Why? We let lots of murderers go after only a few years. Hell, you'll get more jail time for selling pot than you will for murder. Back that up with anything. Oh wait...you can't, just more useless hyperbole.
This is a true story, and I tell you, it makes no difference if it is dogs or people, if its your children, you'd kill. You seem to have missed the point of your own story? 1) You DIDN'T kill the dog. 2) You were under attack and defended yourself and your family.
how is that at all analagous to the situation you're alleging Reiser was in where
1) He gets real, real mad at his wife 2) Kills her and elaborately covers up the crime
Self defense, perfectly understandable. Fit of rage? not as bad as cold hearted killer. Agreed, maybe we're on the same page after all. I have failed to see any evidence that this WAS a crime of passion. Additionally, the lengths it seems Reiser went to to cover up a crime tend to toss the "passion" thing out the window.
I hope you have as much sympathy for the misunderstood alcoholic who beats his wife and the drug addict who steals for a fix. Everybody has problems, you are not a unique snowflake, get over yourself:-P
How enraged would you be? If I was mad enough that I killed my wife in the heat of the moment, I would deserve to be thrown in jail.
Here in Denmark we used to have next to no high speed chases, when police came you would generally just give up, get the slap on your wrist, serve the time and get back out for a second try. Lately sentences has gone up, crime has become more violent (but less frequent) and you hear about high speed chases about once a week. Do I even need to say that correlation != causation? Is it not possible that there are a variety of other economic / social / etc issues that might contribute?
Yes it sucks that people only serve 6 months in jail for rape (in Denmark), but at what point have they suffered enough? The point is also to stop offenders from offending. The effectiveness of rehabilitation programs can vary very widely. Repeat offenders are a huge problem in many jurisdictions.
One way in which Europe tends to be far better than the US is that the mentally ill tend to be forcibly institutionalized in greater numbers in Europe. (read an interesting study once comparing US+European incarceration rates--including mental health hospitals/institutions along with prisons and jails, the number of incarcerations is much closer--still higher in America, but much closer) In America, many of those people end up in jail.
There's plenty: the blood on the sock that had (i) police anticoagulant on it and (ii) left the exact mark and shape of an essay tube being applied against a folded sock. Do you have any links to any (hopefully reputable, mainline, etc) sources about this--wikipedia didn't turn much up? I have not heard about the "essay" tube thing. Also what evidence that the blood in the Bronco was placed?
Yes. With the above normal rate of high-functioning autism among geeks it would seem very possible as one of the most common traits is a reluctance to meet other people's eyes which is often interpreted as being 'shifty eyed' and a sign of guilt. I see this as a reduction to the absurdly simple. For whatever reason a significant portion of slashdotters (perhaps nerd empathy) have defended Reiser from day 1, regardless of his actions and the ever growing mound of evidence. As it became more and more clear that Reiser was probably guitlty, I don't know, it's like some form of cognitive dissonance kicked in, and so Reiser wasn't being challenged for his probably murdering his wife, but for being different, possibly having aspergers, etc.
I have not read anywhere that has claimed that had Reiser not been a weird asshole, he would have been declared innocent. Nobody said "I thought he was innocent, but he wouldn't look me in the eye, so he's guilty." It's just not there. These threads of discussion are all pointless!
If the evidence hadn't been there, I highly doubt Reiser would have been declared guilty. I'm not saying the justice system is perfect by any means, but of all the cases to complain about, I don't see it here..
2) A large percentage of the prison (not jail) system is privatized. Prison corporations make more money the longer people are in jail due to economy of scale.... Private prisons actually want more life imprisonment because older (65+) prisoners aren't very violent, and generate more revenue for the prison compan Even IF what you say is true (and I dispute that--feel free to provide some backing evidence), for what you say to have any relevance at all, there would have to be collusion between all lawyers (defense+prosecuting), judges, police, and Big Prison Co. Is that really what you're claiming?
I know it's always easy to see connections that aren't there, but do you have any evidence, any suggestions, anything, that would give any backing to your conspiracy theory?
Touchy, touchy--never understand why merely saying that one is a republican can warrant such scorn and hate--"voting illogically?" Seriously, let's not be so judgmental! Respect diversity of intellect as well as skin color and sexuality!
If you or the GGGP actually cared about crime stats, there's a lot you could read and learn. There's a guest blogger at the Volokh Conspiracy right now who has published extensively in the field (and not just as as slashdot armchair quarterback). I'd recommend you take a look.
1. Very few Unitarian Universalists of my acquaintance (and I grew up UU) refer to themselves as Christians, and the ones who do are the ones who are Christians. Thanks for the info--my experience is limited to having a couple friends in a UU seminary in Chicago. I can't say I understand (or like!) much of anything about UU...it's a mystery to me.
2. I think that many theists would see my beliefs (which are within Taoism) as atheistic. I think that a lot of atheists (especially "New Atheists") would say that my beliefs are non-atheistic because they have too much higher power and magical thinking in them. It's really a matter of how you define "atheist". I'm not terribly interested in getting into semantics at that level, though again, I appreciate your insight! It's simple to me--if you believe in god or gods (or spirits, etc) you are a theist. If you don't explicitly DISBELIEVE in god, gods, spirits, etc, you're an atheist. Traditional taoism does not deny gods, and very frequently involves god worship--can't really comment on western adaptations, or in general more "modern" adaption of buddhism/taoism/new age spirituality. I don't really "get" them either!
This sig is not the Zahir. Lucky for you. I prefer the Zohar;-)
Reading comprehension helps. Facts help too--but the other AC already pointed out how your basic assumptions (Shiva as Buddhist?) are wrong.
You'll also note that I specfically referenced a group of people who typically refer to themselves as Christians, many of whom are in fact atheists--unitarian universalists.
There are athiest Buddhists and Daoists FWIW, neither Buddhism nor Taoism come remotely close to an "atheistic" religion--neither deny the existence of gods, and worship of gods is common in both religions. Some practitioners may IGNORE the existence of gods, or even not believe, but it's not, if you will, canonical. Roughly equivalent to our favorite American devout Christian atheists--unitarian universalists!
You just made this not worth further discussion. I don't think it's necessary to start citing extremes. That's where discussion starts to break down in politics and why nothing worth-while ever gets done. I'm sorry you feel that way, but thanks for replying a time or two at least. I just don't see as big a difference between these cases as I think you do. Slippery slopes and government worry me a great deal!
If I was to play, I could start pushing how your views on freedom and the rights of parents to decide the welfare of children could go as far as justifying not allowing the law to get involved in extreme cases of child abuse It is indeed a very tricky issue, and there are a lot of sticky edge cases!
So how if an infection is more virulent than x, it's not a freedom issue? This seems quite selective. Agreed, it is selective. It's not just a virulency issue however.
I've got two dead women in my family from cervical cancer. I'm very sorry to hear that. I wish my wife had been able to get it when she was younger.
Mandating it makes a few companies a little richer and would save many, many lives in the long run. I don't disagree with you--though I'm unsure just how many lives it would save? Mandating lots of things could save even more lives. Complete prohibition for instance would save MANY more lives. Why not bring back prohibition?
What about Terri Schiavo? Did the government have the right to (attempt) to intervene and make health decisions for her family? What about AbrahamCherrix should the government have been able to control his health decisions? His case seems particularly relevant as he was a minor.
It's also difficult to gauge how much impact the money spent on AIDS and HIV research has caused globally. Lives saved are much more difficult to count than lives lost. This is true, though with aids infection rates increasing in China and India and over 25% in some sub-saharan African countries, it's hard to argue that the global strategy has been a success. By contrast, Malaria is not nearly as "sexy" as AIDS and kills many every year. HPV (at least the kinds vaccinated against) and AIDS are actually somewhat similar in one aspect--they are pretty easy to prevent.
That was not clever at all, and it nearly sink your whole argument down. As for no vaccine being perfect : yes. It got you to reply--twice in fact! I'm happy!
I'm sorry you weren't able to add any new facts to the discussion though--I was hoping given your response that you had some further info.
I think you're still missing my point additionally. HPV is non-fatal. Only causes cancer in a extremely TINY percentage of cases. Doesn't spread like polio, smallpox, etc. The vaccine is not 100% effective. Like all vaccines, can cause negative effects. Objectionable to some people (for the above and other reasons--religious, conspiracy theory, who cares). I don't think it's the government's business to manage this kind of health issue. Polio--yes. Smallpox--yes. HPV--no.
As I said, make it freely available but optional for people that want it. Saving lives is a good thing. If you're going to start mandating this kind of health monitoring, let's also have mandatory diets, mandatory exercise, mandatory blood pressure medicine, bring back prohibition (and ban all smoking and drugs), ban all fatty foods, etc.
Please see my other post in this thread. In short, I don't see HPV situation as analogous to polio/smallpox. If you have information I'm lacking, please let me know.
The usage of the term "injection of chemicals" was meant to be deliberately inflammatory. But I'm sure you know as well as I do that no vaccine is perfect...
How is protecting public health, just like we've been doing for many generations via required immunizations an issue of freedom? Whenever you control people's actions, it's an issue of freedom. Polio, smallpox, etc were (are) very virulent and easy to spread. This is not true with HPV. Why mandate it? Make it optional. Many people have objections to vaccines--some due to (imho crazy) ideas that vaccines cause autism, some people don't use medicine (christian scientists?), some people may believe the cervical cancer vaccine is moral. This is not an issue like polio or smallpox where the entire population MUST be inoculated for it to work. That is why I do not see the situations as analogous.
This line of thinking reminds me of when conservatives didn't want to fund AIDS research because they thought only fags got AIDS and it was punishment from a god for an evil act. Now look at the state of the AIDS/HIV problem globally. Yes, it gets the lions share of global money while other issues get ignored, and very little has changed, except in Europe and America.
On one level I agree with you. I'm normally pro-vaccine. I haven't been convinced by any of the vaccine/autism/other health problem links. HPV isn't really analogous to any of your examples however.
Additionally, I absolutely do have a problem with the viewpoint that the government knows best. If the government can MANDATE that everyone gets a treatment for a behavior oriented problem, what's next, mandating diets? Mandating no smoking, drinking, or drugs?
After all, his initial support of requiring a cervical cancer vaccine [cbsnews.com] showed to people like me that he can be bribed into doing the right thing even if it pisses off the Christian Right. Kinda scary when people consider forcing people to inject themselves with chemicals "the right thing." Whatever happened to freedom? Silly question..
I'm serious--left or right--one wants to control your bedroom and read your email, and the other one wants to control your pocketbook take care of you (and if you don't like it, screw off). Meh. I would have voted Kinky too had I lived in Texas!
At the end of the 19th century, with the help of the US government, food companies like Dole and Chiquita helped create and prop up "banana republics" in latin america, which were in fact figurehead dictatorships geared towards producing raw materials and crops for US consumption, like bananas. In fact, before that time, the #1 most popular fruit in the US was the apple, but thanks to these companies, they turned that part of our culture on it's head and created a massive campaign to make the banana #1, using the pricing power of cheap bananas and government influence to steamroll a fruit that was, and still is, produced locally by US farmers. You have come up with this incredibly complicated reason to explain why...wait for it...people like bananas. Why does it have to be sinister? They taste good. Why do you have to try to explain simple human behavior by a sinister corporate conspiracy? Whatever happened to Ockham's razor? Yes, Some terrible things have been done in the past, I'm not going to stop eating a food I like because of some actions by people dead for 50 years. I like apples too.
The reason why they did this is not because bananas are better tasting or better for you, but because they were cheaper than local produce when you factor in highly cheap labor of the impoverished populace and favorable political conditions gained by less than ethical means. Damn those evil corporations for forcing us to eat a food we all hate!
And to be honest, Apples taste better than bananas. An apple is more durable, and can be made into more things, and supports your local economy. De gustibus non est disputandum. Once the conversation gets to the absurd point of "well, apples taste better, so there!" you can't really keep it going rationally.
I also have to question apples being more durable? Ever been to an apple orchard?
there are tons of places within the continental US where you can get produce shipped north. You can cross the US from top to bottom by train or 18 wheeler in two days without trying very hard, And we ship things more fragile than fruit by truck these days. Of course--that's the point. "In season" has no meaning anymore. The GP's point was that it is somehow wrong to eat fruit except in the height of summer wherever you are. I think that is utterly ludicrous. I absolutely agree with what you say here.
You are taking the metaphor the GP is making way too far. Those who say "homosexuality is a disease" come from an illogical and bigoted stance about the inequality of "races I wasn't aware sexuality and race were linked... GP is just as bigoted about those who choose to live life differently than he/she wants them to..
Food scarcity isn't a problem, but living in the middle and not on the more populated coasts, perhaps you simply don't see that sometimes the bananas on the shelves get sold out and they haven't restocked the shelves yet. I've seen that plenty of times. Then some people have to wait. It particularly happens in less affluent areas with high population density. Doesn't happen every day, but it's simply a matter of shelf space not food scarcity. I actually live on the east coast, but have lived in Chicago. Can't ever remember seeing a run on bananas... I'll concede the grandparent wasn't speaking literally but was just making yet another hyperbole.
You're welcome. Perhaps I can show you how to live better by trying to reduce your carbon footprint. After all, buying product locally as well as reducing my carbon footprint has positive impacts on my fellow human beings that I should be concerned with. You're welcome? are you the GP as well? I actually have a garden in my yard with about a dozen tomato plants, etc. I don't have to expend any petrocarbon to get them! guess what, I compost and am 100% organic too. I can play the yuppie/hippie game wth the best of them, I just can't stand sanctimonious holier than thou, for lack of a better word, morons who want us back in the stone age!
As a side note, I do think the tendency for westerners to buy bananas out of habit is a disease. Why is it a disease? I like bananas. Why should I not eat bananas? I understand that you want everyone to live according to your standards and morality, but really, why should I not eat bananas?
People have written essays and even books on why fruits and vetegables should be bought local, and then, only when in season. The idea of eating summer fruits when there's snow on the ground might be novel, but hardly appropriate, or interesting. This is absolutely bonkers. My wife's family lives in Wisconsin. You want them to survive on local produce over the winter? You want them to hoard dry goods so they can eat 6 months out of the year? Not to mention the exciting selection of nutritional deficits that most of the world suffered from before cheap year round fresh food selections. Really, this type of judgmental viewpoint bothers me so much. I really see your "EAT THIS WAY OR YOU HAVE A DISEASE!" moralism as no different from right wingers who think homosexuality is a disease.
Conversely, seeing a California supermarket in the middle of summer selling bananas (and their customers lining up to buy them) when just about every type of fruit is ripe for the picking is, well, no less than absurd. Are you just making this up as you go along? Watching people "line up" for bananas in a supermarket? Food scarcity hasn't exactly been a problem in America in a number of years, I would be very interested in where you've seen people "line up" to get bananas, while bypassing all other fruits.
Me, I typically shop at farmer's markets, Good for you! We should all be more like you, thanks for holding yourself out there as an example of the Right Way to live!
Your average big chain American supermarket all have pretty much the same vegetables varieties. I've got to wonder if you've been in a supermarket within the past decade? What you say is absolutely not true in my experience ANYMORE. Whether it's local, organics, exotic imports, etc, groceries stores are a lot different than they were even 5 years ago. Just last week I was at a Harris Teeter and they had a big banana poster up featuring like 6-8 different types of bananas, explaining their flavor, how to eat, etc.
All of these places had 3g networks in place well ahead of the US. There is a reason the iphone didn't land in those places yet, it didn't have 3g! Let's just be clear--Verizon and many other operators in the US have had 3g for the past 5 years. *AT&T* didn't have much rollout before recently, it's not a US vs rest of the world situation!
I've never understood why developers who have problems with the Wii's controls don't just release games that require a Gamecube or Virtual Console controller. Most people who have a Wii have at least one of those controllers already. Do they really? I have a wii with 2 wiimotes, and no GC or virtual console controllers. I thought the wii was supposed to have been bought by a lot of non-gamers who presumably would not already have GC controllers, or care about virtual console, etc? (I do have ps2, xbox, dreamcast, etc, so I don't consider myself one of those non-gamers)
Slashdot Mirror
1) You DIDN'T kill the dog.
2) You were under attack and defended yourself and your family.
how is that at all analagous to the situation you're alleging Reiser was in where
1) He gets real, real mad at his wife
2) Kills her and elaborately covers up the crime Self defense, perfectly understandable. Fit of rage? not as bad as cold hearted killer. Agreed, maybe we're on the same page after all. I have failed to see any evidence that this WAS a crime of passion. Additionally, the lengths it seems Reiser went to to cover up a crime tend to toss the "passion" thing out the window.
One way in which Europe tends to be far better than the US is that the mentally ill tend to be forcibly institutionalized in greater numbers in Europe. (read an interesting study once comparing US+European incarceration rates--including mental health hospitals/institutions along with prisons and jails, the number of incarcerations is much closer--still higher in America, but much closer) In America, many of those people end up in jail.
Another example would be the Duke Lacrosse Rape case...
I have not read anywhere that has claimed that had Reiser not been a weird asshole, he would have been declared innocent. Nobody said "I thought he was innocent, but he wouldn't look me in the eye, so he's guilty." It's just not there. These threads of discussion are all pointless!
If the evidence hadn't been there, I highly doubt Reiser would have been declared guilty. I'm not saying the justice system is perfect by any means, but of all the cases to complain about, I don't see it here..
I know it's always easy to see connections that aren't there, but do you have any evidence, any suggestions, anything, that would give any backing to your conspiracy theory?
Touchy, touchy--never understand why merely saying that one is a republican can warrant such scorn and hate--"voting illogically?" Seriously, let's not be so judgmental! Respect diversity of intellect as well as skin color and sexuality!
If you or the GGGP actually cared about crime stats, there's a lot you could read and learn. There's a guest blogger at the Volokh Conspiracy right now who has published extensively in the field (and not just as as slashdot armchair quarterback). I'd recommend you take a look.
You'll also note that I specfically referenced a group of people who typically refer to themselves as Christians, many of whom are in fact atheists--unitarian universalists.
What about Terri Schiavo? Did the government have the right to (attempt) to intervene and make health decisions for her family? What about AbrahamCherrix should the government have been able to control his health decisions? His case seems particularly relevant as he was a minor. It's also difficult to gauge how much impact the money spent on AIDS and HIV research has caused globally. Lives saved are much more difficult to count than lives lost. This is true, though with aids infection rates increasing in China and India and over 25% in some sub-saharan African countries, it's hard to argue that the global strategy has been a success. By contrast, Malaria is not nearly as "sexy" as AIDS and kills many every year. HPV (at least the kinds vaccinated against) and AIDS are actually somewhat similar in one aspect--they are pretty easy to prevent.
I'm sorry you weren't able to add any new facts to the discussion though--I was hoping given your response that you had some further info.
I think you're still missing my point additionally. HPV is non-fatal. Only causes cancer in a extremely TINY percentage of cases. Doesn't spread like polio, smallpox, etc. The vaccine is not 100% effective. Like all vaccines, can cause negative effects. Objectionable to some people (for the above and other reasons--religious, conspiracy theory, who cares). I don't think it's the government's business to manage this kind of health issue. Polio--yes. Smallpox--yes. HPV--no.
As I said, make it freely available but optional for people that want it. Saving lives is a good thing. If you're going to start mandating this kind of health monitoring, let's also have mandatory diets, mandatory exercise, mandatory blood pressure medicine, bring back prohibition (and ban all smoking and drugs), ban all fatty foods, etc.
Please see my other post in this thread. In short, I don't see HPV situation as analogous to polio/smallpox. If you have information I'm lacking, please let me know.
The usage of the term "injection of chemicals" was meant to be deliberately inflammatory. But I'm sure you know as well as I do that no vaccine is perfect...
On one level I agree with you. I'm normally pro-vaccine. I haven't been convinced by any of the vaccine/autism/other health problem links. HPV isn't really analogous to any of your examples however.
Additionally, I absolutely do have a problem with the viewpoint that the government knows best. If the government can MANDATE that everyone gets a treatment for a behavior oriented problem, what's next, mandating diets? Mandating no smoking, drinking, or drugs?
I'm serious--left or right--one wants to control your bedroom and read your email, and the other one wants to control your pocketbook take care of you (and if you don't like it, screw off). Meh. I would have voted Kinky too had I lived in Texas!
Very interesting information. Thanks for the reply!
I also have to question apples being more durable? Ever been to an apple orchard? there are tons of places within the continental US where you can get produce shipped north. You can cross the US from top to bottom by train or 18 wheeler in two days without trying very hard, And we ship things more fragile than fruit by truck these days. Of course--that's the point. "In season" has no meaning anymore. The GP's point was that it is somehow wrong to eat fruit except in the height of summer wherever you are. I think that is utterly ludicrous. I absolutely agree with what you say here. You are taking the metaphor the GP is making way too far. Those who say "homosexuality is a disease" come from an illogical and bigoted stance about the inequality of "races I wasn't aware sexuality and race were linked... GP is just as bigoted about those who choose to live life differently than he/she wants them to.. Food scarcity isn't a problem, but living in the middle and not on the more populated coasts, perhaps you simply don't see that sometimes the bananas on the shelves get sold out and they haven't restocked the shelves yet. I've seen that plenty of times. Then some people have to wait. It particularly happens in less affluent areas with high population density. Doesn't happen every day, but it's simply a matter of shelf space not food scarcity. I actually live on the east coast, but have lived in Chicago. Can't ever remember seeing a run on bananas... I'll concede the grandparent wasn't speaking literally but was just making yet another hyperbole. You're welcome. Perhaps I can show you how to live better by trying to reduce your carbon footprint. After all, buying product locally as well as reducing my carbon footprint has positive impacts on my fellow human beings that I should be concerned with. You're welcome? are you the GP as well? I actually have a garden in my yard with about a dozen tomato plants, etc. I don't have to expend any petrocarbon to get them! guess what, I compost and am 100% organic too. I can play the yuppie/hippie game wth the best of them, I just can't stand sanctimonious holier than thou, for lack of a better word, morons who want us back in the stone age!