All they had to do was eat the food, and none of the violence would have started. I am not saying that the other guys did were right or should be given a past but they are the people who lit the spark .
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.
All they had to do was eat the food, and none of the violence would have started. I am not saying that the other guys did were right or should be given a past but they are the people who lit the spark .
That does not follow my logic at all. Eating all the food was one of the rules set out by people higher then them. They even told them that it was not one of their rules.
Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong.
Then you are a follower/sheep with your reasoning: A freethinker use the brain and question any rule/order they get.
shareIT WAS A PRISON MORON THEY WERE PRISONERS in what world do you think being a supposed free thinker while a prisoner in a prison is going to turn out well for you????
"The People Of America Have Spoken THE REAL TITLE TOWN U.S.A IS VALDOSTA GEORGIA"
It is a prison experiment. Now if they had said, screw it, this is too tough, I don't want the money anymore. That would have been one thing.
But they wanted the money AND they didn't want to obey the rules by the paying party. 77 did deserved to have physical violence inflicted upon him. His behaviour was unjust and deserve retribution.
The people running the experiment assured the participants that violence against the prisoners would not be allowed, period, full stop. The experiment was supposed to end if it was allowed. So that assurance of safety for the participants was also part of the "agreement" they entered into to get the money. The guards were supposed to figure out other methods to keep order besides violence.
So, the company violated its own assurances of worker safety, by not stopping the experiment at the first instance of violence.
Besides, how do you know that the prisoners still expected money at the end of the experiment? I think there came a point, probably around the time the diabetic was dying, and probably no later than the ass rape, that they would have been happy if the company had let them out of there, pay or no pay. And in fact, if the company really had any leg to stand on legally, they wouldn't have paid them, because the experiment was terminated before 14 days. So why did they pay them (the full 14 grand, no less), hmmm? Probably because they were scared sh!tless of the giant legal boot that was about to bear down on their ass over what they did allow to happen in their "experiment". (And it's hinted there was a legal case (or cases) over it anyway--"yes, I'll testify".) That, I suspect, would be closer to what the real world would think of your notion of who deserves what.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Sure, the company engaged in criminal behaviour. So what?
The prisoner didn't know that when they first revolted. When they first revolted, they did expect payment. Obviously, as things worsened, it became pretty obvious that it was a criminal experiment and expectations of payment was probably reduced.
But the point is, when they first revolted, they entirely did expect payment despite revolting. If you disagree, please have the courage to say so explicitly.
There was nothing in the contract saying the prisoners wouldn't get paid if they broke the rules about eating, etc. What the contract stipulated is that the guards had to keep order, and enforce obedience without violence--and that the experiment would end if there was violence (and then no one would get paid), or would end if there wasn't a commensurate (non-violent) punishment given by the guards.
So, two ways the experiment would end and result in no pay: (1)violence (by anyone, guard or prisoner), or (2)failure of guards to punish commensurately (but non-violently, see condition (1)). There was nothing that said they would not get paid if they didn't eat their food, just that the guards were then obligated to punish (non-violently) for such infractions. Maybe you need to watch the film again if you didn't catch that detail--I can actually see how it might be hard to see that distinction between what would actually end the experiment (and result in no pay), and what would not.
But at any rate, it did turn out meaningless, because the company guaranteed to end the experiment at the first moment of violence, and yet did not. I think the prisoners would have acted differently if they had known that guarantee was a lie.
And note that they did get paid at the end, in spite of multiple violations by just about everybody. If this were really a valid contract that had been broken, then why would the company pay them? Did you ever once wonder why they did? Think on that, then get back to me.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Sigh. You really are persistent in being stupid, aren't you?
The prisoners didn't know any of that. From their viewpoint, being disruptive as they were would have likely ended the experiment given what they knew. Your entire post assumes perfect hindsight.
Eating all the food was one of the rules set out by people higher then them.
Except they are forced to eat under doctors orders pretty soon after they start a hunger strike.
"The People Of America Have Spoken THE REAL TITLE TOWN U.S.A IS VALDOSTA GEORGIA"
I completely agreed.
But they wanted the money AND they didn't want to obey the rules by the paying party. 77 did deserved to have physical violence inflicted upon him. His behaviour was unjust and deserve retribution.
Seriously?
shareAND they didn't want to obey the rules by the paying party. 77 did deserved to have physical violence inflicted upon him
I already said that 77 deserved retribution.
If you put someone's eye out, that is unjust. Him putting both your eyes out in retribution is entirely just.
They were, however, told that any punishment (i.e. "retribution" as you put it) had to be non-violent, or else the experiment would end.
So there were rules about retribution as well.
Any violence (be it by a prisoner, or a guard) was supposed to end the experiment. So who performed the first act of violence? Clue: it wasn't "77".
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
Don't change the topic. Who deserves retribution?
shareAugustus_Octavian you are a *beep* moron.
One of the guards murdered a man, assaulted another as well as urinated on that same man and performed torture techniques on him.
I think it is pretty obvious who deserves your retribution.
Insolence does not deserve being kicked to the ground and urinated on. Everything 77 did after that was reactionary and justified.
You are a *beep* idiot. Cheating someone of his money certainly deserves severe retribution. If you cheat me, I catch you and I can get away with it, I will certainly kill you as retribution.
The cheat has no moral right to retribution of his own since he is in the wrong to begin with.
Are you serious?
Your logic or your morals are very flawed. Perhaps both.
Disobeying rules, even in a prison, is not deserving of being kicked to the ground and urinated on by multiple men. That is assault. The guards did this. They are in the wrong and they are to blame.
You need your head examined.