Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Glowcat]

for example "Don't tolerate rapists" also has its own terrible logical conclusion... and that is that ostricisation is a great way to make them reoffend.

I am pretty sure you would not say that about "don't tolerate murderers."

I think he might, and I'd understand the point he's making, but for reasons I addressed earlier it can be very irresponsible to advocate for rapists and I can't help but cringe.

[Vector]

.

[Gatleos]

Anecdotally, I am pretty sure I may have actually taken a creative writing class with a murderer before : /

...Excuse me?

[Vector]

.

[GlyphGryph]

for example "Don't tolerate rapists" also has its own terrible logical conclusion... and that is that ostricisation is a great way to make them reoffend.

I am pretty sure you would not say that about "don't tolerate murderers."

Except neither of these are the argument. The argument is don't tolerate raping/murdering.

You hadn't addressed the point. Society is not always right. According to your position, having individuals adjust to society's beliefs is desirable. Therefore, according to you it is desirable to sometimes have individuals adjust their correct beliefs to wrong ones due to societal pressure.

If only anyone was actually arguing the point you were so valiantly fighting against. Except no one here is gotten anywhere near arguing that society is always right. How is this even relevant to any argument that has been made? Why the fuck does it even matter?

It's turned into argument between those who believe, on the one side, that horrible people should apparently be allowed to do whatever horrible things they want with no repercussions, because any attempt to get them to stop doing that horrible thing, such as the terribly immoral sin of "not associating with them until until they stop doing the horrible thing" is wrong.

And then you have the people on the other side who believe that stopping people from doing horrible things is a good thing, even if the horrible people have to suffer the terrible injustice of people not supporting them and being pleasant with them until they stop doing the horrible things.

[Vector]

.

[GlyphGryph]

I was simply commenting that it was a signifcant tangent from the main argument, which was in regards to ostracizing as a tool for changing behaviour, rather than ostracization based on unchangeable nature.

I was wanted to be clear that any points made along those lines weren't going to be relevant to the original point of contention anyway, not that what you said was wrong.

[Vector]

.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm not sure it's worth thanking for considering the "on rails" conversation would also, technically, probably be considered a derail.

[Flarp]

There is a difference between a person and what they do.

To even more atrociously derail this thread - shut up, I'm the OP, it's allowed - I don't think this statement can just be accepted by fiat.

If a person commits [CRIME], regardless of who they are or how many cookies they bake for the elderly, they are a [CRIME]ist/er, because that is the definition of [CRIME]ist/er as far as I am aware. If you kill someone unlawfully, you are a murderer. If you rape someone, you are a rapist. If you shoplift, you are a shoplifter. So on and so forth. It is an inherent facet of our justice system that your decision to commit crime constitutes an implicit acceptance of your new label as a criminal.

(Note: using the impersonal "you" here. Not meaning to imply anyone here is a shoplifter.)

I'm not going to argue for a crime-independent zero-tolerance policy (even though I do kind of personally support that model for serious crimes that are not already treated as such, like rape), but, in my opinion, until we invent mind-reading machines, "what people do" is the only evidence the legal system and greater society have of who they are. Who you are in the dark doesn't matter because, by the nature of metaphorical darkness, nobody can ever know of it save you.

[Neonivek]

No, I'm sorry, let me revise: I don't see why the argument "ostracizing rapists will just lead to more rape" is seen as logical, since I am pretty sure that I would never hear "ostracizing murderers will just lead to more murder."

Well ignoring that it is... The case... in real life... And it has been studied many times and proven to be true rather consistently (Compare and contrast alcoholics, as an example, where one has a loving supportive family versus one who has a family who all walk out on him... Which one has the higher sobriety rate)

The reason you would never hear "ostracizing murderers will just lead to more murder" is because well... No one wants to associate with a murderer and even IF it would mean more murderers would murder, they still wouldn't want to associate with them because "You might be next!" as well as the social ramifications. (GOODNESS am I getting Scarlet letter flashbacks)

The ridiculousness of allowing murderers a modicrom of dignity isn't contained in how many murders it would prevent... but rather the ridiculousness of just being anywhere near someone who murdered another person.

It is an inherent facet of our justice system that your decision to commit crime constitutes an implicit acceptance of your new label as a criminal

Then you are just poking holes in your own argument because as soon as someone "pays their debt to society" they are no longer considered a criminal. A Murderer who is out of jail is no longer a murderer as far as legality is concerned.

EVEN when the legal system retains a status it tends to be words like Ex-whatever. As in "Was once a whatever".

It seems rather baptismal when I think about it.

Though that is the inherent problem with using legal definitions in what is essentially social definitions.

[Bauglir]

It's turned into argument between those who believe, on the one side, that horrible people should apparently be allowed to do whatever horrible things they want with no repercussions, because any attempt to get them to stop doing that horrible thing, such as the terribly immoral sin of "not associating with them until until they stop doing the horrible thing" is wrong.

Actually I seem to recall that I claimed ostracizing people is often ineffective, not that it's wrong. I'd appreciate not being told what I believe, thanks.

[10ebbor10]

for example "Don't tolerate rapists" also has its own terrible logical conclusion... and that is that ostricisation is a great way to make them reoffend.

I am pretty sure you would not say that about "don't tolerate murderers."

Except neither of these are the argument. The argument is don't tolerate raping/murdering.

No, I'm sorry, let me revise: I don't see why the argument "ostracizing rapists will just lead to more rape" is seen as logical, since I am pretty sure that I would never hear "ostracizing murderers will just lead to more murder."

It was a side point, in any case, so I'm going to drop it.

Both seem quite logical to me. (Logical does not imply correct, for that matter.)

Ostracizing people prevents them from functioning well, if at all, in society, which in turns implies an increased recidivism rate. It's a trend that was shown to occur for a variety of lesser crimes, such as burglaries and stuff, so it's quite logical that people assume it works for other crimes as well.

All in all, it depends mainly on the motive of the person in question, but I don't think ostracization will actually be beneficial in most, or even any situations. A significant part of these people needs treatments or medicine or whatever, and they're not going to be help by being thrown in the gutter.

[Sergarr]

Bay12: Where threads about homosexuality in games are derailed by pages and pages of rape discussion.

[Tack]

*Walks in with opinion
*Sees discussion
*Leaves