Discuss libertarianism for the Nth time

[Elder Iptuous]

See?
how long is a man 'evil' before he commits an evil act?  well, depends... who knows?
what is 'diminished capacity'?  well, depends.... who knows?

That's not what I said.

no it's what i said.
you said

For how long prior to the act would vary...but if the act was evil, it was intentional, which means that the person doing it must be evil.

so how do you draw the line as far as how long before the act he was evil?  intention isn't clean cut in time....  that's messy.

and what constitutes 'diminished capacity'?  you say a 'fit of passion' is diminished capacity?  that seems very generous of you.  does someone who has been subjected to brainwashing act in a diminished capacity that absolves him of being evil?  like some wingnut tells them something that gets them riled up and they do something dispicable... are they not evil because of their capacity?  can a plain stupid person be evil?  an inherently gullible person?..... that's messy.

Not as messy as insisting that there can be no evil people.

No.  insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.
Insisting that the acts a person commits determines if they are evil is messy, even though it can sure be satisfying...

insisting that there is only one way of looking at it is.... simple. but limiting.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Why was that an evil part of their culture? You stated earlier that Bob's 'evilness' was based on his intention (if he did it for personal gain, he is evil)... There's no evidence that the Greeks had 'evil' intentions when they were poking boys bums.

What, they slipped on a wet rock and accidentally sodomized a boy?

No they usually did it as an act of pederasty.  They apparently often considered it an important bond between two individuals (in some cases practicing a 'chaste pederasty', in other cases the boys were spoiled with gifts, in others it was part of their military training... all standards set by the given social group and practiced by the individuals in that society. There no evidence that it was 'abusive', in the sense we consider pedophilia to be abusive today. The physical acts may be the same, but the reasons, the psychology and the social system appear very different.

Well, then, I am not qualified to render a judgment on this specific example, as the culture is too alien for me to consider.

Now, do you consider it a good act to hang a 16 year old girl from a crane for talking to a boy?  Do you consider the judge that passed that sentence down to be good or evil?

I do not consider it a good act to hang a person from a crane in general... unless the person is a Faux News commentator or a politician. The Judge, though may or may not have committed an evil act... at the very least his sentence indicates that that his society is probably broken and in need of serious psychological help. If his decision is outside the mainstream decisions passed by his peers, then his act was probably evil. If his sentence is identical or similar to other sentences passed by other judges for similar "crimes", then it seems like a problem within the society and may not be an "evil" judge.

There are often far too many variables in human life to label an individual as good or evil, specifically. I think its more legitimate to discuss the acts of an individual in the context of good or evil, than trying to identify a person's entire existence that way.

But then I don't speak R-Prime well

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

You really think that if some kid said, "no, please don't put your cock in my ass," a Greek nobleman would say, "oh, okay," rather than just clipping the kid around the ear and shoving it in anyway?

Well, the historical record is a bit sparse on details (and the details apparently varied from polis to polis), but there is some evidence that indicates a mutual respect between the man and the boy. Obviously this could be false information, or there may have been some asshats that weren't respectful... but it doesn't appear that the documented evidence supports Greek Men just running about shoving their dicks into any available Boy Orafice.

[Cramulus]

butt love was just one part of the boy's education. In all likelihood, there was nothing non consensual about it.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.


You really think that if some kid said, "no, please don't put your cock in my ass," a Greek nobleman would say, "oh, okay," rather than just clipping the kid around the ear and shoving it in anyway?

well sure, there were probably instances of nonconsent. But that doesn't mean that ancient greek manboy love was rape.

For example, the statement "In our culture, married couples have consensual sex" isn't invalidated by a few examples to the contrary.

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

Libertarianism -> Stories about kids getting sodomized...

[Elder Iptuous]

Libertarianism -> Stories about kids getting sodomized...

every freaking time. i swear to god....

[LMNO]

For example, the statement "In our culture, married couples have consensual sex" isn't invalidated by a few examples to the contrary.

False dichotomy.  In our culture, men and women (and in some states, same-sex couples) consent to marriage, which includes consensual sex.  Instances of a man raping his wife are documented, and prosecuted, because we consider it to be wrong.

Is there any evidence that the child in question had a choice in the matter of him being "mentored", or was he forced into it by his parents?

[Doktor Howl]

No.  insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.

Right.  Pol Pot was really a very nice man.

[Doktor Howl]

I do not consider it a good act to hang a person from a crane in general... unless the person is a Faux News commentator or a politician. The Judge, though may or may not have committed an evil act... at the very least his sentence indicates that that his society is probably broken and in need of serious psychological help. If his decision is outside the mainstream decisions passed by his peers, then his act was probably evil. If his sentence is identical or similar to other sentences passed by other judges for similar "crimes", then it seems like a problem within the society and may not be an "evil" judge.

There are often far too many variables in human life to label an individual as good or evil, specifically. I think its more legitimate to discuss the acts of an individual in the context of good or evil, than trying to identify a person's entire existence that way.

But then I don't speak R-Prime well

Is that a yes or a no?

[Elder Iptuous]

No.  insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.

Right.  Pol Pot was really a very nice man.

He is by your argument, since he did some really nice things, once.  it was even premeditated.

[Salty]

Even if a boy does consent...statutory rape laws exists on the assumption that people of young age are less likely to understand the consequences of sexual acts. People should be allowed to make the conscious decision, not have some bona fide patriarch decide, in a mentoring fashion, "Well, Adrastos, today is the day."

To me, it seems worse that this was part of some legitimate process.

[Doktor Howl]

No.  insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.

Right.  Pol Pot was really a very nice man.

He is by your argument, since he did some really nice things, once.  it was even premeditated.

My argument says nothing of the kind.

Please point out where the fuck I said anything remotely like that.  Oh, wait, I said the exact OPPOSITE, several fucking times.

Done here.  Please find someone else's mouth to put words in.

[Cramulus]

For example, the statement "In our culture, married couples have consensual sex" isn't invalidated by a few examples to the contrary.

False dichotomy.  In our culture, men and women (and in some states, same-sex couples) consent to marriage, which includes consensual sex.  Instances of a man raping his wife are documented, and prosecuted, because we consider it to be wrong.

Is there any evidence that the child in question had a choice in the matter of him being "mentored", or was he forced into it by his parents?

yes

in fact, consent was more central to the manboy relationship than to the hetero marriages of the age.

Boys entered into such relationships from the age of twelve to about eighteen or nineteen, though some suggest they started around fifteen.[16] This was around the same age that Greek girls were given in marriage – also to adult husbands many years their senior. There was a difference between the two types of bonding: boys usually had to be courted and were free to choose their mate. Girls, on the other hand, were used for economic and political advantage, their marriages contracted at the discretion of the father and the suitor.

[Elder Iptuous]

No.  insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.

Right.  Pol Pot was really a very nice man.

He is by your argument, since he did some really nice things, once.  it was even premeditated.

My argument says nothing of the kind.

Please point out where the fuck I said anything remotely like that.  Oh, wait, I said the exact OPPOSITE, several fucking times.

Done here.  Please find someone else's mouth to put words in.

Yeah, i know.
I responded to your parade of people that would be unsatisfying to not label as evil, even though i addressed that and admit that is the case, by misrepresenting what you said, too.
don't flounce just because i'm responding tit for tat....

[Doktor Howl]

No.  insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.

Right.  Pol Pot was really a very nice man.

He is by your argument, since he did some really nice things, once.  it was even premeditated.

My argument says nothing of the kind.

Please point out where the fuck I said anything remotely like that.  Oh, wait, I said the exact OPPOSITE, several fucking times.

Done here.  Please find someone else's mouth to put words in.

Yeah, i know.
I responded to your parade of people that would be unsatisfying to not label as evil, even though i addressed that and admit that is the case, by misrepresenting what you said, too.
don't flounce just because i'm responding tit for tat....

You stated that people cannot be evil.

I gave a counterexample.

You then deliberately lied about what my argument states.

You win.  Enjoy your victory.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

No.  insisting that there are no evil people is unsatisfying, but it certainly isn't messy or ambiguous.

Right.  Pol Pot was really a very nice man.

I suppose some of his friends might have thought he was very nice... or maybe his students, back when he was a history teacher.

However, I think it boils down to this for me:

I do not believe that there are objective standards of moral or ethical conduct. For such standards to exist, we would have to posit some intelligence outside of the subjective experience of humans that created this objective standard. As I have seen no evidence to support the existence of this Intelligence, then I must consider moral and ethical standards to be subjective, only knowable to individuals as seen through the bars of their Black Iron Prison. However, such a realization does not paralyze me in moral or ethical quandaries. Because, if morals and ethics are dependent upon the subjective experience of the individual, then I can judge actions of other by my perception of morals and ethics.

That means that I have no problem determining if A) I'd like to be friends with a particular human, B) I would not like to be friends with a particular human, C) Said human can go die in a fire or D) I would like to use my Zippo to set said human on fire and watch them die. This determination, though, is based not on generic labels so I can absolve myself of the responsibility, but rather on my subjective experiences of life.

So, Doktor Howl gets to be in group A. Most of the Tea Party gets to be in group B. Pat Robertson is in group C and people like Osama Bin Laden, the serial killer they recently found in Cleveland, the people that put their kid in a suitcase and dumped her in the ocean... etc etc are in group D.

I don't consider the people in Group D to necessarily be "Evil", but I do consider their acts to be punishable by death, based on my subjective view of reality.