Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
I've never been beat up because I know how pointless fighting is.
It hurt.
If the word processor was Notepad, then the problem is you need to turn off Word Wrap first. This may be true for other word processors as well.
The problem with imprisonment is that you need to set aside funding and manpower simply to keep these criminals locked away. So they've gone from being direct or indirect threats to being parasites, and there's no guarantee whatsoever that they'll rehabilitate or give back. What I actually said was that most people don't--many people are set in their ways by the time they reach 30.
Also, drug dealers are nonviolent? Methinks you need to read up on the subject more. Part of the reason there's a strong case for legalizing drugs is because career drug dealers tend to use violence, whether against competing drug lords, police informants, or just unlucky sobs on the street who happened to find out where the weed was being processed.
@Edmania
It's idealistic in the sense that it shows you how small you might be thinking, and that even though bad things happen they're outweighed by greater things. The fact that Zhuge Liang died (of a perfectly natural cause IIRC) doesn't change the fact that he lived, and while he lived he fucking pwned.
It's inspiring in the same sense, then, that watching an episode of Ninja Warrior is--it shows you exactly what kind of amazing shit humanity is capable of.
If the word processor was Notepad, then the problem is you need to turn
off Word Wrap first. This may be true for other word processors as
well.
I do not plan on doing that again, so I should be okay. Thank you for the advice though.
The problem with imprisonment is that you need to set aside funding and
manpower simply to keep these criminals locked away. So they've gone
from being direct or indirect threats to being parasites, and there's no
guarantee whatsoever that they'll rehabilitate or give back. What I
actually said was that most people don't--many people are set in their ways by the time they reach 30.
I am not sure where your evidence is for many people being set in their ways by the time they reach 30, but alright, I suppose you could be correct about that. I have also heard that once a prisoner passes a certain age, he or she is generally is not much of a threat to society at all. I see no reason to kill such a person when he or she is not even a threat to society, especially in regards to certain criminals who probably could never commit the same crime again, even if they somehow were able to escape from prison.
As for what you said about being parasites, I think the issue is more proportional punishment than anything else. I think using capital punishment on someone who never committed a violent crime means not having the punishment fit the crime. That strikes me as unjust and such has been considered to be against the Eighth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court as well, so I am not alone in that opinion. Of course, whether or not people agree with me on this is only tangentially related to this conversation.
I think the real issue is that if people do not believe that the punishment fits the crime in their justice system, they will tend to distrust it. I think that distrust can not only encourage disobedience and a lack of compliance with law enforcement, but may pose a serious threat to the political stability of a country. I think the cost of housing people in prison for a while is worth trying to prevent that threat.
Also, drug dealers are nonviolent? Methinks you need to read up on the
subject more. Part of the reason there's a strong case for legalizing
drugs is because career drug dealers tend to use violence, whether
against competing drug lords, police informants, or just unlucky sobs on
the street who happened to find out where the weed was being processed.
I do not think that drug dealers are inherently nonviolent, sorry for being unclear. I was referring to people who get convicted of dealing drugs without also being found guilty of violent crimes. You are right when you say that drug dealers can and do use violence for whatever reason. I definitely agree with that. However, if a drug dealer is not actually found guilty of a violent crime, I do not think we should assume he or she was violent. I think "innocent until proven guilty" is a pretty good standard after all.
Also, I believe that unless you know that legal system is perfect, the quick executions you talk about could involve innocent people. Now, this is not a critique of the death penalty per se, but if you do not actually imprison people (those convicted or nonviolent or violent crimes), you also have no holding place for them during appeals and the like. Thus, if I am understanding your position correctly, there would be either no opportunity to correct potentially incorrect rulings in trials or one would have to win an appeal very quickly in order to avoid being killed despite being innocent.
Feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding your argument.
First of all: People who tend to resort to violence, especially under desperation are not barbarians. They're people. Anyone can get sucked into a fight, anyone can be railed into being forced to use violence to survive. Does that make them barbaric?
Second: Society's higher ups and authority figures condemn violence, but they can be as hypocritical of this as they want. They can turn a blind eye to the obvious signs of school/work hostility, because they can. They can, even as a neutral third party, ruin your life. They won't care, it's not their problem. You're the 7000th schmuck here. assholes are aware of this fact, and will make your life a living hell anyway they can, and make sure they can do so under the radar, and make sure they can use authorities against you, if you can't figure out how to make authorities against them.
Third: I won't strawman the bullying kind, because they're human as well, but once they've targeted you, you cannot talk them out of it. Show me a bullying case that was solved by a truce and I'll show family blackmail. I'll show you planted criminal evidence in an attempt to ruin a life. I'll show you a 10 on 1 gang fight that ends in death.
There are things more heinous than violence from the everyman individual:
Society's grip on said everyman individual.
The politics in any given workplace or social group.
Society's rejects, and how they murder the law abiding, the innocent and the young without consequence.
If diplomacy can't help you here, what can?
Violence. It has to be used with extreme caution, and it can potentially ruin your life as well as everyone elses, but when it's damned if you do, damned if you don't, would you rather die (from the inside, or physically) whimpering, or swinging?
I'll go swinging. Everytime.
I wasn't suggesting that we should just blindly execute everyone who goes to jail. I was just saying that we shouldn't abolish executions.
I wasn't suggesting that we should just blindly execute everyone who
goes to jail. I was just saying that we shouldn't abolish executions.
Sorry, I guess I did not pick up on that from your previous posts. I never saw you make a distinction between who does and does not deserve to be executed. I suppose I just missed that. I guess you did mention drug dealers as people who deserve to be executed though. I disagree with such a punishment because I think it is not proportional and thus not just.
Everest,
I think Chuggles is the only one who was contesting any of that. I'm completely in agreement.
Well, to be honest, I disagree with at least the second part of what Schitzo said. My experience with authorities has not given me the same impression, but I realize that is subjective. I certainly do not think that getting violent is going to help authorities want to support you though.
I am also not so sure about the idea that "anyone can be railed into being forced to use violence to survive" even if I do agree that the people in question are not barbarians. There might be rare situations in which one's life is in danger if one does not strike back, but I think that in most if not all situations, running away is a possibility. I understand that there may be significant costs to that, but if we are just talking about bullying here, then I do think that running away tends to be possible.
Honestly, striking back when not doing so would mean certain death does not bother me that much. What does bother me is the praise for the "Zangief Kid" based on the idea that bullies need to pay and vengeance is a good thing. I felt really uncomfortable watching what happened to the kid who got taken down, even if he was a bully, especially since he limped off afterwards. I do not think that one should be complimented for doing something like that to a person, but that may just be me.
Anyway, I think there are many more instances of kids getting bullied who could not fight back (using their fists) even if they tried because they are physically weak or they have a medical condition or the bully in question is just really strong. I do not want to think about what a kid like that would try to do as revenge.
I try to avoid injury and damage, but I recognize that some things are worth fighting for; even so I rather the battles aim for a minimum of injury and damage. However, rarely are such things commonplace issues that cannot be solved by calming down and talking things out, possibly with the help of a mediator.
That said, I prefer Teddy Roosevelt's take on this: speak softly but carry a big stick.
mean to injure you, then only injure them. If they intend to flat-out
kill you, then you may have right to kill them.
Then again it's best to try and not kill them if you can, unless you are in some kind of...sick video game reenactment. Otherwise the murder attempt may be a one-time desperation move.
Vorpy's massive reply to Chuggles is great, though, I will say that.
This is usually harder to judge than you would think in any illegal fight.
Pretty much.