Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I agree with everything except the 'eye for an eye' thing. The Torah's provision was actually merciful since it helped introduce the concept of proportional-punishment, a concept we take for granted today but a revolutionary concept at the time. Punishments of the time were ridiculously harsh by our standards today.
If kid one pokes kid two's eye out with a stick and one says it was an accident and the other says it was intentional then the only fair action is to poke kid ones eye out to make them even. Do you agree?Im going to assume you disagree because whats done is done and kid two losing an eye was a tragity that may or may not have been intentional. Repeating that tragity will only double the amount of suffering and this time the act will be intentional and entirely avoidable. Likely the only reason kid one loses their eye is because kid two and their family pushes the matter and asks that their vengence be carried out with the power of the state.Which means kid ones family will have more hatred for kid twos family since there is no doubt that they intended to inflict this pain on kid one instead of letting it go or coming to some other arrangement.Im going to assume your talking about the significance of the code of hamarabe in a legal sense and your not advocating for eye for eye justice. In which case your agreeing with my point that it is not justice at all and should not be the goal.
If i understand you then your simply pointing out that taking kid ones eye is better than a harsher punishment such as death? Even then lets say kid one kills kid two and claims it was an accident. Does the family have the right to demand the death of kid one? Again we are just repeating the tragity and at least doubling the pain and suffering. If kid one has a larger family then there is even more suffering with more people morning the completely avoidable and tragic loss.What happens if you and a friend are playing and your friend dies, do you tell someone or just pretend you never saw them so you dont get blamed?I will agree that losing an eye is better than losing your life but that still doesn't make it justice and my point had nothing to do with the historical context of the phrase eye for an eye just the idea behind it being flawed and not suitable for use as a standard of justice today or any time period really, unless you want people to hate each other, start blood feuds, and hold on to bitter resentments over legal rulings for generations to come.
True, though I was stating the historical-context, since the concept is generally used in English with a negative-context only, when the original intent was to lighten the penalty, given the alternative punishments that would have been implemented had the incident occurred in other nearby jurisdictions of the time.Back in the Philippines, we had a particularly cruel punishment meant as deterrent: the right of ᜂᜊᜓᜐᜈ᜔ ᜈᜅ᜔ ᜎᜑᜒ ("ubusan ng lahi"; "oo-BOO-san nang LAH-hee"; 「finishing-off the bloodline/race」). In other words, the murder of 1family-member justifies the total extermination of the murderer's family-tree. Hence: 'Never kill anyone in our family… or your family-name will be blotted-out forever. We will make sure of it.' Horrible by today's standards. I'm glad this is long gone. If capital-punishment hadn't been replaced with life-imprisonment, we'd at least know that only the murderer caught in the act would be executed, no one else.Of course, other methods of punishment have been devised, with rehabilitation even being developed, but 'an eye for an eye' was a crucial part of the justice-system's development.
Yeah i get that, my only point was that an eye for an eye is still awful even if it sounds fair at first glance. We can and should do much better than that today.
i moved from my home country to Egypt just to get away from all this SJW BLM BS... but there are still these white mums with black kids that feel entitled to brand people racists when they disagree with her... it boils my piss to be honest.
Me too. Did you hear that they are starting to segregate people now? How is that not racist?
Shut up. You are the last person on Earth anyone should hear about education. White privilege is just an excuse to attack White people.
You are the last person on earth people should hear about education based on whatever you just said.
@EmperorOfRussia and you sound like you’re guilty because you’re racist yourself. White privileged is real. Do some fucking research before opening your goddamn mouth.
Am I a racist? So what? Yiu can throw every PC "insult" at me. I don't give a damn. I'm here just to tell people that you are a little scoundrel and no one should hear what comes out of your mind.
Lmfao then tell me why people should listen to a racist?
"Racism" is a loaded word that manipulative people like you use in order to exert power over others. It's a power play for weak but embittered people like you.
LMFAO DUDE your face has GUILTY RACIST written ALL OVER. Just shut the fuck up already, you are the last person people should listen to.
You don't get to decide whether I should shut up or not. You are a manipulative person with no character and knowledge. Let's talk about your sociopathy.
sounds more like you're describing yourself. Sorry bout your parents, you deserved more love as a child.
So now you are attacking my family... You couldn't sink lower than that. Well, it says a lot about the manipulative character, don't you think?
@EmperorOfRussia you were the one attacking me first lmfao don't whine.
"Maybe even apologize for your ancestors actions."Being nice (to the point of disrespecting yourself) to people who hate you will get you nowhere, dearie.
i live in Egypt, but im originally from the UK. and the Pyramids were not built by slaves, but rather skilled workers. The Jewish slaves would have worked on Akhenatans mud city, among other things.
OK, so which slaves are you talking about?
Well, the Jews and the irish aren't saying much about it at the moment. So i would say the Black Slaves
Why would you possibly think someone who was born in the U. K. and lives in Egypt should need to apologize for black slavery in the U. S? Do you think each person regardless of what country they live in or grew up in should apologize for every atrocity that happens in any other country? Should people in Iceland apologize for ethnic cleansing in Bosnia? Should people in Luxembourg apologize for the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge?
Being an "ally" = to gaslight yourself into devaluing your own identity and demographic for the benefit of other groups and detriment of your own. No sane person should be an "ally."
@EmperorOfRussia standing up for a fellow human being doesn't devalue your identity, it shows empathy and integrity. Why is the focus on which "group" will benefit, we will all benefit from a more fair and just society. We will all benefit from more unity and equality. If everyone thought like you, we'd still be enslaved.
Your dumbass Own People, Captured You Individually As Slaves and You Individually Were Sold To The DUTCH and English you Individually Ignorant Assholes, I Never Owned A Slave In My Life and I will God dammed If I willingly will Pay For One. CONSIDERING THAT YOU'RE OWN DUMBASS PEOPLE SOLD YOU INDIVIDUALLY INTO SLAVERY TO THE DUTCH AND English YOU ASSES!
Get Over Yourselves, Because you didn't have the Backbone To Fight, You Individually were Conquered and Sold by YOUR OWN PEOPLE TO THE DUTCH AND English BECAUSE THEY WERE TO GODDAM LAZY TO WORK.
Grow A Spine just like the Irish and Asians and Scott's had to do
i was taking about racist language... there are always those that will try.
So it's okay to benefit from the death of native Americans by moving to land stolen from them, as long as you and your family hadn't done the killing and stealing themselves? There will always be an angle to critique. The answer is you don't apologize for something you didn't do. Anything else is absurd.
@crmoore The even better answer is simply "don't apologise".
I said that in my second to last sentence. I was just pointing out that just because your ancestors weren't here when it happened, doesn't mean you're free from the criticism that these people throw at you. Not to mention, slavery happened everywhere. The likelihood of someone not having ancestors that owned slaves is virtually impossible. Let alone any other atrocious crimes.
@crmoore I know, but what I meant was the whole "something you've never done" part. Even that gives them an angle.
Ohh, gotcha. Yeah I mean at this point logical discussion is out of the window, so what does explanation really do for those sort of people anyways, lmao.
@crmoore Very true. I've had a few arguments with them and yeah, it's a huge waste of time because they lie so much. A lot of them just hate white people so they'll use whatever they can to get at us. I guess just getting white people to realise that is enough.
Well, not meaning to be flippant... its the 2nd world war and Germanys roles as to why merkel can't tell migrants to get off and leave out. Austria, Hungary, italy... all rolled over to the nazis and are telling the migrants nah mate. i get your point though.
We had Irish slaves, not African slaves.
And the Italians and Spanish I think slaved everyone from war and stuff. And would like regulary work them to death and stuff. Egyptians to were hardcore like that.
interestingly, the exodus of moses leading the Jews out of Egypt had 2 pharoas. Akhanaten the 3rd was the Pharoah of Opression, and Tutankhamun was the Pharoah of the exodus, They worked this out as Tut was buried WITHOUT his battle shrine. Archeologists and Historians concluded it was taken by the Jews as protection across the Sinai. :)