5 ms·
You seem to be arguing from an agnostic or atheist point of view (correct me if I'm wrong). If that's the case, then there is no incentive whatsoever to limit t
by apta 6y ago
You seem to be arguing from an agnostic or atheist point of view (correct me if I'm wrong). If that's the case, then there is no incentive whatsoever to limit the "damage" to the people who do get locked up, because it's meaningless. Whether they get locked up for 1 year, 10, or just straight out executed, it's all the same. Rape isn't inherently bad anymore, it just is. Same with murder, theft, etc.
- slfnflctd 6y agoI think you understand where I'm coming from. I'm not authoritarian by any means, and I think defunding a bunch of police departments in the U.S. might be a good idea, but when people start acting like everything is deterministic society falls apart. You have different outcomes than you would otherwise have. I know this from having given up on life a few times.
- vidarh 6y agoA religious view makes no difference - it just pushes the question back one step. And yes there is every incentive to limit damage, to protect people even if there was no decision. But that also then extends to the perpetrators. There is no logic at all to your assertions here.
- apta 6y ago> A religious view makes no difference - it just pushes the question back one step. I disagree. You have well-known atheist figures that have expressed views similar to what I was describing. That rape isn't inherently bad, it's just something that exists in the world. That incest is ok if it's between "consenting adults". Or Dawkins defending pedophilia. There literally isn't a gauge to determine whether something is moral or not anymore. It may sound absurd or over-exaggerating, but that is the logical conclusion of a purely materialistic view. We've seen its effects throughout history.