: Cynic: I don't really think so. I'll be an optimist for a change and assert that since everyone is PHYSICALLY capable of living without prejudice, they can subvert whatever mental tendencies their experiences produce. : DDN: Well, yes they probably CAN, but you make it sound like all they need to do is through some salt over their shoulder or knock on some wood and their minds would be magically free of predjudice tendencies. Racism in our legal system is not just some minor little nuisance that is magically going to dissappear just because you have some great ideas about conducting medical experiments on prisoners. I think its obvious that racism in general is much more deeply rooted than that. Can it be uprooted? Yeah, maybe, but at what expense? After what lenghts? After how many other changes to society have to be made in order to support a racist free enviroment and propagate nonracist citizens?
New Cynic: I never claimed to have the answers to those problems, you realize. My focus is much, much narrower. I think you would agree that racism is a problem that should be eliminated, and that we should focus due time and effort towards that end. A large part of this, I would maintain, is that we consider in ourselves on what grounds do we hate on basis of sex, creed, religion, etc. I'd much rather people try to better themselves than be forced into betterment. Beliefs unquestioned are far more apt to be wrong. I do assume human beings can overcome racism; I would not dare say that we have, or will in the near future. Self-accountability, however, would be a necessary and extremely helpful step.
------------
: DDN: Cynic, you seem very intelligent on one hand, but then on the other, you seem to have a very difficult time seeing problem in terms of the SYSTEMS they are embedded in, of recognizing the many intricate interelationships between different parts of reality, distinguishing between sickness and SYMPTOMS of sickness.
New Cynic:I think I have a fairly decent grasp of the interrelatedness of social parts. If my philosophy has thus far not alluded to that fact then perhaps again I am guilty of ATTEMPTING too narrow a focus.
------------
: DDN: We don’t have “mental tendencies” for just no damned reason. These tendencies are probably symptomatic of deeper problems and, as with any illness, if you simply supress or “subvert” the symptoms, you really aren’t CURING anything.
New Cynic: No, that's true. You cannot expect overnight results. But what happens if a generation of child-abuse survivors grows up thinking to themselves: "I will not repeat my damnable parents' mistakes!"? It's common sense- you'll find a considerable decrease in future child abuse. Personal dedication to improvement rears its beautiful head yet again.
------------
: DDN: If you’re going to eradicate racism then your going to have to address those reasons...The long term avenues could entail even MORE profound changes in humanity – perhaps we spiritually evolve beyond our racist tendencies. Either way, Cynic, we’re talking about altering levels of society that completely transcend subjects such as animal testing and medical research.
New Cynic: I take no issue with you on this. My idea about criminal testing makes no claim at being a cure for racism or like social ills. As stated, I do not have all the answers, nor do I claim to. I know from personal experience however of important one facet of it- Self analysis and active commitment to reasonable judgement can take a person very far.
------------
: DDN: 1) What’s so uninteresting about victims? Aren’t they an intricate part of society’s ills? Why would you willfully exclude such huge pieces of the puzzle when analyzing humanity’s problems? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to take into account ALL of the components of an interconnected system before deciding on what kinds of changes should be made to it? Again, it seems, you do not really want to solve problems – you just want to take out your own rage on society, but instead of murdering or raping anyone yourself, you’ve seen ways of getting back at society by supporting vengefull, superficial, myopic political ideas and agendas. Its cowardly.
New Cynic: Victims are undoubtedly a crucial part of society's ills. But the sad tendency is that present victims often become future perpetrators. Certainly, I do not deny the victim's trauma. Nor do I fail to empathize with them as I find their status as a victim deserving of the highest compassion. But if a victim decides to let that event rule them, and seeks recompense in the blood and misery of strangers as a result, they have lost the benefit of my concern. If it feels so terrible to be a victim why make anyone else into one?
Well, I know the answer to that question, as given by the medical community: Being a victim causes such trauma as to distort or suppress the ability to reason entirely. I'll sigh and accept that as a possible fact. But having witnessed children of alcoholics withstand abuse at parents' hands yet grow into adulthood and avoid the vice of drunkenness, I have to wonder why their case is so different.
They've told me there came a time when they sat down and decided they didn't want their children to grow up that way. "How admirable!" I thought. Their self-determination overcame that stifling social conditioning! They should serve as an example to anyone who's ever been hurt by another human being unprovoked.
Anyhow these people serve as my example when I declare that everything is not anything that couldn't be overcome by enough will and determination. Maybe others will never accomplish what these amazing people have (they're the survivors of whom I spoke earlier), but it would be in every victim's best interests; in fact I charge them on their humanity to try and overcome.
------------
: 2) How do you distinguish betweeen a survivor and a victim? For example, a friend of mine suffers from multiple personality dissorder as a result of being repeatedly raped by her grandfather and his friends from the age of 5 to 9.
New Cynic: I have a sense of it more than a definition, which is present in the answer I gave to your first question above. I am sorry for your friend and her reprehensible grandfather. You will find me consistent even if we cannot agree; I hope her dear old grandad is rotting in hell at this moment for what he did.
------------
: She hasn’t commited suicide? Is she a survivor? She has received professional help, but she still has a cruel personality in her that takes over and does mean things to people. Survivor or victim? She can no longer afford professional help so she no longer receives any. Does her lack of funds strip her of “survivor” status? I think you should review your “survivor” theory.
New Cynic: I just did, at your request. To be a survivor involves a recognition that what happened to one was wrong. It moreover involves a degree of understanding that such wrongs are so grievous they ought not to be inflicted on anyone, ever. If they come to that point, the cycle of abuse stops there. Your friend sounds to me to be a survivor, she deals with her experience. Without knowing more I couldn't tell for sure, it's a charge you've leveled against me already that I will not infringe on again. But if she understands her trauma well enough to understand how wrong it is to do it to others, she's beaten it by my sense of the word "survivor."
------------
: DDN: Then what’s the point of this debate? The original argument is that prisoner testing is unfair because of racism in the justice system. If there is always going to be racism in the justice system then prisoner testing will ALWAYS be unfair.
New Cynic: Incisive, and philosophically very destructive. But I don't think that simply because a human system doesn't work perfectly that we should throw it out. The justice system works in an approximate sort of way and it always will. Racism will be present in it if racism is present in us. Hopefully we'll lessen its effects over time and improve the state of things a bit (a lot.) Please know that my criminal testing theory was only offered in the same regard. I thought it was a better way to deal with the topic of necessary medical testing than using animal subjects.
------------
: Cynic: Actually, I believe such an overhaul of the system is what I implicitly proposed. We can't eliminate irrational thinking, but it is time we stopped protecting it. It's still been the source of more human misery than poverty and hunger combined. To my sentiment that makes simple-mindedness near criminal.
: DDN: Whose to say what constitutes simple mindedness though? I find many of YOUR proposals and ideas to be VERY simple-minded? Conduct medical tests on prisoners as a solution to animal testing? That concept has so many holes in it I don’t even know where to begin. It smacks of someone who understands very little if anything about animal experimentation, the medical system, medical monopolies, etc. Racism is no big deal? Just subvert our mental tendencies? Everyone, all at once. Ready……………….GO! Hey, it worked! I’m able to ignore my own mental processes at will just by desiring to do so!!! No, nothing simple-minded about that.
New Cynic: I'm trying to be progressive here. For your knowledge, please understand that I have reviewed many philosophical arguments on the jusitification of medical testing on animals. These theories are, quite honestly, as full of holes as anything I could ever hope to produce. So I proposed, and yet do, that if we must inflict harm on some creature to further the ends of science and medicine and secure a greater good, then we should at least use subjects towards whom we are justified in inflicting harm. By the most educated accounts I've reviewed these can't be animals simply culled from the herd. That criminals harm society is a longstanding legal, moral, and social precendent. If we're looking for easy medical targets -- there they are.
In response to being called "simple-minded" I will be as civil as possible, considering how that could not help but be an insult to anyone participating in this forum. I don't know for sure about you, so I could not presume to speak on your behalf, but...
I believe that any opinions grounded in a framework of reason, pored over and refined through discussion, and in general thoughtfully considered before they are embraced, are of infinitely more value than one which came at less cost. I am more inclined to respect the opinions of others if they are well-thought, even if I disagree with their conclusions, than of those who get them from parents, Bibles, and so forth. In the end I may be wrong about this, but do not for a minute think that I came to my beliefs "simply."
------------
: Cynic: I covered this sort of rebuttal earlier in a response to Lark's post. See it there if you are interested. The point of fact is that I agree with you. The comparison was meant to illustrate that if the criteria proposed by humans to separate ourselves from animals includes moral cores, then grossly criminal human beings are not human even by our own standards. I was being tongue-in-cheek in my original post and am regretting it now.
: DDN: Yes, but that criteria can easily be shown to be a bogus one and you yourself agree. So why are you jumping on a bandwagon that you don’t even agree with?
New Cynic: I'm not leaping on it, in fact I do exactly the opposite. I instead assert that so far as I can tell there is no physical or relevant moral difference between humans and animals. We are equals on a level playing field. In this state, for the purposes of medical testing all species (including us) are fair game. Now let's find which of us deserves the knife the most.
------------
: Cynic: I've never killed anyone or particiapted in rape, though. Have you? I've certainly seen depictions of it on TV, so I know what it'd look, sound like, etc. Why aren't I running out to do that right this instant, and why aren't you?
: DDN: Good question? Do you know the answer? NO, YOU DO NOT. And to the degree that you don’t, you would be wise to refrain from exposing prisoners to a medical testing system that would most certainly be abused (aside from it being abusive by its very nature).
New Cynic: I don't know why I don't kill or rape? Sure I do. I don't feel like it or relish what I would become if I did. Even perfectly normal people have perfectly normal fantasies about being violent and nasty- I'm not incapable of killing. I conciously refuse.
------------
: : DDN: But seriously Cynic…..My point here is that individual human behavior is, to some significant degree, a product of environmental factors...
: Cynic: Even if I don't fully trust a criminal's sense of place or time, I do maintain that an individual SHOULD always endevour to conquer their negative experiences and channel them for usefulness. Circumstances cannot excuse future behavior.
: DDN: Now you’re just being hateful and rediculous. Keep a child gagged and bound in a closet and beat him to a bloody pulp everyday from birth until he’s 18. Then let him out and send him a highschool prom. Is behavior going to be appropriate? Of course not. Shouldn’t it be excused to SOME degree?
New Cynic: How many 18 year olds do you know of that have ever been abused in such a fashion? Admit that your example would be a rare case, please, or tell me where you're from so that I never try to raise a family there. And yes, I guess the kid in that scenario really knew of "nothing else" but the abuse. But then again I doubt he or she is real, or common enough to really undermine my hard stance on crime and punishment.
: DDN: Shouldn’t it be taken into account when deciding how his actions should be dealt with?
New Cynic: Yes, I believe in mitigating circumstances. No, I don't believe they eliminate the justification for punishment. Punishments are useful for reinforcing moral lessons. If one can only learn them through punishment, that is sad, but so be it.
------------
: Cynic: That'd be great! I'd love to be able to police other's thoughts...
: DDN: ...Your whole argument earlier regarding medical testing on prisoners was founded on the idea that racism was SO easy to erradicate that it need not be seriously considered as a significant moral barrier to prisoner testing. You said it was simply a matter of “subverting our mental tendancies”.
New Cynic: Incorrect.
: DDN: Why are you now so anxious to conduct medical experiments on racists if correcting their behavior and thinking is such a trivial matter.
New Cynic: Their tendencies aren't trivial, though they are unthought and vile. Those tendencies might also produce antisocial behavior. Not that potential for criminality matters- thoughts don't equal action. No, I only want to hurt racists because their ideas about race are banal and reproachfully stupid. I'm hoping (vainly) that they'll associate the pain and their stupididty and avoid both. I'm being glib again, so please do not overread this paragraph.
------------
: Cynic: Save the really dangerous research for the murderers, test shampoo acidity on the eyes of pickpockets.
: DDN: Do you know how shampoo is tested Cynic?
New Cynic: I had a vague idea that resembled your description. I am not surprised at the truth of my suppositions.
: DDN: This is what you are proposing for a homeless guy whose kids needed some food so he stole somebody’s wallet. Brilliant, Cynic.
New Cynic: The guy had no right to a stranger's wallet and he should learn what he did isn't acceptable. Let me ask you a question. Do you know how easy it is to score free food in any metropolitan area? One never has to go hungry if they know where to look. I know where I can get endless supplies of day-old bagels, and I'm not even homeless. So he was justified in stealing a stranger's money WHY? Besides, he might prefer jail to the street and not elect for testing!
------------
: Cynic: ...It is important we recognize the value inherent in overcoming the ways in which we have been wrong and determine not to extend such injustice on others.
: DDN : But that’s exactly what you are proposing to do: not only do you want to continue with a penal system that doesn’t rehabilitate jack shit, but you want to amp it up with medical testing on prisoners that will continue to deliver the same relevations over and over... You seem determined to extend these injustices to others. You don’t seem willing to correct past mistakes insofar as such corrections would entail a truthful analysis of all relevant data. (snipped for brevity)
New Cynic: What effect the penal system has on crime deterrence is debateable. It may not do much but without it I think crime problems would escalate. And as for an analysis of the socio-economic factors that push people to kill, rape, and steal- I treat the subject very carefully. If I allow that a criminal has no choice in the matter I invalidate their right to be considered a willful agent. If I declare that their background doesn't matter at all I ignore any possible justification on their behalf. I won't go either way, and if it has seemed that my stance is too much of the latter I do apologize. I never said the fictious 18-year-old you mentioned should endure further punishment (he's already lived a lifetime of it.)
------------
: Cynic: He's [inner city kid] got a brain in his head and I'll bet it works. I bet he can flip on the television, see life from different, more livable angles and think: "That is what I'd rather have." It's pure concentrated B.S. when people posit the excuse "But that's all he's ever known!" Did he have blinders on? Never watch television or read a book? Never took a bus out of his neighborhood and saw other human beings doing things besides smoking crack and stealing? I'll bet he did. The many factors affecting children in their youth ENSURE that they should be capable of making competent decisions, not prevent it.
: DDN: You’re so enthralled with punishing the bad behavior and thinking of others you are unwilling or incapable of looking at your own. You’ve missed my point entirely. Everything that you’ve just said could just as well apply to your barbaric and unconstructive approach to justice. You’ve got a brain in YOUR head TOO, don’t you? Does it work? Can you do anything that would help you see life from an angle other than the extremely limited one you are seeing it from now?
New Cynic: Your belittling of me insinuates you're about to tread some uncertain ground, and you are.
: DDN: Where is your determination to have a world where people torturing other people and other living things is unecessary?
New Cynic: That's a laudable goal. But if I can't even fix racism how am I going to fix everything? Real progressive change isn't radical but gradual. That world would be nice. But neither you or I will ever see it, so perhaps our concerns are better focused on a less remote present.
: DDN: Isn’t this what you’d really rather have? If so, then according to your own words above, you are simply not exerting enough effort. And according to you, you’ve made this mistake voluntarily. I know that the modern justice system is all you’ve ever known, but that’s no excuse, is it?
New Cynic: I've found an issue to address and I'm pursuing it. Are you telling me I should embrace too large a goal to ever produce a worthwhile result or that I should embrace no goals at all? I'll do neither, thank you very much. I propose that we end widespread injustices to animalkind. That's a laudable goal. Sounds relatively easy enough. Maybe we can be more consistent in the process and still get our vital medical research done by using human test subjects.
: DDN: Don’t you ever watch TV or read books? There’s been plenty of very solid arguments presented about why a justice system based exclusively on punishment doesn’t work, why a medical system that recognizes only symptoms of disease and not causes of disease does not work, and why so many toxic, processed substances that burn our eyes an poison our food are not necessary in our lives.
New Cynic: Then again there's the forceful evidence that children whose trangressions meet a response of punishment frequently avoid that sort of behavior well into their adult lives. Otherwise why don't more of us steal? There's the allegation that where root causes are not yet understood we should endeavor as best we might to secure human comfort over misery by treating the symptom. Lastly, one could know all the information available about why he should not use acidic shampoo in the first place and still use it. Maybe he wants clean hair.
: DDN: According to you, you were ensured of being exposed to these ideas as a youth,so you simply have no one to blame but yourself for such a lame world.
New Cynic: Not all the responsibility is mine. Thinking about issues like these, coming to decent conclusions and living by the standards I produce is as much as I might hope to do.
------------
: Cynic: I can't pity the condition of those who won't help themselves.
: DDN: You’re insane cynic. How do YOU know what 6 billion people are doing or not doing to help themslves? How do you know even what 6 billion people are capable of doing to help themselves out of the trillions of situations they find themselves in? What audacity.
New Cynic: In a case-by-case example, I could tell as easily as anyone else. I don't hold a market share on empathic understanding. Not leaving an abusive spouse is not helping oneself in a very important way. Not seeking help for overcoming alcoholism is not doing enough.
The examples can speak for themselves so I shall let them.
------------
: DDN: We’ve reached an impasse here; one that I think can only be traversed with some probing psychoanalysis.
: Cynic: Nothing happened to me save to be taught my behavior is attributable only to me. Things out of my past can only affect me if I let them.
: DDN: (This is laughable). There’s not one respectable psychiatrist, psychologist, counselor, mental health professional, social worker, biologist, physicist, physiologist or full grown thinking adult that would agree with that statement.
New Cynic: You just met the first, then. Want my autograph? In all seriousness, let's set this up in formal logical terms:
1) A person "P" performs an action "X"
2) A person "P2" does not perform action "X"
3) Person "P" considers "P2" an influence
4) Therefore "P2" performs "X"
Does 4 not follow for you either? That is exactly what you're telling me when you declare someone other than I is responsible for what my hands do to somebody. Ultimately, they are my hands.
And incidentally, moral absolutes exist- of a complication neither you or I could possibly ever fully understand. But that's another matter. It's also probably a can of worms you'd rather not open.
------------
: Cynic: ... Having undergone trauma is not grounds for perpetuating it.
New Cynic: I must rescind this statement. It would be better to say, "Having undergone trauma does not justify or mitigate inflicting like trauma on anyone else." Ah, the wonderful vagaries of language.
------------
: Cynic: You chose treatment. Good for you. But you are to be commended for having recognized a problem and attempted to best it. You are not the examples I cited before. You are infinately their superior.
: DDN: Maybe. But you said that having undergone trauma is no grounds for perpetuating it and I’ve just explained very clearly that sometimes IT IS. And whether I had attempted to do anything about it or not, I would still have a subconscious at work that sometimes subverts my own conscious desires to behave and think correctly. The past trauma I experienced IS primarily the grounds for this phenomena.
New Cynic: I was wrong about that. Your circustances are without question appropriate grounds for behavior. I think I meant to say that those circumstances don't mitigate any mistreatment on your behalf of other people- that being mean to somebody is no more right, or less wrong by virtue of what has happened to you.
------------
: Cynic: ....You're trying......
: DDN: How do you know I’m trying? Maybe I’m lying to you? Maybe I’m lying to myself. How do you know that other people aren’t trying? Because they haven’t each personally posted to you on this form and told you their life story. What are you using to measure their desire to improve or their use of willpower to not fuck things up any worse than they already are? Sounds like you’ve got a pandora’s box of assumptions going on that may or may not accurately reflect reality.
Cynic: I know you're trying because I have no reason to distrust you. You seem open and intelligent with nothing concealed. It's obvious sometimes when people don't try; or maybe it's about not trying the things that will work (i.e. leaving an abusive spouse). I'm measuring by the presence or absence of their misery. If one is miserable, there must be something one can do to rectify it- keep looking or keep faith, I could care less which. I don't want to see any decent, valuable human beings submit.
------------
: DDN: No one’s trying to make forcible rape “sound ok”. Its not ok, OK? But neither in punishing the rapist without considering the SYSTEMS in which that individual evolved (or didn’t evovle as the case may be). I’m not suggesting that we do NOTHING in response to a rapist’s actions because of his bad childhood, in fact, I’m suggesting quite the opposite. I’m saying that we need to attack the problem at a much deeper level than just punishing the rapist. We need to do much much MORE than just inflict more suffering on humanity. Alas, you don’t have the reason, the willpower, or the luck to see it any other way.
New Cynic: Fine and good. We need counseling too, I suppose. Better institutions that foster understanding and goodwill? Socratic forums that function like this one to bring wayward cynics back into line? I'm all for it, really.
But that ignores the retributive value of punishment, which you have just said has its place. And I think to have shampoo dropped in my eyes is infinitely preferable to wasting the precious days of my life in a jail cell. It seems to me to provide an opportunity to lessen suffering, circumstances considered. So it's a flawed idea- flawed because people aren't perfect, and flawed because I as its advocate have spent less than 4 hours pondering this issue in detail. But you've yet to demonstrate that in that regard it's any worse than the present state of things. We're very far from an Orwellian nightmare on the changes I've proposed.
------------
: DDN: But there again, Cynic……how do you know what efforts other people with bad behaviors are exerting? I wouldn’t even pretend to know what ONE person’s efforts were at least not without talking to them first. Yet YOU have somehow read the minds of billions of people and determined that they are not exerting any effort AT ALL to evolve out of their current state.
New Cynic: Oh, no no no! I'd have to talk to the person, were I the judge. I'm not advocating a dismantling of the legal system. I still believe in due process, fair trial, and the consideration of mitigating circumstances. I just want to make our punishment system more useful. I can lay no claim to the inner thoughts of billions of people. Far be it from me to try!
------------
: : DDN: Am “I” 100% responsible for my actions? Did I cause my own original trauma?
: Cynic: I doubt it.
: DDN: So I’ve just won a big part of this debate? I’m not 100% responsible for my actions?
New Cynic: I doubt your responsibility for suffering trauma at others' hands. That was someone else's action and hence only they are responsible. The most accountable you could be would involve exposing yourself in a persistent way to the perpetrator of said trauma. Or rather, not trying not to expose yourself.
As for "You" being responsible for "Your" own actions, yes I think that's so. The logical frame of anything else is kind of confusing, as noted above with "P" and "P2." Now obviously everyone experiences lures, blackmails, and other forces that serve to direct our actions. But doesn't an individual (and by this I mean the ENTIRETY of a being, inner voices included) have control over his or her hands? Who directs our actions if not ourselves, or our repressed selves, or our sadistic selves? Whichever "self" it is that does it is accountable to the same body.
------------
: DDN: Well, you’d make one horrible therapist, let me tell you that much.
New Cynic: Agreed. I don't exploit misery for personal profit, only for the greater good. :)
: DDN: (If you know anyone in a situation like this I would highly recommend that you refer her to a trained therapist and not try to speak with her directly about the situation.)
New Cynic: You might not think so from the ideologies I espouse, but people I know are apt to trust my judgement. I am noted for an admirable and well-placed dedication to separate right from wrong. My advice is taken with a degree of authority from friends and family. Again, this may be of surprise to you. But you shouldn't think it impossible that we could occupy a similar moral and behavioral sphere, even if philosophical viewpoints differ. There is often more than one path to an identical conclusion.
None.
