4 ms·

> Every human being wants peace and order. The whole problem here is that this isn't true. Some significant majority of us do. But there is enough of a minorit

> Every human being wants peace and order. The whole problem here is that this isn't true. Some significant majority of us do. But there is enough of a minority who are content with violence and chaos as to totally destroy peace and order if they are left unchecked. This is true basically any place criminality is studied. The only remaining question is how do we deal with this minority? As someone without aggressive inclinations, I'm don't have sympathy or regard for those who display them. As a matter of primacy, I would like to live in a peaceful society. Anyone who violates this basic social contract has lost their humanity in my eyes. I would not object to their summary execution (in cases of absolute certainty of guilt), much as dangerous animals are routinely euthanized. The maintenance of civilized order, and resolution of conflict via due process, are the only things distinguishing people from animals. This isn't remotely comparable to making the trains run on time. > I don’t see anything particularly dignified in suicides of shame or abandonment. To me there is nothing more dignified than being unwilling to impose yourself on others. If no one wants to help you, and you cannot continue on your own, then taking your own life is the only dignified course, given the alternatives.

qzw 4y ago
> As someone without aggressive inclinations, I'm don't have sympathy or regard for those who display them. As a matter of primacy, I would like to live in a peaceful society. Anyone who violates this basic social contract has lost their humanity in my eyes. I would not object to their summary execution (in cases of absolute certainty of guilt), much as dangerous animals are routinely euthanized. Then you would’ve euthanized nearly all of Japan circa WWII, since their widely popular militaristic regime committed countless atrocities across Asia/Pacific and shattered peaceful society for millions around the world.
woodruffw 4y ago
I say this as respectfully as possible: you need to perform some serious introspection. You just told me in the same paragraph that you are “without aggressive inclinations” and would not object to “summary executions” of people you deem unworthy.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  It seems pretty clear that I was advocating a position of nonaggression, not nonviolence. I think extreme escalation of violence is the most effective response to aggression. > people you deem unworthy I'm not deeming anyone "unworthy". I'm just pointing out that humans who act literally like dangerous animals should be treated as such. To me, humanity is a mode of behaviour, not an irrevocable trait.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Splitting hairs vis-a-vis "aggression" and "violence" might work well in your libertarian circles, but it doesn't impress the rest of us. What you're describing is murdering homeless drug addicts because you think they're dangerous, despite their primary danger being to themselves (and, indirectly, our ability to humanize others.) I eagerly await your application of the same logic to tailpipe emissions.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      It's convenient to put me into a category you disagree with and then dismiss me, but it's not really a great argument is it? Aggression and violence are clearly very different things. If they weren't, self-defence would not be a justification for anything. Ignoring this clear and sharp distinction does nothing to help you either. Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently? Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective? > primary danger being to themselves The secondary danger posed to innocent people, as well as the knock-on effects of normalizing minor property crime (colloquially "we can't have nice things") and the erosion of the innate trust in strangers that more civilized places tend to have, don't seem worth feeling good about how empathetic and virtuous you are.
      - CRConrad 4y ago
        > Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently? Because they aren't dangerous wild animals, while dangerous wild animals are. In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration, while in many kinds of animals it's the immutable default. That difference shouldn't be too difficult to grasp, or is it? > Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective? Not at fixing the immediate danger, but yes, as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective.

qzw 4y ago

> As someone without aggressive inclinations, I'm don't have sympathy or regard for those who display them. As a matter of primacy, I would like to live in a peaceful society. Anyone who violates this basic social contract has lost their humanity in my eyes. I would not object to their summary execution (in cases of absolute certainty of guilt), much as dangerous animals are routinely euthanized. Then you would’ve euthanized nearly all of Japan circa WWII, since their widely popular militaristic regime committed countless atrocities across Asia/Pacific and shattered peaceful society for millions around the world.

woodruffw 4y ago

I say this as respectfully as possible: you need to perform some serious introspection. You just told me in the same paragraph that you are “without aggressive inclinations” and would not object to “summary executions” of people you deem unworthy.

thegrimmest 4y ago
It seems pretty clear that I was advocating a position of nonaggression, not nonviolence. I think extreme escalation of violence is the most effective response to aggression. > people you deem unworthy I'm not deeming anyone "unworthy". I'm just pointing out that humans who act literally like dangerous animals should be treated as such. To me, humanity is a mode of behaviour, not an irrevocable trait.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Splitting hairs vis-a-vis "aggression" and "violence" might work well in your libertarian circles, but it doesn't impress the rest of us. What you're describing is murdering homeless drug addicts because you think they're dangerous, despite their primary danger being to themselves (and, indirectly, our ability to humanize others.) I eagerly await your application of the same logic to tailpipe emissions.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    It's convenient to put me into a category you disagree with and then dismiss me, but it's not really a great argument is it? Aggression and violence are clearly very different things. If they weren't, self-defence would not be a justification for anything. Ignoring this clear and sharp distinction does nothing to help you either. Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently? Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective? > primary danger being to themselves The secondary danger posed to innocent people, as well as the knock-on effects of normalizing minor property crime (colloquially "we can't have nice things") and the erosion of the innate trust in strangers that more civilized places tend to have, don't seem worth feeling good about how empathetic and virtuous you are.
    - CRConrad 4y ago
      > Why should humans who behave indistinguishably from dangerous wild animals be treated any differently? Because they aren't dangerous wild animals, while dangerous wild animals are. In humans dangerous wild behaviour is a (hopefully, and ususally) more or less temporary and fixable aberration, while in many kinds of animals it's the immutable default. That difference shouldn't be too difficult to grasp, or is it? > Is immediate and severe escalation of violence in response to aggression ineffective? Not at fixing the immediate danger, but yes, as a means of maintaining a human(e) society it seems rather ineffective.