Well that's a valid criticism however you haven't limited your statements.
Why is this only relevant in executions but not anywhere else? Why can't I apply your argument to everything else?
The problem is that you may be trying to eat your cake and have it too. That is the core of my actual argument. Not a slippery slope argument. I am instead accusing you of hypocrisy. Because you're applying this logic on one specific context and no where else.
That makes no sense unless you justify your exclusive use of that argument in only one place.
Can you do that?
As to you saying that I assume the justice system is about tit for tat revenge... nope. And I don't need to elaborate on that unless you elaborate your claim further.
Next, why must I accept that state sanctioned killing is either cruel or inhumane? What is your basis for that? And I'll repeat that police officers are empowered to kill people if they feel it is necessary to protect public safety or bring a dangerous criminal in. Hell, the criminal doesn't even need to be dangerous.
Lets say I steel bananas. That's all do. I steel about 2000 bananas a day and I eat some and toss the rest all over the place. Because this is a silly criminal. No one is really hurt but bananas are destroyed at a prodigious rate and there is a consistent mess. Let us say for the sake of argument that you could not stop me unless you were willing to kill me. I don't know... Let us just say magic as the reason. You can stop me but you have to kill me.
What are you going to do? Are you going to let me destroy bananas forever and make a silly mess? Or are you going to put a police officer out there that will give me an ultimatum to stop... and when I fail to stop, he will shoot me in the face?
Don't answer that, because we both know that the banana villian would eat a bullet to the face because eventually it would be too annoying. And people would salve their guilt by saying "well we warned him" and "isn't it tragic" and after all the police officer was TRYING to arrest the banana fiend. But the thing is society at some level makes the choice that its laws are non-negotiable. And if someone says "make me", society has two choices... it can either say "oh really?" and make him... or it can puss out and have its laws mean nothing.
That isn't a slippery slope by the way. That instantly happens. It isn't one thing leading to another that leads to another. That is instant fucking cause and effect.
So what does that mean? It means you're either assuming the right to make laws and judge people or you're not.
Which is it? Are you prepared to make life and death choices or not?
Choose now. Because if you're not willing to assume that authority then someone else or no one else has it. Either way you're just abdicating responsibility to something else that will pick up the slack.
Here is why I'm okay with executions:
1. What is the point of any punishment or sentence by a court? 1a. It is part an incentive either to the individual being sentenced or to the public at large to not break that law again. 1b. It is to address the central problem of the crime such that justice has been served. Such as returning stolen property to its rightful owner, or seeing that damages to the plaintiff have been made sufficient to recompense them. 1c. It has to logistically serve the interests of the society and the state. You can't have trials for parking tickets span decades. Or have the state and society ultimately be unduly inconvenienced by the various needs of criminals. 1d. Ultimately the point of any justice system is to see the consequences of their behavior land on their own shoulders. That does not mean eye for an eye or revenge. It means that the damage that a person does is paid as much as possible by the guilty.
Wow... I was thinking about doing a three parter or something but I'm just going to stick with this one issue because honestly I'll write a book.
In regards to my logic, yes... that would be an execution. The question would be the legitimacy of the court. But assuming that wasn't in question... sure. That would be an execution.
Would you band of criminals have some body of law and grant the accused due process?
If so, then I would find that far more palatable than random spree killing or something.
If you are saying that the criminals would have some sort of kangeroo court then you're really just conflating a proper court of law with a kangeroo court. Which is obviously invalid.
Also with conventional courts they use a body of law that was largely approved of by the public and is well understood... and the public in our society generally understands that the government has authority to do that.
your band of criminals by definition wouldn't have that because they would be criminals. A criminal is a breaker of laws.
So... you're getting closer to making sense but you're conflating some things that you can't do with any kind of integrity.
As to criminals infiltrating the government and using government power to execute rivals etc... Sure. How does this stop us from the max max conclusion though? Because if that were the status quo you'd have chaos because no one would regard the government as legitimate. Why are you going to follow laws if it is just bullshit? Why pay taxes? Why get licenses? Why get approval from one committee or another for whatever it is you want to do?
By your logic the only thing holding society together is naked force. Aka we do these things because otherwise the government will beat the shit out of you until you do it.
And you can run a government that way but it is very unstable and chaotic. What is more, we clearly don't run our society that way because people mostly obey the law because they view it as reasonable and ethical to do it.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. My technical logic as you refer to it has some advantages... amongst them is not talking utter nonsense. While you apparently don't have a lot of respect for the concept of logic or reason, it would do you well to have it. You're not making any sense.
As to executions becoming murder when the person doing it loses moral authority, technically it is when the killing was ruled murder. Murder is a legal/ethical concept and not a moral one.
As to the US losing the moral authority to kill someone because they've executed the wrong people on occasion, then what about their moral authority to imprison someone? They do that falsely with if anything greater frequency. So can they not imprison people?
And what about fines? They have false fines all the time. What about the IRS ceasing property that they didn't actually have any right to because they made a mistake? Does that mean the government doesn't have a right to levy taxes?
You're proving my point. Taken to its logical conclusion you'd legitimize the right of the government to do ANYTHING. And that would obviously lead to anarchy.
Let me answer your question because it is pretty easy to answer:
Who imprisons who when the government imprisons an innocent man? There are people that have spend their lives in prison on false charges... just as many as ever were killed on false charges.
And really what is the difference to the man? You lock me in a cage, you take me from my family, from my work, from love, from my life, from children I might already have or would have had if you had not stolen my life.
You lock me in a box and you think that is somehow morally superior to killing me? How? You force me to live the rest of my days in the company of people I hate, with no agency, ruled over by thugs with badges, not able to decide what I eat, or what I do with myself every day. You do this to me and think that is better then just killing me?
Remember that fellow that had the women in his rape dungeon... would he have been more of a scumbag if he had killed those women outright instead? Not really. They survived I guess but the crime he committed was no less more excusable.
So who goes to jail when you imprison someone on charges that ultimately turn out to be false?
And consider any of a million other things a court can find... they can levy a fine against you, take your property away, they can do any of a million miscarriages of justice. And who pays when that happens. How do you make me whole when you fail to judge QUICKLY and correctly. Because as we know justice delayed is justice denied. You have to not only be accurate but speedy within the context of the issue.
Errors are inevitable because we are not gods. I am not omnipotent. I can't be right every time no matter how hard I try. So does that mean we shouldn't have courts? Think about it.
At some level, you have to accept that mistakes will be made. You have to do your best to avoid them but understand it is going to happen. And when the worst happens, you can make what restitution is possible and logically practical. But that does not extend to godlike power.
If the state is unsuited to perform an execution then that same state is unsuited to judge high crimes PERIOD. No more murder trials. Nothing that involves sending anyone to jail for more than a couple years at most. Anything beyond that you're saying you can't judge because the punishments are so stiff that if you're wrong you will be unable to make restitution. You can't give someone back ten or twenty years of their life.
If you throw me in jail when I'm 20 and you hold me until I am 60... there is no amount of money that will make up for that. You destroyed my life. I get to what... have some spending money in the last few years before I die... no family... no career... no friends... tortured for years by living in a hostile community of maladjusted idiots (aka the prison population). You can't make up for that.
So you're going to have to take responsibility for the fact that you're going to misjudge people on occasion. And it will be terrible. And you will feel very bad about it. And you will use that feeling to do your best to see that you make such mistakes as infrequently as possible. You do not solve this problem by abdicating authority. That is no solution. That is moral cowardice.
As to your idea of executing members of the court if it turns out they made an honest mistake... no problem. Just apply that to every other judgement a court can make. So any time a court levies a fine against someone that turns out to be wrong, you need to fine the judge or the police officer or whatever to pay for it.
Same thing with any kind of imprisonment.
The result of your idea will be that the justice system will shut down almost entirely leading to anarchy.
Why would I take the risk of giving a guilty verdict EVER if I expose myself personally to risk in doing it?
What risk is there in your system if I let someone go incorrectly? Lets say someone is guilty but I rule they're innocent. And later on it is proven that they were guilty. What happens to
There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping.
What makes one imprisonment and the other kidnapping is a TRIAL.
The standards of evidence in a death penality murder trial are higher than in ANY OTHER TRIAL. The burden of proof and evidence is significantly HIGHER.
Now here you're going to say "but I have evidence of them screwing up such trials"... yes of course... and there is evidence of them doing that with any other type of trial. What is more, you are MORE likely to find errors in a trial with higher standards. It is very common for someone to be prosecuted with an intention of executing and it not being possible to get enough evidence to support more than imprisonment.
Did you just process that? If the state LACKS evidence, they resort to imprisonment next.
In any case, I'd love to hear why executions are illegitimate in any kind of logical or rational sense. The only position that is going to argue against an execution is going to be an ideological one. Which is just your opinion. I have opinions too. You can't slap me down with anything short of logic and reason. And I am struggling to see how that is even logically possible.
But I have an open mind. Lay our logic on me. I am listening. I will keep an open mind about whatever you say.
Everything has a context. FM radio is better at some things then other forms of communication. However, those things are not justification for requiring that all cell phones have FM antennas.
Let me just first clear out all the people that just don't like executions... lets just take for the sake of argument that executions are going to happen. I know you don't like them... but they're here to stay. Assuming that point, this method of execution is quite a good one. It doesn't inflict pain on people, it doesn't outwardly damage the body, it is very reliable, etc. It has everything going for it so long as you accept that executions are going to happen.
Now I know you don't want to accept that and I am not forcing you to... I don't have that power. I am simply asking to separate the discussion about executions in general from this specific type of execution. I don't really want to have a long conversation about capital punishment.
If you reply to me, talk to me about THIS method of execution. That is what interests me.
On topic, I am really happy they finally did this... the previous methods had too many problems with them. This method is ideal.
It is also illegal to kidnap people and hold them against their will.
So what do you do to someone that kidnapped people and held them against their will?
Throw them in prison where you'll forcibly imprison them in a place they don't want to be.
Your citation of hypocrisy makes no logical sense. Wouldn't taxation be stealing under your logic? After all, you are compelled by force to give money you don't want to give them in many cases.
So on and so forth.
Executions are not murder. Why? There was a trial. Same reason imprisonment isn't kidnapping. There was a trial.
If you conflate an execution with a murder then you are suggesting that the trial had no meaning and if it trials have no meaning then every official government action through the courts is no different from when anyone just grabs someone and does the same thing to them.
Either you admit your error or you're effectively advocating anarchy. At which point there is no law. We'd live in some mad max post apocalyptic hell hole in a week if we followed this to its logical conclusion.
You're such a bad liar. You cited the quote but not the text because you know if you did that it would be obvious to YOU that the post you quoted did not say that.
Since I'm not a moron, it is obvious regardless.
What is more, even if I had said that in that post, which I didn't... it wasn't in this thread and it wasn't relevant to this conversation. I'm sure if we went through YOUR post history which you obscure by intentionally not logging in... I'm sure if we went through it somehow we'd find lots of quotes from you that you'd had a hard time explaining. Which is probably why you don't log in. You just troll people that do.
That is of course immaterial because either way, I said no such thing... and again even if I had said it wasn't in this thread.
The tiers in corporations are more guidelines. In the government they're pretty inflexible. Which is what the DoD is saying.
If it were really the same then the private sector would enjoy no competitive advantage over the government for competing for top tier labor.
They do. The tier system works quite well for the majority of labor... if anything it over pays most people dramatically. But for top tier labor it underpays them and so they don't accept the job.
As to you eating every last dick, you are attempting strawmen and neither owning up to it or apologizing. So better get whatever your favorite dick eating sauce is because you have a lot of work to do.
You said this:
""So basically a bunch of incompetent paper-pushers are being given largesse by the rest of the nation, and the economies in the rest of the nation would be better off if they seceded from the federal government, since they wouldn't have to spend so much funding all that waste?""
Quote where I said we should secede from the US government over this issue.
Or apologize for attempting a STUPID straw man.
Or enjoy your bottomless buffet of dicks for being a degenerate.
I even explained why your strawman was unacceptable. You totally missed it all. Could I suddenly in the middle of a conversation start to demand you explain your rampant pedophilia? Not legitimately. But if anyone is allowed to just make up fucking anything even if the other side said nothing about it then that would be as valid as anything.
Repent. You fucked up. Admit it. I will accept your apology and we can move forward. Being proud with me here is not making you look strong, it is making you look dishonest. You fucked up. Own it. Or you've earned your bottomless bucket of dicks.
The 3k is a large infrequent expense. You have to weigh that against what you pay your utility. You say the 3k would have to be shelled out every couple years? I'm not sure about that. That battery is offering itself at a 1000 cycles at 70 percent.
Assuming a nightly cycle of around 70 percent, you're looking at nearly 3 years at 3000 dollars.
Now factor in what you'd be paying in power... probably more than a hundred a month... you're going to be looking at 1200 dollars in potentially nullified utility bills per month.
Yes, the solar panels and electronics are another expense on top of that. But most of that stuff lasts a lot longer than the batteries. Aren't the panels supposed to last about ten years at this point?
So amortizing all these things over their service lives, I don't see the problem. It does require some financing but so does your car and house. So what.
What is more, I've seen that people are able to recondition those batteries after they hit their end of life and basically refurbish them. They have to die eventually but if you can tease couple more years out of them then you're almost doubling the cost efficiency. I saw a big thing on youtube with a battery expert that took those specific batteries apart and brought them back to near 100 percent working order after they had clapped out. I believe he basically washed the insides out with some sort of solvent or changed the battery chemistry to something else. Possibly a different electrolytic medium. The point was that the batteries came right back after doing that
That's fine... you can sit down with your crank powered FM radio during the appocolypise. I wouldn't dare take that away from you.
However, don't expect me to support you if you want EVERY cellphone to have an FM radio built into by law simply so you can do it on your cell phone.
Which as we all know would have run out of power from lack of charging LONG before the towers actually died.
How pray tell are you charging your cellphone? Hand crank? Personal diesel generator? Wind mill? The Force... that jedi thing?
The towers last as long as the cell phones themselves do which is the point. If it is the end of the world, the dead have risen, the sun hangs red in the sky, and the Elder Gods have risen... then by all means, listen to radio reports on your FM radio. But we're talking about a probably traditional radio set top which can take regular batteries unlike your cell phone, or has a built in hand crack, etc.
Name a REASONABLE situation where after days of no power you still only have your cell phone and yet need to get access to these FM radio transmissions?
Its honestly pretty competitive with CG effects in movies. I mean, go back and watch the prequel starwars movies again. All the CG was obvious. The lighting is almost never perfect.
My personal favorite bad CG was that scorpion king mummy scene where the rock was turned into a giant insect and it looked seriously off. I'm not sure what it was... I'm assuming something with the lighting or shaders or something.
But really, if this is at all representative of what the game will look like, then I think it should be great.
You don't need to cache that much power. Just enough to move power efficiently around a neighborhood. There are some centrifuges that have been used for that purpose in a few places. They spin up quickly and discharge quickly as well. And they can go back and forth repeatedly. Keep in mind, each one of these things is going to store only a few minutes of power each. But the point is render the power draw for the whole neighborhood ZERO while the neighborhood is producing a net positive. yes, the area will generate more than it uses at certain times and use more than it generates at others. But the utilities are having a hard time accepting the power. So people might have to accept that the point of their solar should be to ZERO out their bill rather than generating any kind of profit from it.
A small lead acid bank capable of driving a house for an evening isn't that expensive. There's no reason these people with solar panels couldn't cache the power locally. Again, not for long term storage. Just enough to take you through the night and maybe into the morning. At that point your panels are going to be getting light again and batteries will start recharging. The only time you'd use grid power would be if you got some cloudy days.
A text message blasted out by the phone company would do the trick.
Most cell towers have battery back ups so they'll continue to operate even when the power drops. Cell networks do tend to work even in brown outs. Just like your FM transmitters. For the same reason. Battery backups. I think the FM towers also have onsite generators.
As to carriers disabling the FM transmitters... how many flying fucking times do I have to specifically say that I specifically think that is specifically fucked up?
I can't be any clearer. It is literally impossible for me to be any clearer. You're killing me.
Again, I'd sooner put a satellite receiver in the phone then I would an FM receiver. The sat receiver is at least useful for more than getting shitty progressive rock. I might be able to get a clean digital signal from space.
Here is one thing they could do that would improve my impression of FM, do the same thing to FM that they did to over the air TV. Make it go digital. Absent that... no.
And again... YES, they shouldn't turn your FM radio off if it is already in the fucking phone. 100 percent with you. You want to line the carrier executives against a wall and shoot them in the face for that? Signed. I'll go for that. Shoot them in the eyes. I won't stop you.
But don't tell me EVERY phone has to have an analog FM receiver in it. Give me a fucking break.
Federal... or across state lines State... County... City... Neighborhood.
The management of solar power should be bounced around a neighborhood. It doesn't need to go farther than that. That means the federal, state, county, and city networks all remain clean. No back feeding of power.
Each segment could also fall under different jurisdictions and be the responsibility of different institutions. That might be helpful or not. It should be done to the extent it is helpful.
Here some complete asshat will tell me "but in this circumstance it might not be helpful"... then don't do it in that circumstance. I wouldn't need to explain this if reading comprehension were especially dependable on this site.
Then we really need to work on storage. If these houses can store their power then they might not need to be connected to the grid at all.
The point was "high demand labor"... which includes anyone that has special skills that are not easily trained to acquired in the market.
I gave an example a CEO because that is the most extreme example. But that same example also works for medical professionals, computer professionals, engineering professionals, scientific professionals... and anyone else that has skills that are rare in the general population.
The problem is that the government has pay grades. Fixed tiers of compensation. Those tiers work fine for most people. They're fucking useless for anyone exceptional that must be paid significantly more.
In regards to you absurd strawman that I'm suggesting we secede from the government because there is some waste and incompetence in the government... is that really the only option you're capable of accepting? So in your mind, I either have to accept anything the government might do... and amount of incompetence... or I have to secede? Really?
Please quote the bit where I said we should secede from the federal government. Quote me, bitch. I said that no where. What is up with the fucking straw men today? Seriously? Can none of you fucks make a coherent argument without misrepresenting your opposition?
I'll tell you what. I'll defend seceding from the federal government if you defend your rampant pedophilia. Tell me why you keep supporting bestiality and necrophilia.
No where in your post did you say anything about that. But apparently that isn't required for me to pretend that you did... by your own fucking example.
You owe me apologies asshole. You won't offer them... which will just mean you're a degenerate... to which I'll just say eat all the dicks. Every last one.
No I didn't, the post you quoted was me justifying snapping at someone... being rude to them. I did not say they were wrong because I disagreed with them. I said I was harsher with him than usual because... I'm assuming YOU have been trolling me. I don't believe there are more then one or two of you idiots. And the fact that the troll in question has tried repeatedly to pretend to be someone else makes me question every AC I see. Given that you're another AC shithead... I have to keep in mind that you could be that guy.
I'm not going to read further in your post because you're clearly just pulling the AC troll bullshit. You're bringing up posts where I was dealing with AC trolls and you're trying to justify a straw man.
This is how I'm going to respond to you going forward. I'm going to identify a single lie or fallacy or aspect of an argument you must address... I'm going to wait for you to do it and when you don't (which you won't because ACs are cowardly shitheads by default apparently)... I'm going to just repeat the same challenge rendering any further dialog meaningless until you address that point.
So I say again, cite where I said that someone was wrong because I disagreed with them or admit you tried to straw man me... and failed.
Or do what I am all but certain you'll do... stall, dodge, and make excuses for yourself. This will be interpreted as a concession. When you do this I will either repeat the question again until you answer it or just stop responding to you in that thread. You'll follow me to then next. But I'll just do the same thing every time.
As to 2G, it isn't for phone calls and text messages.
And even if it were, that would again mean that you should run your signal over whatever the prevailing protocol is at the time.
one fellow was saying "but what if everyone tries to make calls at the same time and it overwhelms the system"... a text message won't overwhelming anything. In fact, during emergencies if they restricted communication to text messages the system would never get congested. Ten million people could all send texts at the same time over and over again and the system would hold.
No, we should go back to carrier pidgeons because what happens if your towers lose power?
or I don't know, we could have a guy taken around on the back of a donkey screaming the news to people.
The FM system is retrograde. If some people still like it, fine... keep it active for them. But don't impose that shit on everyone else. There are a million ways to make the existing cell network perform the relevant function without forcing them to put in an FM antenna.
Unless you want an FM antenna for music and you're pissed that the carriers keep disabling them even if they are in the machine. Then I understand your point.
But on a health and safety stand point? Laughable.
That's fine. I'm not saying FM radios are stupid and anyone that uses them is an asshole... am I?
No. I'm saying that the government shouldn't require cell phone makers or carriers to have FM radios built into the phones.
Now that said, one thing that does annoy me is when the FM radio feature is disabled by the carrier for no fucking reason. Often to make people want to buy their streaming music service more or something equally pathetic. THAT is fucked up. And I'd pass a law against that any day.
But don't force people to put an FM radio in the phones. Get real.
Government employees are typically better paid then their private sector counter parts.
The exception is high demand labor of any kind. Someone able to run a company as CEO is going to get more money in the private sector than in the government's employ. However if you're a paper pushing cubical monkey then you will get better pay and job security in the government.
The issue is whenever people say the government should play some employee more they tend to mean ALL of them. And that's neither reasonable nor sustainable. The result is that you over pay for low to middle skilled people and then under pay the top talent.
yes yes... no big pay discrepancies are politically incorrect these days. It doesn't matter. The guy I'm talking about can turn your job down and go to the private sector and make more money. The cubical monkeys working for the government can't do that. They'll be paid worse in the private sector because the government is typically over paying them. There is a reason that the area around Washington DC is the highest income growth sector in the country, has the strongest realestate market, and is generally the healthiest economy. All those office workers are being paid better in DC than anywhere else in the country.
And here some bright spark will say "well then why don't we do that everywhere!"... the answer being that it isn't especially sustainable only doing it at the level it is already done at... expanding it beyond this point is a little like saying "that shot of heroine was good, lets double it!"... what could possibly go wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Well that's a valid criticism however you haven't limited your statements.
Why is this only relevant in executions but not anywhere else? Why can't I apply your argument to everything else?
The problem is that you may be trying to eat your cake and have it too. That is the core of my actual argument. Not a slippery slope argument. I am instead accusing you of hypocrisy. Because you're applying this logic on one specific context and no where else.
That makes no sense unless you justify your exclusive use of that argument in only one place.
Can you do that?
As to you saying that I assume the justice system is about tit for tat revenge... nope. And I don't need to elaborate on that unless you elaborate your claim further.
Next, why must I accept that state sanctioned killing is either cruel or inhumane? What is your basis for that? And I'll repeat that police officers are empowered to kill people if they feel it is necessary to protect public safety or bring a dangerous criminal in. Hell, the criminal doesn't even need to be dangerous.
Lets say I steel bananas. That's all do. I steel about 2000 bananas a day and I eat some and toss the rest all over the place. Because this is a silly criminal. No one is really hurt but bananas are destroyed at a prodigious rate and there is a consistent mess. Let us say for the sake of argument that you could not stop me unless you were willing to kill me. I don't know... Let us just say magic as the reason. You can stop me but you have to kill me.
What are you going to do? Are you going to let me destroy bananas forever and make a silly mess? Or are you going to put a police officer out there that will give me an ultimatum to stop... and when I fail to stop, he will shoot me in the face?
Don't answer that, because we both know that the banana villian would eat a bullet to the face because eventually it would be too annoying. And people would salve their guilt by saying "well we warned him" and "isn't it tragic" and after all the police officer was TRYING to arrest the banana fiend. But the thing is society at some level makes the choice that its laws are non-negotiable. And if someone says "make me", society has two choices... it can either say "oh really?" and make him... or it can puss out and have its laws mean nothing.
That isn't a slippery slope by the way. That instantly happens. It isn't one thing leading to another that leads to another. That is instant fucking cause and effect.
So what does that mean? It means you're either assuming the right to make laws and judge people or you're not.
Which is it? Are you prepared to make life and death choices or not?
Choose now. Because if you're not willing to assume that authority then someone else or no one else has it. Either way you're just abdicating responsibility to something else that will pick up the slack.
Here is why I'm okay with executions:
1. What is the point of any punishment or sentence by a court?
1a. It is part an incentive either to the individual being sentenced or to the public at large to not break that law again.
1b. It is to address the central problem of the crime such that justice has been served. Such as returning stolen property to its rightful owner, or seeing that damages to the plaintiff have been made sufficient to recompense them.
1c. It has to logistically serve the interests of the society and the state. You can't have trials for parking tickets span decades. Or have the state and society ultimately be unduly inconvenienced by the various needs of criminals.
1d. Ultimately the point of any justice system is to see the consequences of their behavior land on their own shoulders. That does not mean eye for an eye or revenge. It means that the damage that a person does is paid as much as possible by the guilty.
Wow... I was thinking about doing a three parter or something but I'm just going to stick with this one issue because honestly I'll write a book.
As to 1a, criminals don't like to be execu
In regards to my logic, yes... that would be an execution. The question would be the legitimacy of the court. But assuming that wasn't in question... sure. That would be an execution.
Would you band of criminals have some body of law and grant the accused due process?
If so, then I would find that far more palatable than random spree killing or something.
If you are saying that the criminals would have some sort of kangeroo court then you're really just conflating a proper court of law with a kangeroo court. Which is obviously invalid.
Also with conventional courts they use a body of law that was largely approved of by the public and is well understood... and the public in our society generally understands that the government has authority to do that.
your band of criminals by definition wouldn't have that because they would be criminals. A criminal is a breaker of laws.
So... you're getting closer to making sense but you're conflating some things that you can't do with any kind of integrity.
As to criminals infiltrating the government and using government power to execute rivals etc... Sure. How does this stop us from the max max conclusion though? Because if that were the status quo you'd have chaos because no one would regard the government as legitimate. Why are you going to follow laws if it is just bullshit? Why pay taxes? Why get licenses? Why get approval from one committee or another for whatever it is you want to do?
By your logic the only thing holding society together is naked force. Aka we do these things because otherwise the government will beat the shit out of you until you do it.
And you can run a government that way but it is very unstable and chaotic. What is more, we clearly don't run our society that way because people mostly obey the law because they view it as reasonable and ethical to do it.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. My technical logic as you refer to it has some advantages... amongst them is not talking utter nonsense. While you apparently don't have a lot of respect for the concept of logic or reason, it would do you well to have it. You're not making any sense.
As to executions becoming murder when the person doing it loses moral authority, technically it is when the killing was ruled murder. Murder is a legal/ethical concept and not a moral one.
As to the US losing the moral authority to kill someone because they've executed the wrong people on occasion, then what about their moral authority to imprison someone? They do that falsely with if anything greater frequency. So can they not imprison people?
And what about fines? They have false fines all the time. What about the IRS ceasing property that they didn't actually have any right to because they made a mistake? Does that mean the government doesn't have a right to levy taxes?
You're proving my point. Taken to its logical conclusion you'd legitimize the right of the government to do ANYTHING. And that would obviously lead to anarchy.
So... good work. You proved my point.
Let me answer your question because it is pretty easy to answer:
Who imprisons who when the government imprisons an innocent man? There are people that have spend their lives in prison on false charges... just as many as ever were killed on false charges.
And really what is the difference to the man? You lock me in a cage, you take me from my family, from my work, from love, from my life, from children I might already have or would have had if you had not stolen my life.
You lock me in a box and you think that is somehow morally superior to killing me? How? You force me to live the rest of my days in the company of people I hate, with no agency, ruled over by thugs with badges, not able to decide what I eat, or what I do with myself every day. You do this to me and think that is better then just killing me?
Remember that fellow that had the women in his rape dungeon... would he have been more of a scumbag if he had killed those women outright instead? Not really. They survived I guess but the crime he committed was no less more excusable.
So who goes to jail when you imprison someone on charges that ultimately turn out to be false?
And consider any of a million other things a court can find... they can levy a fine against you, take your property away, they can do any of a million miscarriages of justice. And who pays when that happens. How do you make me whole when you fail to judge QUICKLY and correctly. Because as we know justice delayed is justice denied. You have to not only be accurate but speedy within the context of the issue.
Errors are inevitable because we are not gods. I am not omnipotent. I can't be right every time no matter how hard I try. So does that mean we shouldn't have courts? Think about it.
At some level, you have to accept that mistakes will be made. You have to do your best to avoid them but understand it is going to happen. And when the worst happens, you can make what restitution is possible and logically practical. But that does not extend to godlike power.
If the state is unsuited to perform an execution then that same state is unsuited to judge high crimes PERIOD. No more murder trials. Nothing that involves sending anyone to jail for more than a couple years at most. Anything beyond that you're saying you can't judge because the punishments are so stiff that if you're wrong you will be unable to make restitution. You can't give someone back ten or twenty years of their life.
If you throw me in jail when I'm 20 and you hold me until I am 60... there is no amount of money that will make up for that. You destroyed my life. I get to what... have some spending money in the last few years before I die... no family... no career... no friends... tortured for years by living in a hostile community of maladjusted idiots (aka the prison population). You can't make up for that.
So you're going to have to take responsibility for the fact that you're going to misjudge people on occasion. And it will be terrible. And you will feel very bad about it. And you will use that feeling to do your best to see that you make such mistakes as infrequently as possible. You do not solve this problem by abdicating authority. That is no solution. That is moral cowardice.
As to your idea of executing members of the court if it turns out they made an honest mistake... no problem. Just apply that to every other judgement a court can make. So any time a court levies a fine against someone that turns out to be wrong, you need to fine the judge or the police officer or whatever to pay for it.
Same thing with any kind of imprisonment.
The result of your idea will be that the justice system will shut down almost entirely leading to anarchy.
Why would I take the risk of giving a guilty verdict EVER if I expose myself personally to risk in doing it?
What risk is there in your system if I let someone go incorrectly? Lets say someone is guilty but I rule they're innocent. And later on it is proven that they were guilty. What happens to
He equated the killing by a murderer with killing by the state after a trial.
I did not strawman him.
There is no logical difference between execution and murder versus imprisonment and kidnapping.
What makes one imprisonment and the other kidnapping is a TRIAL.
The standards of evidence in a death penality murder trial are higher than in ANY OTHER TRIAL. The burden of proof and evidence is significantly HIGHER.
Now here you're going to say "but I have evidence of them screwing up such trials"... yes of course... and there is evidence of them doing that with any other type of trial. What is more, you are MORE likely to find errors in a trial with higher standards. It is very common for someone to be prosecuted with an intention of executing and it not being possible to get enough evidence to support more than imprisonment.
Did you just process that? If the state LACKS evidence, they resort to imprisonment next.
In any case, I'd love to hear why executions are illegitimate in any kind of logical or rational sense. The only position that is going to argue against an execution is going to be an ideological one. Which is just your opinion. I have opinions too. You can't slap me down with anything short of logic and reason. And I am struggling to see how that is even logically possible.
But I have an open mind. Lay our logic on me. I am listening. I will keep an open mind about whatever you say.
*steeples fingers*
Hit me.
Neither is anything else always available.
Pigeons don't work in a hurricane.
Everything has a context. FM radio is better at some things then other forms of communication. However, those things are not justification for requiring that all cell phones have FM antennas.
Public shaming has existed since ALWAYS. It is a core way that human society works. All human beings know this...
Are you from a different planet?
Let me just first clear out all the people that just don't like executions... lets just take for the sake of argument that executions are going to happen. I know you don't like them... but they're here to stay. Assuming that point, this method of execution is quite a good one. It doesn't inflict pain on people, it doesn't outwardly damage the body, it is very reliable, etc. It has everything going for it so long as you accept that executions are going to happen.
Now I know you don't want to accept that and I am not forcing you to... I don't have that power. I am simply asking to separate the discussion about executions in general from this specific type of execution. I don't really want to have a long conversation about capital punishment.
If you reply to me, talk to me about THIS method of execution. That is what interests me.
On topic, I am really happy they finally did this... the previous methods had too many problems with them. This method is ideal.
It is also illegal to kidnap people and hold them against their will.
So what do you do to someone that kidnapped people and held them against their will?
Throw them in prison where you'll forcibly imprison them in a place they don't want to be.
Your citation of hypocrisy makes no logical sense. Wouldn't taxation be stealing under your logic? After all, you are compelled by force to give money you don't want to give them in many cases.
So on and so forth.
Executions are not murder. Why? There was a trial. Same reason imprisonment isn't kidnapping. There was a trial.
If you conflate an execution with a murder then you are suggesting that the trial had no meaning and if it trials have no meaning then every official government action through the courts is no different from when anyone just grabs someone and does the same thing to them.
Either you admit your error or you're effectively advocating anarchy. At which point there is no law. We'd live in some mad max post apocalyptic hell hole in a week if we followed this to its logical conclusion.
You're such a bad liar. You cited the quote but not the text because you know if you did that it would be obvious to YOU that the post you quoted did not say that.
Since I'm not a moron, it is obvious regardless.
What is more, even if I had said that in that post, which I didn't... it wasn't in this thread and it wasn't relevant to this conversation. I'm sure if we went through YOUR post history which you obscure by intentionally not logging in... I'm sure if we went through it somehow we'd find lots of quotes from you that you'd had a hard time explaining. Which is probably why you don't log in. You just troll people that do.
That is of course immaterial because either way, I said no such thing... and again even if I had said it wasn't in this thread.
You're an idiot.
I agree, that was my point. Please look at my first post, I'm not in favor of the fucking surveillance state.
I grant the technology is bleeding edge but it is the heart and soul of the issue.
There has to be some combination of centrifuges, flow batteries, all liquid batteries, etc that can solve this fucking problem.
The tiers in corporations are more guidelines. In the government they're pretty inflexible. Which is what the DoD is saying.
If it were really the same then the private sector would enjoy no competitive advantage over the government for competing for top tier labor.
They do. The tier system works quite well for the majority of labor... if anything it over pays most people dramatically. But for top tier labor it underpays them and so they don't accept the job.
As to you eating every last dick, you are attempting strawmen and neither owning up to it or apologizing. So better get whatever your favorite dick eating sauce is because you have a lot of work to do.
You said this:
""So basically a bunch of incompetent paper-pushers are being given largesse by the rest of the nation, and the economies in the rest of the nation would be better off if they seceded from the federal government, since they wouldn't have to spend so much funding all that waste?""
Quote where I said we should secede from the US government over this issue.
Or apologize for attempting a STUPID straw man.
Or enjoy your bottomless buffet of dicks for being a degenerate.
I even explained why your strawman was unacceptable. You totally missed it all. Could I suddenly in the middle of a conversation start to demand you explain your rampant pedophilia? Not legitimately. But if anyone is allowed to just make up fucking anything even if the other side said nothing about it then that would be as valid as anything.
Repent. You fucked up. Admit it. I will accept your apology and we can move forward. Being proud with me here is not making you look strong, it is making you look dishonest. You fucked up. Own it. Or you've earned your bottomless bucket of dicks.
The 3k is a large infrequent expense. You have to weigh that against what you pay your utility. You say the 3k would have to be shelled out every couple years? I'm not sure about that. That battery is offering itself at a 1000 cycles at 70 percent.
Assuming a nightly cycle of around 70 percent, you're looking at nearly 3 years at 3000 dollars.
Now factor in what you'd be paying in power... probably more than a hundred a month... you're going to be looking at 1200 dollars in potentially nullified utility bills per month.
Yes, the solar panels and electronics are another expense on top of that. But most of that stuff lasts a lot longer than the batteries. Aren't the panels supposed to last about ten years at this point?
So amortizing all these things over their service lives, I don't see the problem. It does require some financing but so does your car and house. So what.
What is more, I've seen that people are able to recondition those batteries after they hit their end of life and basically refurbish them. They have to die eventually but if you can tease couple more years out of them then you're almost doubling the cost efficiency. I saw a big thing on youtube with a battery expert that took those specific batteries apart and brought them back to near 100 percent working order after they had clapped out. I believe he basically washed the insides out with some sort of solvent or changed the battery chemistry to something else. Possibly a different electrolytic medium. The point was that the batteries came right back after doing that
That's fine... you can sit down with your crank powered FM radio during the appocolypise. I wouldn't dare take that away from you.
However, don't expect me to support you if you want EVERY cellphone to have an FM radio built into by law simply so you can do it on your cell phone.
Which as we all know would have run out of power from lack of charging LONG before the towers actually died.
How pray tell are you charging your cellphone? Hand crank? Personal diesel generator? Wind mill? The Force... that jedi thing?
The towers last as long as the cell phones themselves do which is the point. If it is the end of the world, the dead have risen, the sun hangs red in the sky, and the Elder Gods have risen... then by all means, listen to radio reports on your FM radio. But we're talking about a probably traditional radio set top which can take regular batteries unlike your cell phone, or has a built in hand crack, etc.
Name a REASONABLE situation where after days of no power you still only have your cell phone and yet need to get access to these FM radio transmissions?
There isn't one.
As I predicted, more evasions... and here is my response as promise:
Cite where I said that someone was wrong because I disagreed with them or admit you tried to straw man me... and failed.
You're stupid and worse, you're boring.
Its honestly pretty competitive with CG effects in movies. I mean, go back and watch the prequel starwars movies again. All the CG was obvious. The lighting is almost never perfect.
My personal favorite bad CG was that scorpion king mummy scene where the rock was turned into a giant insect and it looked seriously off. I'm not sure what it was... I'm assuming something with the lighting or shaders or something.
But really, if this is at all representative of what the game will look like, then I think it should be great.
You don't need to cache that much power. Just enough to move power efficiently around a neighborhood. There are some centrifuges that have been used for that purpose in a few places. They spin up quickly and discharge quickly as well. And they can go back and forth repeatedly. Keep in mind, each one of these things is going to store only a few minutes of power each. But the point is render the power draw for the whole neighborhood ZERO while the neighborhood is producing a net positive. yes, the area will generate more than it uses at certain times and use more than it generates at others. But the utilities are having a hard time accepting the power. So people might have to accept that the point of their solar should be to ZERO out their bill rather than generating any kind of profit from it.
A small lead acid bank capable of driving a house for an evening isn't that expensive. There's no reason these people with solar panels couldn't cache the power locally. Again, not for long term storage. Just enough to take you through the night and maybe into the morning. At that point your panels are going to be getting light again and batteries will start recharging. The only time you'd use grid power would be if you got some cloudy days.
A text message blasted out by the phone company would do the trick.
Most cell towers have battery back ups so they'll continue to operate even when the power drops. Cell networks do tend to work even in brown outs. Just like your FM transmitters. For the same reason. Battery backups. I think the FM towers also have onsite generators.
As to carriers disabling the FM transmitters... how many flying fucking times do I have to specifically say that I specifically think that is specifically fucked up?
I can't be any clearer. It is literally impossible for me to be any clearer. You're killing me.
Again, I'd sooner put a satellite receiver in the phone then I would an FM receiver. The sat receiver is at least useful for more than getting shitty progressive rock. I might be able to get a clean digital signal from space.
Here is one thing they could do that would improve my impression of FM, do the same thing to FM that they did to over the air TV. Make it go digital. Absent that... no.
And again... YES, they shouldn't turn your FM radio off if it is already in the fucking phone. 100 percent with you. You want to line the carrier executives against a wall and shoot them in the face for that? Signed. I'll go for that. Shoot them in the eyes. I won't stop you.
But don't tell me EVERY phone has to have an analog FM receiver in it. Give me a fucking break.
Have hierarchies of power distribution.
Federal... or across state lines
State...
County...
City...
Neighborhood.
The management of solar power should be bounced around a neighborhood. It doesn't need to go farther than that. That means the federal, state, county, and city networks all remain clean. No back feeding of power.
Each segment could also fall under different jurisdictions and be the responsibility of different institutions. That might be helpful or not. It should be done to the extent it is helpful.
Here some complete asshat will tell me "but in this circumstance it might not be helpful"... then don't do it in that circumstance. I wouldn't need to explain this if reading comprehension were especially dependable on this site.
Then we really need to work on storage. If these houses can store their power then they might not need to be connected to the grid at all.
It doesn't fucking matter
Jesus Autistic Christ. >__
The point was "high demand labor"... which includes anyone that has special skills that are not easily trained to acquired in the market.
I gave an example a CEO because that is the most extreme example. But that same example also works for medical professionals, computer professionals, engineering professionals, scientific professionals... and anyone else that has skills that are rare in the general population.
The problem is that the government has pay grades. Fixed tiers of compensation. Those tiers work fine for most people. They're fucking useless for anyone exceptional that must be paid significantly more.
In regards to you absurd strawman that I'm suggesting we secede from the government because there is some waste and incompetence in the government... is that really the only option you're capable of accepting? So in your mind, I either have to accept anything the government might do... and amount of incompetence... or I have to secede? Really?
Please quote the bit where I said we should secede from the federal government. Quote me, bitch. I said that no where. What is up with the fucking straw men today? Seriously? Can none of you fucks make a coherent argument without misrepresenting your opposition?
I'll tell you what. I'll defend seceding from the federal government if you defend your rampant pedophilia. Tell me why you keep supporting bestiality and necrophilia.
No where in your post did you say anything about that. But apparently that isn't required for me to pretend that you did... by your own fucking example.
You owe me apologies asshole. You won't offer them... which will just mean you're a degenerate... to which I'll just say eat all the dicks. Every last one.
No I didn't, the post you quoted was me justifying snapping at someone... being rude to them. I did not say they were wrong because I disagreed with them. I said I was harsher with him than usual because... I'm assuming YOU have been trolling me. I don't believe there are more then one or two of you idiots. And the fact that the troll in question has tried repeatedly to pretend to be someone else makes me question every AC I see. Given that you're another AC shithead... I have to keep in mind that you could be that guy.
I'm not going to read further in your post because you're clearly just pulling the AC troll bullshit. You're bringing up posts where I was dealing with AC trolls and you're trying to justify a straw man.
This is how I'm going to respond to you going forward. I'm going to identify a single lie or fallacy or aspect of an argument you must address... I'm going to wait for you to do it and when you don't (which you won't because ACs are cowardly shitheads by default apparently)... I'm going to just repeat the same challenge rendering any further dialog meaningless until you address that point.
So I say again, cite where I said that someone was wrong because I disagreed with them or admit you tried to straw man me... and failed.
Or do what I am all but certain you'll do... stall, dodge, and make excuses for yourself. This will be interpreted as a concession. When you do this I will either repeat the question again until you answer it or just stop responding to you in that thread. You'll follow me to then next. But I'll just do the same thing every time.
I'm tired of your lies. They're not even clever.
As to 2G, it isn't for phone calls and text messages.
And even if it were, that would again mean that you should run your signal over whatever the prevailing protocol is at the time.
one fellow was saying "but what if everyone tries to make calls at the same time and it overwhelms the system"... a text message won't overwhelming anything. In fact, during emergencies if they restricted communication to text messages the system would never get congested. Ten million people could all send texts at the same time over and over again and the system would hold.
No, we should go back to carrier pidgeons because what happens if your towers lose power?
or I don't know, we could have a guy taken around on the back of a donkey screaming the news to people.
The FM system is retrograde. If some people still like it, fine... keep it active for them. But don't impose that shit on everyone else. There are a million ways to make the existing cell network perform the relevant function without forcing them to put in an FM antenna.
Unless you want an FM antenna for music and you're pissed that the carriers keep disabling them even if they are in the machine. Then I understand your point.
But on a health and safety stand point? Laughable.
That's fine. I'm not saying FM radios are stupid and anyone that uses them is an asshole... am I?
No. I'm saying that the government shouldn't require cell phone makers or carriers to have FM radios built into the phones.
Now that said, one thing that does annoy me is when the FM radio feature is disabled by the carrier for no fucking reason. Often to make people want to buy their streaming music service more or something equally pathetic. THAT is fucked up. And I'd pass a law against that any day.
But don't force people to put an FM radio in the phones. Get real.
Government employees are typically better paid then their private sector counter parts.
The exception is high demand labor of any kind. Someone able to run a company as CEO is going to get more money in the private sector than in the government's employ. However if you're a paper pushing cubical monkey then you will get better pay and job security in the government.
The issue is whenever people say the government should play some employee more they tend to mean ALL of them. And that's neither reasonable nor sustainable. The result is that you over pay for low to middle skilled people and then under pay the top talent.
yes yes... no big pay discrepancies are politically incorrect these days. It doesn't matter. The guy I'm talking about can turn your job down and go to the private sector and make more money. The cubical monkeys working for the government can't do that. They'll be paid worse in the private sector because the government is typically over paying them. There is a reason that the area around Washington DC is the highest income growth sector in the country, has the strongest realestate market, and is generally the healthiest economy. All those office workers are being paid better in DC than anywhere else in the country.
And here some bright spark will say "well then why don't we do that everywhere!"... the answer being that it isn't especially sustainable only doing it at the level it is already done at... expanding it beyond this point is a little like saying "that shot of heroine was good, lets double it!"... what could possibly go wrong?