Punishment is not a substitute for justice, but it still should be proportional I feel, you stole a shampoo bottle - provide labor equal to shampoo bottle :shrug-outta-hecks:
That's a hard sell on this site but I agree with you. Punishment comes from a pure emotional space, it may make you feel better that some one evil is suffering but it does no good for society.
Even with the visceral hatred I have towards Bezos and the like killing them isn't morally right if they've already been permanently stripped of their power to hurt anyone.
If killing the bourgeoisie is the only way to strip them of their power I have no issues at all with it. I think the point trying to be made was if we some how manage to strip them of that power that executing them afterwords is morally wrong. And you're right I don't think that for the people at the peak of power anything other then the wall will stop them. But for your average reddit nazi removing their power is relatively easy (post revolution) and just cause they sought to bring suffering to the world doesn't mean we should do the same to them. They should be reeducated or sequestered from society but cause them pain or death serves no purpose other then a misguided scene of justice.
I guess since this is an internet forum your taking my legitimate question as being a "gotcha", but whatever it's all love on my side. If you reduce punishment to just inflicting harm for emotional retribution then yea of course it's going to be unjustifiable, but if your going to be as charitable as possible to the crowd who supports punishment, then you should consider the advocates who support things like comparatively "painless" executions in which the suffering is minimized. However, the advocates of punishment are to my knowledge not specifically defending capital punishment, but punishment in general, which would seem to include something like imprisonment which I'd assume you'd support over the execution of war criminals.
Overall, I think I tend to agree with what your saying as I don't think its right to cause unnecessary suffering out of some sense of justice, nor am I supportive of executions when one can be rendered powerless by other less harmful means. However, that doesn't stop me from thinking that your notion of punishment seems narrow, and while the critique your making may be applicable to certain forms of punishment, that it fails when considering less extreme forms of punishment which don't aim to bring about unnecessary harm unto the offender, but to merely render them harmless.
Again, if we’re talking idealized justice here (and I don’t claim it existed in aes), making things as they were is exactly restoration. Person/thing stolen from gets remade, person doing stealing is either discouraged (if he finds labor bad) or continues living bravely stealing and being assigned random jobs.
That's a pretty narrow definition of punishment. Most philosophical arguments for punishment are not based on revenge.
Discipline is used to correct behavior, punishment is for causing suffering not correction.
I don't agree with that definition, I don't think that's consistent with how the words are used either in a formal or informal context.
Fair enough. To be clear I'm not opposed to suffering as a form of behavior modification I'm opposed to it when it's sole purpose is retribution.
I think as you say it’s mostly anger, at max they should enter an arena get couple of soft tomatoes thrown and laughed at
The issue with social media some things are wildly out of scale, you can simultaneously insult 1000s of people, it just not possible to fix this in lifetime.
Therefore social media shouldn’t exist
But that again runs into a problem that it’s abstractly equal, but not really restorative. It’s a hard problem, and likely some prison abolition comrades thought more about it :meow-floppy:
killing them works as it stops them from causing further problems
hurting them without killing them is fucked
or like, causing excessive pain in the process of killing i guess thats pretty bad also
I see you're going by the Platonic logic that things become worse when harmed, no matter the motivation. What is your stance on fining people or removing them from the general population when they harm people? Say someone keeps speeding, is it okay to take their car?
I am saying take everyone's cars
:I-was-saying:
(this willful misinterpretation of your point brought to you by Train Gang)
ok, how are you going to make them comply with the rules of society?
What leftist in here has said that people should be enslaved for stealing shampoos?
Also, what sort of thinking is it to just let Reactionaries roam free in society? So that they can freely organize again?
Communist cops should only arrest you for stealing labor as you can't steal social product.
You know it's a Hexbear thread when you semantics your way into saying punishing Nazis was wrong.
Edit: this isn't a dig at @pisshuffer_supreme . It's a dig at what's going on further down the thread. This whole thread is just semantics over what's meant by "punishing".
And you prevent further harms by punishing the Nazis. It's just a semantic argument over what "punishment" means in this context, which means it's perfect for a struggle session on Hexbear dot net.
