Subject: Mr. Devine's comments
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
I'd like to respond to Mr. Devine's comments.
He wrote (MY RESPONSES ARE IN CAPS) :
Mr. Dorry-
If you only wish to contruct your arguments on a coherence
theory of
truth I don't believe you will ever find me persuaded.
THEN WHAT WILL PERSUADE YOU? I AM NOT NAIVE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THERE
IS SOME PLATONIC REALITY THAT EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF OUR
PERCEPTIONS, BELIEFS, VALUES, ATTITUDES, ETC. IF YOU ARE A
PLATONIST, HOWEVER, I'D BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS THE PROS AND CONS OF
SUCH A STANCE ON A DIFFERENT LIST.
You called the Harvard students brainwashed by hegemony, but
hegemony implies an accepted
social value. This is exactly the means by which a coherence
theory of
truth operates- it taps into dominant values of society,
NOT EXACTLY. COHERENCE THEORY OPERATES BY ADVANCING A CONSISTENT
SET OF PROPOSITIONS ABOUT AN IDEA OR PHENOMENON WITH THE GOAL OF
EXPLAINING IT AS THOROUGHLY AND/OR PERSUASIVELY AS POSSIBLE. TO
SUGGEST THAT COHERENTISTS OPERATE BY TAPPING INTO DOMINANT SOCIETAL
VALUES, HOWEVER, IS INCORRECT. INDEED, IT IS POSSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT
A COHERENCE (AND COHERENT) THEORY ABOUT WHY, SAY, HITLER WAS A GOOD
MAN. SURELY ANY ARGUMENT THAT WOULD ADVANCE SUCH A THESIS WOULD NOT
BE TAPPING INTO ANY "DOMINANT" SOCIETAL VALUES. IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE
(AND ITS DONE ALL THE TIME) TO CONSTRUCT A COHERENCE THEORY ABOUT
THINGS WHICH LIE COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE MORAL REALM. (ANYWAY, YOUR
COMMENT SUGGESTS THAT I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH
HEGEMONY....IF YOU READ THE REMARK CAREFULLY, YOU'D UNDERSTAND THAT
IT IS POST MODERN BOURGEOIS LIBERAL HEGEMONY I HAVE A PROBLEM
WITH).
thereby easily persuading any "reasonable" person because
reasonable is a social contruct.
I SIMPLY DONT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO SAY ALL I WANT TO SAY ABOUT THIS,
BUT LET ME JUST SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS: 1. IF WE STOP BELIEVING IN
THE POWER OF HUMAN RATIONALITY TO ERECT SATISFACTORY STANDARDS OF
REASONABLENESS, WHAT CAN WE BE LEFT WITH? 2. CAN YOU MORE FULLY
EXPLAIN YOURSELF?
What is convincing to me is how well your theories map reality.
MY, MY, MY...I DIDNT THINK I'D EVER FIND A PLATONIST ON A LIST LIKE
THIS! MR. DEVINE, WHOSE REALITY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HERE? THINK
FOR A MOMENT: IS THERE JUST ONE? WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU
INVOKE THE NOTION OF "REALITY"? DOESN'T THE DP DEBATE, LIKE ANY
DEBATE, FLOW FROM HIGHLY VALUED, BUT ENORMOUSLY DIFFERING FIRST
PRINCIPLES, MORAL MAXIMS, ETC THAT ARE PREDICATED ON NOTHING MORE
THAN FIRMLY HELD BELIEFS? AT SOME POINT IN THIS DEBATE, WE WILL
DISCUSS THE DP WITH INTELLIGENT, THOUGHTFUL, CONCERNED PEOPLE WHO
BELIEVE DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE: 1. THE STATE HAS NO RIGHT TO TAKE
THE LIFE OF A PERSON; 2. THE STATE HAS A RIGHT TO TAKE THE LIFE OF
A PERSON; 3. DP IS JUST; 4. DP IS UNJUST, ETC., ETC... THERE IS NO
WAY (AS FAR AS I CAN TELL) TO PERSUADE PEOPLE OTHERWISE ON SUCH
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. WHAT ONE HOPES IS THAT ONE OF A CITIZENS
FIRST PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE: LET'S MAKE SOCIETY AS JUST AS POSSIBLE.
FROM THERE, WE CAN ARGUE THAT THE DP HELPS DO THAT (OR DOESNT DO
THAT)...AND DRAW OUR CONCLUSIONS AFTER RATIONAL DEBATE. BUT I'M
INTERESTED IN HEARING MORE ABOUT THIS NOTION OF MAPPING REALITY.
You said that "by and large, we all play by the rules...".
I am
not so sure we do if you think the rules are our legal system. The
unprovable maxim about the killing of innocents exists outside the
law.
NO, IT EXISTS WITHIN THE LAW. I CAN POINT YOU TO HUNDREDS OF
STATUTES IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME. I'M NOT BEING SARCASTIC; MY POINT
IS SIMPLE. IF THOSE STAUTES WERE REPEALED, AND IT WAS NO LONGER
AGAINST THE LAW TO MURDER, SOCIETY WOULD BE THROWN INTO ANARCHY.
ONLY CHRISTIANS AND KANTIANS BELIEVE RIGHT AND WRONG EXIST OUTSIDE
THE LAW.
When is the last time you restrained yourself from doing an illegal
act
just because it was illegal?
EVERYDAY, AS DO YOU AND EVERYONE READING THIS LIST.
In most cases the answer is rarely or never.
NO, THE ANSWER IS ALL THE TIME. WE ARE FREQUENTLY IN SITUATIONS
THAT CALL FOR US TO COMPARE AND WEIGH THE ADVANTAGES OF ILLEGAL
ACTION WITH THE CORRESPONDING PENALTIES. IF WE SIMPLY INVOKED OUR
CONSCIENCES TO DECIDE FOR US, THEN POOR WOULD STEAL FROM RICH
CONSTANTLY, AND THE VIGILANTISM RATE WOULD BE ASTRONOMICAL.
People generally act by thier own moral principles irregardless of
the law.
IRREGARDLESS IS NOT A WORD, AND NOW YOU ARE MAPPING A VERY
DISTORTED REALITY, MR DEVINE.
The instances where the law is a deterrence are not the most
horrible violent
crimes.
LET'S NOT DISCUSS WHAT IS OR IS NOT A DETERRENT FOR NOW, BECAUSE
I'VE ALREADY CONCEDED THAT CURRENT DP LEGISLATION AROUND THE
COUNTRY IS IMPOTENT. RATHER, LET'S DISCUSS HOW DP MIGHT BE
EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENTED.
Your plan for CP requires that punishment be swift and
certian.
.WITHOUT IGNORING DUE PROCESS. BUT DUE PROCESS MEANS DIFFERENT
THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE...
This is the only way CP could work, but at what cost?
THE COST WOULD BE: A SAFER SOCIETY, LESS TAXES, MORE MONEY FOR
SOCIAL PROGRAMS TO ELEVATE THE STATUS OF THOSE WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE
TURN TO CRIME, MORE FAITH IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM....
The appeals process is a right I am unwilling to part with, it is a
fundamental part of a fair legal
system.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING SUMMARY EXECUTIONS ON THE STREET, MR DEVINE! BY
THE WAY, I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT THINGS LIKE "REASONABLENESS" AND
"FAIRNESS" ARE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS. TSK, TSK, YOU'RE COMPROMISING
YOUR PLATONIC IDEALS.
Required CP for certian crimes will likely create a bureaucratic
push to implement it swiftly, which would further sacrifice
accuracy and fairness.
THIS IS MERE NONSENSE, MR DEVINE. THE ONLY FACTORS THAT COUNT FOR
ACCURACY AND FAIRNESS IN A TRIAL IS THE ABILITY AND DEDICATION OF
THE LAWYERS AND JUDGES INVOLVED. EFFECTIVE DP LEGISLATION WOULD NOT
ALTER THE TRIAL PROCESS, NOR THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS THAT
ACCOMPANY IT (AND THERE ARE MANY). WHAT IT MIGHT DO IS DETER
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, WHICH WOULD LIGHTEN COURT DOCKETS AND ALLOW FOR
TRIALS TO BE EVEN MORE THOROUGH, ACCURATE AND FAIR.
Furthermore, when it comes to the individual convicted
criminals there
is nothing that can be accomplished by CP that cannot be provided
for by a
mandatory life sentence.
WRONG. DP PROVIDES: IMPOSSIBILITY OF ESCAPE OR PAROLE, SENSE OF
JUSTICE FOR VICTIM(S)' FRIENDS/FAMILY, ETC., HEIGHTENED GENERAL
DETERRENCE BY PLAYING ON CRIMINAL'S FEAR OF DEATH
In many cases life sentences can be less expensive because of
the enourmous cost of those vital CP appeals.
THIS IS AN ARGUMENT FOR LOWERING THE COST OF JUSTICE, NOT
ABOLISHING THE DP.
More generally I don't believe that a government has the
right to kill
anyone.
WHAT RIGHT DOES A GOVT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING? TO TAX PEOPLE? TO
CONFINE CRIMINALS? THE ANSWER IS: THE GOVT HAS RIGHTS WE CONFER TO
IT AS A PEOPLE. IF WE CONFER ON IT THE RIGHT TO KILL, THEN IT MAY
DO SO.
Frankly I am afraid of a government that thinks it has control
over
the life and death of it's citizens.
THEN BE AFRAID, BECAUSE GOVT ALWAYS HAD THAT POWER AND ALWAYS
WILL..
That is not government for the people, it is a government that
violates the peolple's fundamental right to life.
BUT IF 51% OF THE PEOPLE IN THE STATE OR COUNTRY (LETS SAY) VOTE
FOR DP, HOW COULD IT NOT BE A GOVT OF AND FOR THE PEOPLE? ARE YOU
AGAINST MAJORITY RULE? WHAT PRINCIPLE WOULD YOU PUT IN ITS PLACE?
ISNT IT TRUE THAT THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE DP ARE IN THE STARK MINORITY
AND REALLY DONT REPRESENT ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES? LISTEN TO THE
NEWS, MR DEVINE, EXAMINE THE POLLS. IT IS TRUE.
also don't care to send the message to our children or the world
that violence
is a legitmate way to solve problems.
I DONT CARE TO SEND THAT MESSAGE EITHER, MR DEVINE, SO DO NOT TRY
TO TAKE SOME MORAL HIGH GROUND IN THIS DEBATE. BUT IF ALL WE ARE
LEFT WITH IS VIOLENCE, THEN VIOLENCE IT MUST BE. OF COURSE, ANOTHER
NAME FOR VIOLENCE IS SOMETIMES JUSTICE. (AS A PLATONIST, YOU SHOULD
BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT WORD..)
This is a fundamental principle for
The Radical Party and it surprises me you even subscribe, knowing
the agenda.
I SUBSCRIBED PRECISELY TO INITIATE THIS DISCOURSE.
Nevertheless I am glad there is a discourse, and believe all points
should be
open to discussion. It may be more productive, though, to adhere
to the
carefully laid agenda and keep most discussion directed at
realising the goals
of the party, not undermining them.
OH, MR DEVINE, I CARE NOT FOR THAT KIND OF PRODUCTIVITY. REAL
PRODUCTIVENESS, I THINK, WOULD BE TO PERSUADE SOME OUT THERE THAT
AN EFFECTIVELY DRAFTED, RIGOROUSLY IMPLEMENTED DP IS NECESSARY TO
REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME. AND THANK YOU FOR ADMITTING THAT IS IS AN
"AGENDA" AND NOT A WELL THOUGHT OUT, REASONED PLATFORM.
SINCERELY,
DANIEL A. DORRY, ESQ.
<---- End Included Message ---->
