CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Very true. I have a feeling though that it's not Limbaugh's quote (he probably got it from someone smarter than him).
Compassion is at many times illogical and only hurts justice. Just how people with compassion feel that pedophiles are victims and shouldn't be punished harshly (just look at Vermont, which is constantly letting pedophiles get off with no jail time).
"Very true. I have a feeling though that it's not Limbaugh's quote (he probably got it from someone smarter than him)."
What makes you think that? Rush Limbaugh is very smart, and he is almost always right.
I'm glad you posted, even if you don't like rush all that much. Notice how this debate isn't that popular. There would probably be more posts if the title of the debate didn't have Rush's name on it. See, most people don't like to agree with people that they don't like.
Yeah, yeah, he's very smart. But one can certainly be very smart, yet stubbornly wrong, and never know the difference. The same goes for the folks that parrot the man without giving his hydrocodone-fueled ramblings a second thought.
Stating that Michael J. Fox exaggerates his Parkinson's tremors, the perpetuation of the notion that anyone who's not on his side is socialist, the idea that he could derail Pres. Obama's campaign by asking his brainwashed minions to vote for Hillary, "Feminism was established as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.", that torture is somehow comparable to fraternity pranks, the insinuation that race was a factor in Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama for President....The idea, even for a second, that the term "Halfrican American" is in any way appropriate, or, much less, funny....
Yep. Grades in school aren't indicative of intelligence, mostly. More the ability to memorize and recite. We all know idiots with straight A's. At least I do.
Einstein didn't do very well in school either.
Not true. That misconception was probably spread by parents and teachers who wanted to spare the egos of their low-achieving kids.
He sure seems to be doing well for himself.
So does Madonna, but that doesn't make her any smarter than anyone else.
Define justice, because your use of the pedophile example (mind you, a pedophile is simply someone who has an attraction to prepubescant youths, not someone who necessarily has sex with them) implies that you are simply conflating "justice" with "punishment".
Pedophilia isn't just a little phase or something. It's a psychological problem and no amount of jail time or therapy can fix it. It'd be like sending a gay man to therapy to turn him straight. It's part of who that person is. And I agree that they should be punished harshly. Basically, a pedophile ruins a person's life and scars him for the rest of his life starting from such a young age. For ruining a life, the pedophile's life should also be ruined.
I feel I must agree with the statement but also include that justice without compassion is tyranny. No one is saying that justice should not be served according to the law but when someone makes a blanket statement like that it reminds me of France in the time of Robespierre when stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family was considered thievery (which it was) but no one cared that there were no jobs for people such as those at that time. That is when justice must be tempered with compassion or it becomes tyrannical.
I saw an episode of Band Of Brothers (It's a show about WWII If you haven't seen it, you need to.) These American soldiers are in Germany and they find this abandoned concentration camp full of starving people. So they go to the nearest town and take a bunch of food from a bakery so that they can feed the people.
That was necessary. But it should never come to that. If food has to be stolen for people to eat. There is a problem. And whatever problem that is, needs to be fixed. Luckily in America we don't usually have those kinds of problems.
The American Pledge of Allegiance chose those words as it's last and most final words. America cannot afford to be compassionate toward those who have committed crimes against it.
Your right, however, compassion can be a good thing. It just can't get in the way of justice. We can still have compassion for those people and help them but they have to answerer to the law.
we logically see what the best "way" would be. that's actually how our minds work... by seeing what is most logical.
as i've pointed out already, law doesn't equate justice all the time. so following the law isn't always logical (if the law was to jump off your house, that certainly wouldn't be logical).
Justice is not easily definable. It can technically be logic itself. what works out the best for society. sometimes compassion can be used, but it can not be a SUBSTITUTE for justice. "feeling bad" doesn't excuse that justice must be served. Hitler was poor and lonely most of his young adult life. should we feel bad for him and decide that he shouldn't be executed (if we had had the chance) for his crimes? a compassionate person would often say so. compassion is derived from emotion. Justice is derived from logic.
really, when i see how people don't understand this, it makes me feel more and more for Plato's Republic.
I'm just working through this in my mind so let's see:
Well, if logic is the most beneficial choice to someone, whether an individual, or everyone, or a small group.
It would make sense that any group or individual would want to ensure that the people within their group adhere to the same social and legal rules as everyone else.
Since it's been shown pretty conclusively through our history, that we function best as a society, that being social is beneficial and therefore logical, then it would make sense, be logical, that we would have some device to ensure we can maintain the rules of society to allow its continuation.
Are the rules we have always good? Nope. Are they always right? Certainly not.
But it's more logical to have rules than to not have rules.
And the device we use to ensure that everyone follows these rules, we call "justice"
so, yeah, I think that justice is an issue of logic for any beings that have a society.
Justice would not be an issue of logic for anything that did not rely on a society for its betterment. In fact, it would be illogical for an individual with no rules to seek or want justice.
Good point though, I had never thought of it. I'll need to think about it some more.
which is exactly why I said that it depends on the situation jake. In that situation, it's dumb for the state to spend tens of thousands of dollars prosecuting an old lady who is only using a drug to ease her pain.
And while I realize this takes varying levels of complex thought, and I'm not altogether sure Rush has the wherewithal to manage it,
I'm pretty sure you are perfectly capable of seeing why, as I said, a society cannot base policies on ten second sound bites,
Justice is blind. If one is proved guilty of a crime the situation no longer matters. I remember you agreeing to this certain principle:
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it. (;
You are really making this more complicated than it really is.
If one person gets away with it because they are 50 years old and in pain everyone is gonna want to. What about a 48 year old that is in a lot of pain? Do they get away with it?
If compassion and justice where the same thing, compassion wouldn't be substituting Justice. Compassion is no substitute for justice, because that would mean compassion instead of justice and both wouldn't exist. Both have to exist.
Well, compassion gets in the way of logic. Most drug laws are NOT logical, so they conflict with justice.
has little to do with compassion. As for laws in general, they are not the same as justice, because they often conflict with justice itself.
Laws enacted by Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were all out of what they felt was for the greater good, but had nothing to do with logic. They were based off of their sense of compassion (mainly the people's, since drugs and education were keeping the lower class in the slums). If Stalin were to face logic, he would not have been able to get away with what he did. But he got the lower class to support him because they let their emotions get in the way. That was certainly not justice.
Justice, itself, is based more off of common sense. People are left alone and evil is not allowed. that is justice.
on justice, i can go forever though. Like, Socrates and Plato style.
"Well, compassion gets in the way of logic. Most drug laws are NOT logical, so they conflict with justice."
Here's another Rush Limbaugh quote:
"If you commit a crime, you're guilty."
Does that clear it up for you? It's okay to disagree with a law, to do something to change it. Committing a crime is entirely different. Yes it is that simple.
it would be almost impossible to legalize something if no one was breaking a certain ban on that substance.
yes, people will go to jail for smoking pot. but that is not justice. if you lived under Stalin, would you no longer practice your belief in Jesus Christ just because it was the law? would you say that it's justice if you got caught and punished for your worship?
you're guilty, as you've pointed out. but that doesn't have shit to do with justice (except that it is injustice).
"yes, people will go to jail for smoking pot. but that is not justice"
How is that not justice, because you disagree?(selfish)
"it would be almost impossible to legalize something if no one was breaking a certain ban on that substance."
1. Sure it is, but will probably never happen, as long as we have selfish people who disrespect the law.
2. That's why we have law enforcement.
"if you lived under Stalin, would you no longer practice your belief in Jesus Christ just because it was the law?"
No, because I don't respect Stalin. I respect the United States of America. Do you think that I obey the law because its there? That I'm just going with the flow obeying the rules no matter what?
I would never respect a government that didn't give me freedom.
Both are important. Compassion is no substitute for justice just as justice is no substitute for compassion. Courts and prisons rarely accomplish either compassion or justice. I'm no dittohead.
since Cerin had no rebuttle for you. I'd like to try. :D
ok so, slavery. They were all tryin to escape from us superior white people,and we wanted JUSTICE!!! Then we got compassion for them somehow, and now they live with us. With their hippity hop and grills and what not.
I'm probably going to get shot for this... Yeah, too much compassion is terrible, but I mean, think about it. Let say Tom is home with his wife and children, a thief breaks into his house and makes his way towards the children's room. Tom wakes up to the sound of his daughter Sally screaming and goes into a fit of rage over the protection of his family and murders the thief who is fleeing outside, excellently I might add.(There's some pretty nasty bloodstains on the pavement)
Should this guy get the death penalty? I mean, maybe a few years in prison or even just community service hours, but he didn't asked to get robbed. He was just afraid and did the first thing that came to him.
Ha ha, I'm so silly.
But my point is, every case should be treated with a certain dose of compassion and empathy.
We're all the same people from birth brought up in different worlds and different circumstances. I think hatred of criminals comes from a lack of understanding. Of course murder and rape is irreversibly bad, but instead of demonizing these people, because it's obviously a product of their environment, we should instead learn where there hatred or violent lusts come from and reach out to those in need before they commit the crime. Our society comes from cooperation, noone can go it alone, we at least owe it to our neighbors to help solve these problems.
Justice is just revenge. So... what? Are we supposed to respond with punishment instead of eliminating the problem through compassion? Count me out!
Demonization is the other side of the coin of compassion. We should treat people with neither, in public policy.
Do you realize you are going against what this country was founded on? Against our founding fathers?
What? That's a very Rush Limbaugh non sequitur to accuse someone of. I think the Founders attempted to address the root causes of human tendencies with impartiality, and we should approach this in the same way.
We owe it to our founding fathers to follow the constitution!
Forgive my memory, but haven't you argued for extraordinary rendition and "enhanced interrogation techniques?"