Latest on MJJC

Anyone find religion scary ?

^Well my personal stance in matters like these is: if you think bringing others torture and death is the most horrible that can be done, you should never practise it yourself, not even on perpetrators of these crimes themselves. That way there will never be peace, but only retaliation. I think crime should be punished, but not with the same means that makes the criminal the criminal. If torture and killing is wrong than don't let the state or anyone practice these things either. The death penalty is therefore one of the most hypocritical means of punishment and sets a very bad example. I have a feeling we're getting off topic here though, so I'll not go any deeper into this...
 
Roosje said:
^Well my personal stance in matters like these is: if you think bringing others torture and death is the most horrible that can be done, you should never practise it yourself, not even on perpetrators of these crimes themselves. That way there will never be peace, but only retaliation. I think crime should be punished, but not with the same means that makes the criminal the criminal. If torture and killing is wrong than don't let the state or anyone practice these things either. The death penalty is therefore one of the most hypocritical means of punishment and sets a very bad example. I have a feeling we're getting off topic here though, so I'll not go any deeper into this...
Click to expand...

What would you do to a person who kills your child? Feed him for life in prison?
 
Roosje said:
^Well my personal stance in matters like these is: if you think bringing others torture and death is the most horrible that can be done, you should never practise it yourself, not even on perpetrators of these crimes themselves. That way there will never be peace, but only retaliation. I think crime should be punished, but not with the same means that makes the criminal the criminal. If torture and killing is wrong than don't let the state or anyone practice these things either. The death penalty is therefore one of the most hypocritical means of punishment and sets a very bad example. I have a feeling we're getting off topic here though, so I'll not go any deeper into this...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but sending this man to jail would be unnacceptable. He murdered 3,000 people that day, just think how many families lost loved ones. Eight children lost their lives that day, the youngest being 2 years old. The World Trade Center towers were completely destroyed, part of the Pentagon collapsed and you still don't think he should be tortured? Imagine if your child, husband, wife, brother, sister etc. was killed like that. You would not want this man sleeping in a building receiving meals payed for with OUR money?
 
What would you do to a person who kills your child? Feed him for life in prison?
Click to expand...
Life sentence with obligatory work. The amount of work done by a prisoner = the amount of privileges the person gains (from food to access to books or TV). The money made would pay most/all bills and any exceeding amount of profits is a gain for the society.

Death penalty is absolutely unacceptable, the courts/law are not infallible. NEVER. Human life is too precious to be taken away by mistake, even if it's 1%.
Look at the US (one of the most developed countries in the world) and how many INNOCENT people were sentenced to capital punishment in the last 30 years.

By the way, life imprisonment is not less of a punishment than being put to death.
 
Alec said:
^
Life sentence with obligatory work. The amount of work done by a prisoner = the amount of privileges the person gains (from food to access to books or TV). The money made would pay most/all bills and any exceeding amount of profits is a gain for the society.

Death penalty is absolutely unacceptable, the courts/law are not infallible. NEVER. Human life is too precious to be taken away by mistake, even if it's 1%.
Look at the US (one of the most developed countries in the world) and how many INNOCENT people were sentenced to capital punishment in the last 30 years.
Click to expand...

Read my last post.
 
Alec said:
Basically it comes from cerebrum (part of forebrain).


When the nervous system is damaged or people die, the connections created between nerve cells disappear (as the cells are not alive anymore) and therefore the memory/consciousness is erased.
Memory and consciousness are connections of nerve tracts in the nervous system. The connections are - to make it simple - chemical substances that are stored in neurons. The detailed plan of what these substances mean is memorized by nerve cells when we learn and experience the world.


A brain (as well as the rest of an organism) forms during embryogenesis and starts with three primary cerebral vesicles which later on further develop into a five-piece brain. It serves us during our lifetime (as it does all species) and when we die, it simply decomposes and slowly takes the form of chemical elements which, after being "confined" in our organisms for x amount of years, slowly return to the matter cycle(s).



Well for me the aim of living my life is to live it to the fullest and make the most of it everyday. It's an amazing experience to live - you do it just once. I want to be happy and make an impact on the world, one way or another.


Well biological life is something else, it wasn't just "created" by someone - it developed for billions of years. It's very interesting and you should definitely read about it. Starting with the endosymbiotic theory and delving into all biology, you'll learn everything about how human body was created and how it works.



Simple devices or machines are creations of peoples imagination/creativity, not the laws of nature. These discoveries could happen because parts of our brain developed a little bit more than other animals': mammals have the largest and most well-developed cerebra among all species. In larger mammals, the cerebral cortex is folded into many gyri and sulci, which has allowed the cortex to expand in surface area without taking up much greater volume. This resulted in the neural networks of the cerebrum being able to facilitate complex behaviors such as social interactions, thought, judgement, learning, working memory, and in humans, craetive thinking, speech and language.


Honestly, I'm not scared of religion... but quite often it has a very negative effect on people, indoctrinating them and spreading xenophobia. It pains me to see so many people with entrenched beliefs in things made up by people thousands of years ago. The problem with religion is that people can not choose it (most of the time). Their parents impose a religious belief on them, robbing the kids of the freedom of choice, and while the children grow up, it becomes an integral part of their personality and character - pretty much like all things people learn at that age.
What a lot of people fail to see is that religion is indeed the creation of mankind - all gods are human like, fairy-tale like beings that differ from culture to culture to correspond with what this region's society was/is.
I've met very few religious people in my life who followed the good example and were simply very good people. When this is the result of a religious belief, then all is good. However, most believers (from my experience) are really narrow-minded people with very little reflection on the outside world and humanity.

Hope this helps and, at least to some extend, answers your questions.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the biology oriented answer, but I have already studied all that. My questions were not aimed at the biological functions, but rather at the philosophical purpose of life and the reasons why the human consciousness is developed just enough to realize that we know nothing. What is the aim of our intelligence asking all those questions when we know we can't answer them?

By the way, saying that we come to life thanks to the law of the nature, doesn't answer the question where the nature comes from. Where the life as life in general comes from. How innert becomes alive and then conscious? And ultimately, how do you obtain from nothing something?

Speaking of brain, it tricks us all the time. You just explained how chemical reactions are operated bewteen neurons, fine, but then, it means that the whole reality around that you see are solely based upon the electro-chemical connections and reactions between neurons giving you the picture inside your brain. Do we all have the same mental picture of the reality and how be sure what exists what not.

When you dream, you never say to yourself: "this is not real". Your brain tricks you and convinces you that you are experiencing reality by creating mental pictures.

When do you become conscious? If a baby in the mother's womb is consious, it means that the reality is none other than what the baby perceives around thanks to its senses. For it, it is impossible to imagine that there is an outside world, another reality and that there won't be any coming backs to the womb.

So, why would one not imagine that what we are experiencing in this life another shape of reality and that after this reality another is awaiting us? Biology can only observe, it cannot anticipatively answer. But as you don't go back into the womb, you don't go back into this life. So, biology can't observe it.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
What would you do to a person who kills your child? Feed him for life in prison?
Click to expand...

Yes. Of course my first instinct would be: 'kill him in the most cruel way possible', but I know that's my lowest self talking right there. We should strive to be better than that, better than the crimes we condemn in others. If I would like to live in a world where people do not kill each other, I should not even want my worst enemy to be killed.
 
Alec said:
Life sentence with obligatory work. The amount of work done by a prisoner = the amount of privileges the person gains (from food to access to books or TV). The money made would pay most/all bills and any exceeding amount of profits is a gain for the society.

Death penalty is absolutely unacceptable, the courts/law are not infallible. NEVER. Human life is too precious to be taken away by mistake, even if it's 1%.
Look at the US (one of the most developed countries in the world) and how many INNOCENT people were sentenced to capital punishment in the last 30 years.

By the way, life imprisonment is not less of a punishment than being put to death.
Click to expand...

If the person has no qualification whatsoever to work, you'll get a vegetable at work.

I'd rather use the person as a guinea pig for medical experimentation in order to save lives.
 
Roosje said:
Yes. Of course my first instinct would be: 'kill him in the most cruel way possible', but I know that's my lowest self talking right there. We should strive to be better than that, better than the crimes we condemn in others. If I would like to live in a world where people do not kill each other, I should not even want my worst enemy to be killed.
Click to expand...

No one sane wants anyone to kill. But when you are in necessity to defend your children, the choice is instinctively made, and that's nothing wrong, it is absolutely a normal reaction. If Hitler had been stopped on time we wouldn't have had genocides.
 
SCREAM said:
I'm sorry but sending this man to jail would be unnacceptable. He murdered 3,000 people that day, just think how many families lost loved ones. Eight children lost their lives that day, the youngest being 2 years old. The World Trade Center towers were completely destroyed, part of the Pentagon collapsed and you still don't think he should be tortured? Imagine if your child, husband, wife, brother, sister etc. was killed like that. You would not want this man sleeping in a building receiving meals payed for with OUR money?
Click to expand...

His crimes were the most horrific and the pain he caused is tremendous (if indeed he is responsible - I find the Bin Laden story to be quite vague). But his victims won't sleep any better when he is killed. If killing is wrong, then this applies to the state as well. I think it's hypocrite when the state kills to retaliate the worst crime: killing. Just stop the killing and start with yourself. He could work in jail to earn his stay for a big part and hopefully get some understanding of the gravity and horror and uselessness of terrorism. Than maybe some of his victims would find a tiny bit of relief, to know that even the 'face of evil' can come to his senses somewhat. Killing him would be useless, what good could that ever do? None. To get back on topic: an eye for an eye is less appealing to me that turn the other cheek. If all people would shrug in disbelief at the simple idea of killing someone else, peace could become a reality.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
No one sane wants anyone to kill. But when you are in necessity to defend your children, the choice is instinctively made, and that's nothing wrong, it is absolutely a normal reaction. If Hitler had been stopped on time we wouldn't have had genocides.
Click to expand...

If my child is already dead, than what good would it do to add another death to that? When it is a matter of self defence (for your child or yourself) that is of course a different thing.

Hitler was in prison before he rose to power, he should have just stayed there.
 
^He could not do that in jail either. He could however turn around for the better and become a better person. This is the most beautiful accomplishment for a human life. I may sound naive, but I'd rather be naive than vindictive. Revenge is never a good idea.
 
Roosje said:
^He could not do that in jail either. He could however turn around for the better and become a better person. This is the most beautiful accomplishment for a human life. I may sound naive, but I'd rather be naive than vindictive. Revenge is never a good idea.
Click to expand...

I've never heard that anyone has become a better person in prison? Prison is simply not a place where you get the example how to become a better person.

On top of that, if I had the choice I'd refuse to give a dime to feed someone who killed and then all of sudden is being almost looked upon as a victim.

The child that is killed for example, not only is he killed, but his whole potential line of descent.

The idea of punishment is not revenging, but preventing further killing.
 
Paedophiles and child molestors/killers, as well as people like Hitler and bin Laden do not deserve to be given chances, they deserve torture. It's as simple as that.
 
Well, I think it's backwards, anachronistic to wish torture on anyone. We're past medieval times and we should strive to get forward as humanity. Torture does not belong in modern times. The thought that the torture of someone else would make anyone feel better is scary to me.

To Bumber: there are many examples of people gaining conscience in jail. One of the terrorists in my own country has recently sworn of terrorism and jihadist theories in an open letter to a national newspaper. He thought his way of thinking was wrong after doing a lot of study in jail.

I think out opinions will not grow closer together as I think torturing and killing is wrong, always. So the state should definitely not use it as a means of punishment. Wrong example.
 
Roosje said:
Well, I think it's backwards, anachronistic to wish torture on anyone. We're past medieval times and we should strive to get forward as humanity. Torture does not belong in modern times. The thought that the torture of someone else would make anyone feel better is scary to me.

To Bumber: there are many examples of people gaining conscience in jail. One of the terrorists in my own country has recently sworn of terrorism and jihadist theories in an open letter to a national newspaper. He thought his way of thinking was wrong after doing a lot of study in jail.

I think out opinions will not grow closer together as I think torturing and killing is wrong, always. So the state should definitely not use it as a means of punishment. Wrong example.
Click to expand...


Here is the problem:

A) Killing is wrong

B) Person decides to kill

C) Goes to jail

D) Learns in jail that it is wrong to kill

= Too late to change the time. What has been done has been done and no one can undo it. He needed to kill and to go to jail to learn? In other words, he repaird his damage for himself, and who is going to repair the damage for the victims?
 
He/she is of course firstly put in jail to protect society from further dangers and to be punished by taking this person's freedom away. It would be a nice side-effect if he/she gains insight in the process. I would feel better if the murderer of my child (to keep that example) regrets their deed in the end than him being killed. I would not feel better if he was killed. I would feel better if in the end turns out the be hope, when evil has not conquered. Of course it would not bring my child back, but it would make me trust the human species again maybe. Killing stays wrong, no matter who kills. Killing for punishment is still just as wrong. There just is no good reason to kill, ever. I think we have to agree to disagree here as we're going a bit in circles.
 
Roosje said:
He/she is of course firstly put in jail to protect society from further dangers and to be punished by taking this person's freedom away. It would be a nice side-effect if he/she gains insight in the process. I would feel better if the murderer of my child (to keep that example) regrets their deed in the end than him being killed. I would not feel better if he was killed. I would feel better if in the end turns out the be hope, when evil has not conquered. Of course it would not bring my child back, but it would make me trust the human species again maybe. Killing stays wrong, no matter who kills. Killing for punishment is still just as wrong. There just is no good reason to kill, ever. I think we have to agree to disagree here as we're going a bit in circles.
Click to expand...


Well, it's not really going in circles, it's rather exchanging examples. Of course that killing is a horrible thing to do. Of course that it is noble to forgive the crime, but we should also, as a victim, be offered the choice to forgive or not. It is also human not to forgive some things.

Here are some examples that are horrible, but unfortunately happened:

-The case of Marc Dutroux who kidnapped, abused and locked two little girls in his underground and died. He's still alive in prison. Who pays the food and the rest? The taxpayers who are working to keep such a monster alive.

Other examples:

-a baby was crying in a bus full of refugees from war. A soldier took the baby and threw it against the wall. The baby was instantly killed.

-a pregnant woman was raped by several men and hanged by her feet and her stomach was ripped so that the foetus could be seen hanging out of the womb.


No one shows the pictures of these things in order not to shock the general public (but the videos and pictures do exist). So this is the nightmarish reality we are talking about, not a film. Films are nothing compared to what some people are capable of. What do you do to such people, Educate them in prison? It's a waste of time and money.


-another example that happened last year or two years ago: a young man with a knife entered the nursery and killed babies with the knife and a nurse who tried to protect the babies. He eventually got caught and is prison now; We hear on the news why he did those crimes: because he was psychologically unstable, probably abused when he was younger blablah. But actually no one cares.We care about the killed babies, not about the killer who is being victimized. He killed, he should assume his horrible actions no matter what.

I am not for the blind death penalty, but when I hear such examples as mentioned above, it would be actually a crime not to kill the killers.
 
^The main principle is that you/the state should not let emotions dictate the law. However gruesome the crime, you have to make the rational decision that killing is not an option, ever. Of course, when you read your examples (and Dutroux being a famous one who escaped almost twice I believe... the horror!) the first reaction is: Oh no! Put them down forever. But law and juristiction should not be led by emotions, but by reason. If reason says: killing is wrong. You can't reasonably kill someone, not even a killer. It's inconsistant to do so. Also, I think in a way the death penalty makes the state stoop to as low a level as the killer. You should be better than that. The tax argument is not a good one I think. Just like good roads and good education you must be willing to pay for a fair and humane judicial system. It does not just benefit the monsters, it benefits everyone. And besides, I would feel worse if my tax money (so to speak) would be used to pay a state killer to put people down.
 
Roosje said:
^The main principle is that you/the state should not let emotions dictate the law. However gruesome the crime, you have to make the rational decision that killing is not an option, ever. Of course, when you read your examples (and Dutroux being a famous one who escaped almost twice I believe... the horror!) the first reaction is: Oh no! Put them down forever. But law and juristiction should not be led by emotions, but by reason. If reason says: killing is wrong. You can't reasonably kill someone, not even a killer. It's inconsistant to do so. Also, I think in a way the death penalty makes the state stoop to as low a level as the killer. You should be better than that. The tax argument is not a good one I think. Just like good roads and good education you must be willing to pay for a fair and humane judicial system. It does not just benefit the monsters, it benefits everyone. And besides, I would feel worse if my tax money (so to speak) would be used to pay a state killer to put people down.
Click to expand...

I understand what you mean. But by not offering the choice of forgiving or punishing the killer, you actually open the door to all the killers and responsible for horrible crimes. They know in advance that they won't suffer the consequences, but on the contrary, at worst several years of prison with free education.

If there is one reason I would keep the horrible killers alive, it would be to use them for drugs and medication tests to benefit the society, instead of poor animals. Those killers are worse than animals, yet the animals are the ones who suffer in the laboratories. If those killers want to stay alive and benefit the society and suffer the consequences of their acts, the laboratory is an option. Scary? Well, certainly not as much as what the victim had to endure.
 
BUMPER SNIPPET said:
I understand what you mean. But by not offering the choice of forgiving or punishing the killer, you actually open the door to all the killers and responsible for horrible crimes. They know in advance that they won't suffer the consequences, but on the contrary, at worst several years of prison with free education.

If there is one reason I would keep the horrible killers alive, it would be to use them for drugs and medication tests to benefit the society, instead of poor animals. Those killers are worse than animals, yet the animals are the ones who suffer in the laboratories. If those killers want to stay alive and benefit the society and suffer the consequences of their acts, the laboratory is an option. Scary? Well, certainly not as much as what the victim had to endure.
Click to expand...

You are not forgiving a killer when you lock him up for life. Forgiveness is something entirely different. Prison for life is harder than death, as it challenges the prisoner to think about himself. And it is a proven fact that death penalty does not reduce crime. It's the other way around: if you commit one murder you get death, so why not try to become a serial killer when it ends the same way if you get caught? Killers usually don't think about the consequences of their deeds anyways. They act on evil impulse or are after someone in particular. Both scenarios will not be stopped by whatever the sentence.

The state playing dr. Mengele is not acceptable either in my book. You should be better than your lowest instincts and vindictive wishes, certainly the state should be. But I agree that animal testing is very sad. But we must find other solutions tp this problem. Cruelty free ones.
 
Roosje said:
You are not forgiving a killer when you lock him up for life. Forgiveness is something entirely different. Prison for life is harder than death, as it challenges the prisoner to think about himself. And it is a proven fact that death penalty does not reduce crime. It's the other way around: if you commit one murder you get death, so why not try to become a serial killer when it ends the same way if you get caught? Killers usually don't think about the consequences of their deeds anyways. They act on evil impulse or are after someone in particular. Both scenarios will not be stopped by whatever the sentence.

The state playing dr. Mengele is not acceptable either in my book. You should be better than your lowest instincts and vindictive wishes, certainly the state should be. But I agree that animal testing is very sad. But we must find other solutions tp this problem. Cruelty free ones.
Click to expand...

Then why keeping him alive if it's harder? It means that it is even more vicious. So it is worse than revenge than.

It is not that I am for or against death penalty, it is just that I don't believe in punishment in form of prison. It doesn't solve anything.
 
No, it's not about revenge. I am not against the death penalty because it's too severe or not nice to the person being killed by the state. I'm against it because killing is wrong no matter the circumstance. It's a matter of morality I guess. If the state doens't want its people to be killers it should not be one itself. It's just not right. Prison, like I said before, serves the purpose of protecting society from further danger while punishing by taking someone's freedom away. It serves more purposes and it's not about being vicious. How hard prison will be depends on the prison and the prisoner, but I can imagine it to be very hard. Death is just death, the end of this earthly life. It should come when it's someone's time, not earlier.

Prison is of course not some ideal institution, but it is the best thing we know to punish for the above mentioned reasons. Putting someone to death or making him a laboratory animal doesn't solve evilness either. In my view it perpetuates it, just in someone else's hands.
 
Roosje said:
No, it's not about revenge. I am not against the death penalty because it's too severe or not nice to the person being killed by the state. I'm against it because killing is wrong no matter the circumstance. It's a matter of morality I guess. If the state doens't want its people to be killers it should not be one itself. It's just not right. Prison, like I said before, serves the purpose of protecting society from further danger while punishing by taking someone's freedom away. It serves more purposes and it's not about being vicious. How hard prison will be depends on the prison and the prisoner, but I can imagine it to be very hard. Death is just death, the end of this earthly life. It should come when it's someone's time, not earlier.

Prison is of course not some ideal institution, but it is the best thing we know to punish for the above mentioned reasons. Putting someone to death or making him a laboratory animal doesn't solve evilness either. In my view it perpetuates it, just in someone else's hands.
Click to expand...

The best thing to protect your children is to put killers away forever, not for few years. If Marc Dutroux was to be out tomorrow, would you let your children play around his house only because he has done his time-sentence? I don't think that any sane person would do so. On the contrary, many sane people would want hime see dead. Death is part of life and some people are just not worth living if their living means taking away other lives.
 
^Dutroux has life in prison, so that's not really a good example. Most jail sentences are measured to the severeness of the crime and the chance of repetition. That's why you have life in prison for people like Dutroux. Problem solved. It's not 'sane' to wish death on someone, imo.
 
Roosje said:
^Dutroux has life in prison, so that's not really a good example. Most jail sentences are measured to the severeness of the crime and the chance of repetition. That's why you have life in prison for people like Dutroux. Problem solved. It's not 'sane' to wish death on someone, imo.
Click to expand...

I wonder if he really is going to stay for life there.

Wishing death is not sane. Killing the killer is perfectly sane in order to preserve life.
 
It's not the only way to do this, but it is by far the most hypocritical way: you killed someone, that is so so wrong that now we are going to kill you! Doesn't that sound inconsistent and unethical to you? To me it does. It's like parents teaching their children to behave by yelling at them and slapping them, uhm, no that's not good behaviour. You can't bring a positive change by doing something just as bad.
 
Roosje said:
It's not the only way to do this, but it is by far the most hypocritical way: you killed someone, that is so so wrong that now we are going to kill you! Doesn't that sound inconsistent and unethical to you? To me it does. It's like parents teaching their children to behave by yelling at them and slapping them, uhm, no that's not good behaviour. You can't bring a positive change by doing something just as bad.
Click to expand...

It's not the only way, but it surely seems the most equal one.

If I slap your children for no reason on their face, you'd slap me back. Wouldn't you? Prisons are full.Do you think I'd go to prison for a slap in the face?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top