like the gun?", ">\n\nYeah it is. The article got it wrong", ">\n\nWhat a demented regime." ]

[ "The Tehran-based family of the executed British-Iranian dual national Alireza Akbari have been prevented from seeing his body or burying him in the grave in which he had asked to be laid to rest in Shiraz, his birthplace, family members have told the Guardian.\nAkbari was executed for spying for M16, charges he vehemently denied and for which there is no substantive evidence, save a confession extracted under torture.\nIn a final humiliation for the family, Akbari’s sister and daughter went to the Tehran cemetery where the officials had said he must be buried to collect the body, and to place him in the allocated grave site, only to be told by officials that a man with the same name and details had been buried at the cemetery on Thursday, and there was no body to collect.", ">\n\nIsn’t it MI6, not M16 like the gun?", ">\n\nYeah it is. The article got it wrong", ">\n\nWhat a demented regime.", ">\n\nI’m Iranian in the diaspora. \nUnfortunately this is part of their playbook. They don’t allow you to view the body or receive the body unless you agree to their terms - follow their story for how they died and why, promise not to speak out against the government, etc. \nFor example, they removed Nika Shakarami from her grave and buried her in an undisclosed location after her family spoke out against her murder. \nThe Islamic Republic are a bunch of sick fucks who have no respect for the living or the dead." ]

[ "The Tehran-based family of the executed British-Iranian dual national Alireza Akbari have been prevented from seeing his body or burying him in the grave in which he had asked to be laid to rest in Shiraz, his birthplace, family members have told the Guardian.\nAkbari was executed for spying for M16, charges he vehemently denied and for which there is no substantive evidence, save a confession extracted under torture.\nIn a final humiliation for the family, Akbari’s sister and daughter went to the Tehran cemetery where the officials had said he must be buried to collect the body, and to place him in the allocated grave site, only to be told by officials that a man with the same name and details had been buried at the cemetery on Thursday, and there was no body to collect.", ">\n\nIsn’t it MI6, not M16 like the gun?", ">\n\nYeah it is. The article got it wrong", ">\n\nWhat a demented regime.", ">\n\nI’m Iranian in the diaspora. \nUnfortunately this is part of their playbook. They don’t allow you to view the body or receive the body unless you agree to their terms - follow their story for how they died and why, promise not to speak out against the government, etc. \nFor example, they removed Nika Shakarami from her grave and buried her in an undisclosed location after her family spoke out against her murder. \nThe Islamic Republic are a bunch of sick fucks who have no respect for the living or the dead.", ">\n\nThat’s terrible. Straight up evil." ]

[ "The Tehran-based family of the executed British-Iranian dual national Alireza Akbari have been prevented from seeing his body or burying him in the grave in which he had asked to be laid to rest in Shiraz, his birthplace, family members have told the Guardian.\nAkbari was executed for spying for M16, charges he vehemently denied and for which there is no substantive evidence, save a confession extracted under torture.\nIn a final humiliation for the family, Akbari’s sister and daughter went to the Tehran cemetery where the officials had said he must be buried to collect the body, and to place him in the allocated grave site, only to be told by officials that a man with the same name and details had been buried at the cemetery on Thursday, and there was no body to collect.", ">\n\nIsn’t it MI6, not M16 like the gun?", ">\n\nYeah it is. The article got it wrong", ">\n\nWhat a demented regime.", ">\n\nI’m Iranian in the diaspora. \nUnfortunately this is part of their playbook. They don’t allow you to view the body or receive the body unless you agree to their terms - follow their story for how they died and why, promise not to speak out against the government, etc. \nFor example, they removed Nika Shakarami from her grave and buried her in an undisclosed location after her family spoke out against her murder. \nThe Islamic Republic are a bunch of sick fucks who have no respect for the living or the dead.", ">\n\nThat’s terrible. Straight up evil.", ">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 79%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nThe Tehran-based family of the executed British-Iranian dual national Alireza Akbari have been prevented from seeing his body or burying him in the grave in which he had asked to be laid to rest in Shiraz, his birthplace, family members have told the Guardian.\nThe family were told he would not be executed on Friday, a holiday in Iran, and say they were also given false hope on Friday evening by the intelligence ministry that there was a chance of reprieve, only to wake on Saturday morning to a statement from the judicial news agency announcing he had been executed.\nOn Monday the family arrived to bury Akbari in the agreed plot, only to be told by cemetery officials that a body with the precise same name and details had been buried there on Thursday.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: family^#1 Akbari^#2 body^#3 bury^#4 executed^#5" ]

[]