Rehabilitation has a very minor impact in reducing crime and it is extremely costly. There is no country in the world that reduced its criminality by focusing in lower punishment and rehabilitation methods.
The only sure way to reduce crimes is to eliminate the criminals, either by killing them or isolating them from society.
Soldiers are killers exactly like any other killer, and both soldiers and non soldiers can kill in more or less justifiable ways. The only difference between them and other killers is that governments back them up. We give governments this power because killing is necessary and the only way to solve conflicts sometimes, but this power can and has often been abused.
This moral relativism is necessary to be explained in order to understand that controlling murders is more a matter of practicality than of morals. People need to feel some degree of security in order for society to be possible. That is why we cannot allow murders to live freely among us and cannot let them get away with their killing without punishment.
Those are the main tasks of any judicial system: to separate criminals from law abiding citizens, in order to protect the latter and to make breaking the law a bad idea. Recovering criminals is at most a tertiary concern and should be abandoned when it is in conflict wit the former two. Both of the primary concerns can be addressed by death sentences or life prison in murder cases.
All societies damage and kill the innocent, be it by neglect or by action. We should start by blaming every single country that has killed civilians in a war. That would make about all of them...
That is why we shouldn't allow governments to manage education. They can pay for it but should never manage it, otherwise it will inevitably become a tool of indoctrination as it is happening with the "Common Core".
Oh, but there are many things you COULD opt out in current society with very little trouble, many many more than those you couldn't. You are right about some government functions that are needed to make society work, but as governments grow the vast majority of the tasks it takes for itself are not critical and should not be imposed upon people regardless of their wishes.
Coercion should be applied only where there is no other way.
No, I don't. I do believe that black males have a higher chance of having a heart attack, though, and that in average they are better runners, not because of some weird pro-black prejudice, but because many studies show exactly this.
It doesn't matter if you think the world should be different, it is as it is and the sooner you let go of your wishful thinking and prejudices and start to accept scientific facts the sooner you will stop being an idiot.
They don't need to act perfectly. That is the beauty to a competitive market. The less unjustified bias they have the more they will pay for it, consequently the costs will go up, they will be less competitive in relation to other companies that do not have these bias, and will have a higher change of losing to the competition. The tendency is that those inefficient companies will fail and be replaced for more efficient ones and that is exactly how it happens in the real world.
.
You seem to think that jobs are privileges conceded by the employers that are unfairly given to their pals. Unless you are talking about government jobs, nothing is farther from the truth..Jobs are commercial contracts where both parts have something the other wants and are willing to trade, and you are very naive if you think successful companies can afford to engage frequently in bad deals and keep successful.
The "random" YouTube video is made by a serious journalist who interviews researchers (real scientists, not those Sociologists who think they are doing science) in Harvard, Oxford and other prestigious universities, is full of references to the research cited that can be easily verified, and is about serious research not the politically biased stuff you like. But by all means, keep believing on your dogmas if that feels reassuring to you.
I could not care less about studies cherry picking exception cases. Although there are always stupid people hiring in general most people are not, even because there are far more incentives to contract women than men. If there is any bias it is in favor of women, but even this bias cannot make for the difference in aptitudes in some areas.
That is just speculation based on your wishful thinking. People do have many bias when choosing things, the very act of choosing anything is a bias. Some of these bias are justified, some are not.
Your idea that gender plays a greater role, or even a very significant one in the market is ridiculous, though. Companies exist to make money. In any activity women are as good as men and undervalued or underhired they automatically become a cheap asset and smart companies will hire them. These smart companies will consequently have a competitive advantage, the practice will be copied and multiply, and the salaries and hiring will balance to accommodate the job offer increase.
In a competitive market there is no space for mass unjustified bias.
Still they do have the necessary people and software to check for these technical mistakes, and these guys are able to do very well what they are hired to do: trading. And they do generate the value they need to generate to keep where they are, as banking is hardly a charity endeavor.
First they are far from lunatics, second they are not the ones who did the video. But nice ad hominem anyways. I am sure. You have all the right in the world to hold to your dogmas and ignore any fact that comes in the way.
It certainly can, but it usually don't. We live in a highly competitive society. That alone assures that in most cases people are selected by what they are capable of doing, not because of any arbitrary bias. Sure there are stupid and biased people, but their companies won't likely go very far...
Just watch the video, people far more qualified than I am do just that there, and you can access their researches in Harvard and Oxford later if you wish.
Hardly anybody hires based on gender bias. You do not hire a gender, you hire a person. It doesn't matter if women in general are or are not as good as men in general at a given task, as long as the particular woman you are interviewing is.
All this whining about "gender bias" and the following excuses to try to take responsibility from people for their own failures sickens me.
Now, more on the topic, regarding gender differences, the average is not very different from men and women, so for basic math there is not much of a real difference. On the top, though, which is considerably more relevant to math and logic related profession there is a real biological gap, and no it is not social:
Men and women are quite different in many things, it is a politically correct idiocy to try and force the concept that these differences are only aesthetic.
The poor actually pay more taxes than the rich proportionally to their income, and at least as much as the middle class, they just do it indirectly every time they buy something.
Mostly because of entry barriers, many of them created by government regulations. It is not as if anybody could just open an University wherever and whenever he pleases.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot the main function, insulation, as in insulate society from criminals by keeping them apart.
Actually the two most important functions are insulation and deterrence. Both rehabilitation and retribution are irrelevant in comparison.
The user already pays for it, both to AT&T and Netflix.
Rehabilitation has a very minor impact in reducing crime and it is extremely costly. There is no country in the world that reduced its criminality by focusing in lower punishment and rehabilitation methods.
The only sure way to reduce crimes is to eliminate the criminals, either by killing them or isolating them from society.
Soldiers are killers exactly like any other killer, and both soldiers and non soldiers can kill in more or less justifiable ways. The only difference between them and other killers is that governments back them up. We give governments this power because killing is necessary and the only way to solve conflicts sometimes, but this power can and has often been abused.
This moral relativism is necessary to be explained in order to understand that controlling murders is more a matter of practicality than of morals. People need to feel some degree of security in order for society to be possible. That is why we cannot allow murders to live freely among us and cannot let them get away with their killing without punishment.
Those are the main tasks of any judicial system: to separate criminals from law abiding citizens, in order to protect the latter and to make breaking the law a bad idea. Recovering criminals is at most a tertiary concern and should be abandoned when it is in conflict wit the former two. Both of the primary concerns can be addressed by death sentences or life prison in murder cases.
All societies damage and kill the innocent, be it by neglect or by action. We should start by blaming every single country that has killed civilians in a war. That would make about all of them...
Only if they decide not to end their lives, which means they do prefer to have a lot of years left...
Sorry, but for every good deed he accomplished he did at least two dirty deals and bribed a couple of politicians to get richer..
That is why we shouldn't allow governments to manage education. They can pay for it but should never manage it, otherwise it will inevitably become a tool of indoctrination as it is happening with the "Common Core".
Oh, but there are many things you COULD opt out in current society with very little trouble, many many more than those you couldn't. You are right about some government functions that are needed to make society work, but as governments grow the vast majority of the tasks it takes for itself are not critical and should not be imposed upon people regardless of their wishes.
Coercion should be applied only where there is no other way.
No, I don't. I do believe that black males have a higher chance of having a heart attack, though, and that in average they are better runners, not because of some weird pro-black prejudice, but because many studies show exactly this.
It doesn't matter if you think the world should be different, it is as it is and the sooner you let go of your wishful thinking and prejudices and start to accept scientific facts the sooner you will stop being an idiot.
They don't need to act perfectly. That is the beauty to a competitive market. The less unjustified bias they have the more they will pay for it, consequently the costs will go up, they will be less competitive in relation to other companies that do not have these bias, and will have a higher change of losing to the competition. The tendency is that those inefficient companies will fail and be replaced for more efficient ones and that is exactly how it happens in the real world. .Jobs are commercial contracts where both parts have something the other wants and are willing to trade, and you are very naive if you think successful companies can afford to engage frequently in bad deals and keep successful.
.
You seem to think that jobs are privileges conceded by the employers that are unfairly given to their pals. Unless you are talking about government jobs, nothing is farther from the truth.
The "random" YouTube video is made by a serious journalist who interviews researchers (real scientists, not those Sociologists who think they are doing science) in Harvard, Oxford and other prestigious universities, is full of references to the research cited that can be easily verified, and is about serious research not the politically biased stuff you like. But by all means, keep believing on your dogmas if that feels reassuring to you.
Watch the video. Citations are given there. A lot of them...
I could not care less about studies cherry picking exception cases. Although there are always stupid people hiring in general most people are not, even because there are far more incentives to contract women than men. If there is any bias it is in favor of women, but even this bias cannot make for the difference in aptitudes in some areas.
It already has.
That is just speculation based on your wishful thinking. People do have many bias when choosing things, the very act of choosing anything is a bias. Some of these bias are justified, some are not.
Your idea that gender plays a greater role, or even a very significant one in the market is ridiculous, though. Companies exist to make money. In any activity women are as good as men and undervalued or underhired they automatically become a cheap asset and smart companies will hire them. These smart companies will consequently have a competitive advantage, the practice will be copied and multiply, and the salaries and hiring will balance to accommodate the job offer increase.
In a competitive market there is no space for mass unjustified bias.
Still they do have the necessary people and software to check for these technical mistakes, and these guys are able to do very well what they are hired to do: trading. And they do generate the value they need to generate to keep where they are, as banking is hardly a charity endeavor.
First they are far from lunatics, second they are not the ones who did the video. But nice ad hominem anyways. I am sure. You have all the right in the world to hold to your dogmas and ignore any fact that comes in the way.
It certainly can, but it usually don't. We live in a highly competitive society. That alone assures that in most cases people are selected by what they are capable of doing, not because of any arbitrary bias. Sure there are stupid and biased people, but their companies won't likely go very far...
Just watch the video, people far more qualified than I am do just that there, and you can access their researches in Harvard and Oxford later if you wish.
Hardly anybody hires based on gender bias. You do not hire a gender, you hire a person. It doesn't matter if women in general are or are not as good as men in general at a given task, as long as the particular woman you are interviewing is.
All this whining about "gender bias" and the following excuses to try to take responsibility from people for their own failures sickens me.
Now, more on the topic, regarding gender differences, the average is not very different from men and women, so for basic math there is not much of a real difference. On the top, though, which is considerably more relevant to math and logic related profession there is a real biological gap, and no it is not social:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Men and women are quite different in many things, it is a politically correct idiocy to try and force the concept that these differences are only aesthetic.
The poor actually pay more taxes than the rich proportionally to their income, and at least as much as the middle class, they just do it indirectly every time they buy something.
All of this happened without government subsidized education, thank you.
No they cannot, for the serious courses you need government approval. Try to open a medicine course and you will see, for example.
Mostly because of entry barriers, many of them created by government regulations. It is not as if anybody could just open an University wherever and whenever he pleases.