They are giving Luigi the death penalty

[puporing]

I would say that more benevolent CEOs generally don't earn as much money personally, they might even actively try to balance things out more. But most of the times we do not get such kind of CEOs and they prioritize themselves rather than the whole. They will pretend like they care but in actuality it is reflected in the pay (proportional to their own salary), and actions such as lobbying against unionization, anti-competition practices, that they do not care but rather more of an exploitative figure.

And that, we have currently a system that rewards psychopathic CEOs as opposed to true visionary leaders.

True visionary leaders who are more conscious about enslaving or exploiting other people will by definition not earn as much money because they would understand that their workers contribute just as much as they do, or not so much difference that they deserve the kind of paycheck current society claims/normalized they deserve.

Edited Sunday at 11:41 PM by puporing

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

@Scholar I am not claiming to be some sort of arbiter of ultimate good. My activity within the political domain is much more grounded: I seek to understand how these social systems actually work. Like a science, I try to predict how they behave and why they behave as they do.

Whether there is or isn't a death penalty is of little attachment for me. Both are workable systems.

Then why do more evolved societies move away from the death penalty? Understand that.

Just because the US is filled with a much of lead-brained Christians does not mean that the "liberals have gone too far" by abandoning the death penalty.

 

This is what I mean when I say this makes you deeply unserious. "Both are workable systems", as if you had no idea or sense of the gravity of what it means for the state to kill people who are no longer a threat. People who are sons and daughters, wifes and husbands. People who might regret what they did, who might grow in consciousness. What does it mean that you so trivially condemn individuals to death, as if it meant nothing? These are simply beings like you and me.

And what about the innocent individuals who get killed? Is that workable too? How can this be acceptable, when there is no benefit to such punishments?

 

I know exactly what your actual point is, but that is precisely what I think is so unsophisticated about it. You want to signal that "Reality is harsh, and sometimes society will need to structure itself in certain ways to have things run smoothly, that's just how it is", but nothing about this is insightful fundamentally, because it is removed from an actual analysis of the thing at question.

It's like saying "Well I am not against putting people in prison for infidelity within a marriage. People need to learn that marriage is a serious thing, we have way too many people taking the institution of the family for granted..."

And then that's it, no further substance, no actual contending with the different perspectives on the matter other than "The liberals are too soft".

Okay, you are beyond the liberals, but where are the arguments?

[Apparition of Jack]

@Leo Gura I can’t really express my sentiments towards your ideas beyond something along the line of “less head, more heart.” It’s good to be able to analyse societies from the depths of Tier-2 thinking but at some point you’ve just gotta move beyond that and say we’re all just people and we all just need kindness, right?

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:

but at some point you’ve just gotta move beyond that and say we’re all just people and we all just need kindness, right?

That's exactly the liberal dogma I wish to challenge and reject.

This kind of attitude fails in practice.

Kindness is great when it is warranted and earned. Not in the case of dealing with a mass murderer.

And to be clear, I am not advocating cruelty for the sake of cruelty. But if someone commits a premeditated murderer, killing him humanely does not contradict kindness or love.

[Inliytened1]

9 minutes ago, Scholar said:

you had no idea or sense of the gravity of what it means for the state to kill people who are no longer a threat.

This is problematic because whether that person is still a threat or not, they are still living, breathing and growing while their victim no longer exists on this Earth.  Is it morally right for them to go on while their victim is dead?  But this thread isn't a debate on the death penalty itself and maybe we should redirect this back on track because I believe the post was about why this guy is being killed and not school shooters or others.  So it's not a question on the death penalty itself.   It's why this guy and not that guy. 

Edited Sunday at 11:41 PM by Inliytened1

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Okay, you are beyond the liberals, but where are the arguments?

The argument is very simple and common sense: you commit a heinous murder, we have you on video doing it, the consequence is the end of your life.

It's clean, fair, effective.

Standards of proof of the murder need to be clear and high.

It is actually absurd that this position is so offensive to liberals and gets me called out as some edgey political barbarian.

You don't have to agree with my position, but at least have the decency not to smear me for it just because it doesn't align with your liberal dogmas of compassion toward evergthing that moves.

Edited Sunday at 11:47 PM by Leo Gura

[The Crocodile]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's exactly the liberal dogma I wish to challenge and reject.

This kind of attitude fails in practice.

Kindness is great when it is warranted and earned. Not in the case of dealing with a mass murderer.

And to be clear, I am not advocating cruelty for the sake of cruelty. But if someone commits a premeditated murderer, killing him humanely does not contradict kindness or love.

Disciple: Why is it that the vital being drives him here — makes him come to Pondicherry?

Sri Aurobindo: There are various beings and they have various tendencies and motives. They are attracted to this place for various reasons, yet they do not want to obey.

Disciple: What is the aim of these beings in taking possession of a human being?

Sri Aurobindo: Firstly, to have influence on the physical plane which they can have by taking possession of a man. Secondly, to play a joke — just to see what happens. Thirdly, to play God and be worshipped. Fourthly, to bring about a manifestation of vital power. To this class belong those beings that effect miraculous cures and have great healing powers. Fifthly, to satisfy some desire or impulse like murder or lust. From this point of view you will see that capital punishment is absurd. A man who murders is, most probably, under the possession of a vital being. When he is executed that being takes possession of another. Many of those who commit murder have admitted that they had their first impulse when they saw an execution.

Some vital beings want to have their play here.

Disciple: Why do they do like that?

Sri Aurobindo: They get supported. But these are not strong beings. The really strong beings are those that are behind world-movements, like Theosophy; they have not only vital force but mental power.

Disciple: What is their part in evolution?

Sri Aurobindo: They only exhibit power; they do not generally take up a physical body.

Disciple: Have they an idea of progress?

Sri Aurobindo: Their idea of progress is increase of power. But they can be converted. Théon — who was the Mother's instructor in occultism in Algeria — believed that those forces or beings who try to come in touch with the physical are destined to be converted.

Disciple: Do they change their vital nature?

Sri Aurobindo: They remain vital beings but instead of aiming at power for themselves and manifesting it egoistically they consent to manifest something higher. They need not take up a body for that. They can remain on their own plane and work here as an influence for a higher life.

Disciple: Does the soul of the man who is possessed try to recover the lost ground?

Sri Aurobindo: After some time, during possession, there is no soul; it is thrust behind, into the background. Generally, in man the soul is not in front. By Yoga the soul comes to the front. But it can be thrown into the background by these forces taking advantage of some weakness, some vital or physical defect — unless the Central Being comes down and takes hold of the instruments.

Disciple: Can these forces take possession when a man has got a fine mind — a mind which is higher than the vital impulses?

Sri Aurobindo: What is man's mental knowledge before those beings? What does man know? Practically nothing. They know the complexity of forces at work, while man knows nothing of it. Man has a great destiny if he goes along the right lines, but as he is, he is shut up in the physical consciousness which is a very inferior plane. Even his reason requires data for its knowledge, and argument or reasoning can justify anything. Two quite opposite conclusions can be supported by the aid of the same reasoning, and your preferences determine which one you accept. For the data of reasoning, again, you require to depend upon what you see and hear — on your senses. The vital beings are not so foolish as all that, they are not so limited.

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

That's exactly the liberal dogma I wish to challenge and reject.

This kind of attitude fails in practice.

Kindness is great when it is warranted and earned. Not in the case of dealing with a mass murderer.

And to be clear, I am not advocating cruelty for the sake of cruelty. But if someone commits a premeditated murderer, killing him humanely does not contradict kindness or love.

Firstly, eventually, of course we will have to evolve to showing kindness towards especially mass murderers. Not in some sort of naive way, as you here suggest as a dunk of stage green naivety, but a genuine, structured compassion that maintains society while also allowing us to grow.

Many mass murderers were traumatized, mentally ill, abused. If you do not have compassion, you will never get rid of this phenomena, because if you cannot recognize their humanity you will never even attempt to find a way to prevent them from becoming what they became.

What even is the point of the killing? Again, the death penality has not shown to have any effect on criminality, nor on mass-murders. Mass murders happen in a context that will be completely removed from any impact the death penalty could have. Most of these people do it with the expectation of suicide or death anyways.

 

And of course it's cruel, the death penalty is a severe form of psychological torture. Just read up on the torment it inflicts on individuals. And again, you completely avoid the necessary cost that will come with such laws, which is innocent people getting killed by the state. If you think that is avoidable, you don't understand the justice system.

And again, to what end? What is the point of the death penality. To discourage mass murderers? How naive of a world view can you have if you think a mass murderer would think to themselves "Oh no, I better not kill a bunch of people because they have the death penalty on this". That's just an absurd picture, if you are committing such a crime there won't be any thoughts of the consequences.

 

 

Yes, it does contradict kindness and love, it obviously does.

[puporing]

It's a difficult topic, the main reason for me to abolish death penalty (as opposed to something like a life sentence) would be that it can either be misused or misapplied. Judges have biases even with all the training they have.

Edited Sunday at 11:47 PM by puporing

[Ode]

For some reason I find it funny that Leo has gathered a big group of liberal minded people and then argues with them about the death penalty being good for society. It's respectable hustle.

[Scholar]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The argument is very simple and common sense: you commit a heinous murder, we have you on video doing it, the consequence is the end of your life.

It's clean, fair, effective.

Standards of proof of the murder need to be clear and high.

It is actually absurd that this position is so offensive to liberals and gets me called out as some edgey political barbarian.

If you were some dude on reddit, I'd have more sympathy. The fact that you are making these arguments while being so educated and "conscious" means something is seriously wrong.

 

Again, the death penalty is a severe form of psychological torment, it takes years before the death occurs. It is more expensive than a life-sentence. It causes torment to family members, it encourages revenge thinking and discourages compassion. It does kill innocent people because the justice system is flawed and always will be (stop avoiding the costs that will be certain). There is no evidence it has a discouraging effect on any crime. Life sentences are already significantly severe, some argue they are in fact more severe than the death penalty.

And your argument is "We do it because, when you kill someone you gotta die!". That's the argument? I really hope this is not how you usually engage in moral reasoning.

 

You gave no benefit to the death penalty, you just says "it has to be done cause it's fair!", while I provide you with a tremendous amount of downsides.

 

 

Look, I don't care this much about the death penalty, what disturbs me is the way you reason about this.

Edited Sunday at 11:54 PM by Scholar

[The Crocodile]

2 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Again, the death penalty is a severe form of psychological torment, it takes years before the death occurs.

He would say it should happen instantly.

[Leo Gura]

I made this point so you guys start really questioning your liberal assumptions and start to appreciate some of the genuine value in conservatism.

It's too easy to see the good in liberalism, that's not interesting. What's much more interesting is seeing the limits of liberalism and widsom in real conservatism. That's what you're missing.

Edited Sunday at 11:56 PM by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

Just now, The Crocodile said:

He would say it should happen instantly.

If he said that he is even more naive than I thought. You can't just kill someone instantly because this would obviously make error in the system absurdly high. There have to be lengthy legal processes, you can't just be like "Judge said you day, so you die tomorrow.". You have appeals, it drags on for years before a final decision is made, which is why it has such a high cost.

And even then innocent people get executed, despite all of this "assurance" and lengthy process. You can't shorten the process and not expect more innocent individuals to get killed, especially if they can just get killed instantly.

[PurpleTree]

11 minutes ago, puporing said:

It's a difficult topic

 

Why is it difficult?

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Scholar said:

the death penalty is a severe form of psychological torment

Oh please.

This is why guys like Trump win.

Liberals have the aesthetic of being giant pussies. You come off as caring more about the murderer's feelings than the feeling of their victims.

You gotta read the room you're in.

Edited yesterday at 12:01 AM by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

I made this point so you guys start really questioning your liberal assumptions and start to appreciate some of the genuine value in conservatism.

It's too easy to see the good in liberalism, that's not interesting. What's much more interesting is seeing the limits of liberalism and widsom in real conservatism.

Yes I know, you don't respect us intellectually, fundamentally. Leo we don't need you to trick us into questioning our liberal assumptions by making senseless, provocative statements about the nature of the death penalty. Most people will just ape what you say and not think about anything, and adjust their worldview to your opinion, which is why saying such things can be detrimental.

 

The death penalty is not where the "limits of liberalism" are. Good conservatism is found in social values, that are not coerced but maintained through celebration and encouragement. 

Abandoning the police is liberalism going too far. Elon Musk disintegrating the US bureaucracy is liberalism gone too far. The death penalty ain't it.

[The Crocodile]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

Trump

He should be hanged, drawn and quartered.

[puporing]

7 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

 

Why is it difficult?

Because it's not just about what is written laws on paper, it's the consciousness of the society and lawmakers, judges/justices, and how much they are influenced or not influenced by politics and their political leaders of the time.

The kind of people I may think deserve the death penalty might be very different from what you think, for example. And for me that is only a very handful of people who cannot be corrected by other means, which would mean only the most severe of criminals (and repeated offences).

Judges are not that independent actors from their heads of state, even the most democratic countries still have this tie.

Edited yesterday at 12:06 AM by puporing

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Oh please.

This is why guys like Trump win.

Liberals have the aesthetic of being giant pussies.

If you think you can out-define yourself out of green by saying the death penalty is appropriate, I don't knwo what to tell you. You are defining yourself by your reaction to pigs, and now dressing yourself as a pig so the pigs don't think you're a chicken. You bathe in their shit just so you stink as much as they and can proclaim yourself as not as clean as all those pesky, pathetic chickens.

This isn't how you save the US. There are far deeper problems here, and the real reason why stage green is perceived as giant pussies is because they are giant pussies. 

 

They need to learn how to face adversity, not saying things that sound mean because it will make others think they are cool.