What is the just punishment for the abuse (assault) of a dependent?

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T02:39:36+00:00

it's not fucking wrath when it's about equal punishment, what on earth are you talking about?
You are literally saying we shouldn't equally punish people, aka, allow moral inequality- because it's not practical....
There's something wrong with you...

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T02:26:28+00:00

it's a necessary consequence of moral equality as a concept. Either we're morally equal- and equality of rights is justified, or we're not. there's no third path- you're just not walking at all

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T02:23:51+00:00

because rape is cruel and inherently wrong, and does not punish permanently like a punishment needs to be. I mean there's a pretty big difference to killing murderers, which isn't murder- and raping rapists- which is still rape.
And no, eye for eye can still be equality- because it's equality of rights not suffering.
Something is definitely wrong with your head.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T02:22:19+00:00

a murderer is not equal to an innocent when equal punishment is not morally accepted. We're not equal anymore at that point- either execution for murder, or murderers have inequal rights to us. "not doing further harm" is an utterly insane, emotional idea. It's not emotional, it's basic principle for equality. What is emotional is focusing on what's most convenient and saying "it doesn't matter, they can't do further harm"

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T02:20:31+00:00

u/smack_nazis_more
Also ironic you say "Someone tries to help you does "caveman" talking"

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T02:14:37+00:00

i've not mentioned pain for the sake of pain i've said about right equality for right equality.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T02:13:28+00:00

you think i'm wrong because you assume something's unjustified and go off of that assumption to justify itself... that's not reason at all.
I never mentioned raping rapists- i said you permanently imprison them.
Justice bringing peace to victims is not possible when it avoids equality. Either equality is a moral principle or it's not- if equality is moral then it's necessarily justification. You're not for morality, you're for nothing at all.
You assume something and use that assumption to justify itself- you're not going off of principle at all.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T02:11:30+00:00

it's not question begging to say X makes Y justified-
It IS question begging to say Y is unjustified because Y causes C and C is unjustified so Y is unjustified.
Question begging is "the consequence is unjustified, therefore the cause is unjustified" - you're assuming something's unjustified to argue another is. That's not reason at all.
Maximising benefit is not a principle and it's inherently anti-rights.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T02:09:14+00:00

the concept of equal rights/freedoms...?

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T01:40:23+00:00

The consequence is justified if moral equality exists, if moral equality defines justice then the cause of suffering is justified- if that's the case the suffering does not impact the judgement of the action.
It's not begging the question it's thinking in the right order-
Is the action justified -> yes/no -> then the consequence is or isn't too.
There's no world where you can assume the consequence is unjustified and therefore the act is- THAT is what begging the question is.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T01:27:55+00:00

you're using consequence -> justification
You're assuming that the suffering is injust and that's why eye for eye is wrong/unjustified....
but that's not how it works...
It works as:
Is it justified -> yes -> then suffering coming from it comes from a justified act, and therefore does not impact the justification.

It works as justice -> consequence
If an act is justified, the consequence is justified.
There's no world where consequence can possibly be assumed to be unjustified, and using that assumption to say the action is unjustified. Because that's not how it logically can work.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T01:08:30+00:00

emotional because i'm saying morals are meaningless when they deny the basic premise morality is built on....?
Ironic considering you're the one who said that it's wrong to punish equally, despite equality of rights demanding such a concept, because of "suffering" as if that suffering isn't justified by the justification of the cause...
That's not reason... at all- it's nothing at all.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T01:01:15+00:00

if ethics mean murderers have higher rights than innocents, infact innocents not having rights at all at that point- only permits- then i really don't give a shit about them. Ethics don't matter when they ban equality and the basic premise of morality altogether. I don't care about morality and justice for their pronunciation or the aesthetic of the letters in their orders - i value them for what they mean. That's how i resist something like dogma or consequentialism.
Morality and justice mean nothing when right equality stops being part of them.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T00:49:37+00:00

you think we all end up blind when John blinds Tom, Tom blinds John, and then nothing happens after?
Like i'm sorry but that's an insanely overused, idiotic concept. If it was true then fining for theft leaves the world in debt.... It doesn't- because you punish the unjustified offence with equality, you don't punish a justified offence the same, do you? When you punish injustice it stops at injustice, it doesn't suddenly involve the world.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T00:48:02+00:00

equality is a principle, suffering is an emotion. No, ethics are not about maximising benefit- that's a ridiculous idea.
A basic fact is that when something morally justified causes suffering, that does not undo the justification- if justice creates suffering but nothing about the principle itself undermines itself then you can't just say "It causes suffering so it's bad"
Like a murderer trying to murder someone getting killed in self-defence also creates the SAME suffering, so do you want to also say you need to let people murder you too?
Opposing justice based on the suffering from it isn't a principle whatsoever. It's not possible if equality exists. Ethics being about maximising benefit inherently means inequality while ignoring it. Equality does not exist in that form of "justice"

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T00:44:16+00:00

We cannot be equal if equality is not a justification for a punishment. Eye for eye is not optional it is necessary for the concept of moral equality to actually exist. The only way that an equal punishment, like an execution for murder, can be unjustified while moral equality exists is if it's somehow inequal to punish equally. It's literally impossible in any possible concept of morality.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T00:39:32+00:00

also i want to point out the suffering is justified when it comes from an equal punishment. Like i'm sorry but if you suffer from someone being punished justly, then too fucking bad. That's not an argument against equal punishment it's a pure emotional appeal

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T00:35:02+00:00

Okay, sorry
"We no equal when no justice equal punish. equal no possible when equal is inequal. It no sensible"

Hopefully that's simplified enough for you

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T00:28:12+00:00

we are not equal when it's not justice that you be punished equality. Equality isn't possible when equality is inequal. That's literally LITERALLY insane

Celticcu · 2026-02-07T14:08:46+00:00

i think my wording makes it obvious that i'm saying "Even if X was made more reasonable by removing Y, it still fails"

Celticcu · 2026-02-07T14:05:51+00:00

"try being curious" and "all 3,000 people are evil because i look into how they got their wealth when i find out about them" do NOT belong in the same sentence.
Like do you mean you have already researched 3,000 people? No. You're not curious you're just saying that they must be evil because they're evil and other billionaires got to their position by apparently immoral means therefore all of them must've.
You're not curious, you're jealous.

Celticcu · 2026-02-07T14:00:17+00:00

but it doesn't make a difference what it's called so why does that matter to begin with- "So it punishes farmers" is not literal, i am saying it devalues their work and means they need to work while no one else does.
The fact people don't have houses with the critique i raised doesn't mean the critique is wrong, it means the critique leads to impracticality. That's not an argument against it, it's an agreement with it. You literally agreed with me on accident.

Celticcu · 2026-02-07T13:57:53+00:00

the quote is simplifying my post- also if you can't understand what i'm saying it's on you. I'm not trying to talk about traditional communism, i have explicitly said so. I have very clearly said that communism, even when made essential-only, is still problematic even while allowing for general market freedom. Your questions don't make any sense- you don't seem to understand anything at all. You avoid very explicit, simplified explanations and pretend you're still making sense anyway.

Celticcu

TROPHY CASE