Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Inquartata · 08-26-2002, 07:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
[QB[/qb]<hr /></blockquote>this presupposes that every murderer will murder two others in prison. This is an inherently flawed assumption.[/qb][/quote]

I think it only need imply that they may do so in order to make the argument...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />[b]But then again, the death penalty can't eliminate them either. There are plenty of murders committed on the inside by people who are NOT in prison for murder.

-m[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>True. But we do the best we can. Reduce those most likely to be reducible. We do not do away with traffic signals because occasionally a helicopter may crash into an intersection...

Inquartata · 08-26-2002, 07:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
Mencken is hardly a social scientist and hardly has any reputation insofar as it concerns how the state should treat criminals. <hr /></blockquote>Mmm, no, but then the same could be said of you and me. Or at least of me; I don't know what your background is. So by that criteria we should not have opinions, or not argue them, and just let the social scientist with the proper reputations make public policy. Of course, if we do that we are no longer a democratic republic...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> As for the gene pool, I think the vast majority of these psychopaths like Richard Allen Davis, Cary Stayner, John Wayne Gacy, and many others never procreated, even during the times when they are able to. It's hardly the case that the abovenamed killers were sons (or daughters) of vicious killers, thus completely destroying the claim that they inherited some predisposition to killing.<hr /></blockquote>Ah, how fortuitous for me, then, that there is just such a case in the news. The man whose property has yielded up the remains of two teenage girls who had gone missing is the son of a man currently in prison for murder and suspected of several others. Both father and son even resemble each other in method of concealmen: both buried a victim under a poured concrete porch...

And many murderers and other violent criminals have parents or other close relatives with similar violent backgrounds. Apparently, it isn't all "nurture".

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> It's quite material in that it's revocable.<hr /></blockquote>No, it isn't. You cannot give an innocent man back twenty years of his life.

At any rate, that was not the point. The point was that it is not material to whether the community feels safer or not. Method of removal of "the wrong man" from the street makes no difference to whether or not the community "lets down its guard".

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I am not confusing murder with killing. Killing is killing is killing, whether it's out of emotional reaction, out of greed, out of self-defense or whatever other circumstance. <hr /></blockquote>Yes. But not all killing is murder. Murder is wrongful killing. Killing in self-defense, for example, is not murder. Neither is capital punishment.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> We (through the courts) decide whether the killing is justified. <hr /></blockquote>Actually, many killings never result in an arrest, much less in a court determination of justification. Of course, we may say that the courts ( and legislators ) of the past have done so, and thus set the standards, I suppose.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
In the case of the state, I feel that no killing can be justified. <hr /></blockquote>And that, as a matter of personal conviction, cannot be argued with. A perfectly valid opinion. So too is the converse opinion.

I respect your view; I was merely debating the facts and reasons you have advanced for that view.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The disposal is hardly simple, and unfortunately, never revocable. Make a mistake, and it's a mistake that can't be corrected.<hr /></blockquote>And again I say, past injustices can never be "corrected". They can only be terminated.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I would prefer to see a completely disarmed police force. I would prefer to see no government-led police force. <hr /></blockquote>Well, now that you mention it, so would I. Perhaps a better question would be, how long do you think it would take society to revert to a Hobbesian war of all against all if this were to be done?

In Utopia, no police would be needed. In the present world, though, even what we have seems not to quite suffice to keep us all safe...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />No, the first thing is to stop capital punishment. When the prisons overfill, start letting people out. Jail the corrupt "correctional officers" union, if anything. <hr /></blockquote>Oops, we're back to Utopia again!

Which is to say, it isn't going to happen. Even if we were to agree that it should. A status quo of these dimensions isn't going to yield to anything short of a revolution...

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> It's already well established that capital punishment is unfairly metted out to the poor and disadvantaged. That it does nothing to prevent future murders or other heinous crimes. That innocent people have been condemned to die. That it costs way too much for the whole process. Given all that, what's the social and opportunity cost to stop capital punishment? <hr /></blockquote>Agreed. I see no deterrent effect, and it does indeed disproportionately afflict the poor....as does every other result of our legal system. As to cost...I think that's a reason to reduce the cost, not to discard the practice entirely.

Reasons for it? Retribution. Chlorination of the gene pool.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />[b]Barbarism in the name of social good is as disgustingly wicked as anything on earth. I see no difference between sentencing a person to die than the Pakistani tribes who sentenced a woman to be gang raped for some crime her brother allegedly committed. We aren't so different that those we abhor.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Again, it comes down to personal belief in the end. I do not define it as "barbarism", and to me it is quite different from the example you mention.

Which is why it's still such a hotly contested issue, instead of a dead letter...

Inquartata · 08-26-2002, 08:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
But, as previously discussed, when you add a lengthy appeals proccess, it is actually MORE expensive to execute than house for life. So, the question becomes: would you rather spend x+y on death row inmates, or x on housing them for life, and y on those social programs you discussed? is killing the occasional psycopath worth the lives of less heinous criminals AND the money it would cost?

-m<hr /></blockquote>This is actually a false dilemma, in that there is a third alternative: reduce the costs for capital cases until they are equal to or less than x. Streamline the interminable appeals process, for instance. Probably much easier than eliminating the death penalty entirely.

Inquartata · 08-26-2002, 08:11 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gav:
If Britain was so succesful at removing the criminal gene why are crimes still committed? In fact the death penalty didn't act as a particular detterent as people were still killing each other while capital punishment was in force for all kinds of reasons. <hr /></blockquote>The crime rate, especially the violent crime rate, was astonishingly small in the 19th century. Mencken claimed that that ( temporary ) state of affairs was a result of ridding society of criminals, both by eliminating their blood from the gene pool and by removing them as a source of training and recruiting of new criminals. Obviously, once the death penalty went out of use the mechanism could no longer function and crime returned...or so the theory goes.

I think there never was any deterrent effect to capital punishment. No one ever believes he is going to be caught in the first place, much less convicted and executed.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />In addition how do you decide who belongs in the criminal classes and where, once you start, do you draw the line? Who gets to decide who should live and who should die? <hr /></blockquote>Lawmakers, no doubt, as with just about everything else in a polity. And ultimately, the citizenry.

In a democracy, if the majority deem capital punishment unjust and reject it, that is a proper outcome for that society. If it says it is just and good, that too is a proper outcome for that society.

epeemike81 · 08-26-2002, 09:53 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
There was not that much in the way of gun control in England in the 18th century. Or the 19th. Or unril the latter half of the 20th, indeed. Which, as you pointed out, was the period to which Mencken was referring.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, even then there were more stringent gun laws in England. Remember, in the US at that time, it was legal to purchase and own ANY type of firearm. In England, I don't believe you could mail order a tommy gun as you could in the US. Also, guns were certainly less common, regardless of official regulation.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Well, Mencken was an ardent, ah, advocate of the eugenic effects of things like capital punishment.<hr /></blockquote>And you are agreeing with him. Gee, and I thought eugenics went died with Hitler..... tell me, do you advocate preventing the procreation of those with hereditary diseases too?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Ah, yes, but the Mencken quote referred to a time when they did have the death penalty, and little or no gun control. Things have clearly changed...and not for the better, crime-wise. Could there be a connection?<hr /></blockquote>I'd like you to show me THOSE statistics....

btw, you still haven't responded to my contention that the Mencken quote was tongue in cheek. If it wasn't, it just doesn't jive with his other writings, though Mencken WAS known for being inconsistant....

-m

epeemike81 · 08-26-2002, 09:57 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
Ah, how fortuitous for me, then, that there is just such a case in the news. The man whose property has yielded up the remains of two teenage girls who had gone missing is the son of a man currently in prison for murder and suspected of several others. Both father and son even resemble each other in method of concealmen: both buried a victim under a poured concrete porch...

And many murderers and other violent criminals have parents or other close relatives with similar violent backgrounds. Apparently, it isn't all "nurture".<hr /></blockquote>really? he wasn't raised by his father? I bet he was..... and if he was, then it could very well be all nurture.

epeemike81 · 08-26-2002, 09:59 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
No, it isn't. You cannot give an innocent man back twenty years of his life.
<hr /></blockquote>no, but you CAN give him the next twenty, which is much more than you can give an executed man.

-m

epeemike81 · 08-26-2002, 10:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
As to cost...I think that's a reason to reduce the cost, not to discard the practice entirely.<hr /></blockquote>reduce cost how? lower number of appeals? I again submit that to lower the number of appeals not only causes intolerable injustice, but further victimizes the poor and minorities.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Reasons for it? Retribution. Chlorination of the gene pool.<hr /></blockquote>"Chlorination of the gene pool"??? Please stop being euphamistic! you are talking about eugenics. a policy which nobody in their right mind has put forward since prior to world war II. to do as you suggest opens the door to vast misuse.

-m

edew · 08-26-2002, 10:52 PM

Let's face it. Inquartata is hopelessly infatuated with the naive belief that there is clear right and wrong; that if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide; that the government is blameless, works only for the good of the people, and infinitely just.

Unfortunately, none of those are anywhere near the truth. Until the police work for the citizenry as opposed to against the citizenry, the government is not FOR the people. (When stopped by the police, try telling him off. If he can turn the other check and just say, "My apologies" and walk away, then he's working for you. If he takes you for a club ride and bang you up good, he's working against you.)

Expediting the appeals process is not the way to make justice less costly. If anything, the appeals process needs to be implemented much more often. When people die because their court appointed lawyer decides to sleep DURING the trial, and the courts later deem that such atrocious behavior by the attorney is not sufficient grounds for changing the verdict, we have a clear-cut case of abuse and misuse of justice, not "costly overruns during the appeals process".

There has been constantly many, many examples of government abuse of justice. Everything from Amadou Diallo to Tulia, TX to Ashcroft to whatever. It's epidemic.

servdragoon · 08-27-2002, 10:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
Let's face it. Inquartata is hopelessly infatuated with the naive belief that there is clear right and wrong; that if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide; that the government is blameless, works only for the good of the people, and infinitely just.

Unfortunately, none of those are anywhere near the truth. Until the police work for the citizenry as opposed to against the citizenry, the government is not FOR the people. (When stopped by the police, try telling him off. If he can turn the other check and just say, "My apologies" and walk away, then he's working for you. If he takes you for a club ride and bang you up good, he's working against you.)

Expediting the appeals process is not the way to make justice less costly. If anything, the appeals process needs to be implemented much more often. When people die because their court appointed lawyer decides to sleep DURING the trial, and the courts later deem that such atrocious behavior by the attorney is not sufficient grounds for changing the verdict, we have a clear-cut case of abuse and misuse of justice, not "costly overruns during the appeals process".

There has been constantly many, many examples of government abuse of justice. Everything from Amadou Diallo to Tulia, TX to Ashcroft to whatever. It's epidemic.<hr /></blockquote>There are obvious laws which can be accepted to be right or wrong. For example: 1+1=2. there would be no debate about the validity of this statements truth, nationally, or internationally. These kinds of laws are not relative from person to person, they are understood universally.
yet, a question to be considered is, can the logic that proves statements to be true or false be adopted to justify behaviour of people to such a degree as to come to a universal understanding of what is right or wrong, or true or false. This understanding becomes practiced in law and our judicial system.
The whole judicial system of america is based on a fundamental belief that there exists right and wrong, good and evil, constatly battling against each other for control. Yet the mechanism for control, our laws, can be manipulated as if justice did not exist.

epeemike81 · 08-27-2002, 10:19 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by servdragoon:
There are obvious laws which can be accepted to be right or wrong. For example: 1+1=2. there would be no debate about the validity of this statements truth, nationally, or internationally.<hr /></blockquote>well I disagree whole heartedly!!! I feel that 1+1=10, and that 2 is a meaningless symbol. see, even those fundamental rules can change with POV (in this case binary).

-m

[ 08-27-2002, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: epeemike81 ]

servdragoon · 08-27-2002, 10:45 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by servdragoon:
There are obvious laws which can be accepted to be right or wrong. For example: 1+1=2. there would be no debate about the validity of this statements truth, nationally, or internationally.<hr /></blockquote>well I disagree whole heartedly!!! I feel that 1+1=10, and that 2 is a meaningless symbol. see, even those fundamental rules can change with POV (in this case binary).

-m<hr /></blockquote>you have the freedom to choose to believe that 1+1=10, if that is what you want. Yet if you dont have the intellectual capacity to understand the logic of the statement 1+1=2, you might as well be a monkey, or a dog. Because we can understand things logically, after being presented with an argument that 1+1=2, and seeing the logic of it, one would have to choose not to see it as true, but just because we can choose to not understand doesnt mean that the statement isnt true.

darius · 08-27-2002, 10:56 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />you have the freedom to choose to believe that 1+1=10, if that is what you want. Yet if you dont have the intellectual capacity to understand the logic of the statement 1+1=2, you might as well be a monkey, or a dog. Because we can understand things logically, after being presented with an argument that 1+1=2, and seeing the logic of it, one would have to choose not to see it as true, but just because we can choose to not understand doesnt mean that the statement isnt true.<hr /></blockquote>1+1=10 is a mathematical truism. Just because you can't think outside of your puny human base-10 number systems doesn't mean you should call people names!

darius

epeemike81 · 08-27-2002, 11:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by servdragoon:
you have the freedom to choose to believe that 1+1=10, if that is what you want. Yet if you dont have the intellectual capacity to understand the logic of the statement 1+1=2, you might as well be a monkey, or a dog. Because we can understand things logically, after being presented with an argument that 1+1=2, and seeing the logic of it, one would have to choose not to see it as true, but just because we can choose to not understand doesnt mean that the statement isnt true.<hr /></blockquote>Ah, but the language in which an argument is presented is as important as the logic of the argument. but, that aside, I really only have 10 major points:

1) it was a joke get over it.
10) 1 10 11 100 101 110 111 1000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

hopefully that will help clear up your confusion a little bit.

-m

[ 08-27-2002, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: epeemike81 ]

epeemike81 · 08-27-2002, 11:11 AM

mispost.

[ 08-27-2002, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: epeemike81 ]

servdragoon · 08-27-2002, 11:19 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by darius:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />you have the freedom to choose to believe that 1+1=10, if that is what you want. Yet if you dont have the intellectual capacity to understand the logic of the statement 1+1=2, you might as well be a monkey, or a dog. Because we can understand things logically, after being presented with an argument that 1+1=2, and seeing the logic of it, one would have to choose not to see it as true, but just because we can choose to not understand doesnt mean that the statement isnt true.<hr /></blockquote>1+1=10 is a mathematical truism. Just because you can't think outside of your puny human base-10 number systems doesn't mean you should call people names!

darius<hr /></blockquote>My point was not to call someone a name, but to show that we as humans have the capacity to understand things in a way that monkies and dogs dont. They cant make the same choices we do because they dont have the same intellectual capacity as us. This is not an insult to dogs, or monkies, i love my dogs, just the way they are and they are happy just the way they are. Just as we should all be happy with our capacities and incapacities.
When we compare a dogs ability to understand things with our own, there are important differences in how we choose things. I think that for a human to choose not to use his capacity to use logic, would show a lack of intelligence, that would bring us to a concisousness of something like a monkey.

darius · 08-27-2002, 11:49 AM

Oh, you had a point?

More importantly, your example was flawed, which allowed those with humorous intentions to crawl all over it.

epeemike81 · 08-27-2002, 11:49 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by servdragoon:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by darius:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />you have the freedom to choose to believe that 1+1=10, if that is what you want. Yet if you dont have the intellectual capacity to understand the logic of the statement 1+1=2, you might as well be a monkey, or a dog. Because we can understand things logically, after being presented with an argument that 1+1=2, and seeing the logic of it, one would have to choose not to see it as true, but just because we can choose to not understand doesnt mean that the statement isnt true.<hr /></blockquote>1+1=10 is a mathematical truism. Just because you can't think outside of your puny human base-10 number systems doesn't mean you should call people names!

darius<hr /></blockquote>My point was not to call someone a name, but to show that we as humans have the capacity to understand things in a way that monkies and dogs dont. They cant make the same choices we do because they dont have the same intellectual capacity as us. This is not an insult to dogs, or monkies, i love my dogs, just the way they are and they are happy just the way they are. Just as we should all be happy with our capacities and incapacities.
When we compare a dogs ability to understand things with our own, there are important differences in how we choose things. I think that for a human to choose not to use his capacity to use logic, would show a lack of intelligence, that would bring us to a concisousness of something like a monkey.<hr /></blockquote>how about using a little logic yourself! If you do, you will see that looking at the world from a binary point of view, 1+1 really does equal 10, and 2 really IS a meaningless symbol. I find it unlikely that a monkey or a dog could make an argument in binary.... however, I would think that you, being the bright, cognitive person you are, could comprehend something as simple as base-2! or, are you just trying to SOUND intellectual by waxing poetic about fundamental truths? the TRUTH is that there is VERY little in this world which is a fundamental truth! I would argue that the concept BEHIND the statement 1+1=2 (or 1+1=10) is fundamentally true, but the statement isn't, since that depends on interpretation of language. if I didn't tell you that I was thinking in binary, you would be justified in thinking that 1+1= 10 is wrong. thus, it is not a fundamentally true statement. however, the concept behind it, which is the same as the concept behind your statement that 1+1=2, is fundamentally correct.

In addition, the concept of fundamental truth is irrelevant to this discussion since the very point is that we CAN'T agree on a fundamental statement. Inq. thinks that it is okay to kill. EDEW and I do not. the issue here is a difference in fundamental beliefs!

-m

[ 08-27-2002, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: epeemike81 ]