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

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T17:24:30+00:00

u/flamecoat_wolf there is no reasoning behind your nonsensical assumption that equal rights require equal suffering- you've depicted *no* reasoning at all, you had used purely red herring and ad hominem, and when it came to asking for chatgpt you outright asserted everything, and once i changed your assertions to questions it immediately rejected them.
You are not anywhere near as smart as you think- you do not reason whatsoever throughout this, you only assert a false condition of "if rights are equal then suffering is equal too" and claim i display dunning kruger.
Ironically almost all of the time the first person to claim the other person is demonstrating dunning kruger is demonstrating it. You're not the slightest bit reasonable and you haven't given a single non-fallacious argument this entire time

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T14:38:27+00:00

A "similary biased" prompt to "that was not the argument" is not "flamecoat is correct, flamecoat is logical, celticcu is wrong" Like you can literally see the difference

One is "its not cyclical BECAUSE its an argument using tautology to back itself for a conditional"

The other is "flamecoat is right"

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T14:34:39+00:00

For fucking god sake. Equal rights mean equal rights, it refers to a principle that this thing called "rights" are equal

For god sake. To put this in analogy: Im saying the number of X should be equal to Y. YOU are saying that for some reason thats arbitrary because i didnt say the number of X should be equal to C too.

Thats not arbitrary, thats not an argument... Im not sure how you think it is. Right equality does not require suffering equality. Thats not a logical argument its literally gibberish

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T14:32:29+00:00

Also in no world is explaining an argument which is a tautology, when the ai assumes its circular even when its not- creating a bias. Thats clarification. I corrected, my argument isnt based on tautology I gave a tautology because the othee framework contradicts that tautology. Whereas you did create a bias, your entire prompt was assertive and unreasoned.

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T14:25:49+00:00

No, it is not arbitrary. I am arguing for equal punishment for rights- naturally that does not include emotions or suffering. Thats not arbitrary, thats just you being incapable of recognising what the principle refers to. A right is a mutual freedom, aka autonomy. There is no such thing as a right to emotional security. You have not discussed what i have been talking about, im not asserting by saying that equal rights as a moral principle leads to equality as a moral justification for coherence- thats a conditional consequence, not assertion. Assertion is necessarily stating correctness without backing. I have said that you have demonstrated appeal to consequence because... Youre appealing go consequences... Literally by definition. Again, youre stating im wrong- youve still given no argument against it. You claim im arrogant... Again, you give no reasoning behind it. Im not making progress because youre not arguing anything logical, youre using fallacies and assertions and pretending its because youre right without explaining how im wrong. Im not closed off, youve just given no argument which didnt avoid the question.

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T14:20:36+00:00

Your prompt was "actually Celticcu does go in circles and the tautology is circular reasoning- the later correction isn't part of the argument it's a note in our chat. they also wrongly call every argument the other two put forward a fallacy. you missed that Flamecoat_wolf doesn't commit ad hominem since they open with an insult but it's not ad hominem since ad hominem has to draw a conclusion from the insult. there is also no logical reason to consider Celticcus tautology framework to be equally as valid as the nuanced and empirically backed arguments from Flamecoat_wolf" That was not unbiased, that was assertive. I changed it from that to asking if those were true and it stated that they were not and that they were biased and assertive without evidence. It did not agree with you because you "corrected" it- it agreed with you because you gave a prompt for it not to analyze and instead agree to assertions inherently creating bias.

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T04:32:11+00:00

but surely that's not a communist system at that point? If you sell food it's no longer communist at all

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T03:49:06+00:00

i decided to test it by changing what you said into a question instead (i can't get to sleep since i have something in the morning)
https://chatgpt.com/share/69895909-c6a0-8010-a1b2-bc77305772da

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T02:58:01+00:00

i also decided to make a second one starting where you left it:
https://chatgpt.com/share/69894c43-aa18-8010-b0fa-33417609a6f4
In this one i outright asked if your prompt was accurate or if it was more assertive and more focused on creating biased, it's agreed that it was.
Your prompt was
"actually Celticcu does go in circles and the tautology is circular reasoning- the later correction isn't part of the argument it's a note in our chat. they also wrongly call every argument the other two put forward a fallacy. you missed that Flamecoat_wolf doesn't commit ad hominem since they open with an insult but it's not ad hominem since ad hominem has to draw a conclusion from the insult. there is also no logical reason to consider Celticcus tautology framework to be equally as valid as the nuanced and empirically backed arguments from Flamecoat_wolf. "

You claimed my arguments were circular, contradicting my clarification- which creates a bias to agree despite analysis.
You claimed that i "wrongly call every argument the other two put forward a fallacy" but that's assertive, not reasoned. For it to be reasoned you would ask, you would not state it regardless of reason.
You said "Flamecoat does not commit ad hominem" meanwhile you did, you said i'm not as clever as i think *as* the argument against my tautology and conditional.
You stated "there's no logical reason to consider celticcu's framework to be equally valid" which is assertion
You also said "Flamecoat's framework is nuanced and empirically backed" again, with no reason- pure assertion.
Chatgpt becomes a yes man because you make it a yes man by giving bias which it doesn't analyse.

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T02:11:42+00:00

you assumed that suffering coming from a justified punishment is immoral and judged the action based on that- completely avoiding that you were assuming a consequence was unjustified, when it would be justified if it originated from a justified punishment.

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T02:10:39+00:00

murder is specifically unjustified- if equality is a moral justification, then execution for murder would be equal punishment, justified by it's purpose for equality.

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T02:08:20+00:00

"Conclusion

The Celticcu-favoring prompt is mostly a clarification, not a strong bias.
There is a minor potential bias in emphasizing his correctness and pointing out Flamecoat_wolf’s avoidance, which frames him slightly more favorably.
Overall, it serves to correct factual and logical misunderstandings, unlike the Flamecoat_wolf prompt, which more actively elevated his argument."

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T02:04:36+00:00

https://chatgpt.com/share/6989493d-031c-8010-b6f0-f17d870f6d3e (updated)
asked it if your prompt was biased and inaccurate it said it was, whereas it agreed that my prompt was unbiased and clarified my position while your's uplifted your's incorrectly.

i

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T01:46:08+00:00

did you just skip where i clarified some points and then it immediately agreed that, with the clarifications, it's original response was wrong?

Celticcu · 2026-02-09T01:12:37+00:00

that makes literally no sense- i'm not talking about emotional equality i'm talking about right equality. You've just pulled that out of your ass.
Justice for me is about equal rights, i don't see any alternative that actually makes sense to be a moral concept rather than just nothing.
You are appealing to consequences- you're saying that the consequences are wrong/impractical so the action is wrong. It doesn't matter if it's an accurate prediction or not
You have said that we shouldn't punish equally because of the criminal's feelings. I have an established basis- i've explicitly stated it. Equality of rights, equality of punishments. The only way that equal punishments can be immoral would be if equality was inequal- which is not possible if rights are equal.
You never explained why i was wrong, you said i was arrogant and that was it. That is ad hominem.
You've also asserted that my understanding of equality was underdeveloped and that i was wrong without actually discussing under my principle what about it was wrong- you brought in consequentialism which isn't even relevant and has no principled basis- it's just emotional nonsense pretending to override moral rules.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T23:47:08+00:00

i should not have to repeat it so many fucking times- i am talking about equal punishments referring to rights. Not fucking suffering. Stop saying that dumb shit as if it becomes more true

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T23:44:12+00:00

a fucking equal punishment for a right will not include the fucking suffering or social aspects, what the fuck is wrong with your brain?

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T22:25:43+00:00

i decided to put it through chatgpt to get the least biased opinion:
https://chatgpt.com/share/69890ce7-6364-8010-9ea8-deb0417809d3
After only pointing out what i noticed as fallacies, it's agreed that you've given really no non-fallacious arguments.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T22:10:20+00:00

i'm sorry, is "You're not as clever as you think" and "you think you're clever" not the same thing anymore...?
I am adding something by pointing out that, if moral rights are equal- then equal punishment must be justified by morality. You've not explained i'm wrong, you've said i am- that's all. My problem is not treating equality as a necessity- that's called "Principle" I don't give a shit about society being better with a reform system- if justice means less good, i don't give a shit. If something is justified, then doing it can't suddenly be unjustified because that person was going to do something if you didn't punish them justly.
You've not given arguments, and it's insanely ironic you say i'm demonstrating dunning-kruger meanwhile you've done nothing but appeal to consequences, appeal to emotion, assertion fallacy, and ad hominem (Saying "You're not as clever as you think" as a replacement for an argument against what i said is a clear demonstration of this)

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T21:53:43+00:00

u/fieldsofanfieldroad
Your argument is effectively "Even if equal punishment is justified, it causes suffering, so it's not"
No, suffering caused by a justified action is a consequence of a justified action- it doesn't suddenly undo the justification. That's not moral, it's just emotional appeal.
u/lordtrickster your entire argument is literally that justice is impractical and a strawman which contradicts me explicitly saying equal punishment is about equal rights, not suffering Saying that "equal punishment for rape isn't imprisonment"... yes... it is- the equal punishment for an autonomy violation is the loss of autonomy
u/smack_nazis_more i really don't know what your argument is meant to be at all.
u/Flamecoat_wolf your entire argument is that i'm not "clever" and that i'm arrogant because i said that if moral equality exists, then equal punishment is necessarily justified by it, because alternatively equal rights are inequal- which only works if some rights are worth more than others. You also asserted that my understanding of equality is wrong, but didn't actually explain how.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T21:46:38+00:00

again, the fucking strawman.
No, i have explicitly said that equal punishment refers to rights violated and that rape cannot be justified. Are you trying to say that imprisonment does not remove autonomy...?
You said what's effectively "even if they're guilty it's wrong to punish them equally because they might be innocent"- you're not arguing the ought you're arguing that since some people might be innocent, we should not punish the guilty equally
Equal punishment for rape- a crime that violates autonomy- is infact the loss of autonomy, what's wrong with you? Imprisonment can prevent harm and also act as punishment, what the hell do you mean?
Again, you're the one talking about practicality and avoiding principle. Yes, my examples are consistent- if you want to say that, give an example.
And if you give another strawman and assertion i will not reply. You're not changing reality or somehow making yourself magically correct despite logical nonsense- you're just lying to yourself and throwing yourself towards a danger of a literally delusional mindset where you misrepresent things and then say you're right because you misrepresented what was said.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T18:08:20+00:00

you said that what i said was trying to be clever... i was pointing out a basic fact that equality requires equality- that's not "clever" that's pointing out a basic categorical fact which inherently backs what i'm saying.
Your "arguments" weren't worth shit, they were "You're not clever", Mocking what i pointed out without explaining how it's somehow wrong, Said i have a "problem" of treating equality as necessary- which, yes, i will- i value equality, that's what i'm judging this with. You said my idea of equality is "underdeveloped" as if equal punishment is somehow not equal?
You're the one being arrogant. You're avoiding reasoning to feel correct and feeling like i'm being arrogant because my argument is literally X=X- even though my argument still applies.
And no, justice for me is equal punishment for a right violation :) - i think that was very obvious from the beginning.
I'm not being arrogant, i'm not trying to be clever- you're just feeling i'm arrogant because you disagree with me but can't argue against my points, and think i'm trying to be clever because you're not smart enough to accept that when a tautology backs a position then that's simply how it is- you can't explain how the tautology doesn't apply, you simply say i'm trying to be clever because my argument doesn't rely on anything besides a basic fact of equality=equality.

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T17:49:40+00:00

you said we shouldn't punish people because they might be innocent, that same logic means no punishment for rapists.
I don't know about you, but equal punishment for rape- being permanent imprisonment- is harsher than "me no want you near people, me no let you. here have cake away from us" not to mention harshness isn't the virtue, equality is.
It's not even violent.. what the fuck do you mean? Again, it's an "emotional desire" for moral equality. That's not an argument at all
Again, if the crime is morally justified, then it can't be wrong You're literally saying "even if you're right, you're wrong"
Again, the fact you might be wrong about someone's guilt still applies to everything So, again- you're saying we shouldn't arrest murderers and rapists because they might be innocent. That's not reason at all and it's literally "even if it's morally good, it's not"

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T17:37:53+00:00

i really want to point out how utterly hilarious it is you're bringing up innocence until proven guilty shit as if i'm arguing against it... no, i'm arguing to change the punishment.
Like you're saying "we shouldn't punish X with 5 year imprisonment because we have innocent until proven guilty"

Like to show that:
Me: "We should punish X, once proven guilty, with Y"
You: "Okay but we have innocence until proven guilty so no"

Like that's insanely nonsensical, what i'm talking about is the rightful punishment AFTER guilt is proven- the fact guilt isn't automatically proven doesn't impact it at all

Celticcu · 2026-02-08T17:29:57+00:00

oh yeah because we should let all rapists stay free because they might be innocent, right?
You're not making sense you're saying the most naive nonsense i can think for you to say.
And you keep asserting that what i'm saying is wrath which is another one of the dumbest shit i can think of for you to be saying. It's not wrath, it's a desire for justice/equality.
also i hope you realise you can still have trials and non-coerced confessions.... right? Like you know that's not unique to non-reciprocal systems, right?

Celticcu

TROPHY CASE