RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge

RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aswad -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/8/2013 9:21:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Am I reading this correctly. That "an eye for eye" etc. is used in ONE context only. That of men hurting a woman with child where mischief follows (meaning what....rape of a pregnant woman?) If you beat a pregnant woman until she has a miscarriage, you suffer the penalty the husband lays upon you. If the woman is injured or killed, as well, you die. IWYW, — Aswad.

Exidor -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/9/2013 7:20:40 AM)
I don't see any problem here. If you don't jerk around with someone, you don't have to worry about being on the receiving end of their revenge. What takes place between others isn't your problem. Revenge is a much more effective deterrent than "please don't do that." Much more satisfactory, too.

meatcleaver -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/9/2013 8:23:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Exidor Revenge is a much more effective deterrent than "please don't do that." Much more satisfactory, too. I'm not sure that is true. The USA has been flailing around taking revenge on the perpetrators of 9/11 for over ten years and all they have managed to do is create even mor people that hate America because the US has been largely taking revenge on innocent people.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/9/2013 2:47:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess I feel a properly functioning society should have a system of policing and justice in place that puts the responsibility and right of revenge on "society" as opposed to the individual who was wronged. That's fucked up. And covers stoning, incidentally. quote: Vigilantism might be necessary if a society's policing and judicial structures are not functioning properly, but in a well functioning society, vigilantism should not be necessary at all - and therefore not tolerated at all either. The problem with vigilantism is that it isn't particularly accurate or constructive. quote: I completely disagree with Ostler's notion that vigilantism comes to us from the media and entertainment world. NO. It comes from inside each of us. Way to misread Ostler. IWYW, — Aswad. Aswad I never defined what I meant by policing and justice, and thus never defined societal revenge either. So no. I was not referring to stonings or lack of due process, or witch trials or any such ridiculousness. And that should have been obvious. Vigilantism is extremely constructive for those who mete it out. It does actually satisfy certain primal urges. My point is that a society to be considered well-functioning should not require a victim to take punishment into his/her hands because the system ignores what happened to the victim entirely. As for Ostler, if the OP's description is accurate then Ostler claims revenge is a value that is taught. (please read the OP - that is what it says - I didn't write it - if this is a misrepresentation of Ostler then please challenge the OP for this representation of his work). And as described, I disagree. It is not taught. It is primal.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/9/2013 7:20:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Am I reading this correctly. That "an eye for eye" etc. is used in ONE context only. That of men hurting a woman with child where mischief follows (meaning what....rape of a pregnant woman?) If you beat a pregnant woman until she has a miscarriage, you suffer the penalty the husband lays upon you. If the woman is injured or killed, as well, you die. IWYW, — Aswad. Okay thanks. I assume then the eye for an eye part is if she has a miscarriage and is also injured, that the perpretrator pays according to her injuries (life for life, eye for eye) etc. Is that correct? Notwithstanding your explanation, I'm still confused by the use of the word "mischief": quote: 22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. So, if her "fruit depart from her" (i.e. a miscarriage) "and yet no mischief follow" (?) he shall be punished as the husband sees fit and pay as judges determine. "And if any mischief follow" then a whole list of punishments are stated different from above. So what is the distinction between "and yet no mischief follow" and "And if any mischief follow". What "mischief" exactly? So, according to your definition it is inflicting other injury (other than the miscarriage) or death. Just seems like a weird way to describe that. But I will take your word for it, as I'm not sure (other than rape) of how to interpret this. In other words, I read the passage as meaning if you cause her harm of any sort where she has a miscarriage.....vs. if you cause her harm that causes a miscarriage and also rape her.....but then I'm not sure how to square that interpretation with the punishments then listed. Yours makes sense but I still find the word "mischief" seems odd in translation...I wonder what the original word was...perhaps just a poor translation of the intent....?

PeonForHer -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/9/2013 8:52:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess It is not taught. It is primal. Is it? I must say, I'd be more convinced if any species other than humans did it in such a way that revenge was clearly the motivation. Premeditated revenge, that is, rather than that of the instant and knee-jerk kind.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/9/2013 10:18:43 PM)
'Mischief' in that era meant 'an evil condition' (literally 'a bad head'), not 'shenanigans' as it did a couple of centuries later. The writers of the KJV would use 'mischief' to cover any and all harm suffered by the woman. quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess Am I reading this correctly. That "an eye for eye" etc. is used in ONE context only. That of men hurting a woman with child where mischief follows (meaning what....rape of a pregnant woman?) If you beat a pregnant woman until she has a miscarriage, you suffer the penalty the husband lays upon you. If the woman is injured or killed, as well, you die. IWYW, — Aswad. Okay thanks. I assume then the eye for an eye part is if she has a miscarriage and is also injured, that the perpretrator pays according to her injuries (life for life, eye for eye) etc. Is that correct? Notwithstanding your explanation, I'm still confused by the use of the word "mischief": quote: 22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. So, if her "fruit depart from her" (i.e. a miscarriage) "and yet no mischief follow" (?) he shall be punished as the husband sees fit and pay as judges determine. "And if any mischief follow" then a whole list of punishments are stated different from above. So what is the distinction between "and yet no mischief follow" and "And if any mischief follow". What "mischief" exactly? So, according to your definition it is inflicting other injury (other than the miscarriage) or death. Just seems like a weird way to describe that. But I will take your word for it, as I'm not sure (other than rape) of how to interpret this. In other words, I read the passage as meaning if you cause her harm of any sort where she has a miscarriage.....vs. if you cause her harm that causes a miscarriage and also rape her.....but then I'm not sure how to square that interpretation with the punishments then listed. Yours makes sense but I still find the word "mischief" seems odd in translation...I wonder what the original word was...perhaps just a poor translation of the intent....?

Powergamz1 -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/9/2013 10:25:31 PM)
On the opposite end of the behavioral spectrum, Keith Jensen, also at Max Planck, recently found that chimps are likely to exact revenge as well. Given the chance, chimpanzees retaliated against thieves by collapsing the bandit's table, thereby ruining the stolen meal, Jensen reports in the Aug. 7 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The idea is vengeance acting as a deterrent. In other words, you steal from me, I punish you enough to make you think twice before taking my banana the next time. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/animal-insight.html#ixzz2HYEoVcTS quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess It is not taught. It is primal. Is it? I must say, I'd be more convinced if any species other than humans did it in such a way that revenge was clearly the motivation. Premeditated revenge, that is, rather than that of the instant and knee-jerk kind.

PeonForHer -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/10/2013 5:12:22 AM)
Fascinating!

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/10/2013 7:38:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 On the opposite end of the behavioral spectrum, Keith Jensen, also at Max Planck, recently found that chimps are likely to exact revenge as well. Given the chance, chimpanzees retaliated against thieves by collapsing the bandit's table, thereby ruining the stolen meal, Jensen reports in the Aug. 7 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The idea is vengeance acting as a deterrent. In other words, you steal from me, I punish you enough to make you think twice before taking my banana the next time. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/animal-insight.html#ixzz2HYEoVcTS quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess It is not taught. It is primal. Is it? I must say, I'd be more convinced if any species other than humans did it in such a way that revenge was clearly the motivation. Premeditated revenge, that is, rather than that of the instant and knee-jerk kind. Thanks for this cite. I actually thought in the animal world in general that "revenge" or retaliatory behavior was extremely common. During mating season, for many wild animals once the alpha male has succeeded in defeating other males you will on occasion see variations of the following: the defeated male will later still try to mate with a particular female thus obviously incurring the wrath of the alpha, or the defeated male will try to interfere with the mating of the alpha with a particular female. These events are temporally spaced so not knee-jerk, but I would still call it primal. I haven't seen any accounts of animals being taught by other animals to be vengeful (and there are many things that animals teach their offspring). It comes from within. It may take different forms, in different contexts and settings depending on the species of animal, but I can recall tons of animal shows (Wild Kingdom, anyone?) where such "vengeful" activities occurred (even if not scientifically studied, they were observed and certainly appeared to me as a viewer to be "vengeful"). I also would not discount the knee-jerk variety revenge. Monkey takes banana from other monkey and then the other monkey yanks it back. Those primal urges are at the root of even more sophisticated "vengeful" activities. After all the monkey whose banana was stolen does not just get upset, attack others, incite others to attack or go running off. They tend to exact retaliatory behavior on the party they perceive as guilty. And they tend to do it on their own. To me this is "revenge". Whether spaced closely in time or further out, the vengeful activities still stem from a primal root of "you mess with my stuff and I will mess with you" kind of urge.

PeonForHer -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/10/2013 8:07:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess They tend to exact retaliatory behavior on the party they perceive as guilty. And they tend to do it on their own. To me this is "revenge". Whether spaced closely in time or further out, the vengeful activities still stem from a primal root of "you mess with my stuff and I will mess with you" kind of urge. It does seem that revenge might well be a word that applies to the behaviour of some animals other than humans, particularly social animals. But I'd balk at conflating retaliatory behaviour with vengeful behaviour - too knee-jerk for me. I think I've always assumed that retaliation is to do with 'protecting one's stuff' (though that might motivation might be pretty unreasoning in many cases), whereas with revenge, there's no chance of getting one's stuff back (whatever that 'stuff' is).

Moonhead -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/10/2013 8:11:30 AM)
There's a few cases of elephants taking revenge, as well as chimps. (Mind you, chimps are nasty little shits, and had less provocation than the elephants in the two cases I remember.)

PeonForHer -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/10/2013 8:26:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead There's a few cases of elephants taking revenge, as well as chimps. (Mind you, chimps are nasty little shits, and had less provocation than the elephants in the two cases I remember.) Come to think of it, I recall one Attenborough doc in which dolphins were having great fun beating up some poor porpoises. Dolphins! Dolphins are the Hare Krishna hippies of the animal world! A measure of my eco faith went out of the window that day.

Moonhead -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/10/2013 8:31:14 AM)
You can't trust dolphins. Any species that spends all of the time grinning is up to something...

PeonForHer -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/10/2013 8:36:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You can't trust dolphins. Any species that spends all of the time grinning is up to something... True. That's how you can tell that all Brits north of the Watford Gap are completely honest, Moony. [;)]

Moonhead -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/10/2013 8:37:29 AM)
[:D]

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/10/2013 1:41:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess They tend to exact retaliatory behavior on the party they perceive as guilty. And they tend to do it on their own. To me this is "revenge". Whether spaced closely in time or further out, the vengeful activities still stem from a primal root of "you mess with my stuff and I will mess with you" kind of urge. It does seem that revenge might well be a word that applies to the behaviour of some animals other than humans, particularly social animals. But I'd balk at conflating retaliatory behaviour with vengeful behaviour - too knee-jerk for me. I think I've always assumed that retaliation is to do with 'protecting one's stuff' (though that might motivation might be pretty unreasoning in many cases), whereas with revenge, there's no chance of getting one's stuff back (whatever that 'stuff' is). Revenge is typically defined as follows: inflict hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong done to oneself. I don't believe the word is limited to injuries or wrongs where there is no chance of getting one's "stuff" back. Synonyms for revenge include the following: avenge - retaliate - wreak - requite - pay back So revenge would include things like someone beating someone up for having embarrassed them, or a father killing the person who murdered his child, etc. I don't see it as restricted in the way that you do. So certainly in my posts, where I use the word "revenge" I am using it as I define above.

PeonForHer -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/10/2013 2:05:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess So revenge would include things like someone beating someone up for having embarrassed them, or a father killing the person who murdered his child, etc. I don't see it as restricted in the way that you do. I'd use similar examples to characterise 'revenge'. But an instant, outraged return of a punch with a punch of one's own? No, I'd say that fits with 'retaliation' - some primal drive that comes of anger which is there to preserve oneself (whether such anger and striking-back makes logical sense is another thing entirely, natch). But revenge - no, I wouldn't call such a returned punch 'revenge'. I don't think the word 'revenge' is normally used in that way.

fucktoyprincess -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/10/2013 4:52:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess So revenge would include things like someone beating someone up for having embarrassed them, or a father killing the person who murdered his child, etc. I don't see it as restricted in the way that you do. I'd use similar examples to characterise 'revenge'. But an instant, outraged return of a punch with a punch of one's own? No, I'd say that fits with 'retaliation' - some primal drive that comes of anger which is there to preserve oneself (whether such anger and striking-back makes logical sense is another thing entirely, natch). But revenge - no, I wouldn't call such a returned punch 'revenge'. I don't think the word 'revenge' is normally used in that way. Even with your distinctions I still feel both of these things still come from primal urges. Just because something is spread over a longer temporal span does not mean it isn't primal. Primal has nothing to do with the instantaneousness of the response. Primal simply means essential; fundamental; relating to an early stage in evolutionary development; primeval. When people use the word "first" to describe primal they mean early on in origin, not "immediate reaction to a stimulus". Perhaps it the definition of primal that is actually at issue here. Anyway, I stand by my statement that revenge in humans is primal and not taught.

PeonForHer -> RE: Sadly, A Central Tenet Of Our Public Morality Is The Ethic Of Revenge (1/10/2013 5:21:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess So revenge would include things like someone beating someone up for having embarrassed them, or a father killing the person who murdered his child, etc. I don't see it as restricted in the way that you do. I'd use similar examples to characterise 'revenge'. But an instant, outraged return of a punch with a punch of one's own? No, I'd say that fits with 'retaliation' - some primal drive that comes of anger which is there to preserve oneself (whether such anger and striking-back makes logical sense is another thing entirely, natch). But revenge - no, I wouldn't call such a returned punch 'revenge'. I don't think the word 'revenge' is normally used in that way. Even with your distinctions I still feel both of these things still come from primal urges. Just because something is spread over a longer temporal span does not mean it isn't primal. Primal has nothing to do with the instantaneousness of the response. Primal simply means essential; fundamental; relating to an early stage in evolutionary development; primeval. When people use the word "first" to describe primal they mean early on in origin, not "immediate reaction to a stimulus". Perhaps it the definition of primal that is actually at issue here. Anyway, I stand by my statement that revenge in humans is primal and not taught. I think that 'primal' does pretty much refer to the instanteousness of the response. If it's not primal, then it has to be something else - something that involves . . . time, ruminating about a harm done, recalling and replaying in one's head, frequently, thinking . . . lots of things, anyway, that most animals don't do. Or so I'd assume. Whatever. If we all conclude that 'retaliation' is the same as 'revenge' - that, for instance, a dog biting my arm immediately after I've whacked it is the same as, for example, my hatching a plot over weeks, months or years after a man killing my sister, to kill him in return . . . then we need a new word for something that humans do that most (if not all) animals don't. And that would be a word that doesn't fit with 'primal' in anyone's use of that term. Just as an aside - by 'primal', you don't mean 'necessarily good, and what humans should do', do you? It's just that if you do mean that, I shall either have to put up with a headache or stop talking to you here. [;)]

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625