Originally posted by FMFTell me this: do you accept that for any justice system, those in power make the laws and decide on what punishments are suitable for each crime?
If there is a "perfect justice system that you are acquainted with" and that you can demonstrate is superior and more credible than what I have put forward and described ~ where people all over the world can just see for themselves that it exists and is "real", and that it makes sense and is fair, so they can believe it, and believe that it is, in fact, "universal" ~ just feel free to go ahead and do so.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI haven't claimed that the various forms of justice I've described are "perfect". I am not claiming that any form of justice that exists can be described as "perfect". This is a complete red herring. You are the one who is claiming that your gangster-torturer-God bizarro "justice" is "perfect" while, in fact, what you have described sounds like an Orwellian dystopia dredged up from the darkest reaches of the human imagination. You've simply slapped the label "perfect" on it.
Another dodge.You said 'it can't be credibly described as perfect'. So my question in essence is: what can be credibly described as perfect?
Originally posted by FMFWhen you say that something is imperfect you are in essence claiming that there is something perfect out there that you are comparing it to. How else would you know that something was imperfect?
I haven't claimed that the various forms of justice I've described are "perfect". I am not claiming that any form of justice that exists can be described as "perfect". This is a complete red herring. You are the one who is claiming that your gangster-torturer-God bizarro "justice" is "perfect" while, in fact, what you have described sounds like an Orwellian dyst ...[text shortened]... m the darkest reaches of the human imagination. You've simply slapped the label "perfect" on it.
Originally posted by FMFTell me this: do you accept that for any justice system, those in power make the laws and decide on what punishments are suitable for each crime?
I haven't claimed that the various forms of justice I've described are "perfect". I am not claiming that any form of justice that exists can be described as "perfect". This is a complete red herring. You are the one who is claiming that your gangster-torturer-God bizarro "justice" is "perfect" while, in fact, what you have described sounds like an Orwellian dyst ...[text shortened]... m the darkest reaches of the human imagination. You've simply slapped the label "perfect" on it.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt varies. There are tyrannies. There are democracies. There are countries at different stages of cultural evolution in terms of justice. There are more and more situations where those 'in power' administer justice at the society's behest and with their consent.
Tell me this: do you accept that for any justice system, those in power make the laws and decide on what punishments are suitable for each crime?
If one looks at the passage of history, these consensual systems tend to prevail and tyrannies tend to weaken and fall - and get replaced. The last 70 years have seen the beginnings of a more unified system rooted in specific rights and a global consensus. The use of capital punishment has been on the wane; regimes answerable to their own justice systems are on the increase.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhen I say a system is imperfect, it means I think it could be better. There is no such thing as a "perfect" justice system. If you can show me one in action, please do so. I have never seen one or read about one.
When you say that something is imperfect you are in essence claiming that there is something perfect out there that you are comparing it to. How else would you know that something was imperfect?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt's interesting that you asked exactly the same question twice in the space of just 3-4 posts and did so in response to different, detailed comments by me - the contents of which, in both cases, you just breezed past and neglected to address.
Tell me this: do you accept that for any justice system, those in power make the laws and decide on what punishments are suitable for each crime?
Originally posted by FMFIf it's only better based on your subjective opinion of what is better and there is no objective criteria then this discussion is pointless, because you have your opinion of what is better and I have my opinion of what is better, without an objective criteria it would be impossible to know what is really better.
When I say a system is imperfect, it means I think it could be better. There is no such thing as a "perfect" justice system. If you can show me one in action, please do so. I have never seen one or read about one.
You claim there is no perfect justice system, and then ask me to show you one. So I ask you this, if I were to show you one how would you even recognise it to be perfect?
Originally posted by FMFBut without an objective criteria you still cannot truly say that one is better than the other. All you have is your subjective opinion.
It varies. There are tyrannies. There are democracies. There are countries at different stages of cultural evolution in terms of justice. There are more and more situations where those 'in power' administer justice at the society's behest and with their consent.
If one looks at the passage of history, these consensual systems tend to prevail and tyrannies te ...[text shortened]... hment has been on the wane; regimes answerable to their own justice systems are on the increase.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAren't your superstitions merely subjective opinions? What "objective criteria" do you think you are presenting here?
If it's only better based on your subjective opinion of what is better and there is no objective criteria then this discussion is pointless, because you have your opinion of what is better and I have my opinion of what is better, without an objective criteria it would be impossible to know what is really better.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou seem to have no objection to offering nothing but "your subjective opinion". Claiming that it's based on "objective criteria" doesn't really work. Not when you are describing definition-bending notions of justice that you claim are meted out to us by a supernatural being. Which parts of your elaborate superstitions and your credulous subscription to ancient mythology are you insisting are - somehow - the "objective" bits?
But without an objective criteria you still cannot truly say that one is better than the other. All you have is your subjective opinion.