[QUOTE=Raygun99]
Except somehow, I don’t think you’d be saying that if the data showed a clear bias to your explanation.
[/QUOTE]
As this takes a differetn tack than your previous question to me, I take it that you beleive your previous question to me was inappropriate. Good, we are in agreement. I’m trying to see on what basis you draw this latest conclusion, except somehow, I don’t think there is any. You may want to reread my posts.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
As this takes a differetn tack than your previous question to me, I take it that you beleive your previous question to me was inappropriate. Good, we are in agreement.
[/QUOTE]
No, I agree to no such thing, simply rephrasing. I believe that you were trying to do the same thing with looking back at prisons, Iraq, and 18th century ships at sea and trying to interpret “why” these situations worked to prove the effectiveness of capital punishment, except it wasn’t as convincing or applicable.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Next, I can say with absolute certainly that every person "hung by the neck until dead’ was indeed “detered” from commiting more crimes.
[/QUOTE]
If you think that’s what deterrence means, in this context, then your stupidity knows no bounds.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
This is where you explain your view of society. After you wrote the words
That is where I got your view of society. Not only do you think we are like a pack of animals, but your assumption that people will project themselves into someone else’s situation is also wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Well if you change both my words and there intent it’ll be hard to have a discussion. I said “animal”, not “animals”. I was describiing an “entity”, much the way a mob is referred to as an “entity”. Maybe “organism” would have been a better word. But I would point out that we are in fact, animals. Degrading connotations to that notion aside, it is true. We seek to avoid pain and seek out pleasure. Or do you think that evolution has removed us from such fundamental considerations?
[QUOTE=Zebra]
People always feel that they can get away with it, even though that guy didn’t because they are smarter. Are you telling me the only reason that you don’t kill people is that you are certain that you will get the DP? The vast majority of murders, (not the one profiled on tv or in books) are crimes of passion. Someone gets pissed and then they decide to kill the person that pissed them off.
[/QUOTE]
Even assuming your “most” claim is true, “most” does not equal “all”. And even when “passion” is a factor, there are varying degrees. People find themselves in fights with great rage, yet they don’t always kill the person. I would offer that and underlying sense of morality tempers one’s actions, as does one’s desire to no be executed or separtated from their loved ones and thrown in a cell for 30 years.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
If opposing the government didn’t happen very often in Saddam’s Iraq, then why were the prisions so full of people? You stated that the swift and harsh punishments PREVENTED crime jin Iraq. It did no such thing. You conclusion is wrong.
[/QUOTE]
First, I don’t know that to be the case. I don’t know if for the size of the society there were a lot of Iraqis in prison or few. And as Saddam could do whatever he wanted, it could be the case that many who were in prison were there on his whim. Or because a relative was viewed to be critical of the state. Or one of his murderous sons just got his jollies taking the man away from his family. And you’re playing with how we are talking about crime, using it to mean all crimes in one instance and those instances that Saddam would have viewed as an action threatening to the state (him). It is my understanding that the latter were not tolerated.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
Your conclusion about prision camps and sailing vessels are also wrong and inapplicable, which you yourself admit. So, why the fuck did you bring them up as examples to bolster your arguement? Is it because you don’t have anything to bolster your auguement? hummmmmm?
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:You claim that my view of society is fucked up and when asked for clarification you misquote me in order to change my meaning. You claim that my examples suffer from not being good good examples from American society, but when I point out that I never siad or implied they were you take that as an admission of failing in that regard. Try reading again my explanation to you as to why I brought them up. I wonder why you keep misconstruing my words on the page? Hmmmmm.
Once again, my original argument has to do with how behavior can be changed. I maintian that many of the same paradigms at work when training animals apply when seeking to alter or curtail human behavior. I know very little about bot the statistics and the tenor of the societies in Iraq, a prison camp, or what transpired on old world sailing vessels. I offered those as a place where it seems we would have swift punishment.
Regardless, my main point stands. If you wish to argue that human behavior cannot be altered or curtailed using the same methods we use to train animals, I’m all ears. If you wish to argue that effective training methods do not involve swift, consistent punishment, let’s hear it. If you are of the opinion that these methods do not apply because my claims of empathy and projection are wrong, I’d be eager to hear why you think that to not be the case.
[QUOTE=Raygun99]
No, I agree to no such thing, simply rephrasing. I believe that you were trying to do the same thing with looking back at prisons, Iraq, and 18th century ships at sea and trying to interpret “why” these situations worked to prove the effectiveness of capital punishment, except it wasn’t as convincing or applicable.
[/QUOTE]
The “same thing” as what? I don’t think we are understanding one another. I would ask you to read the last couple of paragraphs to Zebra, as it may help half of the equation.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
I might feel a bit of anger at the anti-gun lobby as well, because I likely would not have been in that situation if I were armed and could defend myself with a legally-carried firearm.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Maybe, maybe not. After all, Flor’s victim was a trained police officer with nearly a year’s active duty experience, but that didn’t prevent Flor from grabbing his gun and shooting him with it. Are you smarter, faster, or more skilled with firearms than the tragically late Officer Gregg? If not, what makes you think it’s “likely” you’d do better than he did at saving yourself from the sudden attack of a vicious homicidal psychopath?
[/QUOTE]
Never mind Officer Gregg. Are you (Bricker and/or anyone who feels the same way) better trained, equipped, and prepared than the Secret Service? Are you more alert than the SS on active presidential detail?
Or do you think Mark David Chapman has superpowers?
Because he emptied a standard handgun into the world’s highest-value target on national TV in front of dozens of heavily armed, fully-alert, perfectly-trained men and women.
He squeezed 'em all off, clean, and hit his target too.
QED. A gun is not a defense. Counter-offense, perhaps.
Sailboat
I think buttonjockey summed it up nicely. Personally, I never bought the deterrence argument, as a point of fact, I never cared. It’s not about deterrence, it’s about a just punishment for heinous crimes. Lucy can wax poetic all he wants about an individual’s fundamental right to life, and I would agree with him, but where we would part company is that Lucy believes that that right is irrevocable and I do not. By one’s actions, an individual can forfeit that right. When they do, they should be strung up. There is no moral dilemma in that, and the idea that holding people responsible for their actions somehow erodes the moral underpinnings of society is ludicrous. In fact, the opposite is the case.
[QUOTE=Lissa]
If you’ll read over the cases listed here you’ll find that most of the people executed were not afflicted by crushing poverty. Rather, they often stole for the same reason that modern folks do: greed. Here is a selection of robbers and highway men.
[/QUOTE]
Well, those are selected for being cool to read. But some are indeed poverty:
*"THE miserable subject of the present case, an emaciated lad of about fourteen years of age, appeared at the bar at the Old Bailey. He was indicted for stealing a jacket, being almost naked, valued at fourteen shillings. The evidence against him was too clear.
Being asked what he had to say in his defence, he told an artless, affecting tale : that he came from the United States of America, and was a cabin-boy in a merchant vessel from that country, which arrived six months before, but returned without him; that he found himself destitute and without a penny; and that cold and hunger alone had compelled him to steal clothes and food.
One of the jury asked him if had eaten anything that day, to which he answered : " No, sir; nor a bit the day before."...
ANN FLYNN was indicted at the Old Bailey for stealing from a butcher in Whitechapel a shoulder of mutton. It appeared in evidence that, the prosecutor being busy with his customers on a Saturday night, the prisoner availed herself of that opportunity, and carried away the shoulder of mutton. She was, however, soon seized and brought back, and, an officer being sent for, she was carried before a magistrate, and committed for trial. These facts being proved, the prisoner was called upon for her defence; and she told a tale of woe that penetrated every heart. She acknowledged the robbery; but solemnly declared she was urged to it by the most afflicting distress. Her husband had been ill and unable to earn a shilling for twelve weeks, and she was driven to the last extremity, with two infant children. In that deplorable situation, continued the unfortunate woman, while the tears ran down her wan cheeks, she desperately snatched the shoulder of mutton – for which she had already been confined five weeks.*
So, those are two of the many. I agree that quite a few seemed to be just plain greedy, but the small amount stolen in many cases with no other circumstances seems to agrue need rather than greed.
I didn’t change your words fucktard. You are just a weasel. Saying that society is an animal is implying that members of the society are animals.
(SIGH)
Now you want to claim that society is like a mob. Is is not like a mob. A mob is senseless. We are talking about the rulings of a court of law. Do you think, the rulings of a court of law should be like a mob? A lynch mob perhaps?
If people, in your fucked up idea of how society works, would look at an execution and say to themselves, “Gee, that could happen to me, I had better behave myself”, then that is completely unlike a mob. A mob doesn’t behave in regards for their own safety. Witness mobs throwing rocks at armored police cars and setting things on fire. A mob isn’t interested in the preservation of a itself, the way a society is. This is, yet another, pointless comparison.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Once again, my original argument has to do with how behavior can be changed. I maintain that many of the same paradigms at work when training animals apply when seeking to alter or curtail human behavior. *I know very little about bot the statistics and the tenor of the societies in Iraq, a prison camp, or what transpired on old world sailing vessels. I offered those as a place where it seems we would have swift punishment. * Regardless, my main point stands. If you wish to argue that human behavior cannot be altered or curtailed using the same methods we use to train animals, I’m all ears. If you wish to argue that effective training methods do not involve swift, consistent punishment, let’s hear it. If you are of the opinion that these methods do not apply because my claims of empathy and projection are wrong, I’d be eager to hear why you think that to not be the case.
[/QUOTE]
So, let me get this straight. You freely admit that you really didn’t know what you were talking about in your examples, that you used to make you point that you can change society, with the methods, similar methods, to training animals. (those being the use of negative reinforcement) Yet, even though you have admitted that you don’t really know about those ‘proofs’ you offered, you still think you have a valid point? And now you invite me to show you how society can be change in other method?
First off, you don’t know much about animal training either, since you seem to think that beating an animal is the best way to training it. Maybe you should watch the freeking The Dog Whisperer to see that.
Now, you are in fact correct, society can be changed by some brutal son of a bitch. Hitler and the High Command changed German society with brutality. Stalin, Pol Pot, loads of people have shaped their society like it was an animal and they treated that animal brutally until the animal submitted. None of those societies are anything I want to live in, if you want to like in a society like that, there are plenty of places on earth where you can move and enjoy the high living of a well trained society.
But you can count me out. And I won’t let you change America into society that you envision.
If you want to ignore, and I don’t see how you can, the execution of innocent men then how does the revenge become yours. If your family member gets murdered then maybe you should have the option of pulling the switch. To put that on an employee of the state is unfair. I have read that the executioners suffer afterwards. I am sure there are a lot of people who will say they will be glad to do it. When you sit at home and don’t really have the option it is easy to say.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
There is no moral dilemma in that, and the idea that holding people responsible for their actions somehow erodes the moral underpinnings of society is ludicrous. In fact, the opposite is the case.
[/QUOTE]
Right. Because the only way its possible to hold a murderer responsible for his actions is to kill him. All of us who are opposed to the death penalty want murderers to just walk free. Because, as danceswithcats pointed out earlier, those of us who are anti-death penalty oppose it out of our deep love and abiding respect for people who commit homicide.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Right. Because the only way its possible to hold a murderer responsible for his actions is to kill him. All of us who are opposed to the death penalty want murderers to just walk free.
[/QUOTE]
Nice strawman. Does it come with a hat?
Oh, sorry, is this another instance where what you plainly said is not what you plainly said?
[QUOTE=Miller]
Oh, sorry, is this another instance where what you plainly said is not what you plainly said?
[/QUOTE]
No, jackass. Here’s a tip: just because you say that I said something doesn’t mean that I said it. You can try all day to stuff words into my mouth, but it won’t work.
Okay, 'dave, why don’t you tell me what this part of your post means:
We’ve got two sides to the argument in this thread. People who think that the state should execute people for certain crimes, and people who think the state should never execute people under any circumstance. Who in this thread is arguing that people should not be held responsible for their actions? Since you’re taking the pro-DP side, it seems unlikely that you’re taking about them. So it seems pretty logical to assume that, when you talk about not holding people responsible for their actions, you’re talking about people who oppose the death penalty.
Or is this another one of those posts you like to make that, despite being clearly addressed to the people who post on this message board, is really actually honestly about people who post on some other message board?
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
No, jackass. Here’s a tip: just because you say that I said something doesn’t mean that I said it. You can try all day to stuff words into my mouth, but it won’t work.
[/QUOTE]
No, you specifically connected the death penalty (that’s what the discussion is about, remember?) with the concept of “holding people responsible for their actions.”
That suggests that you believe that, in some cases, the death penalty is the only appropriate way to do that.
Your post also implied that those who oppose the death penalty are somehow opposed or reluctant to people responsible for their actions. Hence Miller’s perfectly appropriate response.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
So, those are two of the many. I agree that quite a few seemed to be just plain greedy, but the small amount stolen in many cases with no other circumstances seems to agrue need rather than greed.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps the victims didn’t have much to be stolen. Like today, it could be that the poor were disproportionately the victims of crime.
I said:
which is a far cry from what Miller said I said:
There is a difference between “heinous crimes” and “murderer”, and what constitutes a just punishment for both is different too. Just punishments are holding the person responsible for their actions. If a child steals a candy bar and is given LWPOP, or if a person blows up a courthouse causing 600 deaths and is given probation, in neither case is the person receiving a just punishment and being held responsible for their actions. IMO, a society that holds the life of an individual more sacred than their actions, when those actions are of a heinous nature, is weakening it’s moral base, and diluting the rights of the innocent victims of those heinous crimes. If Miller had said that, I would have agreed with him, because it’s exactly what I did say. Instead he changed the argument and then attacked a position that I hadn’t taken, which is the definition of a straw man, which is why I called it such.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
Saying that society is an animal is implying that members of the society are animals.
[/QUOTE]
No.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
Now you want to claim that society is like a mob. Is is not like a mob. A mob is senseless. We are talking about the rulings of a court of law. Do you think, the rulings of a court of law should be like a mob? A lynch mob perhaps?
[/QUOTE]
Wow. I suggest you reread what I actually wrote. Keep an eye out through the foam bubbling up into your face for the word “organism”. (Reading your last comment though, did give me a snicker as it brought back The Church Lady:“..could it be…SATAN!”)
[QUOTE=Zebra]
If people, in your fucked up idea of how society works, would look at an execution and say to themselves, “Gee, that could happen to me, I had better behave myself”,…
[/QUOTE]
Now you seem to get it.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
…then that is completely unlike a mob. A mob doesn’t behave in regards for their own safety. Witness mobs throwing rocks at armored police cars and setting things on fire. A mob isn’t interested in the preservation of a itself, the way a society is. This is, yet another, pointless comparison.
[/QUOTE]
Oops. Spoke to soon. Try rereading AGAIN. Look at the context in which I used the word “mob”. It is not as you seem to think.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
So, let me get this straight.
[/QUOTE]
I’m betting you won’t.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
You freely admit that you really didn’t know what you were talking about in your examples, that you used to make you point that you can change society, with the methods, similar methods, to training animals. (those being the use of negative reinforcement) Yet, even though you have admitted that you don’t really know about those ‘proofs’ you offered, you still think you have a valid point? And now you invite me to show you how society can be change in other method?
[/QUOTE]
I win.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
First off, you don’t know much about animal training either, since you seem to think that beating an animal is the best way to training it. Maybe you should watch the freeking The Dog Whisperer to see that.
[/QUOTE]
Never claimed it was the best, just effective. If you calmed down it may improve your comprehension. If not, there are deeper problems to deal with.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
Now, you are in fact correct, society can be changed by some brutal son of a bitch. Hitler and the High Command changed German society with brutality. Stalin, Pol Pot, loads of people have shaped their society like it was an animal and they treated that animal brutally until the animal submitted. None of those societies are anything I want to live in, if you want to like in a society like that, there are plenty of places on earth where you can move and enjoy the high living of a well trained society.
[/QUOTE]
Well I am glad that you finally agree with my basic point: that quick, conssitent punishment can alter behvior on a societal level. That’s all I’ve been saying all along. Everything else has you misreading, misquoting, an filtering my words to your own ends. As far as the rest, you might want to check Wiki for The Fallacy of The Excluded Middle.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
But you can count me out.
[/QUOTE]
Noted. Painful as it may be.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
And I won’t let you change America into society that you envision.
[/QUOTE]
Now that might be difficult, as you do not seem to grasp what I’d like society to be. But I wish you luck on your crusade against whatever you think you’re fighting against. May I suggest a cape? They seem to be popular with many fantasy crusaders.
Now, if you’d like to calm down and discuss things accurately and respectfully, we can do that. If not, I’ll just wish you luck on your mission to stamp out whatever you imagine needs stamping out.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
There is a difference between “heinous crimes” and “murderer”, and what constitutes a just punishment for both is different too.
[/quote]
Really? Murder isn’t a heinous crime? And this is a standard definition that everyone would have been aware of, and as such instantly understood that you were talking about Oklahoma City-style terrorist attacks, and not someone who shoots a 7-11 clerk?
So, in other words, what I said was essentially accurate. You just wanted to nitpick over what constitutes a “heinous crime.”
If you ever find yourself wondering why you have no credibility on these boards, dave, all you have to do is come back and look at this thread to remind yourself. Maybe you should bookmark it.