Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy

[Omega]

so lets apply it in reverse, if someone is trying to hurt me that means he also wants to be hurt so I merely do what he desires.

This is actually testable.  We can study people who hurt others, to see if it means they want to be hurt.  There are probably already sociological/psychological studies on the topic.

What do you expect they'd say?

Who cares what they say.  Rules are supposed to be same for all players.
Best way to say that you don't want to be hurt by me is not to hurt me. that works on all languages and for all life forms.
if someone is hurting me and does not want to be hurt himself that means he is not obeying rules of the game and I do not need to obey them either.

Otherwise golden rule in unworkable.
so you don't want to be hurt and I beat you, then I as you for money you give me some and I do not help you when you ask me.
you will end being exploited until you die. that is not a rule you want to follow.
of course you may end getting some help because such altruistic person is quite valuable resource for exploiters and it is in the best interest of exploiter to keep that person more or less alive and capable to act.

[One Above All]

I'm feeling kinda ignored here. You're replying to everyone except me

[Azdgari]

Omega, I pointed out that something was scientifically testable.  Your response was "who cares?", followed by a bunch of irrelevant crap.

What you said wasn't a moral opinion, it was an objective assertion:  That if someone is trying to hurt you, then he also wants to be hurt.

This is either true or false.  It can be tested.  It's real.  Do you care about what's real and true?  And if not, then why should anyone care about what you have to say?

[Omega]

I'm feeling kinda ignored here. You're replying to everyone except me

I think i am mostly speaking with you here

I already said that my criteria is just do not hurt anyone.  I do not evaluate anything separately i just use my criteria on each specific case.
I am against evaluation is advance when you say that all pedophiles hurt children, we need to evaluate every case separately, but we also have presumption of innocence.

If you cannot see why this is a contradiction[1] of:

No, i am doing it. just that it is hard to apply in regards to whole group of different people.
but if one Jew  offended me then I have no other option that hate all Jews if they do not expel that one from their group.

then I am wasting my time

1.	Making you a hypocrite, by the way

Yous missed this part: "if they do not expel that one from their group"

in any case, what i personally hate or like is not relevant to their rights or actions. if i hate you that does not take away your rights.
and finally when i say i hate all Jews that means all not every Jew (i think that starts sounding like christian apologetic
so there is no problem to evaluate on case by case basis and exclude specific individuals from that group.

I do not want to go deep into my moral reasoning because i have very different morals than most people
here I am trying to use common moral reasoning where I use it against itself. so some errors may happen.

[Omega]

Omega, I pointed out that something was scientifically testable.  Your response was "who cares?", followed by a bunch of irrelevant crap.

What you said wasn't a moral opinion, it was an objective assertion:  That if someone is trying to hurt you, then he also wants to be hurt.

This is either true or false.  It can be tested.  It's real.  Do you care about what's real and true?  And if not, then why should anyone care about what you have to say?

What is your point of that scientific testing? it is pure logic.
we are talking about golden rule which is main rule in the game of life, not if people like to be hurt or not. Of course what you say is true, but it is irrelevant.

If i assume that you follow same rule then if you hit me it means you want same treatment. supposedly that's your way of greeting people.
If you hit me and do not want to get hit back they you are cheater and I do not need to follow golden rule anymore.
I do not care what you like or not at that point, you are disqualified from the game.

[Azdgari]

You had made a statement about reality.  Apparently, you did not mean to.  I suspect that it was a translation error, given that English is not your first language.

[Omega]

You had made a statement about reality.  Apparently, you did not mean to.  I suspect that it was a translation error, given that English is not your first language.

yes, i still need more practice on my English language.

[jaimehlers]

that is exactly what I am doing. but you know it is a bit hard hen 99% most of people are on other side.

If you've been elaborating on your position there the way you have here, I can't say I'm surprised.

that has nothing to do with slavery. i am talking about moral standards. whole idea is that slave is supporting slavery.

Again, slavery has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  Slaves don't generally have rights unless their master gives it to them.  If they do have rights, they can hardly be called slaves.  There is no comparison between that and a group of people who have to deal with discrimination.

and why do you think i have more rights than gays?we all have same rights just that we find some of them useless.
whats use for me if I have right to marry if i have no intention to do so anyway. you are free to take that right from me I do not care.

I didn't say "give up some right you don't care about anyway".  I said, "give up all of your rights that aren't shared by every group".

I am not comparing that with gay right to marriage maybe I said it wrong, but i meat to compare it with gay rights to work on some jobs.
I can compare gays working in military with pedophile working as pediatric doctor.

It's honestly sad that you think the two situations can be compared.  The only legitimate problem with gays in the military was that they risked serious abuse and discrimination if it was known they were gay.  Most of the rest of the excuses given were unadulterated crap made up by people who let their bigotry run away with their wits.  It was never really about gay soldiers "taking advantage" of straight soldiers.  Whereas your example of a pediatrician is a whole different story.  Children, by definition, have very little power compared to adults, and there is a huge difference between a pedophile doctor who necessarily has to work with young children, and a gay soldier who has to operate in a unit with straight soldiers.

this is your demand not mine it syou who demand that pedophiles prove that no one of them ever molest children

I meant that a pedophile has to prove that he (or she) does not use a child as a sex object (which necessarily includes videos and pictures of children having sex acts performed on them).  I was certainly not suggesting that a pedophile has to be held accountable for the behavior of all other pedophiles in existence.

Iam still not sure what do you mean. whats with that "depiction" i suppose all you cant do, is to use real child as sex object.

A depiction, in this case, refers to a video or picture of a child having some sex act performed on them.

I already said that my criteria is just do not hurt anyone.  I do not evaluate anything separately i just use my criteria on each specific case.
I am against evaluation is advance when you say that all pedophiles hurt children, we need to evaluate every case separately, but we also have presumption of innocence.
If you can prove that specific act of  pedophile was harmful to specific  child he will get what he deserves.
I am against system which evaluates all actions in advance without checking results separately.

I didn't say that all pedophiles hurt children.  But performing a sex act with a child harms them, whether it's done directly by a pedophile or done by someone else to give pictures or video to a pedophile.  Presumption of innocence can in no way justify allowing a child to be harmed for some adult's entertainment.

Is't that what US president Bush thinks? Bin laden offended US and US bombed Afghanistan.

You think flying planes into skyscrapers and buildings and killing thousands of people as a result is simply being offensive?  I have to wonder if you even know what the term means.  The reason the U.S. attacked Afghanistan is because the Taliban was sheltering bin Laden and refused to extradite him to face his accusers and answer for the crimes he was responsible for.  So no, it wasn't just Bush being pissy about bin Laden saying bad things about the United States and then deciding to bomb the country, which is what you implied.

I am not talking about actual genocides, most likely they did not committed any of them. I am talking about fact that Jews think these genocides were right thing to do.
and unfortunately Hitler's lesson was not enough they still think so.
I am not big fan of "eye for an eye" politic. but if you are proud of committing crime you deserve to taste your own medicine.

How do you know that the Jews thought they were the right thing to do?  I'll bet you don't have the first clue of what modern-day Jews think or thought about that stuff.  I'll bet you haven't talked to a single Jew about it.  You might find it a bit difficult to justify your bigoted attitude then.  And as for Hitler's 'lesson', are you out of your mind?  Hitler wasn't trying to teach them a lesson, he was trying to use them as an excuse for Germany losing WW1.  He most certainly was not trying to 'justify' his deportations and exterminations with things out of the Bible.  Your attempt to justify the Holocaust and presumably all the suffering that Jews put up with in their centuries of exile before the Holocaust is nothing but reprehensible.

Thats your moral code and mine is different. I invented it to deal with people of different moral values.
this also falls under rule "When in Rome, Act Like a Roman"
If it would happen for me to visit cannibals i have no objections to act as cannibal for that time. I may try to convince them to change that behavior because it is not optimal way to live, but wont change mine until they all agree to change theirs.
life is game and It is scientifically proven that "tit for tat + forgive" strategy is the best one, so i suggest you to follow it too if you want best results.

What you're saying is completely nonsensical.  You say that you wouldn't have any objections to "act as cannibal"[1] if you lived among cannibals, then you say you'd try to convince them to change because you think their behavior isn't a good way to live, then you say you wouldn't change your behavior until they all agreed to change theirs.  You contradicted yourself at least twice there.

"Tit for tat + forgive" is in no way a good strategy[2], because it is nothing more than an excuse to seek vengeance for wrongs.  The best strategy is for someone to act in a way consistent with how they want others to treat them and, if they don't, punish them for wrongdoing in a way that they can learn the right lesson from.

by the way, anyone has right to kill you for any reason if he wont mind to deal with results of that action, Believe what you like but that is fact.

More nonsense.  I do not have the right to go out and shoot someone for whatever reason, and nobody else has the right to go out and shoot me for whatever reason.  There is a difference between someone having the ability to do something and the right to do it.

Otherwise golden rule in unworkable.
so you don't want to be hurt and I beat you, then I as you for money you give me some and I do not help you when you ask me.
you will end being exploited until you die. that is not a rule you want to follow.
of course you may end getting some help because such altruistic person is quite valuable resource for exploiters and it is in the best interest of exploiter to keep that person more or less alive and capable to act.

The Golden Rule has two meanings.  First, I should try to do things that benefit others to encourage them by my example.  And second, I shouldn't do things that harm others in order not to encourage them by my example.  In neither case does it have anything to do with what I 'want' them to do for me.  The fact that someone does harmful things doesn't mean that other people have carte blanche to do harmful things to them; all it means is that they should be stopped from doing harmful things in a way that allows them to learn the right lesson from the experience.

1.	I assume you mean "acting as a cannibal" or "being a cannibal".
2.	Let alone scientifically proven...just where was it "scientifically proven", anyway?

[rickymooston]

You don't get to arbitrarily decide that you should get to keep all your money for yourself.  The taxes you pay are part of your obligation for living in your country, and you don't have the right to not pay those taxes simply because you don't agree with certain things the government spends that money on.  If you really cannot stand paying for married 'leeches', then I suggest you find a country which doesn't give that kind of benefit to married people, or else become a political activist to try to change things in your country.

Democracy is still founded in theory on fairness and he is making a valid argument here. Obviously, the question about whether or not its fair that unmarried people subsidize married one is a reasonable question.

[hypagoga]

It is scientifically proven that "tit for tat + forgive" strategy is the best one

Is it now?

[jaimehlers]

Democracy is still founded in theory on fairness and he is making a valid argument here. Obviously, the question about whether or not its fair that unmarried people subsidize married one is a reasonable question.

Actually, I'm pretty sure democracy isn't about fairness.  Fairness is one of those words that gets misused a lot.

Now, if you want to ask whether unmarried people should or shouldn't subsidize married ones, that's a different question.  However, my answer still stands - he's obligated to pay taxes, and he doesn't get to decide not to pay them just because he doesn't agree with where some of the overall tax money goes.  If he doesn't like it, he can move, or he can work to change it.

[rickymooston]

Actually, I'm pretty sure democracy isn't about fairness.  Fairness is one of those words that gets misused a lot.

Fairness is frequently used to argue what is right and what's wrong. Our constitutions contain provisions that protect minority opinions.

Thing about fairness is, if the system treats somebody unfairly today, tomorrow you may be treated unfairly

By arguing his point, he was effectively working to change things.

[Dante]

Fairness is his only solid ground for his argument, but even he seems to have a very skewed view of it, especially in this modern world. His thread title alone is almost enough to dismiss any of his arguments. His bigotry is nauseating.
That being said, is it fair that married couples get monetary tax benefits in society? I'm not sure.

[Azdgari]

By arguing his point, he was effectively working to change things.

Ricky, jaimehlers wasn't saying that he doesn't have the right to argue his point.  It's the content of the point that's bollocks, for reasons already outlined.

So, why are you arguing against a point never made?

[rickymooston]

Ricky, jaimehlers wasn't saying that he doesn't have the right to argue his point.  It's the content of the point that's bollocks, for reasons already outlined.

Already outlined by whom and in which post?

I think its valid that single people shouldn't be forced to subsidize married people lol. 

[Omega]

Again, slavery has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  Slaves don't generally have rights unless their master gives it to them.  If they do have rights, they can hardly be called slaves.  There is no comparison between that and a group of people who have to deal with discrimination.

stop talking about slavery it is about yoru moral code.
lest say it in that way that two people are trying to enslave each other, one of them wins another becomes slave of winner.
is it moray right to set that slave free if you knw that he will use that freedom  for rematch?

I didn't say "give up some right you don't care about anyway".  I said, "give up all of your rights that aren't shared by every group".

i dont understand what does that mean.

It's honestly sad that you think the two situations can be compared.  The only legitimate problem with gays in the military was that they risked serious abuse and discrimination if it was known they were gay.  Most of the rest of the excuses given were unadulterated crap made up by people who let their bigotry run away with their wits.  It was never really about gay soldiers "taking advantage" of straight soldiers.  Whereas your example of a pediatrician is a whole different story.  Children, by definition, have very little power compared to adults, and there is a huge difference between a pedophile doctor who necessarily has to work with young children, and a gay soldier who has to operate in a unit with straight soldiers.

I am quite sure that only completely insane pedophile will dare to molest a child in front of parents. but we definitely can expect that he will get lots of pleasure from his job anyway.
same with gay in military I expect he will feel quite aroused while in shower  with lots of other men.  especially when they ask him to help to rub the back. I thing gay in men shower is quite same as straight man in a women shower.

I meant that a pedophile has to prove that he (or she) does not use a child as a sex object (which necessarily includes videos and pictures of children having sex acts performed on them).  I was certainly not suggesting that a pedophile has to be held accountable for the behavior of all other pedophiles in existence.

how you can theoretically prove that? i suppose burden of proof in on the prosecutor unless you can prove opposite he is innocent.

can you explain reasons behind that. requirement. i see it as tough crime if you are trying to legislate what someone is allowed to do in private life that does not concern other people.
images are completely unrelated to any kind of objective damage on children body or mind.

I didn't say that all pedophiles hurt children.  But performing a sex act with a child harms them, whether it's done directly by a pedophile or done by someone else to give pictures or video to a pedophile.  Presumption of innocence can in no way justify allowing a child to be harmed for some adult's entertainment.

Ok, so if I desired someone attacking US and even openly told my opinion and Binladen did that, does that make me criminal like him who deserved death penalty?
if I actually paid for that attack it makes me involved, but If i merely enjoy criminal actions of someone else that does not make my criminal.
and if i masturbate in the ecstasy on the video of twin towers falling down you may see me as some freak but you have no right to limit my access to these videos for that reason.
same with pedophiles, even if they enjoy children being raped that does not allow you to punish them if they are not involved in that act.

You think flying planes into skyscrapers and buildings and killing thousands of people as a result is simply being offensive?  I have to wonder if you even know what the term means.  The reason the U.S. attacked Afghanistan is because the Taliban was sheltering bin Laden and refused to extradite him to face his accusers and answer for the crimes he was responsible for.  So no, it wasn't just Bush being pissy about bin Laden saying bad things about the United States and then deciding to bomb the country, which is what you implied.

do not pick on such insignificant details.

How do you know that the Jews thought they were the right thing to do?  I'll bet you don't have the first clue of what modern-day Jews think or thought about that stuff.  I'll bet you haven't talked to a single Jew about it.  You might find it a bit difficult to justify your bigoted attitude then.  And as for Hitler's 'lesson', are you out of your mind?  Hitler wasn't trying to teach them a lesson, he was trying to use them as an excuse for Germany losing WW1.  He most certainly was not trying to 'justify' his deportations and exterminations with things out of the Bible.  Your attempt to justify the Holocaust and presumably all the suffering that Jews put up with in their centuries of exile before the Holocaust is nothing but reprehensible.

you may be surprised, but yes, Jews still are proud of the genocide they have performed. that was some surprise to me too.
here is the proof http://orthoprax.blogspot.com/2006/11/joshua-vs-general-lin.html (t was quite hard to find again)
Of course Hither had different reasons for his actions but I have no objections except that he executed wrong Jews.
there is also one scene on the movie about concentrations camp where one Jew is repenting in regards to Jewish genocide and agrees that Jewish nation got what they deserved.

What you're saying is completely nonsensical.  You say that you wouldn't have any objections to "act as cannibal"[1] if you lived among cannibals, then you say you'd try to convince them to change because you think their behavior isn't a good way to live, then you say you wouldn't change your behavior until they all agreed to change theirs.  You contradicted yourself at least twice there.

1.	I assume you mean "acting as a cannibal" or "being a cannibal".

There are no contradictions.
In such case I suggest to make meeting then discuss good and bad points of human eating and come to some consensus on new rules. only from the point then we all signed new rule it comes into action.
as for acting or being cannibal I can be anything depending on situation.

"Tit for tat + forgive" is in no way a good strategy[2], because it is nothing more than an excuse to seek vengeance for wrongs.  The best strategy is for someone to act in a way consistent with how they want others to treat them and, if they don't, punish them for wrongdoing in a way that they can learn the right lesson from.
 

2.	Let alone scientifically proven...just where was it "scientifically proven", anyway?

tit for tat + forgive is proven to be best strategy in computer simulated tests. people had chance to submit their strategies and they all played with each other. pure Jewish eye for eye is prone to enter death spiral , when both sides are on constant revenge mode, which can also happen as misscomunication. But if your retaliation is slightly less than  harm, players get chance to recover from that deadly loop.
unfortunately you will not win against again completely uncooperative partner, however when you play with different players you still  end as winner and all uncooperative ones will be losers even if they won against you, so they will be eliminated by evolution. Evil just destroys itself.

is someone is doing bad thing primary purpose of punishment is not to make criminal suffer but to prevent getting any kind of profit from that crime and preventing him from getting evolutionary advantage
if you get no profit (in very broad definition) for certain actions you will not do them.
acting in away you suggest is foolish since you will sacrifice yourself for sake of evil and make it grow.
to big punishment will result retaliation and everything will enter death  when crimes and punismets increase. what is harmful for both sides.

More nonsense.  I do not have the right to go out and shoot someone for whatever reason, and nobody else has the right to go out and shoot me for whatever reason.  There is a difference between someone having the ability to do something and the right to do it.

That's what you believe. I may have different belief.  You cant objectively prove your claim so there is no reason to accept it.
So i believe that I have right to kill anyone anytime and i also believe that everyone else has that right but for personal reasons I will not use that right ant other people wont do that either.
if you believe that you have no such right its fine, you just limit your freedom it's your choice.

The Golden Rule has two meanings.  First, I should try to do things that benefit others to encourage them by my example.  And second, I shouldn't do things that harm others in order not to encourage them by my example.  In neither case does it have anything to do with what I 'want' them to do for me.  The fact that someone does harmful things doesn't mean that other people have carte blanche to do harmful things to them; all it means is that they should be stopped from doing harmful things in a way that allows them to learn the right lesson from the experience.

Your meanings are illogical and cannot be proven in any way.
you need to base your statements on objective truth. or on something that we both subjectively agree.
I use maximum profit as reference in that case because this is how human brain works. if you have different motivation then we cant prove anything to each other.
but I hardly can imagine any live being which does not care about profit.

[Omega]

Fairness is his only solid ground for his argument, but even he seems to have a very skewed view of it, especially in this modern world. His thread title alone is almost enough to dismiss any of his arguments. His bigotry is nauseating.
That being said, is it fair that married couples get monetary tax benefits in society? I'm not sure.

You are speaking quite badly about me, but just because my view is skewed that does not make my arguments invalid.
also stop accusing me for bigotry  unless you show at least single statement which is objectively wrong and I refuse to change my mind on that.

[Azdgari]

Already outlined by whom and in which post?

I think its valid that single people shouldn't be forced to subsidize married people lol. 

It annoys me greatly when people play stupid in order to troll.  Especially when they do it to me.  Fuck off, Ricky.  That's not the point I was talking about at all, nor the one jaimehlers was talking about in his post to which you responded.

[rickymooston]

Jaimers said, if people in a democracy vote to have married people subsidized, unmarried people have to pay taxes for this. Of course, Jaimers was right technically but I think the principles upon which our democracy are founded include fairness. He has issues with people assuming fairness in the process. My post would be too long if I went back and quoted him.

It's the content of the point that's bollocks, for reasons already outlined.

It annoys me greatly when people play stupid in order to troll.

I was asking which post you referring to was "outlining" why the "content" was bollocks. Of course, I'm not necessarily sure I'm 100% sure which content you are asserting is "bollocks"; if you are referring to his assertions about gay rights, we are in agreement. 

[Azdgari]

I was talking about the idea that if one doesn't like how some of one's taxes are spent, then one has the right to simply refuse to pay all taxes.

Jaimehlers acknowledged that the marriage-subsidy issue was valid and perhaps deserved its own debate.  That wasn't the "bollocks" part of Omega's post.

[rickymooston]

I was talking about the idea that if one doesn't like how some of one's taxes are spent, then one has the right to simply refuse to pay all taxes.

I wasn't intending to disagree with your disagreement on said point, although the point is more debateable if one discusses a "moral" right rather than a legal or a practical one. Our government wouldn't function if everybody could "opt out" of its laws and obligations but if a government votes to do something morally unjust, it may be morally right to oppose the government.

IMO, the question was and is, what taxes "should" be spent on. The OP was discussing whether the gay rights movement "has a case". Its seems geared on what the "right thing to do" is rather than the realities of power.

[One Above All]

The OP was discussing whether the gay rights movement "has a case". Its seems geared on what the "right thing to do" is rather than the realities of power.

The OP was basically saying "Nobody has the right to demand rights unless they demand the same rights for everyone" which is oxymoronic

[rickymooston]

Well, you might be right on his general point, ...

I think, the same principles should apply
To everybody. The specifics of people's needs differ. I assume the later is why you say its oxymoronic.

[jaimehlers]

By arguing his point, he was effectively working to change things.

Ricky, jaimehlers wasn't saying that he doesn't have the right to argue his point.  It's the content of the point that's bollocks, for reasons already outlined.

So, why are you arguing against a point never made?

Indeed.  I went to some trouble to avoid saying things like "you can't say" and "you can't demand", etc, because he does have the right to argue his point no matter what I personally think of it.  My problem is the way he's trying to argue for the most part, and much of the content of his posts.

In fact, one of the biggest problems I have is his statement that gays should stop demanding 'exceptional' pervert[1] status because otherwise they're the same as homophobes.  Basically, Omega is saying that gays don't have the right to demand things like the right to marry other gays unless other 'perverts' have the same rights (ala, non-exceptional status).  And that's one of the things I fundamentally disagree with.  It's one thing to say that everyone should have equal rights, it's quite another to say that nobody should be able to demand rights they don't have that they believe they should have just because other minority groups don't have them either.  All that would accomplish would be to keep anyone from getting any rights.

1.	This is his term.

[jaimehlers]

stop talking about slavery it is about yoru moral code.
lest say it in that way that two people are trying to enslave each other, one of them wins another becomes slave of winner.
is it moray right to set that slave free if you knw that he will use that freedom  for rematch?

You're the one who brought the subject of slavery up, yet now you're telling me not to talk about it because I'm not following your script? 

And no, I still disagree with your example.  If you have two people trying to enslave each other, then you just throw both of them in prison till they've served their time.  If they continue trying after they get done, then you throw them back in prison, and repeat as necessary till they actually get the point.  Nobody has the right to enslave any other person, and it would be fundamentally unjust to allow the one who happened to win to hold the other one as a slave because the slave might try to turn the tables if he got free.

i dont understand what does that mean.

What it means is that you don't get to cherry-pick a given right you don't care to exercise anyway and use it as an excuse to say that other people shouldn't get to exercise that right either, or other rights which aren't related to it.

I am quite sure that only completely insane pedophile will dare to molest a child in front of parents. but we definitely can expect that he will get lots of pleasure from his job anyway.
same with gay in military I expect he will feel quite aroused while in shower  with lots of other men.  especially when they ask him to help to rub the back. I thing gay in men shower is quite same as straight man in a women shower.

You do know about the concept of self-control, I hope?  Someone who can't properly control his sexual impulses in a workplace situation has no business working there.  That goes regardless of what those sexual impulses might be.  For example, most workplaces don't tolerate employees watching pornography on company time with company equipment.  Doesn't matter what kind of pornography, doesn't matter what their sexual orientation or fetishes are; they don't get to do it.  It's the same with the doctor situation you outlined; a doctor is expected to be professional, meaning they don't work to get sexual pleasure out of touching their patients.  That's regardless of the field; a gynecologist who was known to have rape fantasies would be rightly subject to a lot of scrutiny.

how you can theoretically prove that? i suppose burden of proof in on the prosecutor unless you can prove opposite he is innocent.

Obviously, this is assuming that we are talking about someone who is known to have such tendencies, such as having talked about them to friends and coworkers.

can you explain reasons behind that. requirement. i see it as tough crime if you are trying to legislate what someone is allowed to do in private life that does not concern other people.
images are completely unrelated to any kind of objective damage on children body or mind.

Are they?  What about a photograph of a child having a sex act performed on them?  Or a video?  We aren't talking CGI here.  If real people were involved, then images taken of them most certainly are related to the damage done to the person.

Ok, so if I desired someone attacking US and even openly told my opinion and Binladen did that, does that make me criminal like him who deserved death penalty?
if I actually paid for that attack it makes me involved, but If i merely enjoy criminal actions of someone else that does not make my criminal.
and if i masturbate in the ecstasy on the video of twin towers falling down you may see me as some freak but you have no right to limit my access to these videos for that reason.
same with pedophiles, even if they enjoy children being raped that does not allow you to punish them if they are not involved in that act.

This is nothing but sophistry.  It is not even good sophistry.  All it is, is someone twisting around trying to find some excuse to 'justify' their argument.  The only thing it's accomplishing is to dig yourself in deeper and making your argument even more reprehensible.  It is not the same thing at all; a pedophile with actual footage or pictures of a child being raped is complicit in the crime, because by acquiring that footage, they are in effect supporting the groups that make it.  For one thing, such footage is evidence of a crime being committed; for another, there's no legal way to get such footage in the first place, so in effect someone had to pay for that copy of it.  Concealing evidence of a crime is itself a crime; purchasing something illegal is also a crime.  So don't try to tell me that it's the same thing, cause it's not.

do not pick on such insignificant details.

Insignificant?  You're talking about thousands of deaths and millions of dollars of property damage...and you call those details insignificant?  I don't think you know the meaning of the word.  I think maybe you'd better stop trying to use examples that you don't really understand as supports for your argument.

I don't think you know the meaning of the word.you may be surprised, but yes, Jews still are proud of the genocide they have performed. that was some surprise to me too.
here is the proof http://orthoprax.blogspot.com/2006/11/joshua-vs-general-lin.html (t was quite hard to find again)
Of course Hither had different reasons for his actions but I have no objections except that he executed wrong Jews.
there is also one scene on the movie about concentrations camp where one Jew is repenting in regards to Jewish genocide and agrees that Jewish nation got what they deserved.

The thing you do not understand is that nobody deserves genocide no matter what.  It's wrong no matter who does it, and someone doing the same wrong back to a group doesn't make things right again, it just stains that someone with the same crime.  Furthermore, your statement here contradicts what you just got done saying; you just said that a pedophile who enjoys watching children get raped[1] doesn't deserve to get punished if they weren't involved in the act, yet you have no objections to Hitler's crimes except that he targeted the wrong Jews.  Even though they weren't involved in those acts of genocide, meaning they didn't deserve to get punished using your own logic.  Or are you going to try to weasel out of this by saying that the Jewish nation got what it deserved, even though none of the individual Jews in that nation had anything to do with any genocides?

There are no contradictions.
In such case I suggest to make meeting then discuss good and bad points of human eating and come to some consensus on new rules. only from the point then we all signed new rule it comes into action.
as for acting or being cannibal I can be anything depending on situation.

Just because you don't understand why it's contradictory doesn't mean those contradictions don't exist.  Though maybe it was just a problem with the language you used.  But your revised statement doesn't make much more sense than your original one.  If you were to go live with a community of cannibals, you would go try to talk them into setting some new rules based on the good and bad points of cannibalism, but you're okay with being a cannibal anyway depending on the situation.  I can't say that makes a lot of sense to me...but I'm not the one talking about being 'okay' with cannibalism.

tit for tat + forgive is proven to be best strategy in computer simulated tests. people had chance to submit their strategies and they all played with each other. pure Jewish eye for eye is prone to enter death spiral , when both sides are on constant revenge mode, which can also happen as misscomunication. But if your retaliation is slightly less than  harm, players get chance to recover from that deadly loop.
unfortunately you will not win against again completely uncooperative partner, however when you play with different players you still  end as winner and all uncooperative ones will be losers even if they won against you, so they will be eliminated by evolution. Evil just destroys itself.

What "computer simulated tests"?  You can't just say that it was tested without giving the pertinent details.  There's no point in commenting on the rest of it until I know what tests you're talking about.

is someone is doing bad thing primary purpose of punishment is not to make criminal suffer but to prevent getting any kind of profit from that crime and preventing him from getting evolutionary advantage

I think you're a bit mixed up.  The purpose of punishment has nothing to do with "evolutionary advantage".  Punishment has two purposes; one is preventing the person who actually committed a crime from being able to reap any benefits from it, and the other is to discourage others from following their example.

if you get no profit (in very broad definition) for certain actions you will not do them.
acting in away you suggest is foolish since you will sacrifice yourself for sake of evil and make it grow.
to big punishment will result retaliation and everything will enter death  when crimes and punismets increase. what is harmful for both sides.

While it's true that someone who doesn't ever benefit from an action will stop doing it, I don't think you understand human nature very well.  People act in ways they know are foolish quite often, but that doesn't mean they're doing it for the sake of evil or to make evil stronger.  And the size of a punishment doesn't matter much compared to how just the punishment is seen as.  A "three strikes you're out" policy might be excessive, except that most people see it as a repeat offense thing.

That's what you believe. I may have different belief.  You cant objectively prove your claim so there is no reason to accept it.
So i believe that I have right to kill anyone anytime and i also believe that everyone else has that right but for personal reasons I will not use that right ant other people wont do that either.
if you believe that you have no such right its fine, you just limit your freedom it's your choice.

Your 'belief' doesn't justify infringing on my rights.  Including my right to live.  And your excuse that it isn't "objectively provable" thus can be ignored is complete and utter nonsense.  What you have is the ability to kill someone, not the right to kill them.  The fact that someone can do something doesn't mean they have the right to.

Your meanings are illogical and cannot be proven in any way.
you need to base your statements on objective truth. or on something that we both subjectively agree.

You make this claim but you don't back it up.  The only thing you say is that I either need objective truth, or that we both have to subjectively agree on it.  But you're completely ignoring other things which work considerably better than having an "objective truth" or a prior "subjective agreement".  For example, compromise, where two people who disagree on something meet each other halfway.  Or convincing people who don't agree through argument or discussion.

I use maximum profit as reference in that case because this is how human brain works. if you have different motivation then we cant prove anything to each other.
but I hardly can imagine any live being which does not care about profit.

Thus demonstrating my earlier point.  If someone doesn't have the same motivation as you, that's apparently the end of the discussion.  Except that it isn't.

1.	This is what I understood your statement to mean.

[Omega]

You're the one who brought the subject of slavery up, yet now you're telling me not to talk about it because I'm not following your script? 
And no, I still disagree with your example.  If you have two people trying to enslave each other, then you just throw both of them in prison till they've served their time.  If they continue trying after they get done, then you throw them back in prison, and repeat as necessary till they actually get the point.  Nobody has the right to enslave any other person, and it would be fundamentally unjust to allow the one who happened to win to hold the other one as a slave because the slave might try to turn the tables if he got free.

in that way we are extremely different because i believe that if people agree on some rules that thing is unquestionable for anyone outside of the game.
If I decide to fight until death with someone you have no right to interfere even if what we do is against your moral code.
otherwise homophobic people have right to limit activities of gays.
just replace word "enslave" into word "marry"  and we can legally throw them to jail.

I should say that I see consent more sacred that anything in the world and i would not hesitate even to act like Binladen to fight against people who dare to interfere with contracts of other people.
anyone is free to do anything with anyone else if they both agree on that. opinions of other people does not matter at all.
This is only moral value I have.

i dont understand what does that mean.

What it means is that you don't get to cherry-pick a given right you don't care to exercise anyway and use it as an excuse to say that other people shouldn't get to exercise that right either, or other rights which aren't related to it.

You do know about the concept of self-control, I hope?  Someone who can't properly control his sexual impulses in a workplace situation has no business working there.  That goes regardless of what those sexual impulses might be.  For example, most workplaces don't tolerate employees watching pornography on company time with company equipment.  Doesn't matter what kind of pornography, doesn't matter what their sexual orientation or fetishes are; they don't get to do it.  It's the same with the doctor situation you outlined; a doctor is expected to be professional, meaning they don't work to get sexual pleasure out of touching their patients.  That's regardless of the field; a gynecologist who was known to have rape fantasies would be rightly subject to a lot of scrutiny.

you are spining it in other direction when i specifically state that your hypothetical doctor is doing his job perfectly does not harass anyone or does anything inappropriate except that he gets sexual pleasure from his work.
all cases when employee is acting inappropriately are out of questions here.
also this is not because I like pedophiles very much,we  can replace pedophile with necrophiliac which works at morgue, or serial killer working as executor in prison.
there ate lots of possible perversions.

the problem is that you don't want some group of people to enjoy their fetishes because you feel same same thing offensive.

how you can theoretically prove that? i suppose burden of proof in on the prosecutor unless you can prove opposite he is innocent.

Obviously, this is assuming that we are talking about someone who is known to have such tendencies, such as having talked about them to friends and coworkers.

From when you can punish people in advance for something they had not done yet and have no specific plans to do that? I do not ask to prove who is who but you need to prove that someone is definitely going to commit crime or at least there is very high chance for that. just talking about your fantasies does not means that you are going to act them.

Are they?  What about a photograph of a child having a sex act performed on them?  Or a video?  We aren't talking CGI here.  If real people were involved, then images taken of them most certainly are related to the damage done to the person.

Please explain this in detail how I can harm someone by using its video or picture (assuming that i do not distribute them). It can be handy.
are we talking bout some voodoo or something?

This is nothing but sophistry.  It is not even good sophistry.  All it is, is someone twisting around trying to find some excuse to 'justify' their argument.  The only thing it's accomplishing is to dig yourself in deeper and making your argument even more reprehensible.  It is not the same thing at all; a pedophile with actual footage or pictures of a child being raped is complicit in the crime, because by acquiring that footage, they are in effect supporting the groups that make it.  For one thing, such footage is evidence of a crime being committed; for another, there's no legal way to get such footage in the first place, so in effect someone had to pay for that copy of it.  Concealing evidence of a crime is itself a crime; purchasing something illegal is also a crime.  So don't try to tell me that it's the same thing, cause it's not.

I already proved that you are wrong here, because:
1 Piracy does not support producers. (you may argue here, i also hate copyright )
2 evidence is not concealed it is on public domain, that's objective fact (if cops are interested I can download and present several gigabytes for them to look and jack off or perform  investigation. Too bad, if i try to gather that evidence i may end in jail, so criminals are going to be free.)
3 No purchase is done. Not even direct interaction with criminal happened. This is also fact.

if you object please give me exact description how criminals are supported here.
Please be objectively reasonable or admit your defeat.
(By the way I think l am allowed to support criminals morally, commenting that killer made good job murdering someone?)

The thing you do not understand is that nobody deserves genocide no matter what.  It's wrong no matter who does it, and someone doing the same wrong back to a group doesn't make things right again, it just stains that someone with the same crime.  Furthermore, your statement here contradicts what you just got done saying; you just said that a pedophile who enjoys watching children get raped[1] doesn't deserve to get punished if they weren't involved in the act, yet you have no objections to Hitler's crimes except that he targeted the wrong Jews.  Even though they weren't involved in those acts of genocide, meaning they didn't deserve to get punished using your own logic.  Or are you going to try to weasel out of this by saying that the Jewish nation got what it deserved, even though none of the individual Jews in that nation had anything to do with any genocides?

1.	This is what I understood your statement to mean.

I have no problems with genocides if they do not involve me
if you compare Jews enjoying their genocide and pedophile enjoying child rape. then I don't mind if if that rapist wannabe will be raped by another rapist who believes exactly same thing, since they both think rape is OK.
maybe that wannabe rapist will change his thinking after getting personal experience on that matter. this is not punishment it is just unfortunate experience.

maybe i should change my previous statement from "Hitler did good" job to "Jews got what they deserved, since Hitler is still criminal here, even If I think his actions were useful for society, we can see him as some kind of natural disaster.

Just because you don't understand why it's contradictory doesn't mean those contradictions don't exist.  Though maybe it was just a problem with the language you used.  But your revised statement doesn't make much more sense than your original one.  If you were to go live with a community of cannibals, you would go try to talk them into setting some new rules based on the good and bad points of cannibalism, but you're okay with being a cannibal anyway depending on the situation.  I can't say that makes a lot of sense to me...but I'm not the one talking about being 'okay' with cannibalism.

since i do not want to be eaten some day, I think,  it is better not to eat each other and other people may also think so. otherwise it is ok for me.

[What "computer simulated tests"?  You can't just say that it was tested without giving the pertinent details.  There's no point in commenting on the rest of it until I know what tests you're talking about.

you can watch this movie (it is on youtube) i cant find text version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_Guys_Finish_First
basically it explains how "tit for tat+ forgive" was programmed into our genes.

I think you're a bit mixed up.  The purpose of punishment has nothing to do with "evolutionary advantage".  Punishment has two purposes; one is preventing the person who actually committed a crime from being able to reap any benefits from it, and the other is to discourage others from following their example.

profit is same as  evolutionary advantage.
And if discourage was important issue, punishments would be public.

While it's true that someone who doesn't ever benefit from an action will stop doing it, I don't think you understand human nature very well.  People act in ways they know are foolish quite often, but that doesn't mean they're doing it for the sake of evil or to make evil stronger.  And the size of a punishment doesn't matter much compared to how just the punishment is seen as.  A "three strikes you're out" policy might be excessive, except that most people see it as a repeat offense thing.

unfortunately fools are feeding evil. every time you give your money to crooks you make them stronger
people donate money to church so that church could use that money to trick even more people and fight against these who are trying to tell the truth about that scam
size of punishment does matter. If you just fine me $100 for murder , may consider doing that twice a week and even pay voluntarily so you get 100% justice.
if you do capital punishments for robbery then it becomes profitable to kill few all people you rob to decrease chances of being caught..
three strikes policy also means that after third  crime you are free to do do anything and you can't be punished . so correct version should be random number of strikes and you are out.

when you are completely unable to catch criminal (If he is smarter than whole society) it is profitable to forgive him in exchange to promise not to act in that way anymore and repay some damage so that you can observe him and prevent from doing further crimes. both will bet fresh start instead of hurting each other indefinitely.
I think it is more profitable to forgive serial killer after he kills 3 people than wait until there will be 50 victims and he is still on the loose
only problem here, that you may encourage other to act same way but if you cant catch him anyway then it is not better.

As you see, punishments must be carefully balanced to prevent them causing even more damage. but government ignores that and makes everyone suffer.

Your 'belief' doesn't justify infringing on my rights.  Including my right to live.  And your excuse that it isn't "objectively provable" thus can be ignored is complete and utter nonsense.  What you have is the ability to kill someone, not the right to kill them.  The fact that someone can do something doesn't mean they have the right to.

I must agree that you are right and i was wrong on this matter, because I accept that we should not hurt each other. So I do not have right to hurt you until you do not have right to hurt me.

You make this claim but you don't back it up.  The only thing you say is that I either need objective truth, or that we both have to subjectively agree on it.  But you're completely ignoring other things which work considerably better than having an "objective truth" or a prior "subjective agreement".  For example, compromise, where two people who disagree on something meet each other halfway.  Or convincing people who don't agree through argument or discussion.

I think  "subjective agreement" is same as compromise. at least that's how i understand it. objective agreement is when you are either right or wrong for some external reasons.
however you cant make any arguments on subjective things, you can only bargain that for something in exchange or trick them.

Thus demonstrating my earlier point.  If someone doesn't have the same motivation as you, that's apparently the end of the discussion.  Except that it isn't.

I suppose as sane person you are motivated by profit, so not problems here.
if yous meaning of life is to please some deity or something like that it is different.

[jaimehlers]

in that way we are extremely different because i believe that if people agree on some rules that thing is unquestionable for anyone outside of the game.
If I decide to fight until death with someone you have no right to interfere even if what we do is against your moral code.

No, it's not 'unquestionable'.  You have to actually have the legal right to get into a deathmatch with someone for this to make any sense at all.  And even if you have that right, it doesn't necessarily take away my right to do something about it.

otherwise homophobic people have right to limit activities of gays.
just replace word "enslave" into word "marry"  and we can legally throw them to jail.

The fact that you apparently don't understand that this sort of thing actually happens is part of the reason your whole argument is so flawed.  No homophobe has the individual right to interfere with gay people, but if there's a law against homosexuality, then they can be interfered with.  That's why gay people need to be able to act to protect their rights, not be blocked from doing so because of your misguided belief that it needs to be all or nothing.

I should say that I see consent more sacred that anything in the world and i would not hesitate even to act like Binladen to fight against people who dare to interfere with contracts of other people.
anyone is free to do anything with anyone else if they both agree on that. opinions of other people does not matter at all.
This is only moral value I have.

Then I have to say that your 'morality' is not very valuable.  You don't have the right to act like bin Laden (you know, a murderous terrorist) because you think that people have the right to do whatever they want just because they signed some agreement.  If that agreement breaks laws, then they don't have that right.  It's that simple.  And even if no laws are actually broken, other people have the right to intervene as long as they don't break any laws doing so.

i dont understand what does that mean.

What it means is that you don't get to cherry-pick a given right you don't care to exercise anyway and use it as an excuse to say that other people shouldn't get to exercise that right either, or other rights which aren't related to it.

You have a bad habit of not responding to some statements, as the above demonstrates.

you are spining it in other direction when i specifically state that your hypothetical doctor is doing his job perfectly does not harass anyone or does anything inappropriate except that he gets sexual pleasure from his work.

The whole point is that it is not appropriate for a medical professional, whether a doctor, a nurse, or whatever, to get sexual pleasure from their work.  That's what being a professional is about, not allowing personal feelings to get in the way of doing the job correctly.  If a doctor is getting sexual pleasure on the job, then they aren't doing their job.  Your attempts to claim otherwise prove nothing except that you don't understand this basic concept.

all cases when employee is acting inappropriately are out of questions here.
also this is not because I like pedophiles very much,we  can replace pedophile with necrophiliac which works at morgue, or serial killer working as executor in prison.
there ate lots of possible perversions.

*shakes head*  Again, you don't understand that both of those 'replacement' situations are inappropriate.  If someone working at a morgue is getting sexual pleasure from corpses, then they aren't doing their job.  And there is no way that a serial killer could realistically be trusted to execute people in a responsible manner, because they are a serial killer.  So if employees acting inappropriately are out of bounds, then your examples of 'perversions' are also out of bounds.

the problem is that you don't want some group of people to enjoy their fetishes because you feel same same thing offensive.

Strawman.  I said no such thing.

From when you can punish people in advance for something they had not done yet and have no specific plans to do that? I do not ask to prove who is who but you need to prove that someone is definitely going to commit crime or at least there is very high chance for that. just talking about your fantasies does not means that you are going to act them.

If they haven't committed a crime, they can't be punished for it.  But it is fundamentally irresponsible to pretend that someone who is known to have 'fantasies' which would be crimes if they acted on them has the same presumption of innocence that someone else, not known for stuff like that, would have.  Maybe it's just talk...maybe it's a plan if they think they can get away with it.  Presumption of innocence doesn't justify ignoring obvious danger signals.

Please explain this in detail how I can harm someone by using its video or picture (assuming that i do not distribute them). It can be handy.
are we talking bout some voodoo or something?

*facepalm*  I already explained it.  While I'm willing to give allowances for your native language not being English, when you start talking about something like voodoo which I didn't even mention (not to mention the disgusting suggestion that it would be useful to know how to hurt people with a picture or video), then either you are not able to understand what I'm talking about because of an insurmountable language problem, or you are understanding and are deliberately pretending not to understand for some reason.  Neither explanation gives me any reason to continue to try to explain.

I already proved that you are wrong here, because:

No, you didn't prove that I am wrong, and all of your reasons are flawed.

1 Piracy does not support producers. (you may argue here, i also hate copyright )

Oh, thank you so much for your 'permission' to argue.  I don't know what I would have done if you hadn't said it was alright to argue. [/sarcasm]  Anyway, you're assuming that this is some sort of piracy.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  But pirating something illegal doesn't magically make it legal, it just means one committed an additional crime on top of supporting the kind of scum who do such things to begin with.  I'm not talking about monetary support, you know; someone who 'pirates' child pornography is proving there's a market for such things, thus encouraging other people to continue to do it.

2 evidence is not concealed it is on public domain, that's objective fact (if cops are interested I can download and present several gigabytes for them to look and jack off or perform  investigation. Too bad, if i try to gather that evidence i may end in jail, so criminals are going to be free.)

What makes you think it's necessarily in the public domain?  The fact that something's on the internet doesn't mean it's public domain, and that's just a facetious excuse to justify theft.  The other half of your statement here is nothing but a self-serving excuse not to do anything about something that you know is a crime.  Police do take anonymous tips about stuff like this, for just that reason.

3 No purchase is done. Not even direct interaction with criminal happened. This is also fact.

Just because money didn't change hands doesn't mean anything.  Just because they did not directly meet doesn't mean anything.  The mere fact of getting it is itself an encouragement for the other party to continue.

if you object please give me exact description how criminals are supported here.
Please be objectively reasonable or admit your defeat.

I gave several reasons as a response to your points.  You may not agree with them, but you don't get to pretend they don't matter just because you don't think they're objective.

(By the way I think l am allowed to support criminals morally, commenting that killer made good job murdering someone?)

You do know what "freedom of speech" means, I hope?

I have no problems with genocides if they do not involve me

Oh, of course not.  You apparently just like to make arguments involving them.

if you compare Jews enjoying their genocide and pedophile enjoying child rape. then I don't mind if if that rapist wannabe will be raped by another rapist who believes exactly same thing, since they both think rape is OK.

Get this straight, you're the one who made that comparison.  I've been arguing against it because it's a ridiculous comparison to begin with.  So you aren't going to be able to pretend that your follow-up statement is reasonable by pinning your ridiculous belief that there's actually a basis for comparison between genocide and pedophilia on me.

maybe that wannabe rapist will change his thinking after getting personal experience on that matter. this is not punishment it is just unfortunate experience.

It's neither.  Effective punishment seldom involves doing bad things to other people because they did those bad things to someone else.  And it's stupid to call a crime like rape an "unfortunate experience".  What do we call battery, a "flesh wound"?  People don't often change their thinking about something bad because they had it done to them, it just makes it easier for them to justify doing it to other people.  Which is completely the wrong way to try to deal with someone who commits a crime.

maybe i should change my previous statement from "Hitler did good" job to "Jews got what they deserved, since Hitler is still criminal here, even If I think his actions were useful for society, we can see him as some kind of natural disaster.

Do you even realize just how bad this statement is?  First off, as I already said, no group deserves genocide; even if they committed it, doing it back to them just stains with the same crime.  Hitler's attempt at genocide was anything but useful for society, and there is no possible way you can argue that Hitler qualifies as a 'natural' disaster.

since i do not want to be eaten some day, I think,  it is better not to eat each other and other people may also think so. otherwise it is ok for me.

Exactly.  You don't want to get eaten, so you think it's better not to eat other humans.  Except that you seem to be saying that cannibalism is okay otherwise (presumably, not involving you).  Do you not understand that this is the very definition of hypocrisy?  You don't approve of something if it harms you, but you're okay with it otherwise.

you can watch this movie (it is on youtube) i cant find text version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_Guys_Finish_First
basically it explains how "tit for tat+ forgive" was programmed into our genes.

That is the text version.  Well, summary.  And I'm aware that people tend to retaliate for some perceived wrong with something similar, then 'forgive' the other person, and that it's on the level of instinct.  The problem is that it doesn't always, or often, result in the situation you describe.  Even if one person forgives after retaliating, there is no guarantee that the other person won't get upset and retaliate back.  What does it matter if they each forgive each other after retaliating if the other one gets pissed off anew because of the retaliation?  That's how you end up with things like feuds.

profit is same as  evolutionary advantage.
And if discourage was important issue, punishments would be public.

I believe the legal system is in fact public.  It is indeed possible to get information on how someone was punished.  That makes it a deterrent.  As far as profit being an "evolutionary advantage", no.  An evolutionary advantage is something that benefits the species.  Profit benefits the individual.

unfortunately fools are feeding evil. every time you give your money to crooks you make them stronger
people donate money to church so that church could use that money to trick even more people and fight against these who are trying to tell the truth about that scam

I have no argument about this, except to say that those people aren't intentionally supporting evil, as you put it.  Evil people may be taking advantage of the inexperienced or stupid, but the ones responsible are the ones taking advantage.

size of punishment does matter. If you just fine me $100 for murder , may consider doing that twice a week and even pay voluntarily so you get 100% justice.
if you do capital punishments for robbery then it becomes profitable to kill few all people you rob to decrease chances of being caught..
three strikes policy also means that after third  crime you are free to do do anything and you can't be punished . so correct version should be random number of strikes and you are out.

You did not respond to what I said, you responded to what you thought I said.  Nobody in their right mind would consider levying a $100 fine for murder to be justice.  In fact, I do not believe most people consider any size of fine to be a just punishment for murder.  That's what I meant when I said that the size of the punishment didn't matter as much as whether the punishment is considered just.  And the "three strikes you're out" policy does not give people a bye to commit more crimes without punishment.  What it is, is a large punishment (usually, a stint in prison) for repeated offenses, even if the individual offenses themselves would not justify a prison sentence.

when you are completely unable to catch criminal (If he is smarter than whole society) it is profitable to forgive him in exchange to promise not to act in that way anymore and repay some damage so that you can observe him and prevent from doing further crimes. both will bet fresh start instead of hurting each other indefinitely.
I think it is more profitable to forgive serial killer after he kills 3 people than wait until there will be 50 victims and he is still on the loose
only problem here, that you may encourage other to act same way but if you cant catch him anyway then it is not better.

Think about it.  If you're dealing with someone who's so smart that he never gets caught, why would he have any reason to give such a promise?  It might 'benefit' society to offer such a deal, but it certainly wouldn't benefit the criminal, and that defeats the purpose.  And no, it isn't 'profitable' to forgive a serial killer merely because he's not easy to catch, for the same reason.

As you see, punishments must be carefully balanced to prevent them causing even more damage. but government ignores that and makes everyone suffer.

If this is your idea of "carefully balanced"...I'll take imperfect government justice anyday.

I must agree that you are right and i was wrong on this matter, because I accept that we should not hurt each other. So I do not have right to hurt you until you do not have right to hurt me.

This is the same thing you were saying all along, and I certainly don't agree with the way you put it.  If someone is attacking me and trying to seriously hurt or kill me, I have the right to defend myself even if it harms the other person.  But they never had the right to hurt me in the first place.

I think  "subjective agreement" is same as compromise. at least that's how i understand it. objective agreement is when you are either right or wrong for some external reasons.
however you cant make any arguments on subjective things, you can only bargain that for something in exchange or trick them.

I don't agree with that.  I can talk someone around to my point of view or come to a reasonable compromise between our respective points of view.  So I can indeed make an argument based on a subjective point.  Getting them to agree with it is another story.

[rickymooston]

just replace word "enslave" into word "marry"  and we can legally throw them to jail.

You don't seem to understand the concept of harming people.

anyone is free to do anything with anyone else if they both agree on that. opinions of other people does not matter at all.
This is only moral value I have.

I suspect, this is untrue. Your logic seems sarcastic. Are you playing devil's advocate? Are you religious and of the opinion that morality doesn't exist without God?

[Omega]

No, it's not 'unquestionable'.  You have to actually have the legal right to get into a deathmatch with someone for this to make any sense at all.  And even if you have that right, it doesn't necessarily take away my right to do something about it.

I think there i no point to continue other arguments id we do not agree on very basic:


In my belief, no laws can apply to private life which does not involve other people.
if you agree on that then we can continue on other topics, however if you believe that laws are allowed to regulate private life,  then you basically claim that everyone is property of society so society is slowed to do anything it likes with its members..

I personally do not agree to be slave even if that just theoretical slavery. If required I don't mind to fight against that society until it decides to give me freedom.
Of course since I can fight openly due to mismatch of powers only option is "asymmetric warfare".

The fact that you apparently don't understand that this sort of thing actually happens is part of the reason your whole argument is so flawed.  No homophobe has the individual right to interfere with gay people, but if there's a law against homosexuality, then they can be interfered with.  That's why gay people need to be able to act to protect their rights, not be blocked from doing so because of your misguided belief that it needs to be all or nothing.

I see your point and fine, I choose to vote for denying gay rights  and do not need any explanation why i do so. If majority decides that gay sex is crime punishable by death then it is completely legal to kill them.
I think we should also pass law against Jews, and make it illegal to be a Jew or Black. it should not be problem because there are enough of Jew haters to vote for that law. Then we will be able to exterminate them legally.  I think Hitler did exactly that, so Jewish genocide  was perfectly legal thing to do.

Then I have to say that your 'morality' is not very valuable.  You don't have the right to act like bin Laden (you know, a murderous terrorist) because you think that people have the right to do whatever they want just because they signed some agreement.  If that agreement breaks laws, then they don't have that right.  It's that simple.  And even if no laws are actually broken, other people have the right to intervene as long as they don't break any laws doing so.

I see that you base everything on laws and ignore natural rights.
so if there is law which allows you to bomb innocent people it is just fine to do so.

The whole point is that it is not appropriate for a medical professional, whether a doctor, a nurse, or whatever, to get sexual pleasure from their work.  That's what being a professional is about, not allowing personal feelings to get in the way of doing the job correctly.  If a doctor is getting sexual pleasure on the job, then they aren't doing their job.  Your attempts to claim otherwise prove nothing except that you don't understand this basic concept.

is it limited to sexual pleasure or I am not allowed to get any pleasure from my work?
please prove that If a doctor is getting sexual pleasure on the job, then they aren't doing their job.
I suppose doctor's job is to threat patients and what side effects occur from that job does not matter as long as it is done

*shakes head*  Again, you don't understand that both of those 'replacement' situations are inappropriate.  If someone working at a morgue is getting sexual pleasure from corpses, then they aren't doing their job.  And there is no way that a serial killer could realistically be trusted to execute people in a responsible manner, because they are a serial killer.  So if employees acting inappropriately are out of bounds, then your examples of 'perversions' are also out of bounds.

same as above if job is done perfectly, how do you prove that employe is not doing it?  of course if result is unacceptable then it is different story.

If they haven't committed a crime, they can't be punished for it.  But it is fundamentally irresponsible to pretend that someone who is known to have 'fantasies' which would be crimes if they acted on them has the same presumption of innocence that someone else, not known for stuff like that, would have.  Maybe it's just talk...maybe it's a plan if they think they can get away with it.  Presumption of innocence doesn't justify ignoring obvious danger signals.

Assuming that firing someone from job is some kind of punishment you are contradicting yourself, because you propose punishment in advance.

*facepalm*  I already explained it.  While I'm willing to give allowances for your native language not being English, when you start talking about something like voodoo which I didn't even mention (not to mention the disgusting suggestion that it would be useful to know how to hurt people with a picture or video), then either you are not able to understand what I'm talking about because of an insurmountable language problem, or you are understanding and are deliberately pretending not to understand for some reason.  Neither explanation gives me any reason to continue to try to explain.

No you did not explained anything. I asked you valid question. how it is possible to hurt people by just using their image in private, because you claim that some people are doing that.
I really do not understand that, and believe that such thing is impossible.

Oh, thank you so much for your 'permission' to argue.  I don't know what I would have done if you hadn't said it was alright to argue. [/sarcasm]  Anyway, you're assuming that this is some sort of piracy.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  But pirating something illegal doesn't magically make it legal, it just means one committed an additional crime on top of supporting the kind of scum who do such things to begin with.  I'm not talking about monetary support, you know; someone who 'pirates' child pornography is proving there's a market for such things, thus encouraging other people to continue to do it.

You are contradicting with your statements below. about free speech.
piracy does snot fall under criminal justice laws.

What makes you think it's necessarily in the public domain?  The fact that something's on the internet doesn't mean it's public domain, and that's just a facetious excuse to justify theft.  The other half of your statement here is nothing but a self-serving excuse not to do anything about something that you know is a crime.  Police do take anonymous tips about stuff like this, for just that reason.

You are arguing like christian here.
What I said is fact no matter if you know it r not. and I can prove it objectively but I think it is inappropriate to do that in public no less than you can prove evolution.
You cant argue with facts.

Just because money didn't change hands doesn't mean anything.  Just because they did not directly meet doesn't mean anything.  The mere fact of getting it is itself an encouragement for the other party to continue.

you are contradicting yourself with statment below

(By the way I think l am allowed to support criminals morally, commenting that killer made good job murdering someone?)

You do know what "freedom of speech" means, I hope?

So for some reason it is legally OK to get off on falling twin towers  but not ok to get off on child being raped
thats double standard.

Oh, of course not.  You apparently just like to make arguments involving them.

I deliberately involve arguments that are psychopathic to eliminate any emotional reasoning.  what you feel can be used to justify your own actions but you cant force your emotions on other people.

Get this straight, you're the one who made that comparison.  I've been arguing against it because it's a ridiculous comparison to begin with.  So you aren't going to be able to pretend that your follow-up statement is reasonable by pinning your ridiculous belief that there's actually a basis for comparison between genocide and pedophilia on me.

I did not made such comparison You decided to present is as contradiction. and I had to defend myself. on this foolish thing. so lets forget it.

It's neither.  Effective punishment seldom involves doing bad things to other people because they did those bad things to someone else.  And it's stupid to call a crime like rape an "unfortunate experience".  What do we call battery, a "flesh wound"?  People don't often change their thinking about something bad because they had it done to them, it just makes it easier for them to justify doing it to other people.  Which is completely the wrong way to try to deal with someone who commits a crime.

This is your own opinion and mine is different. You have right to think as you like, as much as I can do same. in any case there is no difference because accidents are not controllable. So you cant blame me if I enjoy that my neighbor got into car accident. and cant forbid me to display that joy in public.

Do you even realize just how bad this statement is?  First off, as I already said, no group deserves genocide; even if they committed it, doing it back to them just stains with the same crime.  Hitler's attempt at genocide was anything but useful for society, and there is no possible way you can argue that Hitler qualifies as a 'natural' disaster.

It is pointless to discuss such things because they are subjective. something that is valuable for my may be harmful for you.
I will try to avoid saying such things in future.

Exactly.  You don't want to get eaten, so you think it's better not to eat other humans.  Except that you seem to be saying that cannibalism is okay otherwise (presumably, not involving you).  Do you not understand that this is the very definition of hypocrisy?  You don't approve of something if it harms you, but you're okay with it otherwise.

It is not hypocrisy if I can justify it without contradictions. and I justify that with my egoism.
In fact all my moral values are based on my selfishness. if you base your values on another reason you either loose against me either you are hypocrite.
hypocrisy is when you say "I do not approve something" then you still approve it depending on situation.

That is the text version.  Well, summary.  And I'm aware that people tend to retaliate for some perceived wrong with something similar, then 'forgive' the other person, and that it's on the level of instinct.  The problem is that it doesn't always, or often, result in the situation you describe.  Even if one person forgives after retaliating, there is no guarantee that the other person won't get upset and retaliate back.  What does it matter if they each forgive each other after retaliating if the other one gets pissed off anew because of the retaliation?  That's how you end up with things like feuds.

even if  what you say is true, this strategy proved to be most successful  comparing to other strategies. 
that counts as scientific proof, which you requested.

I believe the legal system is in fact public.  It is indeed possible to get information on how someone was punished.  That makes it a deterrent.  As far as profit being an "evolutionary advantage", no.  An evolutionary advantage is something that benefits the species.  Profit benefits the individual.

as I know it is generally accepted that evolution is working on individual level not on whole species.
Species is just abstract name to identify similar individuals.

You did not respond to what I said, you responded to what you thought I said.  Nobody in their right mind would consider levying a $100 fine for murder to be justice.  In fact, I do not believe most people consider any size of fine to be a just punishment for murder.  That's what I meant when I said that the size of the punishment didn't matter as much as whether the punishment is considered just.  And the "three strikes you're out" policy does not give people a bye to commit more crimes without punishment.  What it is, is a large punishment (usually, a stint in prison) for repeated offenses, even if the individual offenses themselves would not justify a prison sentence.

You said "size of a punishment doesn't matter" so I prove that it does matter.

Think about it.  If you're dealing with someone who's so smart that he never gets caught, why would he have any reason to give such a promise?  It might 'benefit' society to offer such a deal, but it certainly wouldn't benefit the criminal, and that defeats the purpose.  And no, it isn't 'profitable' to forgive a serial killer merely because he's not easy to catch, for the same reason.

I wont argue on details here, maybe serial killer is not good example. Profit must be evaluated on each case separately, but in some cases it is valid choice.

If this is your idea of "carefully balanced"...I'll take imperfect government justice anyday.

this is not optimal choice.
Of course if there is danger for long term loss because of short term profit it should be chosen properly.
But government is doing this job badly. they refuse to bargain with some murderer, but don't have problems to pay millions to pirates encouraging them in that way.

This is the same thing you were saying all along, and I certainly don't agree with the way you put it.  If someone is attacking me and trying to seriously hurt or kill me, I have the right to defend myself even if it harms the other person.  But they never had the right to hurt me in the first place.

by that logic does cop has right to hurt me if laws allow or even require that?
How you can logically derive your self defense rights? if you have no right to hurt other people there must be some logical justification to gain that right.
in my case  if someone is trying to hurt me he just removes all restrictions.

I don't agree with that.  I can talk someone around to my point of view or come to a reasonable compromise between our respective points of view.  So I can indeed make an argument based on a subjective point.  Getting them to agree with it is another story.

maybe it is problem with language, but I suppose that argument must be based on something objective or on something we already agree.
You cannot base argument on your own opinion( that does not count as argument)  and demand others to accept it for no objective reason.
if we both accept some subjective point it becomes objective for us.