7 ms·

You are free to disagree and be in the moral wrong, and on the wrong side of history. There are good examples of much better humanitarian penal systems with far

You are free to disagree and be in the moral wrong, and on the wrong side of history. There are good examples of much better humanitarian penal systems with far better outcomes in Scandinavian countries that demonstrate this reality well. Returning to the past as you seem to want is just reactionary and does not serve progress.

Amezarak 4y ago
> You are free to disagree and be in the moral wrong, The reason I posted is because you seemed to be unaware other people have different moral value systems. This is the fundamental reason behind a lot of disagreements. Here's the root of it: you think I a morally wrong and I think I am morally right. There is no rational argument to demonstrate that either of us are correct. That's also why you're fundamentally unpersuasive. You're not convincing anyone by making bald assertions of your unsupported moral beliefs. > the wrong side of history. History will go on for a long time, and there is no arc of some sort of moral progress, just shifting social norms changing with historical accidents. This type of argument is particularly unpersuasive and tends to raise people's hackles immediately, because it's a declaration that you are (again, without evidence) so incredibly righteous that history itself will steamroll people who disagree with you. > There are good examples of much better humanitarian penal systems with far better outcomes in Scandinavian countries that demonstrate this reality well. The better outcomes may have nothing to do with the nature of the penal system itself, but wider cultural differences. In fact, this seems much more likely, given the extant differences in US subcultures and demographics. Slicing up the US crime data by economic quintiles and various demographics gives the lie to a lot of arguments. Even excluding the wider cultural comparison, talking about this without evaluating the commonalities between the crimes in questions and aggravating factors between the two countries makes this a really apples-to-oranges comparison.
- hashmap 4y ago
  > The reason I posted is because you seemed to be unaware other people have different moral value systems. This is the fundamental reason behind a lot of disagreements. Here's the root of it: you think I a morally wrong and I think I am morally right. There is no rational argument to demonstrate that either of us are correct. I have no such illusions; I'm simply saying that this archaic one is objectively wrong from a humanitarian and historical standpoint. We both think we are right; the difference is you are wrong. There is no agreeing to disagree here, and it is quite cut and dried. Further, I am not saying these things to convince you of anything, and I of course don't think I will. I cannot convince someone to care about their fellow human being. I am saying these things for the sake of those reading.
  - Amezarak 4y ago
    Okay, so you can go ahead and lay out how I am objectively wrong from a humanitarian and historical standpoint? It’s fine to assert that but so far you haven’t actually explained it. I agree there is no agreeing to disagree about value differences. The key is to identify what outcomes we both want and, from that starting point, evaluate what historical and sociological evidence suggests can get us to those outcomes. Moral framing does not help.
    - hashmap 4y ago
      "Cite your sources as to why torturing prisoners is wrong" is simply shorthand for "I actually like the idea of this torture and you can't tell me otherwise". Like I said, I can't make an argument as to why you should care about your fellow human if you don't already. It's not a good faith question. We know that punitive measures do not act as a deterrence and in the case of more progressive countries that have wildly better outcomes we know what actually has good outcomes. If you're really interested all the literature is just a google away. Check out US incarceration and recidivism rates (which are the worst in the world) and those of more progressive countries. The data is all there for you, if you are curious. We've seen what doesn't work, and we've seen what does. It's not my job to educate you. Like I said, I'm not here to convince you of anything. I cannot change your value system, I can only make a public example of why it does no good to drag us into the past, and all the atrocities that entails. EDIT: sort of an afterthought, but for those reading I always find it hilarious that whenever a reactionary sees something work in another country the first instinct is to say "actually the US might exist in a bizarro reality where everything is opposite, and you can't prove that it's not so ha". As if the most scientific approach to seeing someone's repeated successful results is to absolutely refuse to try to replicate it yourself!
      - Amezarak 4y ago
        It has been my observation that the “humanitarian” experiments in the US have been a large net negative for everyone involved. It is not theoretical. It’s not a bizzaro reality: peoples and cultures vary across geography in different ways. Contrary to being a reactionary, my fear is that the denial of these differences and the failure of well-intentioned policies is going to eventually lead to a draconian authoritarian backlash that could be prevented by having more sensible policies now. And as I said in my original post, many of the worst aspects of American culture and the legal system are already downstream consequences of failed “humanitarian” policies that are making a mockery of justice, civil rights, and peace/safety. All in all, I am afraid that you will not make much progress by assuming everyone who disagrees with you is a morally objectionable reactionary and refusing to seriously engage with them. You are making a religious argument and not a policy argument. I also don’t think it does you service to conflate punishment with torture and make straw men.

Amezarak 4y ago

> You are free to disagree and be in the moral wrong, The reason I posted is because you seemed to be unaware other people have different moral value systems. This is the fundamental reason behind a lot of disagreements. Here's the root of it: you think I a morally wrong and I think I am morally right. There is no rational argument to demonstrate that either of us are correct. That's also why you're fundamentally unpersuasive. You're not convincing anyone by making bald assertions of your unsupported moral beliefs. > the wrong side of history. History will go on for a long time, and there is no arc of some sort of moral progress, just shifting social norms changing with historical accidents. This type of argument is particularly unpersuasive and tends to raise people's hackles immediately, because it's a declaration that you are (again, without evidence) so incredibly righteous that history itself will steamroll people who disagree with you. > There are good examples of much better humanitarian penal systems with far better outcomes in Scandinavian countries that demonstrate this reality well. The better outcomes may have nothing to do with the nature of the penal system itself, but wider cultural differences. In fact, this seems much more likely, given the extant differences in US subcultures and demographics. Slicing up the US crime data by economic quintiles and various demographics gives the lie to a lot of arguments. Even excluding the wider cultural comparison, talking about this without evaluating the commonalities between the crimes in questions and aggravating factors between the two countries makes this a really apples-to-oranges comparison.

hashmap 4y ago
> The reason I posted is because you seemed to be unaware other people have different moral value systems. This is the fundamental reason behind a lot of disagreements. Here's the root of it: you think I a morally wrong and I think I am morally right. There is no rational argument to demonstrate that either of us are correct. I have no such illusions; I'm simply saying that this archaic one is objectively wrong from a humanitarian and historical standpoint. We both think we are right; the difference is you are wrong. There is no agreeing to disagree here, and it is quite cut and dried. Further, I am not saying these things to convince you of anything, and I of course don't think I will. I cannot convince someone to care about their fellow human being. I am saying these things for the sake of those reading.
- Amezarak 4y ago
  Okay, so you can go ahead and lay out how I am objectively wrong from a humanitarian and historical standpoint? It’s fine to assert that but so far you haven’t actually explained it. I agree there is no agreeing to disagree about value differences. The key is to identify what outcomes we both want and, from that starting point, evaluate what historical and sociological evidence suggests can get us to those outcomes. Moral framing does not help.
  - hashmap 4y ago
    "Cite your sources as to why torturing prisoners is wrong" is simply shorthand for "I actually like the idea of this torture and you can't tell me otherwise". Like I said, I can't make an argument as to why you should care about your fellow human if you don't already. It's not a good faith question. We know that punitive measures do not act as a deterrence and in the case of more progressive countries that have wildly better outcomes we know what actually has good outcomes. If you're really interested all the literature is just a google away. Check out US incarceration and recidivism rates (which are the worst in the world) and those of more progressive countries. The data is all there for you, if you are curious. We've seen what doesn't work, and we've seen what does. It's not my job to educate you. Like I said, I'm not here to convince you of anything. I cannot change your value system, I can only make a public example of why it does no good to drag us into the past, and all the atrocities that entails. EDIT: sort of an afterthought, but for those reading I always find it hilarious that whenever a reactionary sees something work in another country the first instinct is to say "actually the US might exist in a bizarro reality where everything is opposite, and you can't prove that it's not so ha". As if the most scientific approach to seeing someone's repeated successful results is to absolutely refuse to try to replicate it yourself!
    - Amezarak 4y ago
      It has been my observation that the “humanitarian” experiments in the US have been a large net negative for everyone involved. It is not theoretical. It’s not a bizzaro reality: peoples and cultures vary across geography in different ways. Contrary to being a reactionary, my fear is that the denial of these differences and the failure of well-intentioned policies is going to eventually lead to a draconian authoritarian backlash that could be prevented by having more sensible policies now. And as I said in my original post, many of the worst aspects of American culture and the legal system are already downstream consequences of failed “humanitarian” policies that are making a mockery of justice, civil rights, and peace/safety. All in all, I am afraid that you will not make much progress by assuming everyone who disagrees with you is a morally objectionable reactionary and refusing to seriously engage with them. You are making a religious argument and not a policy argument. I also don’t think it does you service to conflate punishment with torture and make straw men.