Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Injustice

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:21:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If there is no afterlife, the ultimate end is nonexistence. Everybody meets the same fate once they die. If a sick, evil person torments the lives of innocent people and never gets caught they are simply not accountable. Hitler can oversee the brutal murders of millions of men, women, and children and just take a dirt nap forever as if none of it ever happened. Some psycho can shoot up a school of little kids - leaving a wake of immeasurable pain to the families of those kids - then simply cease to exist. Where is the justice?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:37:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:21:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If there is no afterlife, the ultimate end is nonexistence. Everybody meets the same fate once they die. If a sick, evil person torments the lives of innocent people and never gets caught they are simply not accountable. Hitler can oversee the brutal murders of millions of men, women, and children and just take a dirt nap forever as if none of it ever happened. Some psycho can shoot up a school of little kids - leaving a wake of immeasurable pain to the families of those kids - then simply cease to exist. Where is the justice?

There is none. Welcome to reality.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:54:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:51:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Then that's injustice.

Perhaps we need to focus less on an afterlife and more on teaching our children right from wrong in this life. It is injustice that people get away with horror.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:56:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:51:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Then that's injustice.

Which leads me to a popular saying I was told when growing up 'Life isn't fair'.

However, more germane to the point, Hitler's last few hours were spent contemplating on whether or not to nibble a poison pellet because he clearly thought being nabbed by opposition would be a fate worse than death.

Random folks that commit atrocities ARE held accountable, we as humans have created a justice system in which to incarcerate, execute, and attempt rehabilitation.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:58:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I agree it is injustice that they would get away with committing these horrors. Parenting is a big part of preventing things like this from happening but ultimately people have the free will to decide how they want to act. Two of the most prolific serial killers, Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer came from good homes.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 3:02:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:51:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Then that's injustice.

Which leads me to a popular saying I was told when growing up 'Life isn't fair'.

However, more germane to the point, Hitler's last few hours were spent contemplating on whether or not to nibble a poison pellet because he clearly thought being nabbed by opposition would be a fate worse than death.

Random folks that commit atrocities ARE held accountable, we as humans have created a justice system in which to incarcerate, execute, and attempt rehabilitation.

Those people aren't held accountable when they escape the reaches of the system or when the people committing such atrocities hold a position of authoritative power. Life isn't fair, but why would we even be aware of such a fact if there wasn't some way life was supposed to be?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 3:03:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:51:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Then that's injustice.

Which leads me to a popular saying I was told when growing up 'Life isn't fair'.

However, more germane to the point, Hitler's last few hours were spent contemplating on whether or not to nibble a poison pellet because he clearly thought being nabbed by opposition would be a fate worse than death.

Random folks that commit atrocities ARE held accountable, we as humans have created a justice system in which to incarcerate, execute, and attempt rehabilitation.

I agree, and hoping that crappy people will suffer justice in an afterlife is irrational, wishful thinking.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 3:09:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't hope that they suffer, I hope they get justice on behalf of all of their victims. We see that it's truly unjustified for people to cease to exist after tormenting the lives of many others before causing them to cease to exis without any further accountability. If it was truly not injustice for this to occur, we have no reason whatsoever to claim injustice.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 3:11:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 3:02:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:51:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Then that's injustice.

Which leads me to a popular saying I was told when growing up 'Life isn't fair'.

However, more germane to the point, Hitler's last few hours were spent contemplating on whether or not to nibble a poison pellet because he clearly thought being nabbed by opposition would be a fate worse than death.

Random folks that commit atrocities ARE held accountable, we as humans have created a justice system in which to incarcerate, execute, and attempt rehabilitation.

Those people aren't held accountable when they escape the reaches of the system or when the people committing such atrocities hold a position of authoritative power. Life isn't fair, but why would we even be aware of such a fact if there wasn't some way life was supposed to be?

Thats like asking why we expirience cold if we are warm blooded. There isn't a specific way life is supposed to be, that is why it happens as it does. Empathy in part is what enables us to understand justice and equality from crime to punishment. If we make the rules, it only stands to reason that some people will just as soon try to work outside them, or break them altogether.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 3:19:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 3:11:26 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/20/2014 3:02:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:51:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Then that's injustice.

Which leads me to a popular saying I was told when growing up 'Life isn't fair'.

However, more germane to the point, Hitler's last few hours were spent contemplating on whether or not to nibble a poison pellet because he clearly thought being nabbed by opposition would be a fate worse than death.

Random folks that commit atrocities ARE held accountable, we as humans have created a justice system in which to incarcerate, execute, and attempt rehabilitation.

Those people aren't held accountable when they escape the reaches of the system or when the people committing such atrocities hold a position of authoritative power. Life isn't fair, but why would we even be aware of such a fact if there wasn't some way life was supposed to be?

Thats like asking why we expirience cold if we are warm blooded.

How so?

There isn't a specific way life is supposed to be, that is why it happens as it does. Empathy in part is what enables us to understand justice and equality from crime to punishment. If we make the rules, it only stands to reason that some people will just as soon try to work outside them, or break them altogether.

Why does virtually every society have a justice system in place with the same rules like "don't kill someone for no reason" if there's no specific way life is supposed to be? Empathy allows us to know what someone else feels. We don't have any moral obligation do good rather than harm?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 3:29:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 3:19:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 3:11:26 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/20/2014 3:02:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:56:06 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:51:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Then that's injustice.

Which leads me to a popular saying I was told when growing up 'Life isn't fair'.

However, more germane to the point, Hitler's last few hours were spent contemplating on whether or not to nibble a poison pellet because he clearly thought being nabbed by opposition would be a fate worse than death.

Random folks that commit atrocities ARE held accountable, we as humans have created a justice system in which to incarcerate, execute, and attempt rehabilitation.

Those people aren't held accountable when they escape the reaches of the system or when the people committing such atrocities hold a position of authoritative power. Life isn't fair, but why would we even be aware of such a fact if there wasn't some way life was supposed to be?

Thats like asking why we expirience cold if we are warm blooded.

How so?

Because what is fair to one person very well could be unfair to another. Even a universal concept shows its ugly side should it exist.

There isn't a specific way life is supposed to be, that is why it happens as it does. Empathy in part is what enables us to understand justice and equality from crime to punishment. If we make the rules, it only stands to reason that some people will just as soon try to work outside them, or break them altogether.

Why does virtually every society have a justice system in place with the same rules like "don't kill someone for no reason" if there's no specific way life is supposed to be?

Because I emphatically don't want to be killed for no reason. I would prefer not to be killed even if there was a reason. I am confident this is a trait shared by 99.99 percent of humanity. As such, they crafted rules to such.

Empathy allows us to know what someone else feels. We don't have any moral obligation do good rather than harm?

Yes, we do, which is why a vast majority of people DON'T kill people for no reason.

If there was a way things were supposed to be, don't you think it would start THERE rather than how its looked at in terms of justice across the world? Wouldn't it be much easier to fix the source rather than a lacking solution?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 3:31:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 3:09:13 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I don't hope that they suffer, I hope they get justice on behalf of all of their victims. We see that it's truly unjustified for people to cease to exist after tormenting the lives of many others before causing them to cease to exis without any further accountability. If it was truly not injustice for this to occur, we have no reason whatsoever to claim injustice.

I hope that people who commit horrible crimes against others receive what they deserve, payment that is equal to the crime. This is why I don't believe in the death penalty. I think it's letting them off easy. Accountability for our actions while we are alive is important.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 4:10:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:51:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Then that's injustice.

From where to you derive the assumption that reality owes you some form of justice? Do you think that when a lion kills a gazelle, it assures that in an afterlife, the gazelle will extract some form of justice?

What is "justice"? It's essentially just a form of revenge, which gains the approval of those seen as authorities over a social group. This is where people commonly fall for word games. For example;
- "Faith" is a good thing. "Blind faith" is a bad thing. They're actually the same thing.

- "Justice" is a good thing. "Revenge" is a bad thing. The only difference is the stamp of authoritative approval.

- :Freedom" is a good thing. "Laws" are a good thing. Yet laws are simply the loss of a freedom.

People fall for ridiculous defaults all of the time. It's the blood of social circulation. But it's highly irrational, and built upon emotionalism, at the sacrifice of rationality.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 4:16:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:21:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If there is no afterlife, the ultimate end is nonexistence. Everybody meets the same fate once they die. If a sick, evil person torments the lives of innocent people and never gets caught they are simply not accountable. Hitler can oversee the brutal murders of millions of men, women, and children and just take a dirt nap forever as if none of it ever happened. Some psycho can shoot up a school of little kids - leaving a wake of immeasurable pain to the families of those kids - then simply cease to exist. Where is the justice?

And that's why you need to grow up. Wishing for some sky daddy to provide justice after someone is dead is just childish.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 4:22:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 4:10:46 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:51:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Then that's injustice.

From where to you derive the assumption that reality owes you some form of justice? Do you think that when a lion kills a gazelle, it assures that in an afterlife, the gazelle will extract some form of justice?

This is a NECESSITY. There is a large difference between survival and justice.

What is "justice"? It's essentially just a form of revenge, which gains the approval of those seen as authorities over a social group. This is where people commonly fall for word games. For example;
- "Faith" is a good thing. "Blind faith" is a bad thing. They're actually the same thing.

- "Justice" is a good thing. "Revenge" is a bad thing. The only difference is the stamp of authoritative approval.

Not true at all. That is why its called 'corrections' as opposed to 'avenging'. We hope that after a crime and the punishment is meted out that the incarcerated LEARNS something, or at least has the fear not to do it again. If some one rapes some one, and continuous to rape others, its a safe bet they are indeed a danger to society, so further correction is needed, or sequester from society in general.

- :Freedom" is a good thing. "Laws" are a good thing. Yet laws are simply the loss of a freedom.

That doesn't mean the two can't be a good thing. Unbridled freedom is not a good thing, as it promotes lawlessness, and excessive laws promote tyranny.

People fall for ridiculous defaults all of the time. It's the blood of social circulation. But it's highly irrational, and built upon emotionalism, at the sacrifice of rationality.

When posed in a false dichotomy, sure. That is all you are setting up. Freedom and Justice are both balances in which we try to gain the most benefit at the least sacrifice.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 4:50:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 4:22:46 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/20/2014 4:10:46 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:51:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Then that's injustice.

From where to you derive the assumption that reality owes you some form of justice? Do you think that when a lion kills a gazelle, it assures that in an afterlife, the gazelle will extract some form of justice?

This is a NECESSITY. There is a large difference between survival and justice.
So then the gazelle only exists as a necessity for the lion? You're not making any sense. It simply illustrates my point; reality doesn't owe anyone any sort of justice.

What is "justice"? It's essentially just a form of revenge, which gains the approval of those seen as authorities over a social group. This is where people commonly fall for word games. For example;
- "Faith" is a good thing. "Blind faith" is a bad thing. They're actually the same thing.

- "Justice" is a good thing. "Revenge" is a bad thing. The only difference is the stamp of authoritative approval.

Not true at all. That is why its called 'corrections' as opposed to 'avenging'. We hope that after a crime and the punishment is meted out that the incarcerated LEARNS something, or at least has the fear not to do it again. If some one rapes some one, and continuous to rape others, its a safe bet they are indeed a danger to society, so further correction is needed, or sequester from society in general.
Sorry but it is true. I must admit that I do appreciate the enthusiasm with which you've decided to punctuate the reality - that people accept the stigma applied to terms, more than they pay attention to the fundamental reality of the processes. When someone commits murder, do we "correct" that murder by imposing the death sentence? Do we correct their behavior by sentencing them to life in prison? Would it be "justice" to find them guilty and not impose a penalty? Is there any penalty we can impose which corrects the situation?

What about something more mundane like a speeding ticket? No one has been harmed so there is nothing to correct. But the established stigma is that the speeder is a danger to society, so they must be punished. And how do we punish them? We impose a financial penalty, in which they pay a fee to the powers at be, who then assure us that they have paid their debt to society. And from the moment this system was implemented, stopping speeders became a source of revenue... a PRIMARY form of revenue in regard to traffic. Meanwhile, national statistics drawn from the Department of Transportation records show that speed is a contributing factor in a grand total of 5% of reported accidents. But as long as you can get people to accept the ridiculous idea that this is "justice", they readily continue the practice of turning enforcement into a form of taxation.

I was in the middle of it for 30-years, but I'm sure your accepted defaults have given you a much more comprehensive view.

(And the sad reality, seems to be that your objections are motivated by your resistance to accepting the physiology of your own digestive system, rather than anything to do with the proposition to which you've rendered your objections.)

- :Freedom" is a good thing. "Laws" are a good thing. Yet laws are simply the loss of a freedom.

That doesn't mean the two can't be a good thing. Unbridled freedom is not a good thing, as it promotes lawlessness, and excessive laws promote tyranny.
I never said that a balance between the two can't provide for a better quality of life overall. I'm simply pointing out that people love to proclaim that they are "law-abiding, freedom-loving" patriots. And the reality is that they possess a limited allegiance to freedom, as well as a strong belief in the limitation of freedom. As I've stated, it's not that the two systems don't work together to create a balance. It's simply that people forget that law and freedom are opposites, not allies.

People fall for ridiculous defaults all of the time. It's the blood of social circulation. But it's highly irrational, and built upon emotionalism, at the sacrifice of rationality.

When posed in a false dichotomy, sure. That is all you are setting up. Freedom and Justice are both balances in which we try to gain the most benefit at the least sacrifice.

And rainbows are all fruit-flavored sugar treats, and mud slides are a chocolate waterfalls... because mommy and daddy said so. Once again, thank you for illustrating the result of accepting contradictory ideas, based on default assertions, rather than logical realities.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 5:20:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 4:50:17 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 4:22:46 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/20/2014 4:10:46 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:51:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Then that's injustice.

From where to you derive the assumption that reality owes you some form of justice? Do you think that when a lion kills a gazelle, it assures that in an afterlife, the gazelle will extract some form of justice?

This is a NECESSITY. There is a large difference between survival and justice.
So then the gazelle only exists as a necessity for the lion? You're not making any sense. It simply illustrates my point; reality doesn't owe anyone any sort of justice.

What is "justice"? It's essentially just a form of revenge, which gains the approval of those seen as authorities over a social group. This is where people commonly fall for word games. For example;
- "Faith" is a good thing. "Blind faith" is a bad thing. They're actually the same thing.

- "Justice" is a good thing. "Revenge" is a bad thing. The only difference is the stamp of authoritative approval.

Not true at all. That is why its called 'corrections' as opposed to 'avenging'. We hope that after a crime and the punishment is meted out that the incarcerated LEARNS something, or at least has the fear not to do it again. If some one rapes some one, and continuous to rape others, its a safe bet they are indeed a danger to society, so further correction is needed, or sequester from society in general.

Sorry but it is true. I must admit that I do appreciate the enthusiasm with which you've decided to punctuate the reality - that people accept the stigma applied to terms, more than they pay attention to the fundamental reality of the processes. When someone commits murder, do we "correct" that murder by imposing the death sentence?

In some instances, yes, depending on the circumstance.
Do we correct their behavior by sentencing them to life in prison?
In some cases, yes, depending on the circumstance.

Would it be "justice" to find them guilty and not impose a penalty?
In some cases, depending on the circumstances.

Is there any penalty we can impose which corrects the situation?
If the situation doesn't happen anymore, wouldn't that be considered corrected?

What about something more mundane like a speeding ticket? No one has been harmed so there is nothing to correct. But the established stigma is that the speeder is a danger to society, so they must be punished. And how do we punish them? We impose a financial penalty, in which they pay a fee to the powers at be, who then assure us that they have paid their debt to society. And from the moment this system was implemented, stopping speeders became a source of revenue... a PRIMARY form of revenue in regard to traffic. Meanwhile, national statistics drawn from the Department of Transportation records show that speed is a contributing factor in a grand total of 5% of reported accidents. But as long as you can get people to accept the ridiculous idea that this is "justice", they readily continue the practice of turning enforcement into a form of taxation.

The goal here is to deter the speeder since the crime is indeed of no consequence to a majority of the population. I find it to be an odd tax when its only done by knowingly breaking the law. This would also mean that a primary form of revenue is based on detering the choice in which to get more revenue. Not a good business model, but to each their own, I suppose.


I was in the middle of it for 30-years, but I'm sure your accepted defaults have given you a much more comprehensive view.

No, just the extreme good and extreme bad to know there should be a balance. ;)

(And the sad reality, seems to be that your objections are motivated by your resistance to accepting the physiology of your own digestive system, rather than anything to do with the proposition to which you've rendered your objections.)

Or that your own views are the result of a being jaded from your losses. As I recall, you so eloquently stated that you haven't had a lucky day in some time. But, that is speculation, which is fun and all, but I wouldn't go calling that 'reality'. Remember, we are on a comment board where we only hear back about the things we disagree with as a general rule. Were your speculation correct, wouldn't I be also commenting on a host of other observations that you have posted?

- :Freedom" is a good thing. "Laws" are a good thing. Yet laws are simply the loss of a freedom.

That doesn't mean the two can't be a good thing. Unbridled freedom is not a good thing, as it promotes lawlessness, and excessive laws promote tyranny.

I never said that a balance between the two can't provide for a better quality of life overall. I'm simply pointing out that people love to proclaim that they are "law-abiding, freedom-loving" patriots. And the reality is that they possess a limited allegiance to freedom, as well as a strong belief in the limitation of freedom. As I've stated, it's not that the two systems don't work together to create a balance. It's simply that people forget that law and freedom are opposites, not allies.


And rainbows are all fruit-flavored sugar treats, and mud slides are a chocolate waterfalls... because mommy and daddy said so. Once again, thank you for illustrating the result of accepting contradictory ideas, based on default assertions, rather than logical realities.

.... I would like to point out that you rephrased my opinion (granted, in much better terminology) before you resorted to... this. The logical reality is that both are beneficial, even if contradictory. THAT is what I was extolling. You even rephrased it for me. You make the implication that its a shell game with no purpose, or at worst, to hold power over others with impunity.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:21:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:21:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If there is no afterlife, the ultimate end is nonexistence. Everybody meets the same fate once they die. If a sick, evil person torments the lives of innocent people and never gets caught they are simply not accountable. Hitler can oversee the brutal murders of millions of men, women, and children and just take a dirt nap forever as if none of it ever happened. Some psycho can shoot up a school of little kids - leaving a wake of immeasurable pain to the families of those kids - then simply cease to exist. Where is the justice?

And some televangelist can bilk people out of millions, never get taxed, and die in a luxury mansion in Florida without ever having to repay what they took on false pretenses. Yes, this world can be unfair.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:33:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:21:34 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:21:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If there is no afterlife, the ultimate end is nonexistence. Everybody meets the same fate once they die. If a sick, evil person torments the lives of innocent people and never gets caught they are simply not accountable. Hitler can oversee the brutal murders of millions of men, women, and children and just take a dirt nap forever as if none of it ever happened. Some psycho can shoot up a school of little kids - leaving a wake of immeasurable pain to the families of those kids - then simply cease to exist. Where is the justice?

And some televangelist can bilk people out of millions, never get taxed, and die in a luxury mansion in Florida without ever having to repay what they took on false pretenses. Yes, this world can be unfair.

If indeed he was a cheat he will be punished in the afterlife. In any case, you didnt answer the question.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:36:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:21:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If there is no afterlife, the ultimate end is nonexistence. Everybody meets the same fate once they die. If a sick, evil person torments the lives of innocent people and never gets caught they are simply not accountable. Hitler can oversee the brutal murders of millions of men, women, and children and just take a dirt nap forever as if none of it ever happened. Some psycho can shoot up a school of little kids - leaving a wake of immeasurable pain to the families of those kids - then simply cease to exist. Where is the justice?

What makes you believe you're so good that you escape being judged to death?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:01:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 4:10:46 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:51:30 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Then that's injustice.

From where to you derive the assumption that reality owes you some form of justice? Do you think that when a lion kills a gazelle, it assures that in an afterlife, the gazelle will extract some form of justice?

From our intuitive sense of justice upon which every society has built a justice system. A lion and gazelle don't have self-awareness much less understand any concept of justice. Also, intent plays a big role in justice. There is a huge difference between involuntary manslaughter and premeditated murder.

What is "justice"? It's essentially just a form of revenge, which gains the approval of those seen as authorities over a social group. This is where people commonly fall for word games. For example;
- "Faith" is a good thing. "Blind faith" is a bad thing. They're actually the same thing.

Blind faith is having no reason to believe, faith is having some reason to believe.

- "Justice" is a good thing. "Revenge" is a bad thing. The only difference is the stamp of authoritative approval.

Justice is a form of revenge but revenge isn't always justice. If someone falls asleep at the wheel and kills someone else's little girl involuntarily, is the parent of the deceased little girl justified in killing the daughter of the person who fell asleep at the wheel? No. Is it revenge? Yes. All it takes is rational reasoning to differentiate the two.

- :Freedom" is a good thing. "Laws" are a good thing. Yet laws are simply the loss of a freedom.

Laws prohibit the inevitable loss of freedom by people who would freely infringe on your freedoms.

People fall for ridiculous defaults all of the time. It's the blood of social circulation. But it's highly irrational, and built upon emotionalism, at the sacrifice of rationality.

Justice is an enterprise of rationality. "Emotionalism" is what makes us human. Did you know that the most important thing in life, love, happens to be an emotion? It's a claim built on a sense of justice.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:29:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm with Kant:

"Deceit, violence, and envy will always be rife around him, even though he himself is honest, peaceable, and benevolent. Moreover, as concerns the other righteous people he meets: no matter how worthy of happiness they may be, nature, which pays no attention to that, will still subject them to all the evils of deprivation, disease and untimely death, just like all the other animals on the earth. And they will stay subjected to these evils always, until one vast tomb engulfs them one and all (honest or not, that makes no difference here) and hurls them, who managed to believe they were the final purpose of creation, back into the abyss of the purposeless chaos of matter from which they were taken."

Justice/injustice (and morality all together) sits uneasy with atheism.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:38:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:21:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If there is no afterlife, the ultimate end is nonexistence. Everybody meets the same fate once they die. If a sick, evil person torments the lives of innocent people and never gets caught they are simply not accountable. Hitler can oversee the brutal murders of millions of men, women, and children and just take a dirt nap forever as if none of it ever happened. Some psycho can shoot up a school of little kids - leaving a wake of immeasurable pain to the families of those kids - then simply cease to exist. Where is the justice?

That"s exactly what the atheist/anarchist want you to believe, that there is not justice. And men are not responsible to their Maker for what they do.

In the Christian context God made man to carry out His Judgements expressed in His commandments to man in the earth as is done in Heaven where God sits. If you are convinced to do otherwise, then yes you agree to live by your own judgements of what is good and if you are fooled into thinking what is good is evil and what is evil is good then God"s Judgements are not carried out. Godless if you will, and that isn"t the correct way because though in one"s own view one might be a decent sort, the serial killer, or a Hitler, agrees to the same thing of living by their own judgements of what is good.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:44:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 9:38:05 AM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:21:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If there is no afterlife, the ultimate end is nonexistence. Everybody meets the same fate once they die. If a sick, evil person torments the lives of innocent people and never gets caught they are simply not accountable. Hitler can oversee the brutal murders of millions of men, women, and children and just take a dirt nap forever as if none of it ever happened. Some psycho can shoot up a school of little kids - leaving a wake of immeasurable pain to the families of those kids - then simply cease to exist. Where is the justice?

That"s exactly what the atheist/anarchist want you to believe, that there is not justice. And men are not responsible to their Maker for what they do.

Because I'm NOT responsible to Him, I am responsible to the dude I wronged! There is no justice if you assume an invisible man in the sky is going to handle it after we croak, there would be no reason to handle it here in this life were the justice you espouse to be real. Our time is finite, that is why incarceration is the tool it is.

In the Christian context God made man to carry out His Judgements expressed in His commandments to man in the earth as is done in Heaven where God sits. If you are convinced to do otherwise, then yes you agree to live by your own judgements of what is good and if you are fooled into thinking what is good is evil and what is evil is good then God"s Judgements are not carried out. Godless if you will, and that isn"t the correct way because though in one"s own view one might be a decent sort, the serial killer, or a Hitler, agrees to the same thing of living by their own judgements of what is good.

Do any of you morally equivocate 'the decent sort' with a serial killer or Hitler? That is whom judges us now, our peers. SELF judgement isn't justice.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:51:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:21:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If there is no afterlife, the ultimate end is nonexistence. Everybody meets the same fate once they die. If a sick, evil person torments the lives of innocent people and never gets caught they are simply not accountable. Hitler can oversee the brutal murders of millions of men, women, and children and just take a dirt nap forever as if none of it ever happened. Some psycho can shoot up a school of little kids - leaving a wake of immeasurable pain to the families of those kids - then simply cease to exist. Where is the justice?

Who said nature is fair? Besides, according to Christianity, all of these evil people could have sincerely asked for forgiveness right before they died and be in heaven along with people who have attempted to live completely perfect lives. How is that justice?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:06:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 9:51:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:21:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If there is no afterlife, the ultimate end is nonexistence. Everybody meets the same fate once they die. If a sick, evil person torments the lives of innocent people and never gets caught they are simply not accountable. Hitler can oversee the brutal murders of millions of men, women, and children and just take a dirt nap forever as if none of it ever happened. Some psycho can shoot up a school of little kids - leaving a wake of immeasurable pain to the families of those kids - then simply cease to exist. Where is the justice?

Who said nature is fair?

It certainly seems like existence OUGHT to be fair int he long run if morality is supposed to actually matter.

Besides, according to Christianity, all of these evil people could have sincerely asked for forgiveness right before they died and be in heaven along with people who have attempted to live completely perfect lives. How is that justice?

1. That doesn't entail that they will go to heaven right away. Asking for forgiveness (i.e acknowledging the problem) is the first step - it may be a long, arduous, painful process to actually get there.

2. The only true justice involves reconciliation:

"Suppose my watch has been taken from my pocket; I lay hold of the thief; he is dragged before the magistrate, proved guilty, and sentenced to a just imprisonment: must I walk home satisfied with the result? Have I had justice done me? The thief may have had justice done him--but where is my watch? That is gone, and I remain a man wronged. Who has done me the wrong? The thief. Who can set right the wrong? The thief, and only the thief; nobody but the man that did the wrong. God may be able to move the man to right the wrong, but God himself cannot right it without the man. Suppose my watch found and restored, is the account settled between me and the thief? I may forgive him, but is the wrong removed? By no means. But suppose the thief to bethink himself, to repent. He has, we shall say, put it out of his power to return the watch, but he comes to me and says he is sorry he stole it and begs me to accept for the present what little he is able to bring, as a beginning of atonement: how should I then regard the matter? Should I not feel that he had gone far to make atonement--done more to make up for the injury he had inflicted upon me, than the mere restoration of the watch, even by himself, could reach to? Would there not lie, in the thief's confession and submission and initial restoration, an appeal to the divinest in me--to the eternal brotherhood? Would it not indeed amount to a sufficing atonement as between man and man? If he offered to bear what I chose to lay upon him, should I feel it necessary, for the sake of justice, to inflict some certain suffering as demanded by righteousness? I should still have a claim upon him for my watch, but should I not be apt to forget it? He who commits the offence can make up for it--and he alone.
One thing must surely be plain--that the punishment of the wrong-doer makes no atonement for the wrong done. How could it make up to me for the stealing of my watch that the man was punished? The wrong would be there all the same. I am not saying the man ought not to be punished--far from it; I am only saying that the punishment nowise makes up to the man wronged. Suppose the man, with the watch in his pocket, were to inflict the severest flagellation on himself: would that lessen my sense of injury? Would it set anything right? Would it anyway atone? Would it give him a right to the watch? Punishment may do good to the man who does the wrong, but that is a thing as different as important.
Another thing plain is, that, even without the material rectification of the wrong where that is impossible, repentance removes the offence which no suffering could. I at least should feel that I had no more quarrel with the man. I should even feel that the gift he had made me, giving into my heart a repentant brother, was infinitely beyond the restitution of what he had taken from me. True, he owed me both himself and the watch, but such a greater does more than include such a less. If it be objected, 'You may forgive, but the man has sinned against God!'--Then it is not a part of the divine to be merciful, I return, and a man may be more merciful than his maker! A man may do that which would be too merciful in God! Then mercy is not a divine attribute, for it may exceed and be too much; it must not be infinite, therefore cannot be God's own."

George Macdoanld
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 11:10:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 10:06:02 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/20/2014 9:51:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:21:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If there is no afterlife, the ultimate end is nonexistence. Everybody meets the same fate once they die. If a sick, evil person torments the lives of innocent people and never gets caught they are simply not accountable. Hitler can oversee the brutal murders of millions of men, women, and children and just take a dirt nap forever as if none of it ever happened. Some psycho can shoot up a school of little kids - leaving a wake of immeasurable pain to the families of those kids - then simply cease to exist. Where is the justice?

Who said nature is fair?

It certainly seems like existence OUGHT to be fair int he long run if morality is supposed to actually matter.

Why should morality apply to nature? Are you suggesting the cheetah who kills the antelope should pay for his transgressions? Nature has no morality. It is a man made concept. Morality applied to nature is straining to argue for a higher power, but I don't believe such an authority is necessary or evident.

Besides, according to Christianity, all of these evil people could have sincerely asked for forgiveness right before they died and be in heaven along with people who have attempted to live completely perfect lives. How is that justice?

1. That doesn't entail that they will go to heaven right away. Asking for forgiveness (i.e acknowledging the problem) is the first step - it may be a long, arduous, painful process to actually get there.

This is speculation, and beside the point. If they repent, will they go to heaven for eternity just like (presumably) all those who they wronged? Is that justice?

2. The only true justice involves

"Suppose my watch has been taken from my pocket; I lay hold of the thief; he is dragged before the magistrate, proved guilty, and sentenced to a just imprisonment: must I walk home satisfied with the result? Have I had justice done me? The thief may have had justice done him--but where is my watch? That is gone, and I remain a man wronged. Who has done me the wrong? The thief. Who can set right the wrong? The thief, and only the thief; nobody but the man that did the wrong. God may be able to move the man to right the wrong, but God himself cannot right it without the man. Suppose my watch found and restored, is the account settled between me and the thief? I may forgive him, but is the wrong removed? By no means. But suppose the thief to bethink himself, to repent. He has, we shall say, put it out of his power to return the watch, but he comes to me and says he is sorry he stole it and begs me to accept for the present what little he is able to bring, as a beginning of atonement: how should I then regard the matter? Should I not feel that he had gone far to make atonement--done more to make up for the injury he had inflicted upon me, than the mere restoration of the watch, even by himself, could reach to? Would there not lie, in the thief's confession and submission and initial restoration, an appeal to the divinest in me--to the eternal brotherhood? Would it not indeed amount to a sufficing atonement as between man and man? If he offered to bear what I chose to lay upon him, should I feel it necessary, for the sake of justice, to inflict some certain suffering as demanded by righteousness? I should still have a claim upon him for my watch, but should I not be apt to forget it? He who commits the offence can make up for it--and he alone.
One thing must surely be plain--that the punishment of the wrong-doer makes no atonement for the wrong done. How could it make up to me for the stealing of my watch that the man was punished? The wrong would be there all the same. I am not saying the man ought not to be punished--far from it; I am only saying that the punishment nowise makes up to the man wronged. Suppose the man, with the watch in his pocket, were to inflict the severest flagellation on himself: would that lessen my sense of injury? Would it set anything right? Would it anyway atone? Would it give him a right to the watch? Punishment may do good to the man who does the wrong, but that is a thing as different as important.
Another thing plain is, that, even without the material rectification of the wrong where that is impossible, repentance removes the offence which no suffering could. I at least should feel that I had no more quarrel with the man. I should even feel that the gift he had made me, giving into my heart a repentant brother, was infinitely beyond the restitution of what he had taken from me. True, he owed me both himself and the watch, but such a greater does more than include such a less. If it be objected, 'You may forgive, but the man has sinned against God!'--Then it is not a part of the divine to be merciful, I return, and a man may be more merciful than his maker! A man may do that which would be too merciful in God! Then mercy is not a divine attribute, for it may exceed and be too much; it must not be infinite, therefore cannot be God's own."

George Macdoanld

What is the point, and how does this apply to nature
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 11:52:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:33:33 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 11/20/2014 8:21:34 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 11/20/2014 2:21:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If there is no afterlife, the ultimate end is nonexistence. Everybody meets the same fate once they die. If a sick, evil person torments the lives of innocent people and never gets caught they are simply not accountable. Hitler can oversee the brutal murders of millions of men, women, and children and just take a dirt nap forever as if none of it ever happened. Some psycho can shoot up a school of little kids - leaving a wake of immeasurable pain to the families of those kids - then simply cease to exist. Where is the justice?

And some televangelist can bilk people out of millions, never get taxed, and die in a luxury mansion in Florida without ever having to repay what they took on false pretenses.

If indeed he was a cheat he will be punished in the afterlife. In any case, you didnt answer the question.

It's a dumb question that doesn't have any kind of reasonable answer... However, you're trying to make the point that there would never be any justice, if there is no afterlife. The fact of the matter is that BOTH your scenario and my scenario fall into the same category: There will be injustices, because humans are imperfect. There are, quite literally, MILLIONS of scenarios that would qualify as "injustice" if there is no "afterlife." The fact of the matter is that it's going to happen. Decent people yearn for justice. It's an human sentiment. It's the reason that we set up central governments, legislation, courts, and prison systems. However, if you're trying to imply that there HAS to be an afterlife, just because you can't accept injustice, then that is yours with which to deal.

Yes, this world can be unfair. That's not a valid basis on which to attempt to infer everything about RELIGIOUS beliefs that have to be inferred, in order to comfort you and others who think as you do. Where's the justice? In the simplest terms possible:

It doesn't exist.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 12:39:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:21:06 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If there is no afterlife, the ultimate end is nonexistence. Everybody meets the same fate once they die. If a sick, evil person torments the lives of innocent people and never gets caught they are simply not accountable. Hitler can oversee the brutal murders of millions of men, women, and children and just take a dirt nap forever as if none of it ever happened. Some psycho can shoot up a school of little kids - leaving a wake of immeasurable pain to the families of those kids - then simply cease to exist. Where is the justice?

How about they are dead and can no longer inflict harm. When you lose your life, you can no longer add anything to the world. You can't destroy or protect it. If your vision of the afterlife is only justified by a sense of justice, then your only creating your own version of the afterlife system. The bible says that a guy like Hitler can accept Jesus on his death bed and truly repent with sorrow. This will take him to heaven according to the bible.