The Death Penalty and the Social Contract

[Minzerland II]

According to who? The Law? Nah, m8.

Yes, actually, cops take battery very seriously anywhere where the system is halfway competent.

I never said otherwise.

I fixed your mistake, CM, btw.

Nah, m8.* Most people would not consider slapping someone unacceptable if for the right reasons or if they were angry enough, even the most 'important person' in their life.

What I find most frightening about this is the blatant doublethink going on here. First it was unacceptable, now it's okay for the 'right reasons'?

Anon, cmon. There is no doublethink. I said, initially, that I found it unacceptable. Most people do not, however, especially if they believe someone deserves it.

And in the latter case, people tend to make amends and reconcile, and ask forgiveness.

You really don't know anything about abuse, do you?

Well, likely not to happen in your progressive utopia, where people do not reconcile with each other. I believe there are programs for this, however.

Sounds like they need professional help, tbh, which is what I recommend.

That's not really relevant to the matter of the relationship itself.

I disagree.

That is bullshit.

It's backed by both historical observations and modern studies. No feels over reals; that's the sort of thing that leads to people defend domestic vio-... oh.

[x] - Doubt

It will always be there, fighting will always be there, family fighting, along the lines of slapping once or twice in the course of a marriage, will always be a normal occurrence. What we ought to do is mend relationships, not encourage divorce at every incident.

That you think violence should always be accepted as a normal occurrence in a marriage is very disturbing.

Not at all, slapping once or twice during a marriage just should not warrant divorce.

Less so than believing in perfect marriages, or that you should leave if things are not perfect. If we did what you want, there would be no relationships between anyone, like, at all.

That you think that not standing for violence is as ridiculous and unreasonable as demanding a 'perfect' marriage is very telling.

We're done here.

No, that you think if there is violence in a relationship to the degree of a slap once or twice through the course of a marriage, then you do believe in perfect marriages. You believe that the solution to every problem in a marriage is divorce, when there are other solutions. I'm sick and tired of your kind, who probably ruin more lives than you help.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Articles please, although I wouldn’t mind a suggestion of a book or two.

Short and simple
More in-depth - particularly of note is the cultural factors section regarding attitudes towards domestic violence preceding incidents
Why people don't leave - relevant to questions of 'making up'
On justification

As for books I would recommend "Domestic Violence: Intersectionality and Culturally Competent Practice" and "Domestic Violence Advocacy: Complex Lives/Difficult Choices", the former I found better than the latter.

Thank you, I’ll take time to have a read when I can.

[Conserative Morality]

Short and simple
More in-depth - particularly of note is the cultural factors section regarding attitudes towards domestic violence preceding incidents
Why people don't leave - relevant to questions of 'making up'
On justification

As for books I would recommend "Domestic Violence: Intersectionality and Culturally Competent Practice" and "Domestic Violence Advocacy: Complex Lives/Difficult Choices", the former I found better than the latter.

Thank you, I’ll take time to have a read when I can.

Np, the books are a bit pricey; I was exposed to them by a college class.

Advantages: College classes recommend The Good Stuff, thorough and academic

Disadvantages: They never give cheap options. DX

[Purpelia]

No one pays their parking tickets because the nice policeman told them to. They pay because they'll be arrested if they don't.

An arrest is just a kidnapping by the state.

An execution is just a murder by the state.

A fine is just extortion by the state.

Forfeiture is just theft by the state.

That doesn't mean that state actions aren't necessary, at times. But it'd be best if their inherent nature is recognized. The state isn't some benevolent union of mankind endowed with the power to determine right and wrong. It's a massive gang we tolerate because it is partially under our control and keeps the worse gangs at bay.

You are missing an important part here. A crucial one even.

The state does this on behest of us. It is not a foreign entity doing it to oppress us but because we request it does so. That is the social contract.
It is not, as you say just a gang we tolerate. It is a gang we create and maintain and empower on purpose.

It is not out of fear that we support the state but out of our own volition and voluntary support.

[Terra Novae Libero]

No one pays their parking tickets because the nice policeman told them to. They pay because they'll be arrested if they don't.

An arrest is just a kidnapping by the state.

An execution is just a murder by the state.

A fine is just extortion by the state.

Forfeiture is just theft by the state.

That doesn't mean that state actions aren't necessary, at times. But it'd be best if their inherent nature is recognized. The state isn't some benevolent union of mankind endowed with the power to determine right and wrong. It's a massive gang we tolerate because it is partially under our control and keeps the worse gangs at bay.

You are missing an important part here. A crucial one even.

The state does this on behest of us. It is not a foreign entity doing it to oppress us but because we request it does so. That is the social contract.
It is not, as you say just a gang we tolerate. It is a gang we create and maintain and empower on purpose.

It is not out of fear that we support the state but out of our own volition and voluntary support.

Speak for yourself. I never asked for a government. I might tolerate it, but I did not create it or empower it, nor have most people subject to this so-called social contract.

[The Parkus Empire]

CM, if a parent slaps her child (and it's not something habitual, we're talking about an isolated incident), do you think the child should be taken away?

[You Gotta Be Kidding]

Speak for yourself. I never asked for a government. I might tolerate it, but I did not create it or empower it, nor have most people subject to this so-called social contract.

The legitimacy of government is not predicated on familial generation.
You have the same choice as your father, and his father before him. Conform or rebel.
However until you overthrow your current government, you are subject to
it. Unlike you, it benefits from a grandfather clause.

[Terra Novae Libero]

Speak for yourself. I never asked for a government. I might tolerate it, but I did not create it or empower it, nor have most people subject to this so-called social contract.

The legitimacy of government is not predicated on familial generation.
You have the same choice as your father, and his father before him. Conform or rebel.
However until you overthrow your current government, you are subject to
it. Unlike you, it benefits from a grandfather clause.

Not much of a choice when there’s a gun to my head

[Conserative Morality]

CM, if a parent slaps her child (and it's not something habitual, we're talking about an isolated incident), do you think the child should be taken away?

I think it should be a strong consideration, and reported regardless of whether or not the participants regard it as 'habitual', but parent-child relationships aren't the same as between spouses.

[You Gotta Be Kidding]

Not much of a choice when there’s a gun to my head

Government typically has the monopoly on the use of force.
Simultaneously a large and small impediment depending upon your pov, but take a lesson from the American Revolution.
It did not succeed due to a majority of popular support, in fact, most laymen remained Loyalists in at least name, if not heart.
It succeeded because a majority of its community leaders and icons forwarded the ideals of it, and just enough people rallied to make a fight of it.
Also heed another lesson that eluded the French and later the Russians.
Do not wait until conditions are so horrid that emotionally charged violence perverts and subverts whatever good you sought to accomplish.
A good idea should not be shelved just because life is not so bad.

[Conserative Morality]

Not much of a choice when there’s a gun to my head

Government typically has the monopoly on the use of force.
Simultaneously a large and small impediment depending upon your pov, but take a lesson from the American Revolution.
It did not succeed due to a majority of popular support, in fact, most laymen remained Loyalists in at least name, if not heart.
It succeeded because a majority of its community leaders and icons forwarded the ideals of it, and just enough people rallied to make a fight of it.
Also heed another lesson that eluded the French and later the Russians.
Do not wait until conditions are so horrid that emotionally charged violence perverts and subverts whatever good you sought to accomplish.
A good idea should not be shelved just because life is not so bad.

It's generally estimated that a plurality were patriots, and most of the remainder were actually neutral, with loyalists being a small portion of the population.

[You Gotta Be Kidding]

It's generally estimated that a plurality were patriots, and most of the remainder were actually neutral, with loyalists being a small portion of the population.

I do not recall any officially declared neutral parties, and the appalling lack of material support from colonists at large makes quite the distinction between those who cried patriotism and those who bled it.
While opinion on the matter did ebb and flow from one year to the next, the best accounting for all who fully supported the revolution as statesman, soldier, or charitable donor never exceeded twenty percent of the population at any one time. Thankfully, there was France.

[MERIZoC]

Yes, absolutely.

I think you're very mistaken. You should be talking about natural rights. Human rights are a leftist invention.

Nonsense, human rights are a liberal internationalist invention.

e: in the modern sense, I should say

the distinction between "rights" and "human rights" can be blurry, especially the further back you go

[The Parkus Empire]

It's generally estimated that a plurality were patriots, and most of the remainder were actually neutral, with loyalists being a small portion of the population.

I do not recall any officially declared neutral parties, and the appalling lack of material support from colonists at large makes quite the distinction between those who cried patriotism and those who bled it.
While opinion on the matter did ebb and flow from one year to the next, the best accounting for all who fully supported the revolution as statesman, soldier, or charitable donor never exceeded twenty percent of the population at any one time. Thankfully, there was France.

There was no "neutral party", he means for all intents and purposes, i.e. people who might have sympathized with one side or another, but not enough to risk their necks or otherwise get involved.

[Auristania]

No one pays their parking tickets because the nice policeman told them to. They pay because they'll be arrested if they don't.

An arrest is just a kidnapping by the state.

An execution is just a murder by the state.

A fine is just extortion by the state.

Forfeiture is just theft by the state.

That doesn't mean that state actions aren't necessary, at times. But it'd be best if their inherent nature is recognized. The state isn't some benevolent union of mankind endowed with the power to determine right and wrong. It's a massive gang we tolerate because it is partially under our control and keeps the worse gangs at bay.

You are missing an important part here. A crucial one even.

The state does this on behest of us. It is not a foreign entity doing it to oppress us but because we request it does so. That is the social contract.
It is not, as you say just a gang we tolerate. It is a gang we create and maintain and empower on purpose.

It is not out of fear that we support the state but out of our own volition and voluntary support.

The State has Power.
Nice states, by definition use that Power to promote Justice.
Most states use that Power to promote their own interests.

Social Contract Theory asserts that our grandfathers organized a comite and their blood-oath binds us and our children for ever.

Why are we bound?

Here is a paradox for Social Contract theory:
Do you believe in Freedom of Worship?
Parents baptize their children into their own denominations.
Sometimes children reject their parents' faith.
If you believe in Freedom of Worship, then the child has the right to reject.
But Social Contract theory asserts that Grandparents' oaths bind us.

[Alvecia]

Social Contract Theory asserts that our grandfathers organized a comite and their blood-oath binds us and our children for ever.

Does it?

Doesn't sound like any iteration of the social contract I've ever heard of

[The Parkus Empire]

Social Contract Theory asserts that our grandfathers organized a comite and their blood-oath binds us and our children for ever.

Does it?

Doesn't sound like any iteration of the social contract I've ever heard of

It's not. Right given to the agreements and will of the dead is a specifically conservative idea which is overtly rejected by social contract theory, which is liberal and asserts each member of society enters the contract individually