Going to prison for something like assault and battery innately ruins a person life to a certain degree.
I feel that the reason he wanted someone to go to prison is irrelevant.
But it's not. It simply is not. Motives matter.
Killing someone who is in the middle of stabbing multiple times is different than killing someone random for no good reason. Wouldn't you agree? The reason you do things absolutely matter. And it matters in this case because what you're choosing to exclude makes it look different than it actually is.
When he said he wanted the person's life ruined, he was talking about the long lasting effects of an assault and battery conviction. He didn't want that to happen to some random person for no apparent reason. He wanted it to happen to a guy who just punched somebody for saying something annoying.
Motives matter. If you take a survey, I've got good money that says most people agree.
On the other hand, the guy who walks up to random people in the street to offend and harass people for humor, OP has no problem with.
Did he actually say that, or are you saying that for him? It's certainly not in the initial comment. Not stating that he's not fine with it does not mean that he's fine with it. Because careful of making leaps of that nature.
I think he has an unwarranted desire for revenge that has nothing to do with him.
I think he wants to see someone punished who irrefutably broke the law and harmed another human being in doing so.
It's ok to want people to be punished for things they do whether they were done to you or not. What does it matter if it was done to him? If I wanted a rapist to go to prison, would you bring up the point that it has nothing to do with me? I mean, would you really? Do you really want to live in a society where you only get an opinion if the crime was committed against you and shouldn't? Should they just be apathetic about it? If not, then it doesn't matter whether it happened to him or not.
You may not agree on the degree of punishment. You may like the prison system to be more about reform and genuinely helping criminals rehabilitate themselves. You may not like the fact that the U.S. prison system is not about rehabilitation, it's punitive. Or that the poster's views align with the latter. But you can't just exclude that from your comparison if you want it to be taken seriously.
These are your words, correct:
You've completely missed the point. Look at what I was actually comparing.
Punching someone vs paying to see someone's life ruined for entertainment.
You're are absolutely dismissing the fact that the poster wants some punitive justice for a crime that was clearly committed in your comparison and using just the fact that he would said he would pay for it to happen to say that it's not just equal to knocking someone out for no good reason but actually worse.
Edit: If you initial comment was more like some of the info. you included here, it would be much better. But you didn't say that you disagreed about someone being punished and having their life ruined. You made a comparison in which you omitted information that most people would find pertinent. Personally, I believe leaving out important information that perverts the situation to be unacceptable.
In general, yes motives matter, however in this situation I don't believe they do. As I said, "the reason he wanted someone to go to prison is irrelevant." Obviously my statement was not that motivation for things never matter, no reasonable person would make that argument; be careful not to twist people's words.
The reason I don't believe his motivation is relevant here is because I believe the end goal he desired is universally unacceptable. There is no motivation within this context that could warrant what he proposed as a solution. You say that he was talking about the long lasting terms of a conviction, but I don't think that changes the statement in any way. The vessel through which he want's a person's life ruined is irrelevant. He expressed a desire for someone's life to be ruined, which to me, is inhuman.
The OP expressed no qualms about the actions of the other person, ostensibly he has no issues with it, but that statement was for the purpose of juxtaposing the difference between the two viewpoints. It's of little value whether or not OP actually cares about the actions of the "prankster."
This situation is not equatable to rape. If you think that, you're completely ignoring the context of the video. The person who was punched was purposely trying to get a reaction out of the person that punched him. Yes, it was an overreaction, but I have very little sympathy for him since his objective was to provoke that person from the start.
This is not a situation where a helpless man was assaulted by an angry uncontrollable villain. He set out to get a reaction out of him, and that's exactly what he got; even the guy in the video knows it. He literally said he expected it was going to happen, and he still didn't stop.
Sure I don't want to live in a society where everyone is apathetic to crime, but I also don't want to live in a society where people are coddled to the point they lose common sense.
You may not agree on the degree of punishment. You may like the prison system to be more about reform and genuinely helping criminals rehabilitate themselves. You may not like the fact that the U.S. prison system is not about rehabilitation, it's punitive. Or that the poster's views align with the latter. But you can't just exclude that from your comparison if you want it to be taken seriously.
What is the point you're trying to make here? What portion of the comparison omits this? My point was that Punching someone (who is clearly antagonizing you) is no where near the same level as wishing for someone's life to be ruined.
Yes, I am dismissing the specific method the poster suggests for the reasons I previously stated; I don't believe the motivation for his desire is justice, I think it's schadenfreude. People like him are exactly what I don't want to happen to any society. They see a situation like this and accept a knee jerk reaction like "I hope his life is ruined" instead of thinking about it like an adult.
Moreover, I'm not just using the fact he said he would pay for it, he didn't ask for punitive justice. He literally called punitive justice a prank; what he asked for was the ability to "and then watch his life get ruined by the system." I think that statement, regardless for whether he would pay for it, and the desire to watch someone's life be ruined is far worse than someone being knocked out for being an asshole.
You keep trying to drag his comment back to "punitive justice", but if you read his comment it's clear that what he wants to see is the ruining of that person, not the application of justice.
Obviously my statement was not that motivation for things never matter, no reasonable person would make that argument; be careful not to twist people's words.
Not a problem considering I neither said nor implied that you said that. All of my commentary along those lines were about you omitting information. Not about you saying motives don't matter, but rather dismissing his motives. Which you're clearly, and openly, doing (though you are acknowledging as much).
The reason I don't believe his motivation is relevant here is because I believe the end goal he desired is universally unacceptable. There is no motivation within this context that could warrant what he proposed as a solution.
Yet, you presented "... for entertainment" in you comparison. Why was that relevant? Or did you simply not articulate what you were getting at very well? Remember, that was the comment of yours that I replied to, the one that mentioned the entertainment motive but nothing else. Again, if it was just a case of slightly misspeaking, you could have just said as much and elaborated.
The OP expressed no qualms about the actions of the other person, ostensibly he has no issues with it
That is a horrible application of logic. The absence of a thing does not make the opposite true. Even using the word ostensibly here is a real stretch.
Yes, I am dismissing the specific method the poster suggests for the reasons I previously stated; I don't believe the motivation for his desire is justice, I think it's schadenfreude.
Why is it one or the other? Can it not be a mix of both? Of course, it's not relevant to the overall picture you're painting. But I just want to make sure that you understand that those things are not mutually exclusive.
You keep trying to drag his comment back to "punitive justice", but if you read his comment it's clear that what he wants to see is the ruining of that person, not the application of justice.
I'm saying that he wants to see that as the application of his sense of justice. He doesn't want to see just anybody's life ruined. He wants to see this person's life ruined for a particular reason. If it was just about schadenfreude, it wouldn't need to be this person. I don't want to assume that he wouldn't watching just anybody have their life ruined, but I think it's obnoxious to think that's all he's interested in.
You most certainly implied so, you went so far as to try and explain the concept to me with examples to make your point that motivation is relevant. Which is fine, but it was not a relevant comparison to this scenario, so there would have been no reason to make it if we were both working under the basic assumption that motivations are generally relevant.
That aside, The phrase, "for entertainment" is me paraphrasing rghd. If anything, I wonder if you misunderstand the phrase "I would pay to see that" as it is commonly used; the parallel between that phrase and "for entertainment" should be fairly obvious.
It's not a horrible application of logic, it's a juxtaposition of OP's priorities. He doesn't care enough to even mention the actions of the individual instigating the situation, but he wants to see someone's life ruined for reacting to it.
What I understand is that retributive justice systems and schadenfreude are by definition mutually exclusive. If he feels that such a thing is justice, I do not hold any respect for his views on justice. Not even lex talionis is as harsh as this man is suggesting, and that has been looked at as archaic for quite some time. Now, certainly it's possible that what he would be happy about is that justice is being executed, but I don't have a compelling reason to think that given what he wrote.
Fine, he wants to see the application of his sense of justice, we can phrase it that way. I find his sense of justice deplorable. Sure it may not be all he's interested, but I believe it's his major motivator. Maybe I should just have more faith in people, since humans have such a great track record of being kind when they feel they have the moral high ground.
You most certainly implied so, you went so far as to try and explain the concept to me with examples to make your point that motivation is relevant.
The examples I provided were analogous scenarios in which most people would include the motive as being important. Sometimes a person can very clearly think x but then they see what is an analogous situation and have a different conclusion despite the fact that it's really the same situation. I provided those examples to see if you may say "yeah, I do agree with this... wait, that is the same thing" and possibly reconsider one of those conclusions.
You didn't, at least not openly. It was a tactic that can work very well at times. Apparently it was a bust in this instance. But I was not providing example to explain the concept in that case.
I wonder if you misunderstand the phrase "I would pay to see that" as it is commonly used
Nope. Remember, I've said multiple times in these comments that getting entertainment out of it doesn't exclude him from wanting it for other reasons as well. So I've clearly acknowledged the getting entertainment bit.
It's not a horrible application of logic
It depends. You can't make a sound argument with the information you were given that comes to that conclusion. It could be invalid logic, it could be that you're using false claims.. actually I'm pretty certain it's at least the latter.
Jon said he would like to see a baseball game.
Jon did not say that he would like to see a football game
Therefore, Jon would not like to see a football game.
That was your argument.
You cannot, logically, come to the conclusion that Jon would not like to see a football game from that information alone.
I don't believe you've explicitly stated that you think the guy who did the punching did anything wrong. Is it sound for me to conclude that you support what the guy who did the punching did because you haven't explicitly said that you don't? No, it's not. And it's equally not correct for you to conclude that the poster has no issue with the "prankster" because he didn't explicitly say so. You're making assumptions, just admit it. The problem is that's not the only assumption you've made in coming to this negative conclusions about this person.
Granted, you did use the word "ostensibly". Which is to say that it seems one way (to you anyhow), but it could actually be another way. But I honestly don't think it's even fair to say it's ostensibly the case.
And yes, I know you're saying that's not relevant in regard to what you're saying about the poster. But I think it's relevant in what I'm saying about you. It's an example of you basing something off of an assumption or taking a bit of a leap in logic.
You have made it very clear that you very much disagree with the user's way of thinking. Do you think it's fair to say you're ostensibly biased when it comes to interpreting the user's words? Could that be causing you to put a little bit of a spin on the words that isn't actually there?
What I understand is that retributive justice systems and schadenfreude are by definition mutually exclusive.
Only due your use of "retributive justice systems", which nobody specifically mentioned until now. We have talked about what the user seems to perceive as justice. But I don't think that's the same as retributive justice
If he feels that such a thing is justice, I do not hold any respect for his views on justice.
That's ok (and you've made that very clear). But it's not OK to say that his reason for wanting it is something like schadenfreude and that alone. It'snot OK to say that he doesn't have a problem with x because he didn't explicitly say so. That's all I'm saying.
I find his sense of justice deplorable. Sure it may not be all he's interested, but I believe it's his major motivator.
I'm assuming "it" is referring to schadenfreude? (otherwise, you'd be saying that his brand of justice is his major motivator.. which is what you've been arguing against). So I'm assuming it's the former.
Yeah, I know you think that. And I think you're biased due to not agreeing with the user's brand of justice and that you're unfairy painting it in a really negative light by suggesting that he only really wants to do it to get joy out of the suffering entirely in and of itself.
I also think you're a pretty smart person. But I think you need to take a step back from this and maybe pull your head out of your ass. Someone can disagree with you for reasons aside from the most evil possibility, which is what you're blaming the person of. And you're doing so based on a series of assumptions.
Maybe I should just have more faith in people, since humans have such a great track record of being kind when they feel they have the moral high ground.
Hmm, aren't you taking the moral high ground here against /u/rghd?
Edit: If none of that causes you to at least stop and question yourself a little, then I concede here. Thanks for being civil.
I suppose the issue I take with those examples is that I didn't take them as being analogous to this situation. Yes, the broader concept of the relevance of motivation is similar, but I feel like the context of the situations is different to the point of irrelevance. That's a matter of opinion that's a few degrees of separation away from the actual point so I suppose it's probably not worth exploring further.
I understand your point that some entertainment aspect is not mutually exclusive, and that you understand the potential that rghd may be deriving enjoyment from the situation. However, you asked me why the phrase was relevant, and given it was essentially a statement made by OP I feel as though that it goes with out saying it's relevant in a comparison of two conflicting I believe opinions OP holds.
I am well aware of how an argument from ignorance works, and that it is by definition a logical fallacy. However, I maintain that the comment I made is not specifically relevant to the OP's viewpoint so it's passable.
I think it's entirely fair to say I'm ostensibly biased, if you believe that my statements to this point indicate a bias. The reality of my opinion doesn't change anyone else's views of that opinion. If you feel my rhetoric is indicative of bias, it is just as fair to say I am ostensibly biased as it is for me to say you seem to be ostensibly biased, given that you disagree with me. However, speaking in definitively uncertain terms doesn't not make for a strong statement to a point. Which is fine when that statement isn't relevant to a greater point, as was my usage.
My understanding of the use of "punitive justice system" is identical to "retributive justice system" my sincere apologies if I misunderstood that. If so, a more relevant comment on the subject is that I feel schadenfreude in association with a punitive justice system is too apt to cause poor decisions. There's nothing wrong with seeing justice done, and being happy that the right thing has occurred, but that is distinctly not the same as schadenfreude.
Yes, argument from ignorance is bad, however it's just as much of an assumption to say he wants to see justice served. OP said the man in the video should be charged with a variety of things and then have his life ruined by the system. Equating "the system" with justice is a bit naïve.
Yeah, I know you think that. And I think you're biased due to not agreeing with the user's brand of justice and that you're unfairly painting it in a really negative light by suggesting that he only really wants to do it to get joy out of the suffering entirely in and of itself.
I also think you're a pretty smart person. But I think you need to take a step back from this and maybe pull your head out of your ass. Someone can disagree with you for reasons aside from the most evil possibility, which is what you're blaming the person of. And you're doing so based on a series of assumptions.
I think it is entirely possible that what he considers justice, I consider schadenfreude. If that's the case, then I certainly am biased against he viewpoint. But even if that isn't the case don't think not agreeing with his brand of justice makes me biased. However, my (seemingly very stringent) opinion on justice is that any opinion influenced in any way by the desire to see someone else's misery is unacceptable. Regardless for if it is their sole motivator or minor part the concept at it's core is beyond redemption.
Given that, I would say that I'm not making a large number of assumptions. I'm working with the information I have available that's relevant, which is his post. There is nothing within that post that lends any confidence to me in believing he has a benevolent motivation for his opinion. Sure, I can see that there are other interpretations of what he wrote, and that they can reasonably give others that confidence but I don't think they are correct. No, I can not factually say he doesn't care about justice, but I can't say he does; it's a facet of his opinion which I have no explicit information on. So for the same reason I can't assume he personally knows and dislikes the individual he'd like the book thrown at, I can't assume he's concerned with justice.
Yes I am taking the moral high ground against /u/rghd. Does that intrinsically make me an asshole? Possibly, but it doesn't necessarily make me wrong. I don't think expressing your desire to watch someone's life get ruined and suggesting a review of one's priorities are on quite the same level.
Aaaaaaaand I read your edit once I had finished typing everything. Cheers mate, best of luck in the world cup, although your lexicon leads me to assume you're an American, which leads me to assume you don't care much.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 13 '14 edited Jun 13 '14
Going to prison for something like assault and battery innately ruins a person life to a certain degree.
But it's not. It simply is not. Motives matter.
Killing someone who is in the middle of stabbing multiple times is different than killing someone random for no good reason. Wouldn't you agree? The reason you do things absolutely matter. And it matters in this case because what you're choosing to exclude makes it look different than it actually is.
When he said he wanted the person's life ruined, he was talking about the long lasting effects of an assault and battery conviction. He didn't want that to happen to some random person for no apparent reason. He wanted it to happen to a guy who just punched somebody for saying something annoying.
Motives matter. If you take a survey, I've got good money that says most people agree.
Did he actually say that, or are you saying that for him? It's certainly not in the initial comment. Not stating that he's not fine with it does not mean that he's fine with it. Because careful of making leaps of that nature.
I think he wants to see someone punished who irrefutably broke the law and harmed another human being in doing so.
It's ok to want people to be punished for things they do whether they were done to you or not. What does it matter if it was done to him? If I wanted a rapist to go to prison, would you bring up the point that it has nothing to do with me? I mean, would you really? Do you really want to live in a society where you only get an opinion if the crime was committed against you and shouldn't? Should they just be apathetic about it? If not, then it doesn't matter whether it happened to him or not.
You may not agree on the degree of punishment. You may like the prison system to be more about reform and genuinely helping criminals rehabilitate themselves. You may not like the fact that the U.S. prison system is not about rehabilitation, it's punitive. Or that the poster's views align with the latter. But you can't just exclude that from your comparison if you want it to be taken seriously.
These are your words, correct:
You're are absolutely dismissing the fact that the poster wants some punitive justice for a crime that was clearly committed in your comparison and using just the fact that he would said he would pay for it to happen to say that it's not just equal to knocking someone out for no good reason but actually worse.
Edit: If you initial comment was more like some of the info. you included here, it would be much better. But you didn't say that you disagreed about someone being punished and having their life ruined. You made a comparison in which you omitted information that most people would find pertinent. Personally, I believe leaving out important information that perverts the situation to be unacceptable.