I never said this though did I? I said that there are numerous ideas in ethics based on scientific results and gave a whole branch as an example. Which is a lot more than your cultural beliefs meatshielding. Also learn to read, I wrote moral psychology and you read moral philosophy.
Richard Feynman said it best himself: "ethical values lie outside the scientific realm"
I am unsure whether the results available today weren't available when he said that but it is simply wrong. Take for example altruism, it can be explained by neurobiology, psychology, and genetics. Since altruism is an ethical value and can be explained by science then the statement quoted above is simply inaccurate. Note also that Richard Feynman has never advocated for kin punishment as opposed to you.
your response is truly textbook college liberal arts student
@criver "It's unethical because it does not agree with humanity's ethic standards, not mine."
How cool of you to take the burden for all of humanity. Not like I asked for it, or everyone else. Not like you can say you are talking about "humanity" as you are currantly arguing against an Asian custom while asians are the majority in terms of human population. What "humanity's ethic standards" are you talking about, again? Maybe it's your's and your region's/religion's, whichever you prefer over the other?
I personally find it very sad that you cant see a clear analogy, and call it 'false' only because it's of different races, instead of different ethnic population. You know, one is bannable, the other is not.
The accepted such in books and papers on ethics (and not only) and from humanitarian organisations - basically the sources that deal with this issue in a scientific manner. A very good example that destroys your argument that this is just my opinion is the Geneva convention, where collective punishment is deemed not only unethical but also inhumane. This is not a singular occurrence as there's a consensus on this in academic papers and books. Not only that, there's scientific evidence that it is counterproductive. I've had enough of your stupidity so I might as well link some relevant papers on the subject (even if I doubt your ability to read and comprehend them). Hopefully you'll stop talking bs as if this is something I came up with and it not the consensus in ethics, law, psychology, biology, and even economics:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228649434_On_the_in_effectiveness_of_collective_punishment_An_experimental_investigation/amp
https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/8/1/29/821405
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1837672
https://books.google.com/books?id=fS-BAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=XIV—What’s+Wrong+with+Collective+Punishment?&source=bl&ots=eFNbBAcg4I&sig=1OYq5jqPDthXudpqIKluOx3_Ur4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_uNmrucjfAhWHxosKHR8pBbAQ6AEwCHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=XIV—What’s%20Wrong%20with%20Collective%20Punishment%3F&f=false
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196852
I personally find it very sad that you cant see a clear analogy, and call it 'false' only because it's of different races, instead of different ethnic population.
So if I compare you to a bonobo that would be also a fair analogy by your logic.
The whole argument is a farce where you and DesertStorm argue in favour of punishing others based on a logical fallacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
To the one who recommended Geneva convention, it only concerns war, so it's okay to see the bullcrap. Let's not expand the problem, okay? This is on family!
LOL! You're a joke!
Look at the studies he's showing us: Full of bullcrap in a Western perspective. There's no Asian perspective as to the necessity of collective punishment. I checked the studies, and they're from philosophy and law degrees as well. What a joke?!?!
I'll share you some:
Collective punishment is more effective than collective reward for promoting cooperation
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep17752
Collective influence in evolutionary social dilemmas
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/113/58004/meta
Punish or perish? Retaliation and collaboration among humans
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534707002650
BS! I don't see biology there.
It clearly shows that he doesn't know shit from his narrow Western perspective.
Oh shit! These guys actually have a point:
Philosopher Kenneth Shockley suggests we focus on group faults and the punishments that would bring change. Punishments, for a group, might include: full or partial disbanding, weakening bonds between members, or de-institutionalizing some of the group's norms. Neta Crawford says groups can be expected to change, but also apologize and make amends. That might mean groups must forfeit important parts of themselves. In this case, groups are being held responsible for organizing or incentivizing harmful behaviors. Shockley calls this the group's "coordinating control" over members. He says group responsibility can mitigate individual responsibility.
To the one who recommended Geneva convention, it only concerns war, so it's okay to see the bullcrap. Let's not expand the problem, okay? This is on family!
Actually the Geneva convention is based on humane principles. The fact that it concerns war is only a stronger argument towards my point, since in war many more inhumane acts are allowed as compared to peaceful times. Kin punishment is a subcategory of collective punishment so producing a result for the second carries onto the first. Not only that but it carries on even strongly, since you're considering punishment just based on familial bonds and not actual involvement, something known as association fallacy in logic.
The papers I linked are not about western or eastern perspective if you actually put the effort to read them, which you obviously didn't or you didn't comprehend anything. If anything the goal in scientific papers is to eliminate bias from the results, which includes cultural bias, which you don't seem to want to eliminate from your way of thinking. You're literally arguing that there should be cultural bias in scientific papers, and preferably bias which validates your beliefs:
There's no Asian perspective as to the necessity of collective punishment.
Get a load of your bs.
The bigger issue is that you didn't read what you linked yourself.
First paper you linked:
Simply compares punishment vs reward, doesn't look into the negative effects of both, just the positive.
As you didn't read the first paper I linked you obviously missed the conclusion:
The results suggest, at least in the context of the specific experimental design, that collective punishment is fairly ineffective at best and strongly counterproductive at worst in shaping group behavior according to the desires of an outside authority.
...
Finally, in neither treatment was there any evidence that collective punishment affected the propensity of group members to enforce in-group norms, a hypothesized mechanism that lies at the heart of many arguments in favor of collective sanctioning strategies.
Note that this is based as much on a mathematical model as the papers you linked, so it isn't really about east vs west perspective.
Additionally for the paper you linked, the model assumptions do not hold for what we are discussing:
By definition, collective punishment is imposed on all players either because there is no way to detect the behavior of individual players (or its effects), or because the differences between cooperators and non-cooperators are too small to be detected.
The conclusion also does not hold for what we are discussing, unless you consider humans to be "organisms with simple nervous systems" with inadequate cognitive abilities and no notion of conscience:
Cognition was generally believed to be an important ability to discern cooperators and non-cooperators. This is not possible, however, when organisms with simple nervous systems cannot give proof of implementing such discerning abilities mediated by their consciousness
...
To explore how cooperative systems evolve in the absence of cognition
So what can we learn from you linking this first paper? You basically found a paper titled such that you believed it validates your beliefs so you linked it, unfortunately you didn't read it, so you didn't realize it concerns itself with cases in the absence of cognition, conscience, inability to differentiate between group parties, and inability to distinguish between the actions of singular entities. If anything the last assumptions of the model imply that individual punishment would be better, but collective is handed out in this model due to inadequacy in pointing out the culprit. On the other hand we are discussing a case where the culprit is known, but you decide to punish innocent people based on the association fallacy.
In the second paper you linked an abstract model from game theory and network theory is discussed. It doesn't touch upon collective or kin punishment at all. So good job proving you didn't even read it.
In the third paper you linked, there's literally no mention of collective or kin punishment and only individual punishment is considered. not to mention that the results in there actually support my point rather than yours:
Although punishment works to boost cooperation, it can also be counterproductive. It often lowers the average income in Public Good games, despite raising the average level of contributions. In games of trust, or games involving rewards, adding the threat of punishment can decrease the menaced player’s willingness to cooperate
...
In large societies, peer-punishment is also rare, and repressed by the institutions upholding law and order.
It's funny how you were arguing how some of my arguments were invalid because they were 'philosophical' and now you argue based on quotes from philosophers. It's almost as if you cherry-pick only statements that validate your bias. If you want to argue philosophy, then you should really present all points, and not only what validates your bias. From the same article you're quoting:
Methodological individualists challenge the very possibility of associating moral agency with groups, as distinct from their individual members, and normative individualists argue that collective responsibility violates principles of both individual responsibility and fairness.
Not only that, if you go and read the prominent examples for kin punishment and collective punishment in human history, you will come to realize that they have led to some of the worst atrocities in human history. And are usually associated with authoritarian and tyrannical rule.
Let's not ignore the fact that kin punishment, a form of collective punishment, works!
Don't let the fact that all the scientific and even historical results disagree, am I right? You got my curiosity though, I got curious about what kind of culture you live in that promotes kin punishment. Feel free to share it, lest even in your country it's something not widely accepted.
So let's see what the conclusion is? I provided ethics and rationality arguments for my points and backed those up through scientific findings, historical examples, widely accepted humanitarian conventions, and philosophical arguments. On the other hand you presented scientific papers that do not apply to kin punishment or even further my point, ad hominem and logical fallacies, and quotes from 2 philosophers. It should be pretty obvious which viewpoint is more credible at this point.
Scientific Bullshit! Science can't determine if something is bad or good and those studies are still subjective.
None of your studies were from people who had a biology major. Nice bullshit!
Since you're "science" is full of crap, I'll philosophize with you instead. Ethics and rationality are super subjective, so I don't see how yours is valid since it's being argued by someone retarded to see the bullshit studies he gave!
If you really think I'm wrong, then argue with the whole Asian continent because we know that it's VALID AND CORRECT. IT'S WHAT MADE ASIA GREAT!
It can in a utalitarian and humanitarian sense, since in both you can define 'good' and 'bad' robustly. Also it can determine that it is an irrational preconception based on the association fallacy. To add to this you have empirical evidence from history that it does not work, in the sense that it doesn't benefit the people and is exhibited mostly in tyrannical and authoritarian regimes (which by definition are unethical and inhumane).
None of your studies were from people who had a biology major.
Because they do not discuss a purely biological topic. On the other hand they refer to biological results as you can see from the references. Once again showing that you simply ignore whatever disagrees with your beliefs.
it's being argued by someone retarded to see the bullshit studies he gave!
First this disagrees with history. Unless you believe that Asia was made great by tyrannical rule. Second, as far as I know kin punishment is illegal in Japan, Russia, South Korea, India and I assume the other asian countries (except for North Korea). Meaning that they know it's invalid and incorrect. Now maybe you would like to clarify if it's also illegal in China, since I assume you are from there.
@criver Dood, before we continue, I must say that I am a chemist.
So please dont talk with me about science. Your "science" of psychology and sociology atm is a big pile of BS in recuperation. The kind of science where almost every freakin experiment about human behaviour turns out to be falsified evaluations of these experiments, up from 40-50 years ago or more. The kind of science where due to external pressure, your "scientists" post fake papers. I know AND HOPE that there are a group people trying to whitewash (not really the perfect word, I know, more like come clean?) this (atm) fake branch of science, but please... You should not try to defend your points so vehemently on a manga site like this, it's unfun, and not really graceful.
Still, I admit there must be some things in what you hold true about human behaviour by some coincidences (more like, observations, but since there are mostly falsified scientifict reports on them... you know, who cares about ungrounded rumours, that's not really science? First clean off your house, then we can talk. I know there are people working on it), but as I said, you dont represent humanity as a whole. China didnt sign the 3rd protocol of GenConv, India only signed the first one. Should I c continue country by country? Where is your majority of humanity again? I guess this is about taking responsibilty for your actions, huh? So it's still AFTER the deed.
Not really convincing in this case as the father already committed his crimes (not like they were warcrimes, but lets go with your analogy of GenConv). What the frak is the difference between you using the genovian convention vs the father (please, convince your brain to go with the analogy however hard it is for you) after the deed and punishing him? You think that the kid wont be brandished by his father deeds by his environment, even in a "western country"? You cant be that naive. You know how this is called? Common sense. Of humanity. Oh wait, I used the same big words you used. But because I am from a different environment than you, I have a different perception than you.
Oh my, I really went and crashed with my truck-kun into your "science", huh. Not really graceful. But please, do try and come into my area to trash me if it's as ungrounded as your "science" is. You won't be able to, because it is not false science. Sorry for bashing you, it was fun.
You are free to have your narrow-minded opinion, but don't act as if that is anything beyond just your opinion. Psychology is considered a science by the academic community whether you like it or not. Your bigotry won't change that.
The kind of science where almost every freakin experiment about human behaviour turns out to be falsified evaluations of these experiments, up from 40-50 years ago or more.
You can find examples where this has happened in all sciences. It just happens rarely enough that scientific papers are more credible than the biased ramblings of random people on a manga forum.
Here's the kicker:
You should not try to defend your points so vehemently on a manga site like this, it's unfun, and not really graceful.
Why should I not? You talk bs, get called on it, keep talking bs, are presented with scientific evidence just so that you would stop spouting drivel and then you argue that this should not be done? Give me a good reason why anybody should stand for your bs. Yup, it is disgraceful to see bonobos trying to defend morals straight out of the tyrannical and authoritarian regimes. It's also not very fun having to argue with people defending unethical and irrational practices just because 'muh culture'. I would argue as vehemently against practices in western culture that I believe are garbage, simply because I am not a bigot.
but as I said, you dont represent humanity as a whole.
This is not about me representing humanity, it's about you arguing against numerous scientific findings. Based on what? Your bias towards psychology. Unfortunately for you, papers written by people working in the field will be more credible than your uneducated opinion on the matter. Not only that, you have historical empirical evidence linking this to mostly tyrannical and authoritarian regimes but you choose to close your eyes when it comes to thar. Additionally the basis of kin punishment stems from a logical fallacy.
China didnt sign the 3rd protocol of GenConv, India only signed the first one.
Countries are free to disagree with it, won't change the fact that the principles that it is based upon are humanitarian. Also since you mentioned China and India I would be very interested to see a current law regarding kin punishment.
Where is your majority of humanity again? I guess this is about taking responsibilty for your actions, huh? So it's still AFTER the deed.
What the frak is the difference between you using the genovian convention vs the father (please, convince your brain to go with the analogy however hard it is for you) after the deed and punishing him?
I see you keep on with the false analogies. Did I ever argue anything regarding using the geneva convention against the father? Are you on stimulants or delusional? The kid getting blame, and in this case emotional harm as well as property damage is illegal in Japan. So that's it for kin punishment being accepted - it is not. If the perpetrators are caught, they would be charged with vandalism and property damage, regardless of their drivel that they did it because he's the son of a criminal.
You think that the kid wont be brandished by his father deeds by his environment, even in a "western country"?
He wil surely get 'brandished' because shitty humans are not exclusive to the east. That doesn't mean that kin punishment is widely accepted in western societies though, does it? So what's your point? Nothing.
Oh wait, I used the same big words you used. But because I am from a different environment than you, I have a different perception than you.
Yeah you believe scientifically disproved medieval punishment methods to 'work'. Good job. You can keep to your different 'perception', you should expect to get called on your irrational and harmful beliefs though.
Oh my, I really went and crashed with my truck-kun into your "science", huh. Not really graceful.
You just made a fool of yourself by stating your opinion that a science field is not such because it disagrees with your views. Pretty disgraceful indeed. But I can't stop you from disgracing yourself, you've been doing so with every single reply.
Manga about virgin dude wanting to shag his girlfriend after losing his memories and the comment section explodes into all out political/cultural gibberish war
What "humanity's ethic standards" are you talking about, again? Maybe it's your's and your region's/religion's, whichever you prefer over the other?
