This redacted (renaming) routes is out of control!

Daniel Chode Rider wrote:

Successful and wealthy, yes. We're not talking about slavery though. No one's answered my question: why is whipping convicted criminals disgusting and immoral?

For the exact same reasons the death penalty is immoral: Innocent people may be imprisoned but that pales in comparison to being whipped and scarred for life or executed for something you didn't do. Its barbaric vengeance applied in a biased fashion, not justice.

Opinions like yours are the epitome of privilege: You can't imagine it ever happening to you (having no real experience with injustice) and so you can't imagine it being wrong, as long as it happens to others.

You're an embarrassment to whoever raised you. Odds are you think you're a Christian too.

SinRopa wrote:

Easy there HH.  He never said he favored whipping.  He asked a question about why it's considered disgusting/immoral now after being accepted for so long, and I took that as a thought experiment.  If it's an easy answer, then we should be able to give a substantial, dispassionate, objective response that doesn't invoke personal attacks that amount to "you're wrong because you're a bad person." 

Exactly. No need for the personal attacks.

SinRopa wrote:

Easy there HH.  He never said he favored whipping.  He asked a question about why it's considered disgusting/immoral now after being accepted for so long, and I took that as a thought experiment.  If it's an easy answer, then we should be able to give a substantial, dispassionate, objective response that doesn't invoke personal attacks that amount to "you're wrong because you're a bad person." 

EDIT:  Public sentiment has probably changed since the 90's, but I was surprised to learn (via links in the 'public reaction' section of Michael Fay's wikipedia page) that at the time of his caning in Singapore for vandalizing cars, 50-60% of Americans surveyed "favored whipping and other harsh sentences as an acceptable deterrent to crime in the United States." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay

By omission he did suggest he was in favor of whipping. I'd let him defend himself if/when he can. If he doesn't want to be attacked for holding vicious and bigoted views then he should clarify his original statement and I would be more than happy to apologize.

Some folks pay to get whipped.

M M wrote:

Some folks pay to get whipped.

How much? Asking for a friend.

FrankPS wrote:

Exactly. No need for the personal attacks.

That's right. It's funny how the people that claim to stand for kindness and compassion are the ones shutting people down with insults.

Justice must be balanced with mercy. Once the price is paid, one must be able to redeem themselves and continue living.

Lastly, I'd really like someone to respond to my last post with some questions about the bitch slapped route.

Edit: hillbilly, I wasn't addressing anything you said, so I'm not really sure who "he" is in your response. I see that quoting frank was confusing. Cheers.

Yoda Jedi Knight wrote:

That's right. It's funny how the people that claim to stand for kindness and compassion are the ones shutting people down with insults.

Justice must be balanced with mercy. Once the price is paid, one must be able to redeem themselves and continue living.

Lastly, I'd really like someone to respond to my last post with some questions about the bitch slapped route.

You don't respond to hateful comments from an age of human barbarity with kindness and compassion my friend. He just got an internet whipping and apparently couldn't even deal with that injustice. 

How do you think scars on one's back from a false accusation would feel? Again, I am more than willing to apologize if wrong, but I can't remove the scars or grow back a hand. Maybe that will give him some insight to his "question" and the morality of corporal punishment that historically has been used as an instrument of terror applied against the most vulnerable among us.

JonasMR wrote:

"All black people are disliked by the KKK." Is that racist, or is it just about racism? Racism that exists. 

Hey sport, here was my request:

Take this statement and in the blank at the end of it, fill it in with a negative characteristic and then ask yourself if what you've written is racist:

All black people are _____________.

How the FUCK is being disliked by a bunch of inbred, insecure racists a negative trait?

Perhaps take some time to breathe and actually read before you offer up yet another social justice diatribe.  Your confidence is misplaced.  Try again.

Go.

Dave K wrote:

Since we are now playing the fill in the blank game, can someone tell me when this one is not racist:

All _____________ people are _____________.

?

All people are created equally and are imbued with inalienable rights that guarantee them equal protection under the law.

;P

I reached my post limit and then forgot about this thread until now, oops.

Ftr, I was undecided on whether whipping was just until SinRopa reminded me of the 8th amendment, and from that I have concluded that whipping is not a just punishment as it is cruel, and perhaps unusual. Thanks. 

Hillbilly.... I'll just leave your comments alone, don't think there's anything of value to be had continuing along that line.

I do support the death penalty as I believe that some crimes do deserve death, and it does not have to be cruel in action. Nor is execution unusual.

don'tchuffonme wrote:

Hey sport, here was my request:

Take this statement and in the blank at the end of it, fill it in with a negative characteristic and then ask yourself if what you've written is racist:

All black people are _____________.

How the FUCK is being disliked by a bunch of inbred, insecure racists a negative trait?

Perhaps take some time to breathe and actually read before you offer up yet another social justice diatribe.  Your confidence is misplaced.  Try again.

You're right, my mistake. The sentence in the original book that you claimed to be addressing did not include a negative characteristic. It talked about what happened to white people in a society that has racists in it. But I went ahead and gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't bother to mention you misusing "negative characteristic." My bad. Here, lemme try again:

Hey sport, perhaps take some time to breathe and actually read before you offer up yet another culture warrior diatribe.  Your confidence is misplaced.  Try again. 

John Tuttle wrote:

All people are created equally and are imbued with inalienable rights that guarantee them equal protection under the law.

;P

You skipped the first blank 

All people are going to die within 120 years

Garry Reiss wrote:

How much? Asking for a friend.

There are plenty of folks that'll do it for free I heard.  Pillbillyhijinks could probably give you a more accurate number, he knows everything!

Garry Reiss wrote:

You're right, it was. Just like slavery and a thousand other disgusting things.

I think flogging is really not that bad of a punishment.  If I had a choice between 6 months in county jail or 25 lashes, I'm picking the lashes.  It's over in a couple of minutes and you don't lose your job and your home and your family and end up with Hepatitis and HIV.  Societies that have corporal punishments as part of their judicial system today have very low crime rates.  Now, if you want to get inhumane, cutting off peoples' noses and hands and genitals is inhumane, and that still occurs today as well as stoning, which is equally disgusting.  If you haven't seen someone get stoned, you should try to keep it that way.

Mike Schreiner wrote:

I think flogging is really not that bad of a punishment.  If I had a choice between 6 months in county jail or 25 lashes, I'm picking the lashes.  It's over in a couple of minutes and you don't lose your job and your home and your family and end up with Hepatitis and HIV.  Societies that have corporal punishments as part of their judicial system today have very low crime rates.  Now, if you want to get inhumane, cutting off peoples' noses and hands and genitals is inhumane, and that still occurs today as well as stoning, which is equally disgusting.  If you haven't seen someone get stoned, you should try to keep it that way.

Good points Mike; being an intrepid traveler I'm sure you've seen some things.

I wonder if there could be other factors besides corporal punishment that contribute to low crime stats though.

Mike Schreiner wrote:

I think flogging is really not that bad of a punishment.  If I had a choice between 6 months in county jail or 25 lashes, I'm picking the lashes.  It's over in a couple of minutes and you don't lose your job and your home and your family and end up with Hepatitis and HIV.  Societies that have corporal punishments as part of their judicial system today have very low crime rates.  Now, if you want to get inhumane, cutting off peoples' noses and hands and genitals is inhumane, and that still occurs today as well as stoning, which is equally disgusting.  If you haven't seen someone get stoned, you should try to keep it that way.

You do know how you can avoid HIV and Hep C in jail don’t you?

Public shaming over censorship I say. If the name is that bad try and shame the owner/ creator of that name, this is the best use of freedom. Most people hate being shamed in public and censoring names of routes is absolutely a petty waste of time.

M M wrote:

Public shaming over censorship I say. If the name is that bad try and shame the owner/ creator of that name, this is the best use of freedom. Most people hate being shamed in public and censoring names of routes is absolutely a petty waste of time.

^^This.

Better to document someone's misogyny or racism as errors of the past rather than erase it and sweep it under the rug. Its not for censors to rehabilitate one's past. We have to own up to this past.

Confederate statues honor the confederacy in public spaces. A route name just documents idiocy (as the case may be) and guide book authors can point out the name is offensive to the community. I bet that would bring some FA out of the woodwork to rename routes.

Better to move confederate statues to a museum of shame than destroy them.

M M wrote:

Public shaming over censorship I say. If the name is that bad try and shame the owner/ creator of that name, this is the best use of freedom. Most people hate being shamed in public and censoring names of routes is absolutely a petty waste of time.

I definitely agree that community pressure is better than top down censorship.

I'm not certain MP has the power to censor anything. As many folks have pointed out, guidebooks and climbers round the campfire are going to keep calling routes whatever they've been calling them. If MP had some kind of monopoly on route names, I'd get the concern that they are censoring something. But, IMHE, this site is more useful as a guide to get you to an area or know what guidebook to buy if you want to know more about a climb. 

It definitely feels like MP is just saying, "I'm not going to say that." Obviously they're going to make that statement for their own reasons, but I think any climber has the right to not use a name if they don't like it. Or because they forget the name, or because once Joe breaks his ankle on it they'll always call it "the one where Joe broke his ankle." No matter how good a name is, people may just end up not using it. Climbers, like cats, are hard to herd to consensus even when there is a 'rule' about it. If MP isn't a naming monopoly, then they're basically just another dude (or group of dudes).

Obviously people will feel differently about how much power MP has. And I think a useful discussion can be had on how much MP monopolizes route names. Just so long as we don't all jump on the 'politics' train.