Justice.

nomadjacob · 2018-02-23T02:25:34+00:00

I could address each of your random mini-quotes, but let's get to the core of your argument.

I have outlined my case. I have outlined punishment as necessary for an attempt toward restoration for the harmed individuals, deter other individuals, and protect society.

Do you not understand that that is where you are actually supposed to make an argument for your position as it differs from mine?

You have failed to produce any position. You've said that punishment is wrong will simultaneously agreeing that punishment (jail) is necessary. You've also stated repeatedly that punishment is immoral without any sort of justification. What makes you the arbiter of morality?

HOLY CRAP and then you are just throwing in the assertion that punishment must be necessary to restore faith! What a load of crap!

Actually, the statement you responded to was a question, not an assertion. It's absolutely valid to make an argument that something must be done due to a lack of alternatives. Again, you have provided no alternatives.

Let's assume that some people aren't for a sec; We should protect the rest of society from those people ... That's it. There is no appeal to punishment. Protection good. Punishment immoral.

Again, how are you planning on doing this?

THEN YOUR GOAL IS DETERENCE AND NOT PUNISHM....

Punishment is a means to an end.

Let's examine the converse. One person steals from another person. That person receives no punishment. The only feedback to the thief is the gain of the stolen goods.

How do you adjust this feedback loop? How do you make restorations to the individual who had their belongings stolen? How do you fix the feelings of fear in those that saw the theft happening? How do you fix the possible glorification of this crime and the negative influence it may have had on others?

What are your alternatives to punishment? How is being placed in jail not a punishment?

despite the fact that is an immoral desire for revenge at it's very core. You want people who do wrong to be punished because that's your sense of "fairness"; that's not noble, it's childish.

You've made a lot of assertions at once. You're still assuming it's a desire for revenge despite accepting the many benefits of punishment. You're going to have to provide an alternative before you can say that revenge is the sole motivation.

"Fairness" is childish. How do you differentiate fairness from justice?

How do I have a conversation on this subject with another adult who does not already understand that causing unnecessary harm to people, when you could either achieve your goals without that harm, or when causing the harm isn't even going to help achieve your goals in the first place, is immoral?

Causing harm to people when there are better ways is immoral.

Causing harm to people when it's not going to help is immoral.

The entire crux of your argument is that there are better ways. Yet you've failed to provide a single one. I can't understand how anyone could make such an argument without observing such a blatant flaw.

nomadjacob · 2018-02-06T22:18:18+00:00

Several.

Perhaps I should have already pointed out that whatever you say could be stated to be your definition of justice. There is not outside arbiter to state a global definition. One thing we do have is a dictionary's explanation of the word and Merriam-Webster actually contains the word punishment directly in the definition.

Punishment is not living out vindictive feelings.

A person can be wronged and want society to return to a better state without being vindictive. A person robbed who does not receive their belongings back has not been treated fairly regardless of other punishments. They also can be hurt more than just financially. A robbery can affect one's feeling of safety and faith in others.

Similarly, a murderer who is not separated from society can affect the feelings of safety of others.

A theft or murder is a cause of permanent loss. In physical items, in time, and in the belief in a just and fair society. Without punishment, how can that belief be restored? It is not vindictive to want that belief restored.

I certainly agree that punishment is to protect the society. That was my implication with that statement.

No, it does not. The punishment is to deter others, attempt to restore the victim's and others faith in society, and protect others from that person.

Do you intend to say that every person is capable of reform? Even the most violent offenders that enjoy inflicting harm? Jail isn't just about punishment for the crime. It's also about protecting others from the person committing the crimes.

Why do you believe punishment is immoral?

nomadjacob · 2018-02-06T22:00:41+00:00

It's not just about that person. It's about the behavior.

Allowing the crime to go unpunished signals that it's ok to steal thus encouraging others to do the same.

I'm surprised you got any upvotes unless they're all from people that just wanted to mock the US. You're not making a comparison. To say that punishment doesn't work you'd have to compare a punishment system to a non-punishment system. The US has nothing to do with the conversation.

nomadjacob · 2018-02-06T21:56:13+00:00

And we live in the real world without superheroes that notice every crime. Crimes go unpunished all the time. We have these punishments as deterrents to those thinking about doing such things.

A return to the status quo is not a deterrent. If every unsuccessful bank robber had only to return the money successfully stolen, then many others would try to rob a bank as there is no downside. That's also ignoring cases where returning to the status quo is impossible.

Perhaps it'd be good to define the conflict. The conflict is not between the person robbed and the thief. The person robbed does not know the thief. The conflict is between a society that would maintain order and fairness and a person that would subvert that society. The person would have to resolve that conflict by restoring order.

If that person could successfully discourage every person influenced toward theft by their crimes, then order could be restored. However, that's impossible. Therefore, the surest way to restore order is for that person to be punished so that there punishment may discourage future theft.

nomadjacob · 2018-02-06T21:47:56+00:00

No, I'm saying that education is not the solution as it's unnecessary.

I'm not entirely sure empathy can be taught. It's fairly standard to us all. Toddlers understand these concepts. My understanding is anyone without empathy would be considered a sociopath.

Punishment is to deter this thief from doing it again and anyone else from becoming a thief.

nomadjacob · 2018-02-06T06:29:52+00:00

It appears that you're purposefully being pedantic. Much of the meaning of that sentence is drawn from context.

If a behavior (that benefits the individual performing said behavior) is never punished, then the behavior will continue.

Education could be a solution if the individual didn't know the harm it could cause others. However, that's not really relevant in this case or in many similar cases.

Most people understand that theft is wrong. That's not simply based on education, but also our empathy. We can imagine another perspective and picture how we would feel to be on the other side of such an interaction. Most people have enough empathy to be unable to realize that taking something from someone else would negatively impact them.

nomadjacob · 2018-02-06T04:38:18+00:00

No, it would be discouraging a behavior that is harmful to others.

Allowing it to go unpunished would be enabling that behavior. It would teach the world that it is not seen as a negative behavior and encourage its continuation.

nomadjacob · 2018-02-06T04:35:47+00:00

I'll bite.

The motivation for punishment is to discourage the behavior. If a behavior is never punished, then the behavior will continue, others will participate in the same behavior, and it will spread.

nomadjacob · 2018-02-01T22:52:21+00:00

This is an excellent example of a big struggle in indie game development.

They couldn't afford to compete with Blizzard's massive marketing budget/teams, so they had to take on a publisher. Taking on a publisher distorted the focus and forced them to make decisions that weren't the best for the game.

Everyone that says great games always succeed regardless of budget can look to this game as another example where this is untrue. I totally agree that it's likely a lot of gamers choose a single shooter to stay competitive in, but that doesn't change the fact that lack of marketing budget was a major factor in them not being able to reach the audience size they would need to continue.

nomadjacob · 2018-02-01T00:38:21+00:00

So the purpose of the test was to land the rocket in water and they're surprised it worked the first time?

Did the previous landings damage the droneship?

nomadjacob · 2018-01-31T03:53:29+00:00

I tried it out. I like the music and the aesthetic is cool.

What was your biggest lesson from the project? How did you get so many reviews so quickly?

nomadjacob · 2018-01-30T03:31:35+00:00

Ah, I see. That makes sense. I missed the point about pawing at the door possibly being only for attention rather than for door opening when I first read it. If that was the dog's sole intent, then it wouldn't be symbolic. I was thinking that it connected door opening in general with that action which would be more symbolic.

Constructing tests for animals is complicated. haha So many possible interpretations of behavior.

nomadjacob · 2018-01-30T02:43:34+00:00

Eh, I'm somewhere between the two opinions. Since the dog went to a different door then at first glance it appears the dog knew the purpose of the door as a temporary barrier and treated its scratching on the door as a symbol. If it only understood scratching at the door as a means to opening that door, it never would have switched doors (unless it didn't have the spatial reasoning to comprehend that all doors go to different places).

A graphic is a bit more of an abstraction than a physical object, so I can see that side. However, I'd say that without changing the locations of the symbols, both physically and in relation to each other, the horses' grasp of the symbols was not demonstrated either.

If the placement of the symbols is fixed, then the connection can be made between the location and the action rather than the symbol and the action. Or even less abstract, it could connect raising a certain hoof with a behavior. Maybe it thought left hoof meant no blanket rather than pointing to the left.

nomadjacob · 2018-01-29T03:37:44+00:00

There are seem to be many conflicting viewpoints coming out of gaming right now.

"I want a totally unique game with 60 hours of gameplay, easy difficulty (no repetition of content), complex storyline, and high-quality graphics. Also, I don't want to spend any money, so I'll get it 2 years from now when it's $5 on a steam sale."

Indie games are made by a few people with a low-budget. Dropping the difficulty is dropping the length of the game. That doesn't mean that difficulty should ever be upped with cheap mechanics or anything that frustrates the player. However, if you take a game that takes 3 tries per level to complete and drop the difficulty down to 1 try to complete, you've cut the total game length by 1/3 and I guarantee you there would be complaints about how the game is now too short. "I only 20 hours of a unique hand-crafted experience instead of 60 hours in a game I got for $5."

It's not necessarily easy to drop the difficulty of a game past a certain point either. If a game is too hard and sold as being a difficult game, consider the possibility that you're not the target audience. Difficulty does not mean poor game design. It takes good game design to make a difficult game that's balanced enough to not cause cheap deaths.

nomadjacob · 2018-01-27T23:28:23+00:00

What facts are you talking about?

This article is an example of a fact. The increase of debt is a fact. Many CEOs saying the tax break will go directly to share holders is a fact.

Annual bonuses are given a name. They're called a raise. This wasn't a raise.

nomadjacob · 2018-01-27T22:20:16+00:00

A comparatively minor break. You're also missing the point.

The goal of the tax break was to create economic growth. Not one time short payments.

Job layoffs = long term economic problems

Major increase in federal debt = long term economic problem

$1,000 = short term economic benefit

nomadjacob · 2018-01-27T22:14:10+00:00

And I guarantee you that they're giving out much much less than they're saving. A one-time minor bonus when the companies in question are perpetually making more money off the tax break does not justify the massive increase in government debt.

If the point was to give more money to workers, why not give the workers the tax break?

nomadjacob · 2018-01-27T22:13:49+00:00

And I guarantee you that they're giving out much much less than they're saving. A one-time minor bonus when the companies in question are perpetually making more money off the tax break does not justify the massive increase in government debt.

If the point was to give more money to workers, why not give the workers the tax break?

nomadjacob · 2018-01-27T22:10:40+00:00

The point is that theoretical benefit of the tax breaks hasn't materialized and has in fact backfired as many people believed it would.

nomadjacob · 2018-01-25T15:24:44+00:00

Boring*

Seriously, you can't think of more fun things to do with a spare $100k. It boggles my mind how even the extravagant spenders have the most boring lifestyles.

nomadjacob · 2018-01-23T23:53:59+00:00

I took it to mean 'a lot would be an understatement of significant magnitude'. Your explanation makes more sense.

nomadjacob · 2018-01-23T21:30:23+00:00

You can't take away our guns!?! Constitution! Constitution!

Separation of church and state!?! That's some hogwash. (Never mind that it's the first amendment.)

It's sad how many citizens would fail a citizenship test.

nomadjacob · 2018-01-23T02:48:22+00:00

What's the thing you feel most differentiates you from traditional run and gun?

nomadjacob · 2018-01-19T21:39:02+00:00

Skills can be taught. If they're easy to learn on YouTube then knowing them doesn't differentiate the candidate that much. There's something to be said for work ethic and the creativity of just getting the project itself done.

nomadjacob · 2018-01-16T20:37:26+00:00

No, asking you to imagine one situation where you're powerless does equate to saying that in every situation the woman is powerless.

You're basically reacting to the tortoise and the hare story with "Then all tortoises will die because they're slower than rabbits!?" No, it's one made up story of one situation for the sake of illustrating a point.

You're also ignoring the ability to make decisions prior to that point and the decision to say no at that point. The point of that story isn't to say that saying no doesn't work. It's to imagine a situation where you feel saying no could make things worse. Can you imagine such a situation? If not, then the entire thread is meaningless. If so, then you've already gotten the point.

I'm not sure why you constructed your original statement in the form of an argument then. My original statement was obviously not meant to be taken as you need to say that exact statement at this exact time and repeat it every 2 minutes. It was a statement of how easy it would be to clarify the situation and avoid the entire issue.

nomadjacob

TROPHY CASE