stanford rape case

[Anomaly]

Lol.  I think your version of reality is sad, and pessimistic.   Men are less macho in a relative sense because women don't have to stay, AND, men have more options for generally acceptable behavior. 

Societal class may limit opportunities and require higher levels of effort for some rewards, but material status doesn't directly define happiness, contentment, etc..   You don't need a PHD and a two month sabbatical to attempt to find purpose, contentment, or direction for your life.  Though notably, that is something Religion can provide 

[Era Might]

6 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Lol.  I think your version of reality is sad, and pessimistic.   Men are less macho in a relative sense because women don't have to stay, AND, men have more options for generally acceptable behavior. 

Societal class may limit opportunities and require higher levels of effort for some rewards, but material status doesn't directly define happiness, contentment, etc..   You don't need a PHD and a two month sabbatical to attempt to find purpose, contentment, or direction for your life.  Though notably, that is something Religion can provide 

The idea of "finding contentment" in life is entirely a reflection of your material reality. Peasants don't find contentment, they simply live the life they have. There's nothing sad or pessimistic about it, just the opposite, it's part of our evolution, our growth in consciousness. The problem us that we use our consciousness to create material realities where one group dominates the other. Producers of want consumers to remain consumers. Rulers want subjects to remain subjects. That's why I tend toward anarchy as a political philosophy, because anarchy is about everyone developing the consciousness to direct material reality in the the interests of everyone, not in the interests of an economic class or a political class or a religious class. Classes exist because one group had developed a material reality that they maintain on the backs of those with an inferior reality, whether it's despots with the people, or masters with slaves, or capitalists with workers, or intelligentsia with the ignorant.

19 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Well, prison is a form of punishment by the state which acts as an avenger for victims (at least ideally). Punishment by the state is intended to redress the disorder caused by the offense. If the state turns away from punishments like imprisonment how can it still redress the disorder caused by the offense? By what other means can it redress the disorder caused by the rape of the victim?

The thought of throwing out the prison system seems both unrealistic and alien to me. So I am unsure how I would clarify further. In a world without punishment or prisons what do we do with rapists? Would we even attempt to redress the disorder caused by the offense? I have no idea how that would work, that is why I am asking you.

I don't know what you mean by disorder. I assume you mean some vague theological idea of a rip in God's creation. Rape is a passion of man, an act of domination. How to redress the disorder? First, I would insist that the state cease dominating the people. There are any number of ways to teach a man to not dominate another. The prison system is focused on the domination of the offender by a bigger offender (the state). Prison does not repair a disorder, it simply breaks a man down to the control of the state. In pre-modern societies, crimes could often be dealt with economically (eg, a blood price for murder). The modern system of abstract guilt is just that, modern. Guilt has become an abstraction, an offense against the state.

[Peace]

30 minutes ago, Era Might said:

The idea of "finding contentment" in life is entirely a reflection of your material reality. Peasants don't find contentment, they simply live the life they have. There's nothing sad or pessimistic about it, just the opposite, it's part of our evolution, our growth in consciousness. The problem us that we use our consciousness to create material realities where one group dominates the other. Producers of want consumers to remain consumers. Rulers want subjects to remain subjects. That's why I tend toward anarchy as a political philosophy, because anarchy is about everyone developing the consciousness to direct material reality in the the interests of everyone, not in the interests of an economic class or a political class or a religious class. Classes exist because one group had developed a material reality that they maintain on the backs of those with an inferior reality, whether it's despots with the people, or masters with slaves, or capitalists with workers, or intelligentsia with the ignorant.

I don't know what you mean by disorder. I assume you mean some vague theological idea of a rip in God's creation. Rape is a passion of man, an act of domination. How to redress the disorder? First, I would insist that the state cease dominating the people. There are any number of ways to teach a man to not dominate another. The prison system is focused on the domination of the offender by a bigger offender (the state). Prison does not repair a disorder, it simply breaks a man down to the control of the state. In pre-modern societies, crimes could often be dealt with economically (eg, a blood price for murder). The modern system of abstract guilt is just that, modern. Guilt has become an abstraction, an offense against the state.

I think he means "redress" in the sense of retributive justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment#Retribution

Criminal activities typically give a benefit to the offender and a loss to the victim. Punishment has been justified as a measure of retributive justice,[7] in which the goal is to try to rebalance any unjust advantage gained by ensuring that the offender also suffers a loss. Sometimes viewed as a way of "getting even" with a wrongdoer — the suffering of the wrongdoer is seen as a desired goal in itself, even if it has no restorative benefits for the victim. One reason societies have administered punishments is to diminish the perceived need for retaliatory "street justice", blood feud and vigilantism.

[Era Might]

Just now, Peace said:

I think he means "redress" in the sense of retributive justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment#Retribution

Criminal activities typically give a benefit to the offender and a loss to the victim. Punishment has been justified as a measure of retributive justice,[7] in which the goal is to try to rebalance any unjust advantage gained by ensuring that the offender also suffers a loss. Sometimes viewed as a way of "getting even" with a wrongdoer — the suffering of the wrongdoer is seen as a desired goal in itself, even if it has no restorative benefits for the victim. One reason societies have administered punishments is to diminish the perceived need for retaliatory "street justice", blood feud and vigilantism.

Thanks, that's helpful, but prison is an arbitrary rebalance. You could also condemn a man to poverty, and still leave him free. Prison is a modern institution based on an invisible guilt that the prisoner must pay off. 

[Peace]

8 hours ago, Era Might said:

I don't understand the question because when you say "proven" I would need to clarify what is being proved. In other words, it all depends on what is trying to be achieved. If the goal is vengeance, certainly, concentration camps are a proven alternative. If the goal is treatment, drug courts have helped redirect from criminalization of addiction. If the goal is exclusion from society, I don't think you could find a better model than Nazi crematoriums. It all depends on what is the social function of control (the main purpose of imprisonment, physical and behavioral control).

Why should any of these goals (vengeance, treatment, exclusion) be sought, if you do not believe in objective norms concerning good and evil, right and wrong, etc?

What is wrong with rape, in your view? Why should rape be something that is discouraged, if you do not believe in sin, good and evil, etc.?

[Era Might]

Just now, Peace said:

Why should any of these goals (vengeance, treatment, exclusion) be sought, if you do not believe in objective norms concerning good and evil, right and wrong, etc?

What is wrong with rape, in your view? Why should rape be something that is discouraged, if you do not believe in sin, good and evil, etc.?

This thread is not about my beliefs, but your question is a valid question for the state. We live in a secular society, but our institutions are still based on religious ideas of guilt, except that the state has become God. A prisoner's offense is not against God, but against the state.

[Peace]

1 minute ago, Era Might said:

Thanks, that's helpful, but prison is an arbitrary rebalance. You could also condemn a man to poverty, and still leave him free. Prison is a modern institution based on an invisible guilt that the prisoner must pay off. 

How can someone be free if he is condemned to poverty? Any form of punishment is a restriction on a person's freedom.

And what exactly do you mean by "invisible guilt"? Do you not think that there is anything that a rapist should feel guilty about? Or do you mean something else by that?

[Era Might]

6 minutes ago, Peace said:

How can someone be free if he is condemned to poverty? Any form of punishment is a restriction on a person's freedom.

And what exactly do you mean by "invisible guilt"? Do you not think that there is anything that a rapist should feel guilty about? Or do you mean something else by that?

Yes, I agree that any punishment is a recognition that we live in a society, and that an individual is not above the common good. But the state, and it's prison apparatus, is not synonomous with society. Prison is a particular type of control, a physical control that enforces conformity. Prisoners are subject to a routine to remove any individuality. Prison is a form of state totalitarianism.

Whether a prisoner should have an invisible guilt has no bearing on his prison sentence. He is punished in order to control him, regardless of what he feels inside. 8 years or 6 months is not imposed because those lengths are necessary for the prisoner to feel anything. They are imposed to determine how long the state can control him.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Era Might

[Anomaly]

Era, 

your perception of existence seems trapped in black and whites.  Does or doesn't.   I see it all in shades of gray, with choices to move towards one way or the other.   religion doesn't have to be perfect, and the masses don't need it only to keep the boogeyman in the shadows away.  Humanity, in almost all stages of history and fortune, has utilized religion and philosophy for more than base need to explain the unknown. 

[Peace]

9 minutes ago, Era Might said:

This thread is not about my beliefs, but your question is a valid question for the state. We live in a secular society, but our institutions are still based on religious ideas of guilt, except that the state has become God. A prisoner's offense is not against God, but against the state.

Nor was this thread about your views on whether jail should be abolished, but you did not seem to have any problem going off on that tangent and enlightening us with your views.

Now, this was a thread about a specific rape incident that occurred. The thread was directed to whether the 6 months punishment was appropriate. You chose to participate in the thread by indicating that jail generally is not appropriate (thus implying that the rapist should also not face jail time). You suggested that some other form of punishment was better. But you have no basis for this assertion at all, because you do not believe that rape is objectively wrong. To you, there is no objective difference between rape and feeding a homeless person.  If you disagree, why is one right and the other wrong?

You have no basis to make any assertion that any form of punishment is appropriate, because you cannot demonstrate that rape is something that should be discouraged. If you can, what is your basis for asserting that rape should be discouraged?

9 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Yes, I agree that any punishment is a recognition that we live in a society, and that an individual is not above the common good.

You do not have any basis for that assertion. Why should an individual not be above the common good? Who says that should be the case?

Again, you do not believe in objective right and wrong, so it seems to me that you have no ground to say such a thing. If you do, what is that ground?

[Era Might]

20 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Era, 

your perception of existence seems trapped in black and whites.  Does or doesn't.   I see it all in shades of gray, with choices to move towards one way or the other.   religion doesn't have to be perfect, and the masses don't need it only to keep the boogeyman in the shadows away.  Humanity, in almost all stages of history and fortune, has utilized religion and philosophy for more than base need to explain the unknown. 

I think that's the definition of religion, the attempt to explain the unknown. I honestly don't understand why you see that as sad or depressing? Science is a modern method to explain the unknown. Psychology of the Jungian sort could be seen as a modern form of religion. If we knew everything, we wouldn't have to explain the unknown. But both religion and science have their darker sides, because those who wield them have power over those who merely accept them. How is that black and white? I think consciousness is the defining feature of human beings. We attempt to exercise consciousness in all sorts of ways...religion, science, art, language, philosophy, culture. All the beautiful, dangerous things that make us human.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Era Might

[Anomaly]

35 minutes ago, Peace said:

Nor was this thread about your views on whether jail should be abolished, but you did not seem to have any problem going off on that tangent and enlightening us with your views.

Now, this was a thread about a specific rape incident that occurred. The thread was directed to whether the 6 months punishment was appropriate. You chose to participate in the thread by indicating that jail generally is not appropriate (thus implying that the rapist should also not face jail time). You suggested that some other form of punishment was better. But you have no basis for this assertion at all, because you do not believe that rape is objectively wrong. To you, there is no objective difference between rape and feeding a homeless person.  If you disagree, why is one right and the other wrong?

You have no basis to make any assertion that any form of punishment is appropriate, because you cannot demonstrate that rape is something that should be discouraged. If you can, what is your basis for asserting that rape should be discouraged?

You do not have any basis for that assertion. Why should an individual not be above the common good? Who says that should be the case?

Again, you do not believe in objective right and wrong, so it seems to me that you have no ground to say such a thing. If you do, what is that ground?

What evidence do you have to say rape is objectively wrong?  What objective evidence do you have for any objective right or wrong? 

And even if we accept rape as objectively wrong, is it the same proportion of wrong as killing a baby?   How about raping a child? There has to be a subjective evaluation of context to discern a proportional response, balancing both the good of specific individuals as well as the greater good. 

[Anomaly]

53 minutes ago, Era Might said:

I think that's the definition of religion, the attempt to explain the unknown. I honestly don't understand why you see that as sad or depressing? Science is a modern method to explain the unknown. Psychology of the Jungian sort could be seen as a modern form of religion. If we knew everything, we wouldn't have to explain the unknown. But both religion and science have their darker sides, because those who wield them have power over those who merely accept them. How is that black and white? I think consciousness is the defining feature of human beings. We attempt to exercise consciousness in all sorts of ways...religion, science, art, language, philosophy, culture. All the beautiful, dangerous things that make us human.

You just posted a peasant can't be content and that religion will be wielded for powers as if those are necessary givens.   Not they may happen, can happen, but will and are.   Most pessimists believe they're not being negative, but are simply realists.  

[Era Might]

30 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

You just posted a peasant can't be content and that religion will be wielded for powers as if those are necessary givens.   Not they may happen, can happen, but will and are.   Most pessimists believe they're not being negative, but are simply realists.  

No, not that a peasant can't be content, but that the idea of finding contentment is something that only occurs to someone with a material reality that creates a surplus of freedom to be conscious. The peasant has no such being in the world. The peasant is part of the land, his material reality is given. The pursunit of happiness only makes sense with the bourgeois revolution of the 18th century, when material reality had developed to the point where common men could pursue happiness autonomously, apart from the social structure. The modern material reality is that of the individual....it took a long time for the individual to emerge. For most of history only the aristoi could be individuals, and they built their freedom on the subjection of the masses. This is precisely what the bourgeoisie revolted against, because they had achieved a material reality that no longer could be contained within their political subjection to nobles. The same happened to workers in the 20th century, they began to develop a consciousness as individuals and not merely human capital, and they demanded political autonomy. This is why masters did not want slaves to learn to read, it gave them consciousness of their reality, and once consciousness develops, man can no longer bear the ideas that were formed from a different material reality. A prisoner like Malcolm X who becomes conscious of his humanity can no longer submit to the social force that imprisoned him. Prisons, like slavery, enforce a material reality and cannot bear a man who questions it, because to question is to revolt. Every prisoner is a political prisoner, a subject to the state and it's absolute control.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Era Might

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

What evidence do you have to say rape is objectively wrong?  What objective evidence do you have for any objective right or wrong? 

 We know that certain actions are wrong because God defines them as wrong. The definition is objective in the sense that every person's conduct will be judged according to it. The evidence that such a divine law exists is found, for example, in the motion of the Earth (e.g., the argument from motion) and the witnesses to Jesus resurrected.

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

And even if we accept rape as objectively wrong,

 I am certainly glad that you do. But what is your reason for accepting that it is wrong if you assert that God does not exist?

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

is it the same proportion of wrong as killing a baby?  

I do not know for certain. I would venture to say that killing is worse than rape.

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

How about raping a child? 

I do not know for certain. I would venture to say that raping a child is worse than raping an adult.

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

There has to be a subjective evaluation of context to discern a proportional response, balancing both the good of specific individuals as well as the greater good. 

Perhaps there is a subjective evaluation that must be made, in certain circumstances, to determine the exact contours of the divine law. But that does not negate the existence of the divine law itself.

And there are certainly some things that are written into the heart of every person. Nobody needs to conduct any type of evaluation to know that murder is wrong. Nobody need to conduct any type of evaluation to know that rape is wrong. This morality comes from God. It is written on the heart of every person and we know it intrinsically. Some people just refuse to admit this.