This is going to get brutal, but I believe that if a person’s entire existence on earth harms other people, then the world would be better off without that person existing (i.e. life imprisonment or death).

In my opinion, a tyrant should be assassinated if they perpetrate crimes against humanity, crimes against their own people, and show no ability to ever step back from such horrific acts. It would have been wonderful if someone could have killed Hitler earlier on in his mad run of power.

This then gets to the utilitarian realm of discussion: does the well-being of many outweigh the death of one? If some world leader was about to launch a nuclear weapon, I would be happy to hear their life was immediately put to an end. I would “celebrate” that day for the rest of my life, and teach my kids about the moment.

At some point, we get to this notion of self defense. The individual has the right to self defense, and society has the right to “self defense”, essentially now through the justice systems of the world.

What I wonder is, what is the net value to society when people believe they "got revenge" on a criminal / "they got what they deserved" / some notion of "we are happy the wrongdoers are suffering"

I truly wonder myself if that type of thinking promotes a safer society with less harmful criminal acts. Of course we MUST balance this with the sense of rehabilitation and reduction in recidivism.

Personally I believe the justice system should strive to fully rehabilitate and integrate offenders into society whenever possible, but still punish those who committed atrocious acts like rape, murder, violent robbery or home invasion.

I want to take a step back and hear your definition of punishment (of “law breakers”); I apologize if I misinterpreted.

Do you more so mean punishment as far as “society getting revenge on an individual for a bad act they committed”? Because I believe that concept is definitely worse than the rehabilitative approach. I know this sort of contradicts my previous post, but I understand that positive reinforcement is more effective than negative reinforcement, so punishment should be more of a last resort, and reward should be a more helpful frame to work off of.

I do not agree with the death penalty in many cases; I’d say I’m 30-70 in favor of it (or 7/10 disfavor). Once I heard the argument that a death sentence should only be given in a situation proven “beyond the shadow of a doubt”, which is nearly impossible to achieve (some say fully impossible because minute doubt can always exist), then I was swayed to disfavor the death penalty all around.

Still, I have to wonder if there are certain cases where we might feel obligated to go further than a life sentence, such as when [warning, they will be harsh] a rapist would receive a life sentence, but if they killed their victim, they would receive the death penalty.

I’d say I am a rational actor and a reasonable person, so my motives for not hurting others, stealing, killing, etc come from a personal moral compass of “doing the right thing” or “do unto others as you’d have done to yourself”. Even so, I know there are some absolute animalistic people who just do not think that same way, and are entirely out for their own benefit, fuck everyone else. They would just as easily hurt you severely as I might run a stop sign, EXCEPT for the thought of their own self preservation: a person who is “sane” but violent will not act with extreme violence toward somebody they perceive as a massive threat to their existence (in a way this is a very instinctual level of “respect” toward the superior force, where they know they would be vested and do not act with violence unless they think they can get away with it).

Aha, there it is in my mind: getting away with it. The lack of perception of punishment! That’s my definition: punishment is the imposition of something unpleasant or unwanted as a result of someone’s actions. A speeding ticket is a monetary punishment. A jail sentence is a punishment restricting your freedom. Solitary confinement punishes further (not sure if it’s ethical!) Would love to discuss more.

Carrot vs stick. Punishment can act as a deterrent to some (many!). If I know police are running radar on the highway ahead, I slow down to avoid them punishing me with a ticket or permanent mark on my driving record.

If I think no one else is watching and I won’t hurt anyone else, I don’t stop at stop signs, because I don’t foresee the punishment (though this may ultimately be foolish of me).

I don’t go around physically fighting people I don’t like or people who antagonize me. I have been trained in society to know this is wrong. My moral compass does not want to hurt other people for perceived slights; rather I’d only fight to defend against grave and imminent danger. I also fear the repercussion of escalated violence, such as a knife or gun being pulled, which is an instant form of personal punishment. I fear hurting someone else so badly I kill them or permanently damage them. I fear their harm, and I fear my own punishment.

I do not want to go to jail and be separate from society. I want to conform to the good parts of society happy to discuss further, but I think punishment has its validity.

So you think we have discovered a cure for cancer and corporations are just crushing it time and time again? No young budding scientist has ever blown the lid on it? Everyone is being fed a total lie?

I agree corporations are controlling our societies in ways they shouldn’t be, but you’re starting to trickle off into the rant in the style of a Q’anoner and it’s not endearing to your side. I haven’t even disagreed with the idea of power structures controlling itself, just pointing out the inconsistencies in the argument. I’d invite you to do the same and be logical if we want to have a real discussion.

Patents expire. Treatments will enter generic use licensing. There is no conspiracy to stop the treatment of cancer, that’s absolutely ridiculous. You think the smartest scientists in the world could ALL be bought off without anyone saying anything? A lot them work for way less money than you’d expect… they’re not in it for the money they’re in it for the cure. You’re bordering on disrespect for cancer patients and cancer scientists and healthcare workers.

Sorry I didn’t mean exposed in the study, I meant exposed at some other period in your life. But then I see you said they believe they weren’t exposed, so my post was pretty confusing. So you’re basically wondering how well the drug worked for you personally. I’m just still confused because wouldn’t they provide data for the efficacy in the experimental group of that trial? Or are you saying it’s still ongoing?

Yeah this is dumb because if one group can make a cure, they will reap multiples of billions very quickly.

If you were in the highest dose experimental group, why would you make the conclusion that you are immune to HIV? Are you saying you believe you were likely exposed to HIV virus but that medication ended up not working in the study?

Incredibly, there is already a standard set of using animal parts as replacement parts, not for entire organs but for things like valves. And they apparent work quite well. There is so much hope and promise of medical advancement in the near future. I work near an area that has some of the most advanced medical facilities and research in the world, and I get such a rush any time I go by there at the thought of what good humans are doing for a better future.

Why does it “convert fossil fuel to fish food?” What am I missing in your analysis?

Edit to clarify and include more about the immune system:

Look up T cells. They’re called cytotoxic for a reason: they kill cells that contain virus or other disease like cancer.

Our bodies also perform a technique called autophagy all the time. It literally means eating one-self, and it’s to clean up dead and defective cells, save resources, etc.

No this is wrong, please edit this. There are many viruses, and every novel virus requires a new vaccine to be developed and tested for safety and efficacy. That means the vaccine needs to #1 not hurt people, and #2 actually protect against the worst effects of the infection (a bonus /ideal #3 is effective prevention of getting sick and being contagious).