>>24332929
>"Clear and Simple" is not a relevant factor of anon's point being reasonable.
Now you are just pretending to be retarded.
>I already addressed the notion of "one set of rules for the rich" if you read nietzsche like i just told you too, you'd understand how preconceived your notion of "equal" rules is.
Unfortunately we are not talking about Nietzsche's Ubermensch but about a girl who stars in degradation porn.
I've had my fill of these people. The only thieves I have ever met were spoilt rich kids looking for excitement who knew that they would never get in trouble. What they are doing is not difficult, aristocratic, or superior. They are acting like overgrown and grotesque infants. The mockery and contempt is deserved, and in any case, certainly not illegitimate.
>Has she committed any crimes since? Then there was no point in her being jailed. There would be effectively no meaningful difference if he goal is to stop crime.
Last Man attitude to life. Maybe you should take your own advice and read Nietzsche hmm? Justice means righting wrongs, not having a pristine bourgeois society.
>Other than to punish her and harm somebody so that somebody else can feel good.
Well, it would also be a demonstration that the justice is respected and enforced by the society we live in. Which has significant effects on solidarity and trust within society. But this too is merely a utilitarian gain - enforcing the rules is in fact its own reward, because it strengthens our integrity.
>She is cringe
By saying this you are already exerting pressure on her in order to curtail her freedom. If you are okay with this, then your issue is simply with the scale, not with restriction in itself.
>This doesn't logically follow from anything because you haven't established a logical basis for anything.
You need to return to the fundamentals and practice logic a lot more before you will be able to say such things and have them actually mean something. But you won't listen to me. And even if you did and developed your reasoning skills, few would respect them. I would be one of those few, by the way.
>I assert, that one simply does what is necessary to prevent wrong, and encourage good.
Maybe you should have namedropped Bentham instead of Nietzsche, Jesus Christ.
>>24332935
You are correct. I don't really know why I responded.
>>24332956
Yeah for rich people art is just a thing you do for attention. Like toddlers drawing to get attention from their mom, except the target is their peers instead. It doesn't mean anything.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

Why does Dostoyevsky romanticize whores