Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

random_vermonter t1_j6fose2 wrote

Reply to comment by JodaUSA in Someone shot a bald eagle on Lake Rescue in Ludlow. by cookmybook

The bald eagle is magnificent. Penalty needs to be harsher imho.

3

JodaUSA t1_j6fphet wrote

Shouldn’t criminal punishment be based on reason and not “I think the bird is cool”? Like it’s a mockery of our justice system if people go to jail for killing this bird, but if you kill an extra deer is just a fine?

−4

Kurigana t1_j6h7xkj wrote

Well, this specific bird is a national symbol, so it's way more relevant – socially and culturally – to the society than a deer.

0

JodaUSA t1_j6irwy4 wrote

Ok so send him to jail because nationalism? Jfc that’s even worse…

0

Kurigana t1_j6j6ukm wrote

Nationalism? LMAO. I didn't even say that. He's going to jail because he broke the social contract he accepted when decided to live in a society with laws. He enjoys the benefits of the society and, in return, follows the ethical code of it, whatever it is.

What I'm explaining is why they decided to put a law protecting this specific bird (and correctly): because it's a cultural symbol of the country and is much more relevant to the society than any other random deer.

1

JodaUSA t1_j6jdsnz wrote

  1. The social contract is bullshit and an outdated theory of social cohesion.

  2. The reason we value the bald eagle above deer is quite literally just nationalism. That social relevance is just nationalism. The deer is literally no less important as the eagle.

0

Kurigana t1_j6jfjrz wrote

How is it bullshit? The social contract isn't even an ideology to be right or wrong; it's literally a way to organize a society. It's literally the philosophical basis of the US constitution. With a simple Google search you can find lots of articles on the influence of this model of society in the America's own. Or you'll just stick with fallacies again, denying it IS how the American society works without explaining?

About the deer: it's obviously less important – at least in the American view. The life of an animal is decided by its social relevance. If, to you, every single animal life is the same, you should be in jail for killing tons of bacteries at this moment.

1

JodaUSA t1_j6jrhl5 wrote

The social contract is bullshit because society is forced on you. You don’t agree to participate, you don’t get a choice. It’s not some consensual arrangement between you and the rest of society. You don’t get a choice in whether you participate or not, and so the notion of a social contract is just propaganda to make people think that they agreed to whatever societal woes they face. The theory was literally invented in the age of colonialism, its not exactly a theory to champion.

And the deer is only less important if you think American social values are inherently worthwhile, and to assume American social values are inherently valuable I’d by definition nationalism. To think you should go to prison because of the symbolic value of killing a particular bird is obviously nationalist bullshit.

The only actual reason that that poaching is bad is because it makes the ecosystem unstable. Killing a bird is equally impactful as killing a deer in that sense.

If both of these acts are materially the same, then any rational government would implement that same punishment, and I don’t think prison is really suitable.

Prison entirely ruins your life. It’s far too serious a punishment for this crime. Getting your life ruined cause you shit a bird? I think yanking away their right to own guns, so that they cannot repeat this act, and a fine to help pay for conservation efforts, would be an actually suitable punishment.

The social relevance of the bird should be entirely irrelevant to our justice system. But that metric killing a celebrity would be worse than killing a normal civilian.

1

Kurigana t1_j6kjkst wrote

You obviously agreed to participate. Do you have any documents? I think you voluntarily agreed to sign them, didn't you? Why don't you do like Kaczynski and go to the woods, running away of this shitty society if you don't agree with it? That's because society feeds you and gives you the comfort you want and, in return, you are forced to follow their rules. Contratualism itself isn't even about signing something, it's about how the society evolved to what it is today, with humans don't living in their natural state at nature anymore due to a general consensus of creating a civilization with laws made to avoid its collapse.

As I said before: this specific bird is more relevant to the society than a random deer, you liking it or not. A judicial system isn't made exclusively by reason. A judge always considers the context, the people involved and even the feelings behind a happening. If you've killed a old man just because you wanted to do so, you'll face heavy consequences. If you've killed a old man who raped your son in revenge, then this context and your feelings will be considered in the judgement and you'll still face consequences, but they're definitely going to be less intense than in the first case.

Otherwise, let's kill the President and then a random ordinary stranger and see what happens. They're just two corpses, aren't they? The consequences should be the same for these two murders, since they, objectively, are the exactly same thing in your logic: someone shot someone. As I stated before: the bird has its importance and that's why someone who kills this specific animal is going to be in jail in no time.

You can agree or disagree with that. You asked why someone who killed a bird would be in jail and I gave you the answer. You asked why a deer isn't as important as this specific bird and I gave you the answer. Now it's up to you agree or disagree with that.

0

JodaUSA t1_j6n45q2 wrote

You are literally arguing from nationalism and your inability to see that is distressing. Nobody should value the President over any other individual, they are literally of equal importance.

You’re beliefs are archaic.

0

Kurigana t1_j6oha4b wrote

Nationalism? Are you stupid? That's how every fucking judicial system works in the world.

You want to give 30 years of prison to someone for killing a random beggar and, then, the same 30 years for killing the fucking President, who's way more important to the country socially and objectively. You want to give a guy 30 years of prison for killing a random kid and, then, the same 30 years of prison to a guy who killed a random kid while the kid was with a bazooka trying to explode his house. EVERY, I repeat, EVERY judicial system will take the context and social relevance of someone into account.

And is every living organism of the same importance? So go to jail, because you've killed probably three trillions of bacteries by now. Why wouldn't they be relevant? This is nationalism! Stop being nationalist! LMAO.

1