It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

punishment, why?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Why do we punish people?

what is the perceived gain in punishing people?

Is it a glorified act of vengeance? like an angry ape would grunt and throw something at another ape for doing something he did not like?

Is it to preserve an order of consequences, like if you do A B will happen?

If so, what is the point? To avoid such behavior? What if it is human nature? No amount of punishment will change human nature. So it turns back into vengeance once you eliminate the promise of reduced transgressions, and reform, it is vengeance. You hurt me, so I will try to hurt you.

So we punish those things that we don't like, or is it that we punish the things we feel are a threat?

There are plenty of things in human nature that are a threat. Human nature itself is a threat then, do you establish elaborate systems of punishment in a perpetual chain of action and consequence in which the least noticed offender is the one to punish, being that he himself has inherent human nature?

What is the point?

monkey vengeance? is that anything worth justifying, or does it just feel good. So emotion is supreme? Like children in a temper tantrum, their emotions are then valid?

if they could punish would they be correct, if that is in fact why we punish people?

are there not higher and more effective ideals to reach for, or is the child not even going to try because he wants what he wants?

are childish monkeys? can't we try harder?
edit on 25-10-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Punishment is a Human concept, to separate us from the animals. In nature, you typically died or beating into submission. Within our current social paradigm, this would be frowned against


Are you a proponent of more death sentences instead of punishments?


edit on 25-10-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 



I disagree
it's an animalistic response
like a dog biting a vet because he hurt him.

or a cat scratching you because you stepped on it.
or us flinching because we were scared and punch someone in the nose.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by manykapao
reply to post by MDDoxs
 



I disagree
it's an animalistic response
like a dog biting a vet because he hurt him.

or a cat scratching you because you stepped on it.
or us flinching because we were scared and punch someone in the nose.


The dog didnt bite the vet to punish him..he bit him because he couldnt help it. Sometimes those bites are deadly.

I am still kind of confused on your position



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by manykapao
 


Most people have a hard time turning the other cheek and want their vengeance and that just snowballs. Think of a gangshooting where someone gets shot. So the gang shoots someone from the rival gang cause of vengance and so it keeps on going.

cause nobody dares to walk away and be the better man.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Donice
 


but the phrase you chose, "Turing the other cheek" is an act of defiance.

Jesus said it because it was illegal to hit someone with the back of your hand.

once you were struck, if you turned your cheek, the only other option was to strike again with the same hand, the back of it, making the aggressor be in the wrong. Provoke his anger, and lead him into fault. Use the animal to preserve your civilized man.

I say it is human nature, but the act of formalizing punishment as if it is separate from natural human nature is illogical


edit on 25-10-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by manykapao
 



the only other option was to strike again with the same hand, the back of it, making the aggressor be in the wrong. Provoke his anger, and lead him into fault. Use the animal to preserve your civilized man.


How is that logical?


edit on 25-10-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


we all bite

what some do is say it is a step above the animal, even though we are in fact seeking to punish the animal in us. we all bite,

what some do is say it is a step above the animal, even though we are in fact seeking to punish the animal in us.

it is a lie.

we should be just as punished for punishing, by law of nature. The one who can does bite.

the sense of authority (monopoly) of force is the real issue here.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Cant it be in our human nature to develop a sense of morality and social understanding predicated on rules and punishments to keep the majority safe and happy.

You are all over the place and i apologize for not being able to follow your train of thought.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by manykapao
 


John 6:29
If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.

This was the one I meant. If somebody hits you let him hit you again. dont hit back or provoke anything just walk away and let it be.

I believe most what we call human nature is something we learned doing. And everything you dont like you can learn to do different. so its more human ignorance than anything else that cause it.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 


no he smacks you, you turn your head asking for another instead of running or humbling down asking for forgiveness.

it was illegal to draw blood in anger. your knuckles would easily break skin, bone on flesh.

so he hits you, you smile lift your head and ask for another, in a moment very quickly he might hit you again in the same motion.

have you ever seen some one lay it down on another person in the heat of passion.

The practical use is really secondary, it is the implication that is key.
Jesus was not saying to let yourself be abused.

remember he was a radical, not a mystic sadomasochist.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I take it, many here have never been the victims of violent crime or been close to someone lost by violence another human being chose to create? I find the idea of questioning punishment hard to fathom having been both at different moments in life. The only reason I like punishment for crime is that executing them by 1800's standards on criminal code just isn't allowed anymore. (I'm only half kidding on that....)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
To uphold a law, which upholds lawful society, you need to protect the integrity of the laws in place. This is for the benefit of law-abiding innocents who agree to live together, and one can find their societal priveledges impaired or curtailed when they tread on anothers rights by the punishments, which are meted in fair accordance to the seriousness of the crime. Unless existing in an anarchy, you will find rules, and the deeper you go into secret societies, the rules may twist and warp, but still carry with tem punishments. Or consider the unwritten rules of "Omerta", or not ratting out another who commits a crim based on loyalty to a group or friend; it will result in street justice, another punishment. Justice and punishment are inextricably tied together, and awareness of laws illuminates an awareness of crimes, which one is expected to be aware of, hence "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Other points of importance include lesser punishments for those who are not aware of the law (many lashes - few lashes), and the thought that revenge is not desireable because the means of punishment usually always exceeds the crime comitted.

For interests sake, here is a set of unwritten rules most of us are aware of, just as we are aware of our societies rules, if only from exposure to the mindset. Keep in mind that much of the power-structure of society, "at the top", in the sense of family dynasties and corporations will follow a sense of these rules. LeVay satanism is only one of many followings; I imagine the rules for Kaballah and other increasingly sinister formats are even more pronounced in their rsolved and sharp-honed sets of justice.


The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth

by Anton Szandor LaVey ©1967

1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.

2. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.

3. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.

4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.

5. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.

6. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.

7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.

8. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

www.churchofsatan.com...

This is part of my Halloween studies on the net, not a set of rules I'm presently endorsing! (That is to say, I would rather follow societies rules, which the above mirror in places). Can you see how they might permeate the culture we live in on a day by day basis? I sure can.
edit on 25-10-2012 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by manykapao
 


S&F for interesting questions for people to ponder.

In my humble opinion I believe "we" often make the mistake of allowing things external of us to be ingrained into our version of what we consider "self". We hold these beliefs close to our hearts, and when another s belief contradicts our belief we see it as an "attack" against our "self" and retaliate. Forgetting this "self" we have created is an illusion.
edit on 25-10-2012 by MyParadoxicalSelf because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Donice
 


the books of the apostles, whoever they were were written long after the actual events took place. They were the interpretation of the events and their meaning, which is why this one phrase stuck out to me. This is what was meant.

what it turned into was a tool for control, in later revision feuds by the Gnostics VS Constantine. entire texts torn apart and rewritten to mold a universal religion for an already established religion. Not a formal message for an already established human condition.
One was made to fit the other, not the other way around. Because the empire would last forever, and the human condition would change....yeah right.


edit on 25-10-2012 by manykapao because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
We should give them cookies...

And Immanuel refereed to turning your other cheek, not so that the person striking you could hit both cheeks, but because in ancient Hebrew culture a child was struck on one cheek and a man on the other.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Very good question. This is a question Nietzsche struggled with often (The Gay Science, Beyond Good and Evil, Genealogy of Morals).

I suppose that rather than solve the root of the problem, i.e. end poverty, hunger, financial instability, etc. we must make examples of the offenders to deter others from committing the same act.

But yes, punishing someone, imprisoning them, hurting them, executing them is hypocritical; for in the process, a crime is committed against another living being. In the end, after punishment, there are now two victims.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by manykapao
 


Great insightfull idea for a thread. Star and Flag to ya!!! I like these types of questions that make us think about why some things are ingrained in the human psyche.

We punish, because it is what we know. We assume that is the best way, since it has been our method to attempt to control society since time began. Is there a better way to modify disruptive and dangerous behaviour in others? Maybe, but we need to search them out, or we can continue to simply punish, because its what we have allways done, wether it is in the best interest of our species or not.

I will be paying attention to this thread.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I do not question punishment for violent crime, I would say do not make the distinction.

too much eye for an eye would make us blind philosophy,

our streets are full of murderers and child abusers, because of such a distinction.

we try and say punishment must be on a higher level than the act of aggression

why?

tribal law worked up until we tried to confuse our animal with our "higher self"



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by manykapao
 


I agree..."Turn the other Cheek" is not understood by many....he is an absolutely acting to assert his defiance, and stand his ground without also engaging in the same brutal behavior......brilliant really...



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join