1112: King Arthur's Court

[Junkenstein]

I love you Keith.

[repolho]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

Cooncentration camps were built to kill people. (...) [Keith's Justice's] idea is making clear to people that they're going to be punished if they make a mistake, and they're not going to get away with it. It's not about exterminating people, it's about setting things straight

I was not comparing Keith's Justice to the concentration camps, I was trying to show you that it's not always a good thing when people live in fear and therefore behave according to the rules.

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

Vice laws are always a grey area.

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

And, yeah, it's ok for a ruling class (...) to impose commonly accepted morals (...)

They are not commonly accepted morals. They are just the ruling class's morals.

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

What's sex has to do about it?

Nothing about sex is commonly accepted. So I ask again, is it ok for the ruling class to impose their morals on everyone else? Even if they are true christians who hate sodomy?

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

The SS came out in a moment where Germany was in shambles, mostly economically. (...)

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

And, where chaos and out-of-control people do what they want, a police force is right and must impose what the lawmakers have decided.

So the SS is right and must impose what Hitler has decided?

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

In the case we're discussin, the elected state should simply set some rules against the misconducts of people (Murder, Rape, Theft and acts that make life impossible in a civilized society.

Really? I was under the impression that Keith's Justice would apply to all kinds of laws:

Originally Posted by Keith

You're not allowed to pee on the street - butterfly affect - a systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews.

BTW, it should be: the government is allowed to kill you for whatever petty reason - butterfly effect - a systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately a gazillion gays, atheists, Arabs, etc.

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

I want them to behave as nice, decent, people towards each other. Without control, laws and police, it's impossible to obtain this, (...) Also Check your History. Every civilixed society since the dawn of men had some form of control.

Unless having laws and police is the only form of control, you are wrong; it is possible.

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

I dont want to take away people's freedom to do what they want, i want to get back my right to live a life where me or members of my family dont have to fear to be robbed, assaulted, killed or raped

Or have their house peed on.
Also you can never remove their fear of being killed under Keith's Justice.

[Bucho]

Originally Posted by RELEASEtheHOUNDS

could Keith's Arthur impression top the Samantha? that should be the poll

It was funny, but let's just keep things in perspective. His "Limey" is just him fucking around talking nonsense, it's funny because his voice is naturally funny. But "Samantha" is a glorious work of art that should be in the Louvre if they had audio.

Originally Posted by Keith

You're not allowed to pee on the street - butterfly affect - a systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews.

That's butterfly effect, author.

[lizsquiz]

I answered yes on the poll, because after two attempts at "teaching" failed, I bailed.

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by repolho

They are not commonly accepted morals. They are just the ruling class's morals.

Nothing about sex is commonly accepted. So I ask again, is it ok for the ruling class to impose their morals on everyone else? Even if they are true christians who hate sodomy?

So the SS is right and must impose what Hitler has decided?

I think you're confusing the idea of a stern inflexible justice with the idea of a fascist state ruled by tyrant, maybe christians.

If an inflexible justice shall be applied it woul be applied to crimes that are defined by the majority: murder, theft, vandalism and so on.

The state would have no religion, economic or political bias. No form of racial prejudice. The punishment will be given to those who hurt others or their propeerty, in a big way or a small one.

You keep mentioning the Nazis or Fundamentalist Christians. They're more like criminals than rulers in my mind.

[repolho]

I brought up the fascists and the soviets because they're the only ones I'm aware of who gave their police forces the power to execute people on the spot. This was used to eliminate political competition under the disguise of eliminating criminals (like spies). And I brought up the christians because they are the ones who made the current American laws. Which Keith's Justice would apply to, as Keith himself said a few times. I heard him talk about littering and just yesterday it was peeing that should be punished by death, even though he had just told a story where he had no choice but to pee on some dude's building (i.e. to knowingly break the law).

Your justice, which I think we should call Junkenstein's Justice might work better than Keith's, though I'm not sure how you could ever come up with a state with no religious, economic or political bias. Certainly not with a democratic system, like the American one, where laws are passed through lobbying and demagogy. Keith's Justice would just cause the police to target whoever is opposed to the current government (and kill how many people they are able to watch in a period of time, because everyone will commit some crime sooner or later). That's exactly what happened in Germany, the Soviet Union, Italy, Spain, Japan, a good portion of Latin America, etc. If applied to the US, I'm pretty sure whoever's in power would hijack the state in a day or two. Am I wrong?

[Junkenstein]

That's a very high possibility. But we're talking theories here.

I think that this type of ideas and discussions maybe arent appliable directly or right away but help building a conscience and fight apathy.

Personally i am afraid of a country where the majority is so indifferent or defeated to the point of descending into absolute anarchy and chaos, which is where real tyranny breeds (look at the warlords in Africa or Latin America, or the way MY country is going). I'd rather live between people that believe that there shall be order, and a straight, thick line between right and wrong, and that respecting others is a duty, not something that you choose to do or not to do.

PS: By the way, i sucked you in the discussion and didnt even give you a fuuuuck youuuu and welcome. The lack of manners on me..

[da_ticklah]

unteachable... I don't believe in it, just lazy bitches (male or female) that don't give a shit about their partners sexual satisfaction. These people are not unteachable just inconsiderate.

[Carruthers]

Originally Posted by repolho

... Your justice, which I think we should call Junkenstein's Justice might work better than Keith's ...

Maybe have a look at the Utilitarianist, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). I'm not saying he's quite the same, but it is similar in that it can result in trivial offences receiving draconian punishment. Arguments and discussions around these ideas - still unsettled - can be found, for your delight, back in the late eighteenth century.

If you parked in a no-parking zone in Bentham's world (not exactly a feature of his world, I admit) you'd probably get the death penalty. It's something you want to deter and - of course - the idea is that, as a result, nobody would break that law.

On the other hand, Bentham regarded punishment as inherently evil, so requiring of justification. Thus an act of terrorism (and this is perhaps where KM & JB might diverge - but it's not for me to say) would not attract the death penalty, since such a punishment is pointless (it would not be a deterrent).

Those two examples (a trivial offence punishable by death, contrasting with a heinous offence unpunished) are taken as extremes to make the topic 'interesting'. Normally however, folk living inside such a system would typically perceive bad things attracting the death penalty and trivial things going unpunished.

[repolho]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

PS: By the way, i sucked you in the discussion and didnt even give you a fuuuuck youuuu and welcome. The lack of manners on me..

LOL thanks

Originally Posted by Carruthers

Maybe have a look at the Utilitarianist, Jeremy Bentham (...)

I had no idea it could get even more extreme than Keith's Justice. I'll read more on the topic, thanks for the suggestion.