if I'm convinced that global warming is going to wipe out the human race, then anyone who is arguing on the other side is directly contributing to the extermination of humanity
I would say that's nearly correct. Let me put it this way--if I'm convinced that global warming is going to wipe out the human race, then I could conclude anyone who is arguing on the other side is directly contributing to the extermination of humanity. Whether such people are actually contributing to the extermination of the human race depends on whether global warming is actually going to wipe out the human race barring action to the contrary. Not whether I'm convinced of it.
tolerant people can't be expected to be tolerant of intolerance.
I don't see why not. Suppose there are three people--Primus, Secundus, and Tertius. Suppose Tertius owns a restaurant in which he doesn't allow black people. Suppose Primus and Secundus believe the same in all ways except that Secundus tolerates Tertius's actions to exclude black people, and Primus does not. There is no way to argue that Primus and Secundus are equally tolerant, nor is it possible to argue that Primus is more tolerant than Secundus. The only possible conclusion is that Secundus is more tolerant than Primus. Now, it's certainly possible to argue that there is a correct amount of tolerance. It's just not possible to argue that more tolerance is less tolerance.
nutcases very soon who will all claim that this -obviously- does NOT mean global warming isn't happening.
Your double negatives threw me for a second there, but I think I see what's happening. You're concerned about their opponents. (I'm referring to the opponents of the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean that global warming isn't happening.) No doubt, you're familiar with the movement opposing those nutcases, and you with to make sure they don't get a foothold in the media, public perception, or in the legislature. There are a number of groups involved in that, and several of those are politically active. There is a bill in the legislature kowtowing to those groups, and a number of committees are organizing to keep them from making any progress. They aren't sufficiently organized at present, but with enough help they will be able to push forward enough to reach their goals. I think you'll be relieved to learn that I'm thoroughly opposed to the groups seeking to weaken the proponents of the bill making illegal the actions of committees organized to oppose the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean global warming isn't happening. At least...so far as it's consistent with the first Amendment.
Same reason I didn't "single out" height or weight - IT IS NOT THE ISSUE BEING DISCUSSED.
Neither was ethnicity or religion, yet you seemed to find it suitable for discussion. Let me make it plain: In an article about Jack the ripper, the author mentioned the alleged perpetrator's religion, ethnicity, sex, and vocation. You became incensed at his listing the alleged perpetrator's religion and ethnicity, but find his sex and vocation beneath discussion. Why?
Which is still completely unrelated to the case as it was back then BECAUSE - it does not relate to the case in any way.
Evidence about a murderer is unrelated to the case in any way? I'm afraid your theory of crime analysis is quite far out of the mainstream.
Aaaaand that's a bingo! Thank you for taking part in "Spot a racist!"
I'm a racist? Constable Alfred Long reported that it read "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." Detective Constable Daniel Halse reported that it read, "The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing." City surveyor Fredrick William Foster reported that it read, "The Juws are not the men To be blamed for nothing." Police Superintendent Thomas Arnold had the graffiti erased because he thought that it would cause a riot.
Here's how a non-racist might have phrased a similar sentence HAD the Ripper's murders been in ANY way, shape or form marked with religious and/or ethnic markings or motives.
So, I write like a racist and you don't? Would you care to explain the difference to me?
~Loyal
p.s. I have since read the article and find that the "shawl" and the "apron" are not the same thing.
I meant the 5, and actually I'm only considering a copycat for after the papers had started sensationalizing. Say after #3. (You clearly know more about it than I do.)
Thank you for the compliment. You are very kind. I believe the papers started sensationalising after the first murder (Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols). The reason for that is that there were two prior murders shortly before Polly's. They were Emma Smith's and Martha Tabram's, both of whom I've already mentioned. Of the five, only three murders are almost universally believed to have been committed by one person. Those were Polly Nichols's, Annie Chapman's, and Catherine Eddowes's. The reason they were believed to have been committed by the same man is that all three victims had facial or neck bruises, all three had their throats cut, and all three had abdominal wounds. Elizabeth had bruises and a throat wound, but no abdominal wound. Mary Kelly had very extensive injuries, and was the only one murdered indoors. Of those people who believe Stride was a Ripper victim, they explain away the lack of abdominal wounds by the fact that the murderer was quite likely interrupted mid-murder. He simply didn't have time to cause the abdominal wounds. Of those people who believe Kelly was a Ripper victim, they explain the extent of the injuries by the fact that her's was the only one that offered the Ripper extensive time and privacy to accomplish them.
Of the people who don't think Polly Nichols was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one committed in the street. Of the people who don't think Annie Chapman was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one committed in a back yard. Of the people who don't think Catherine Eddowes was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one not committed in London's East End. So, as you can see, people don't assume that all of the "Jack the Ripper murders" were committed by one person.
One additional point, if I may. It doesn't make much sense to say that sensationalism happened after the third canonical murder (Elizabeth Stride), because the fourth canonical murder (Catherine Eddowes) was only one hour later. There simply wasn't time between the third and fourth murders for any sensationalism to happen.
How very curious! I wonder why you singled (well, doubled) out ethnicity and religion. Why not sex? What I mean to say is that you had no invective to spend on their identifying Jack the Ripper as a man, nor their identification of his victims as women. Jack the Ripper was a man "then and not now," and his women were victims "then and not now." By your logic that shouldn't have been mentioned. Nor did you decry the listing of their professions. The Ripper as a murderer, and his victims as prostitutes. I, for one, would be highly amused to read more articles about Jack the Ripper that didn't mention the suspicion that he was a murderer.
Nor is any rationale provided for why would such labeling be of any importance now, nor why would ANY ethnic or religious attributes be relevant to either murders or the identification of the murderer EVER.
His religious affiliation is relevant because it erodes the theory that Kosminski was the murderer, and that he wrote anti-Semitic graffiti near where the evidence was found. His ethnic affiliation is relevant because it credits all the people who had teased that out of the evidence, and discredits those who opposed the idea.
John Wilkes Booth...Lee Harvey Oswald...John Wayne Gacy...Theodore Robert Bundy...Charles Milles Manson
I suppose that's because the evidence of their murders weren't found near anti-Semitic graffiti suspected to have been written by the murderer.
I'm proposing that several indepent individuals separately perpetrated the crimes that were attribted to one single individual rather than to one individual and a few copycats.
I was basing that on your statement that it is assumed that Jack the Ripper was an individual person. If you include the eighteen alleged victims, then it's false that it is assumed Jack the Ripper was a solitary individual. For example, Emma Elizabeth Smith is one of the eighteen and prior to her death she reported that she had been attacked by three or four men. On the other hand, if you include only Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly, then one person was sufficient to account for all of the evidence generally available. Some evidence, such as the sighting I mentioned earlier, suggests that one person was necessary. Patterns in the evidence also suggest that it was the same person for those six murders (or five, if you wish to remain canonical).
So we clearly need the next one to be racial-ethnic-religious with all tangential conspiracy theories as a bonus. And lest we forget... Palestine, Gaza, West Bank, Israel.
Well, Jack the Ripper's ethnicity is relevant to the story. The sentiment at the time was that the Ripper's crime was so heinous that he must have been an immigrant since no British person would commit such heinous crimes. The Ripper's ethnicity would be relevant to that sentiment. Similarly for his religious affinity. There was some graffiti found near Eddowes's apron saying, "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing." (Variant spellings are in the records.) Some people hold that the graffiti was not written by the Ripper. Some hold that it was, and expressed Jack's anti-Semitic beliefs. Some hold that the Ripper was Jewish and wrote the graffiti to throw off suspicion.
The provenance of the shawl is very questionable. If it is the shawl found near the body of a ripper victim, it may very well not have been hers.
I haven't seen anything definitive, but if it's the shawl I'm thinking of, then it's very likely that it did belong to Catherine Eddowes. If it is then it was cut from the victim during the murder.
The shawl is actually an apron-like affair that women of that era commonly wore. Eddowes's apron was cut from her during the murder, and likely used to carry and conceal some of her organs. It was found a couple of blocks away near the famous, "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" graffiti. (Variant spellings are extant in the records.) The cut on the found apron matches the cut on the remaining part of the apron on her body.
Possibly because he was seen with Catherine Eddows by Joseph Lawende, Joseph Hyam Levy and Harry Harris less than eleven minutes prior to the murder, among other reasons.
In this paper we we compare the number of legs on humans (homo sapiens) and cats (felis catus). We rely heavily on previous work done on employment classifications and average height done in 1998[1] and 2005[2]. None of the previous work in either employment or height recorded leg quantity, so it was not possible to draw any conclusions. In this study, we generated a matrix associating leg quantity, employment, and average height, and we used an ad hoc method devised by the authors to describe cause and effect. Finally, we threw out all of the results and destroyed the data because to make generalizations on an entire population based on averages would be wrong and racist.
I would be surprised if real traffic light controllers did not have such a safety module.
They do. I worked for a company in 2005 that designed and manufactured traffic light controllers. We bought a standard module from a different company that just watched for conflicting signals, and switched the intersection to all flashing red if it ever saw one. Of course, it was a micro-computer, not an Electrical Engineering class project, but it wasn't connected to the internet and it didn't have any wireless communications ability, so it couldn't be hacked by anything short of physical presence and hand tools.
She's a stinking hypocrite who thinks children are accessories to make statements with and the sooner the state takes them away so they can actually have a decent shot at a life with a job without fries the better.
First, why does the US still allow a death penalty?
Well, our judgement is that it provides a number of advantages. One advantage is the it prevents the convicted from committing further crimes. It's safer for the other prisoners, and it's safer for the guards. Another advantage is that it prevents others from committing particularly heinous crimes. I realise that there's evidence that such is not the case, but the evidence is not unequivocal; a reasonable person may still come to that conclusion. A third advantage is that it prevents people from declaring vendetta and taking vengeance. A fourth advantage is that it provides closure for the families and friends of the victim. Families don't have to keep track of parole hearings, and spend time and money testifying against parole.
We tend to argue how much a prisoner costs society, but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.
I disagree. We tend to discuss the morality of executing people ad nauseam. If there's anything left un-discussed, I think it's the effect on the executioners. Knowing that you've killed a human being is going to do something undesirable to your psyche. I worry what it does to them later in life.
Next, and relates to the first is that the Prison systems in the US have become a for profit business.
I don't have a problem with that, but then I think of profit as the price we pay for efficiency. I understand that there's something dissonant about imprisoning people efficiently, but it does have the advantage over imprisoning them inefficiently. Maybe it would be better to think of it as imprisoning people expensively versus not imprisoning them expensively.
The privatization of prisons has caused countless issues. Such as contracts requiring a specific capacity at all times in prisons and the exploitation of prisoners. Laws have been passed to help keep prisons at capacity...
I'm not aware of those events, but I'll take your word for it. That being said, and I'm trying not to be flippant here, I can't see how the one relates to the other. I mean--if one executes a prisoner then the prisoner is not maintaining the capacity of the prison, is he? How do prison businesses exploit a corpse? And aren't laws being passed to keep prisons at capacity a problem with the legislature rather than one with the business?
...nearly everyone in the US can commit several felonies every day without their knowledge.
Now that is a problem I worry about. We imprison more people per capita than any other country. We're not a particularly lawless people, are we? Why do we put so many in prison? Something is wrong. Now, it could be said that we aren't lawless because we imprison so many, but I think that's just plain wrong. I particularly decry the increasing lack of a mens rea in recently passed laws. What's the point of that!
We could discuss other issues, such as how rehabilitation in the US really does not exist and society lacks opportunity for people motivating people to illegal activities but can save that for later.
Well...okay.
We should address why the US has the highest percentage of people in prison in the world,...
Amen, brother!
...and why we still have executions first.
Been there; done that; the T-shirt's stained with blood.
If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain B from strain C at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.
Oh, well. You're welcome. I'm still confused, though. If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain B from strain C at a separate 50 sites, then isn't it true that A and C have exactly 100 differences?
You two are talking about different things. You're talking about certain types of intercourse given that exactly one subject is infected, and exactly one subject is uninfected. Anonymous Coward is talking about certain types of intercourse given that both subjects are members of the general population.
If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain C from strain A at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if strain C differs from strain A at 50 sites, then isn't it true that A and C have exactly 50 differences? In other words, it's false that A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences?
To be fair, any corporation would have done the same thing. If Pepsi (say) discovered a Twitter account that repeatedly says that Pepsi tastes horrible, and it turned out that the owner of the account was one of their employees, it wouldn't matter if that employee never used his or her real name--he or she would be canned faster than, well...
I think one difference might be that Pepsi can't use all the power of government to reveal who the tweeter was.
Regulation are also costing them. I'm sure lot of hotel would be fine just not having those pesky regulation getting in the way (like you know fire protection, hygiene, using legit employees, insurances,...)
Trying to create a better society is a very different thing from thinking you've invented one.
Can you explain how? I mean, it seems to me that they are inextricably linked. Suppose Mr. Legislator wants to try to create a better society. His necessary first step is to hypothesize how to do so. Once he has his hypothesis he has two choices--either evaluate whether the hypothetical society is better than current society or try it. You've forestalled the former, so he has to proceed with the latter. Once it's tried, he must evaluate the results. The possible evaluations are the hypothetical society is worse than ex ante, it's equal, or it's better. You've forestalled the latter. It seems to me that the only way you allow a person to try to create a better society is if he a priori is doomed to failure.
Slashdot Mirror
if I'm convinced that global warming is going to wipe out the human race, then anyone who is arguing on the other side is directly contributing to the extermination of humanity
I would say that's nearly correct. Let me put it this way--if I'm convinced that global warming is going to wipe out the human race, then I could conclude anyone who is arguing on the other side is directly contributing to the extermination of humanity. Whether such people are actually contributing to the extermination of the human race depends on whether global warming is actually going to wipe out the human race barring action to the contrary. Not whether I'm convinced of it.
tolerant people can't be expected to be tolerant of intolerance.
I don't see why not. Suppose there are three people--Primus, Secundus, and Tertius. Suppose Tertius owns a restaurant in which he doesn't allow black people. Suppose Primus and Secundus believe the same in all ways except that Secundus tolerates Tertius's actions to exclude black people, and Primus does not. There is no way to argue that Primus and Secundus are equally tolerant, nor is it possible to argue that Primus is more tolerant than Secundus. The only possible conclusion is that Secundus is more tolerant than Primus. Now, it's certainly possible to argue that there is a correct amount of tolerance. It's just not possible to argue that more tolerance is less tolerance.
~Loyal
You're still wasting time on this? Good.
Happy to oblige.
~Loyal
nutcases very soon who will all claim that this -obviously- does NOT mean global warming isn't happening.
Your double negatives threw me for a second there, but I think I see what's happening. You're concerned about their opponents. (I'm referring to the opponents of the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean that global warming isn't happening.) No doubt, you're familiar with the movement opposing those nutcases, and you with to make sure they don't get a foothold in the media, public perception, or in the legislature. There are a number of groups involved in that, and several of those are politically active. There is a bill in the legislature kowtowing to those groups, and a number of committees are organizing to keep them from making any progress. They aren't sufficiently organized at present, but with enough help they will be able to push forward enough to reach their goals. I think you'll be relieved to learn that I'm thoroughly opposed to the groups seeking to weaken the proponents of the bill making illegal the actions of committees organized to oppose the nutcases who claim that this obviously does not mean global warming isn't happening. At least...so far as it's consistent with the first Amendment.
~Loyal
Users who try to use anonymity, or cover themselves up on the internet, are usually doing things that aren’t so-to-speak legal.
Dear Comcast,
I notice that your customer list, vendor list, inter-company agreements, and engineering drawings are concealed. Why are you committing illegal acts?
~Loyal
Same reason I didn't "single out" height or weight - IT IS NOT THE ISSUE BEING DISCUSSED.
Neither was ethnicity or religion, yet you seemed to find it suitable for discussion. Let me make it plain: In an article about Jack the ripper, the author mentioned the alleged perpetrator's religion, ethnicity, sex, and vocation. You became incensed at his listing the alleged perpetrator's religion and ethnicity, but find his sex and vocation beneath discussion. Why?
Which is still completely unrelated to the case as it was back then BECAUSE - it does not relate to the case in any way.
Evidence about a murderer is unrelated to the case in any way? I'm afraid your theory of crime analysis is quite far out of the mainstream.
Aaaaand that's a bingo! Thank you for taking part in "Spot a racist!"
I'm a racist? Constable Alfred Long reported that it read "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." Detective Constable Daniel Halse reported that it read, "The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing." City surveyor Fredrick William Foster reported that it read, "The Juws are not the men To be blamed for nothing." Police Superintendent Thomas Arnold had the graffiti erased because he thought that it would cause a riot.
Here's how a non-racist might have phrased a similar sentence HAD the Ripper's murders been in ANY way, shape or form marked with religious and/or ethnic markings or motives.
So, I write like a racist and you don't? Would you care to explain the difference to me?
~Loyal
p.s. I have since read the article and find that the "shawl" and the "apron" are not the same thing.
I meant the 5, and actually I'm only considering a copycat for after the papers had started sensationalizing. Say after #3. (You clearly know more about it than I do.)
Thank you for the compliment. You are very kind. I believe the papers started sensationalising after the first murder (Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols). The reason for that is that there were two prior murders shortly before Polly's. They were Emma Smith's and Martha Tabram's, both of whom I've already mentioned. Of the five, only three murders are almost universally believed to have been committed by one person. Those were Polly Nichols's, Annie Chapman's, and Catherine Eddowes's. The reason they were believed to have been committed by the same man is that all three victims had facial or neck bruises, all three had their throats cut, and all three had abdominal wounds. Elizabeth had bruises and a throat wound, but no abdominal wound. Mary Kelly had very extensive injuries, and was the only one murdered indoors. Of those people who believe Stride was a Ripper victim, they explain away the lack of abdominal wounds by the fact that the murderer was quite likely interrupted mid-murder. He simply didn't have time to cause the abdominal wounds. Of those people who believe Kelly was a Ripper victim, they explain the extent of the injuries by the fact that her's was the only one that offered the Ripper extensive time and privacy to accomplish them.
Of the people who don't think Polly Nichols was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one committed in the street. Of the people who don't think Annie Chapman was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one committed in a back yard. Of the people who don't think Catherine Eddowes was murdered by Jack the Ripper, they point to the fact that her murder was the only one not committed in London's East End. So, as you can see, people don't assume that all of the "Jack the Ripper murders" were committed by one person.
One additional point, if I may. It doesn't make much sense to say that sensationalism happened after the third canonical murder (Elizabeth Stride), because the fourth canonical murder (Catherine Eddowes) was only one hour later. There simply wasn't time between the third and fourth murders for any sensationalism to happen.
~Loyal
First off, now is not "at the time".
How very curious! I wonder why you singled (well, doubled) out ethnicity and religion. Why not sex? What I mean to say is that you had no invective to spend on their identifying Jack the Ripper as a man, nor their identification of his victims as women. Jack the Ripper was a man "then and not now," and his women were victims "then and not now." By your logic that shouldn't have been mentioned. Nor did you decry the listing of their professions. The Ripper as a murderer, and his victims as prostitutes. I, for one, would be highly amused to read more articles about Jack the Ripper that didn't mention the suspicion that he was a murderer.
Nor is any rationale provided for why would such labeling be of any importance now, nor why would ANY ethnic or religious attributes be relevant to either murders or the identification of the murderer EVER.
His religious affiliation is relevant because it erodes the theory that Kosminski was the murderer, and that he wrote anti-Semitic graffiti near where the evidence was found. His ethnic affiliation is relevant because it credits all the people who had teased that out of the evidence, and discredits those who opposed the idea.
John Wilkes Booth...Lee Harvey Oswald...John Wayne Gacy...Theodore Robert Bundy...Charles Milles Manson
I suppose that's because the evidence of their murders weren't found near anti-Semitic graffiti suspected to have been written by the murderer.
~Loyal
I'm proposing that several indepent individuals separately perpetrated the crimes that were attribted to one single individual rather than to one individual and a few copycats.
I was basing that on your statement that it is assumed that Jack the Ripper was an individual person. If you include the eighteen alleged victims, then it's false that it is assumed Jack the Ripper was a solitary individual. For example, Emma Elizabeth Smith is one of the eighteen and prior to her death she reported that she had been attacked by three or four men. On the other hand, if you include only Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly, then one person was sufficient to account for all of the evidence generally available. Some evidence, such as the sighting I mentioned earlier, suggests that one person was necessary. Patterns in the evidence also suggest that it was the same person for those six murders (or five, if you wish to remain canonical).
~Loyal
So we clearly need the next one to be racial-ethnic-religious with all tangential conspiracy theories as a bonus. And lest we forget... Palestine, Gaza, West Bank, Israel.
Well, Jack the Ripper's ethnicity is relevant to the story. The sentiment at the time was that the Ripper's crime was so heinous that he must have been an immigrant since no British person would commit such heinous crimes. The Ripper's ethnicity would be relevant to that sentiment. Similarly for his religious affinity. There was some graffiti found near Eddowes's apron saying, "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing." (Variant spellings are in the records.) Some people hold that the graffiti was not written by the Ripper. Some hold that it was, and expressed Jack's anti-Semitic beliefs. Some hold that the Ripper was Jewish and wrote the graffiti to throw off suspicion.
~Loyal
The provenance of the shawl is very questionable. If it is the shawl found near the body of a ripper victim, it may very well not have been hers.
I haven't seen anything definitive, but if it's the shawl I'm thinking of, then it's very likely that it did belong to Catherine Eddowes. If it is then it was cut from the victim during the murder.
The shawl is actually an apron-like affair that women of that era commonly wore. Eddowes's apron was cut from her during the murder, and likely used to carry and conceal some of her organs. It was found a couple of blocks away near the famous, "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" graffiti. (Variant spellings are extant in the records.) The cut on the found apron matches the cut on the remaining part of the apron on her body.
~Loyal
Possibly because he was seen with Catherine Eddows by Joseph Lawende, Joseph Hyam Levy and Harry Harris less than eleven minutes prior to the murder, among other reasons.
~Loyal
ABSTRACT
In this paper we we compare the number of legs on humans (homo sapiens) and cats (felis catus). We rely heavily on previous work done on employment classifications and average height done in 1998[1] and 2005[2]. None of the previous work in either employment or height recorded leg quantity, so it was not possible to draw any conclusions. In this study, we generated a matrix associating leg quantity, employment, and average height, and we used an ad hoc method devised by the authors to describe cause and effect. Finally, we threw out all of the results and destroyed the data because to make generalizations on an entire population based on averages would be wrong and racist.
~Loyal
Not even the media contacted me when I sent anonymous tips concerning Stingray capabilities, and I worked on the project.
How could the media have contacted you when you sent in the tip anonymously?
~Loyal
That's why my password is, "I agree to indemnify Loyal Opposition and hold him blameless."
~Loyal
I would be surprised if real traffic light controllers did not have such a safety module.
They do. I worked for a company in 2005 that designed and manufactured traffic light controllers. We bought a standard module from a different company that just watched for conflicting signals, and switched the intersection to all flashing red if it ever saw one. Of course, it was a micro-computer, not an Electrical Engineering class project, but it wasn't connected to the internet and it didn't have any wireless communications ability, so it couldn't be hacked by anything short of physical presence and hand tools.
~Loyal
She's a stinking hypocrite who thinks children are accessories to make statements with and the sooner the state takes them away so they can actually have a decent shot at a life with a job without fries the better.
Ew. What a sad little world you live in.
~Loyal
First, why does the US still allow a death penalty?
Well, our judgement is that it provides a number of advantages. One advantage is the it prevents the convicted from committing further crimes. It's safer for the other prisoners, and it's safer for the guards. Another advantage is that it prevents others from committing particularly heinous crimes. I realise that there's evidence that such is not the case, but the evidence is not unequivocal; a reasonable person may still come to that conclusion. A third advantage is that it prevents people from declaring vendetta and taking vengeance. A fourth advantage is that it provides closure for the families and friends of the victim. Families don't have to keep track of parole hearings, and spend time and money testifying against parole.
We tend to argue how much a prisoner costs society, but rarely discuss the morality of executing people.
I disagree. We tend to discuss the morality of executing people ad nauseam. If there's anything left un-discussed, I think it's the effect on the executioners. Knowing that you've killed a human being is going to do something undesirable to your psyche. I worry what it does to them later in life.
Next, and relates to the first is that the Prison systems in the US have become a for profit business.
I don't have a problem with that, but then I think of profit as the price we pay for efficiency. I understand that there's something dissonant about imprisoning people efficiently, but it does have the advantage over imprisoning them inefficiently. Maybe it would be better to think of it as imprisoning people expensively versus not imprisoning them expensively.
The privatization of prisons has caused countless issues. Such as contracts requiring a specific capacity at all times in prisons and the exploitation of prisoners. Laws have been passed to help keep prisons at capacity...
I'm not aware of those events, but I'll take your word for it. That being said, and I'm trying not to be flippant here, I can't see how the one relates to the other. I mean--if one executes a prisoner then the prisoner is not maintaining the capacity of the prison, is he? How do prison businesses exploit a corpse? And aren't laws being passed to keep prisons at capacity a problem with the legislature rather than one with the business?
Now that is a problem I worry about. We imprison more people per capita than any other country. We're not a particularly lawless people, are we? Why do we put so many in prison? Something is wrong. Now, it could be said that we aren't lawless because we imprison so many, but I think that's just plain wrong. I particularly decry the increasing lack of a mens rea in recently passed laws. What's the point of that!
We could discuss other issues, such as how rehabilitation in the US really does not exist and society lacks opportunity for people motivating people to illegal activities but can save that for later.
Well...okay.
We should address why the US has the highest percentage of people in prison in the world,...
Amen, brother!
Been there; done that; the T-shirt's stained with blood.
~Loyal
You wouldn't download a kidney, would you?
~Loyal
They can share some, all, or none of the sites. I really did a bad job explaining that.
If they shared some or all sites then they wouldn't be a separate 50 sites, no?
~Loyal
If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain B from strain C at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.
Oh, well. You're welcome. I'm still confused, though. If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain B from strain C at a separate 50 sites, then isn't it true that A and C have exactly 100 differences?
~Loyal
it's still within the same order of magnitude.
You two are talking about different things. You're talking about certain types of intercourse given that exactly one subject is infected, and exactly one subject is uninfected. Anonymous Coward is talking about certain types of intercourse given that both subjects are members of the general population.
~Loyal
If strain A differs from strain B at 50 sites, and strain C from strain A at a separate 50 sites, A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if strain C differs from strain A at 50 sites, then isn't it true that A and C have exactly 50 differences? In other words, it's false that A and C can have anywhere from 0-100 differences?
~Loyal
To be fair, any corporation would have done the same thing. If Pepsi (say) discovered a Twitter account that repeatedly says that Pepsi tastes horrible, and it turned out that the owner of the account was one of their employees, it wouldn't matter if that employee never used his or her real name--he or she would be canned faster than, well...
I think one difference might be that Pepsi can't use all the power of government to reveal who the tweeter was.
~Loyal
Regulation are also costing them. I'm sure lot of hotel would be fine just not having those pesky regulation getting in the way (like you know fire protection, hygiene, using legit employees, insurances, ...)
Think "barriers to entry."
~Loyal
Trying to create a better society is a very different thing from thinking you've invented one.
Can you explain how? I mean, it seems to me that they are inextricably linked. Suppose Mr. Legislator wants to try to create a better society. His necessary first step is to hypothesize how to do so. Once he has his hypothesis he has two choices--either evaluate whether the hypothetical society is better than current society or try it. You've forestalled the former, so he has to proceed with the latter. Once it's tried, he must evaluate the results. The possible evaluations are the hypothetical society is worse than ex ante, it's equal, or it's better. You've forestalled the latter. It seems to me that the only way you allow a person to try to create a better society is if he a priori is doomed to failure.
~Loyal