Subject: Re: Mr. Devine's comments
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
>
> >
> > >
> > > I WILL TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO MR. DORRY'S RESPONSES
> > > MR. DORRY'S RESPONSES ARE IN CAPS, mine are in lower case.
> > >
> > > Mr. Dorry-
> > >
> > >
> > > 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).
> > >
> > > If it is possible to construct a coherence theory of Hitler's goodness, what
> > > , praytell, is the value of such an argument in the moral realm? It seems
> > > that the "persuasive" part of your argument is simply it's adherence to a
> > > predominant mentality.
> > >
> > > (on reasonableness as a social construct:)
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > Perhaps it is best that I revert to an example. In ancient Japan if a man
> > > dishonored himself, the only reasonable response was suicide. This is
> > > certianly unreasonable by today's standards. Today you are put in a
> > > hospital if you attempt suicide. (this is merely an illustration.... I
> > > don't care to argue about the morality of suicide on this list.) What, then,
> > > are we left with? Very good question, Mr. Dorry. I think the only recourse
> > > is to have a system that is constantly in self review, making checks on it's
> > > own progress and correcting percieved problems accordingly (this is suposedly
> > > the way the United States governement was to work). All we have is
> > > human rationality, but I do not put blind faith in dominant ideas as dictating
> > > the best course of action... only the easiest.
> > >
> > > (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.
> > >
> > > When I said map reality I was referring to your assertions about the
> > > effectiveness of DP. I don't believe that it can be implemented effectively
> > > without a grave cost to my freedom and yours. I don't believe murderers are
> > > concerned with the long term consequences of thier actions, by and large. I
> > > don't belive that DP has anything to do with justice, but it has everything to
> > > do with revenge. I don't believe DP will reduce violence in our society
> > > because it is legitimizing violence in our society. We should be more
> > > concerned with removing violence from our society. Fighting fire with fire
> > > just causes more fire.
> > >
> > > (on the killing of innocents as an unprovable maxim:)
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Well, I am not a Kantian, or a Christian for that matter. (Speaking of
> > > Kant, weren't you the one who introduced "moral maxims" into the debate?
> > > hmmmm...) While I'm at it, I am no Platonist either. Are you suggesting that
> > > we will all go out and kill and maim if there is no law? Is that your
> > > intention Mr. Dorry? I certianly don't plan on it, and I hope most people
> > > would agree. If all you can do is follow laws then why make any decisions for
> > > yourself? Implicit here is our society's childishness, that we need a strong
> > > central government to say "no no, that's wrong" othwerwise we are helpless. If
> > > this is your own self image, then I could understand. If you don't plan to
> > > kill and rape, Mr. Dorry, what makes you think everyone else does? Do YOU need
> > > a government to tell you right and wrong? If so, I feel sorry for you.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > The only cases I have ever consulted the law was in matters I do not see as
> > > belonging in the legal domain. If I need to cunsult the law, chances are I
> > > feel that particular law is illegitimate.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Instead, the rich get to steal from the poor. Lovely.
> > > What is the justice system but sanctified vigilantism?
> > > Up to this point we have been dealing with conflicts between the moral universe
> > > and the legal universe. While I maintain that there is a meaningful difference
> > > between the two, it is naive of us to treat them as autonomous entities. (this
> > > would truly be a Platonic outlook) Certianly the law has an effect on my moral
> > > decisions, but only insofar as it is an articulation of dominant moral values
> > > that are doubtlessly implanted in my brain.
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Since you are so stuck on consulting athority, I consulted "The American
> > > Heritage Dictionary": 'irregardless: adv., nonstandard; Regardless. '
> > > Gosh, it says "nonstandard", it must be wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > What I am asserting is that a reasonable person may not kill due to a
> > > threat of death, but it is precisely because reason is social construct that DP
> > > will not deter violent criminals. Killing is not a reasonable act. If you
> > > stop to say " Gosh, they could kill me for this", you probably aren't very
> > > serious about killing to begin with. An act of violence is not a reasonable
> > > act, and to think that reason will sway someone in a murderous state is naive.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Talk about nonsense Mr. Dorry. If the only factors that count for fairness and
> > > accuracy are the ability and dedication of the lawyers then what is the point
> > > of the judicial system? Are you implying that it is the MORAL character of the
> > > lawyers which guides them, and not the law? Or do you contend that the only
> > > factor is thier dedication to the law? Either way, I disagree. If thier
> > > dedication is all that counts toward fairness, then am I to suppose the laws
> > > and procedures they are dedicated to are irrelevant? This cannot be so,
> > > otherwise any legal system with dedicated players is fair. Obviously what they
> > > are dedicated to is a vital factor. If the justice system is dedicated to
> > > upholding the law, they would be decicated to putting the criminal to death.
> > > This is the bureaucratic push I mentioned, and is evident in all bureaucracy.
> > > Any bureaucracy that believes in it's goals will push for them, by thier own
> > > volition and as a form of self preservation. After all, an agency's
> > > ability to meet it's goals is a major factor in it's survival. What I am afraid
> > > of is a system that kills as a goal. Bureaucratic goals, such as the
> > > eradication of drugs, manifests itself not only in one system, but across the
> > > spectrum of govenment. Killing is not a goal I wish to introduce into the
> > > system.
> > > Furthermore, I just don't believe that DP could be effective and still afford
> > > for due process.
> > > Just as a note on fairness, the justice system is not colorblind and probably
> > > won't be for a long time. The enourmously biased manner in which DP is (and
> > > will be) handed out to minorities. I'd be happy to entertain ideas on how to
> > > remove bias from tyhe system overall, not just in DP cases. However, we are
> > > playing with peoples lives, and discrimination in the system is too prevalent
> > > for me to feel good about doling out death.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Then stop shouting about how DP will lower the cost of justice, MR. Dorry.
> > > What I was attempting to dispute was your own assertion about the financial
> > > benefits of DP, which, quite frankly, do not exist. DP proceedings will
> > > inherently be more expensive than any other because of the stakes involved.
> > > This may be even more true if DP is mandatory for some crimes. A mandatory
> > > life sentence (WITHOUT PAROLE, that is) is less expensive. Furthermore
> > > if the family and friends sense of "justice" is a thirst more more violence,
> > > then this is not a thirst I care to quench.
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > As a people? Are we a people? You and I certianly are not part of a people.
> > > There is no general will. The best we can do is make laws that protect all of
> > > the citizens --including those we have decided are morally reprehensible. A
> > > life sentence w/o parole (in your slick, efficient new jails) will protect
> > > us from dangerous individuals. Escape is a negligible danger, and I am rather
> > > unconcerned with vengance. No one person, and no one collective of persons
> > > such as a government, has the right to kill.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > I have no response to this, Mr. Dorry. You speak volumes.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Yes, I may be in a minority. I am in a minority that still believes that the
> > > right to life is fundamental, and should be preserved. There are, and always
> > > should be immutable principles for a government, that which is untouchable even
> > > by the masses. I believe that my right to be alive is one.
> > >
> > > I 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..)
> > >
> > > I always thought the point of a moral debate was to reach a higher moral
> > > ground. Violence it must be? Rather than ridding ourselves of violence you
> > > seem quite happy to let the cycle continue. Obvously you have no hopes for
> > > positive social change, if the best we can do is rename violence as justice,
> > > morals as laws, and be happy with it.
> > > I am actually quite unconfortable with the word justice because, as
> > > you correctly point out, it implies some Platonic existence. But, as you
> > > demonstrated in the previos sentence, it is a word that is tossed around with
> > > utter carelessness and can be changed at the drop of a hat. I prefer to
> > > stick to meaningful principles, such as my right to life. I never gave this
> > > right up, it belongs to me, and me only. You and your leviathan can try to
> > > sieze it from me, but I will never, ever let you take it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > John Devine
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <---- End Included Message ---->
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
