I'm not saying don't have a trial. Just that the death penalty has been proven to be counter-productive, so that more people need to consider the question of what purpose NOT killing him serves, so that they can see that, while there are arguments in favor, the arguments against outweigh them.
There are too many people so focused on "justice" that they won't consider solutions that don't involve "a punishment at least equal to the crime". Fixing the problem just isn't as high on their agenda.
She should see her doctor to extract the tampon she forgot to remove more than half a century ago. I'd call her a bit of a douche, but she doesn't know the meaning of the word, obviously never having used one.
There's no reason why men should be considered as the only sex...
That's true, but even with women in the workforce, the bar is a lot lower for women. When's the last time you heard a husband/boyfriend/lover tell a woman:
- you go fix it
Every time a man breaks something and can't fix it and get frustrated and says, "If it's so easy, you go fix it."
- lead by doing
We try, but no matter how many times we try, men still don't learn how to change the toilet paper roll.
- displaying emotions is ridiculous or inappropriate
Every time men throw a fit because they get angry and break something they can't fix. See also "asking for directions, refusal to."
- some shit is trivial and not worth regarding
Right about when men are going all "road rage" because someone cut them off or took "their" parking spot.
- you deserve only the respect you earn
Funny - in my home, both my parents were telling this to all of us kids.
With women not sewing, knitting, or spending their youth learning IT support, what do women fix in their home now?
Few women mow the lawn but that can be a of division of labour issue, as women complete chores, make party invitations and the weekly budget.
Women are are allowed to display their emotions in public, including very negative emotions.
Women are allowed to whinge about their problems and whinge again on their emotions about their problems.
Women are rarely told they need to be more than healthy and horny, although most women are pushed into university or gainful employment.
"someone in prison is just as dangerous to society as a dead person"
That is absolutely not true. People escape from prison all the time. Also, guards other prisoners who are not murderers get killed. Are they not also members of society?
Another example of a justifiable execution is self-defense. So is killing someone who is an immediate threat to others. Or are you going to argue that when the police position a sniper to take out a hostage-taker at the right time, that's not a planned and justified execution?
That doesn't make it right (I am, after all, against the death penalty because it doesn't work, which is why we abolished it decades ago), but sometimes it's the least bad of all bad choices in a country that hasn't gotten out of the "eye for an eye" mentality of the bible-thumpers, who want mercy when they screw up but blood from everyone else.
In other words, fix your society so the election process at all levels no longer panders to the minority right-wing religious extremist views of the few.
Okay, and that has what to do with the original question. You seem to have gone off in left field.
No - you asked a question - I provided an answer. Now you can always get off your butt and do more research, instead of continuing to argue a failed cause. But no, trolls don't do that.
What fact is the reason that discrimination, or slavery, is evil?
The universe is amoral. It has zero sense of good and evil. THAT is a fact. As for why people engage in stupid behaviour, their EXCUSE (not reason - it's not a rational action) is that the societies they were in believed in something (god) that has zero evidence. This was true even when the Egyptians, and later the Romans, believed in their goofy gods as an excuse to maintain the status quo, which was profitable for those who had the status.
Your mis-quoting what I wrote, which was a direct quote from your citation. If you're going to pick and choose what parts of your own citation you're going to believe, you're no better than they hypocritical Xians who pick and choose what parts of the bible they believe.
If you're going to troll, you have to do much better than that.
I agree 100%. Do not embed any of that crap. Remember the people who thought they were ultra-cool because they had a 6-cd jukebox in their trunk? Or the ones with the in-dash GPS maps that required them to purchase a new map CD every year (Infiniti) at close to 1k each? Or the anti-theft radios that, if the battery died, you couldn't start the car because the radio had forgotten the passcode? Or OnStar used by the FBI to spy on people? Or the passenger entertainment systems with their own screens in minivans so your kids could fight over what dvd they were going to watch?
Planned obsolescence? No, just people who can't see that the new shiny gets old and tarnished really really fast.
No - people are just going to bring their devices wherever they go, same as today. What's the point of having an in-car device and then getting to your destination and going "oh snap! I left my smartphone at home!"
Which is why I reframed the question the way I did. It's easy to list reasons why the death penalty is "ok", but by rephrasing the question, it makes it more a question of all the alternatives, rather just the binary for/against.
The death penalty is hypocritical. Lifetime imprisonment should not be the only other possible alternative answer.
I think that having to attend to the needs of some of the people he maimed (supervised, obviously) would do more to rehabilitate him than locking him up forever. And it saves taxpayer money, both in prison and appeals costs.
You still don't get it - Corporations are no different from individuals when it comes to buying labor. Both are customers (or consumers - there is no difference) for those who are willing to sell their labor, and it's only when they actually BUY the labor that a job is created. If you have no buyers, you're not going to create jobs.
Even when someone gambles capital to start up a business, the investor is the customer (because they hope to get a return on their investment). It will create jobs as long as funds are available - either from the original customer (the investor - who may also be the business owner, investing in themselves to create their job) or other customers. Once that's gone... no jobs.
You need to adjust your understanding. You seem to think that adding the word "corporation" makes them NOT customers (or consumers) when they buy labor. Kind of like the people who add "on the internet" as magic pixie dust. And your math still sucks because you failed to realize that it's almost never a zero-sum game.
I agree - capital punishment is the height of hypocrisy. I've made that obvious elsewhere in this thread, giving reasons why both capital punishment and lifetime imprisonment are stupid. Asking people what purpose killing him serves is not the best way to frame the question if you think the death penalty is wrong.
Keeping someone locked up forever is not civilized either. So, rehabilitate him and reintegrate him (catch and release). If you're not going to do that, do you really believe that locking him up forever is less cruel than a quick end?
Punishment doesn't work. Capital punishment doesn't work. Longer jail sentences (including life) doesn't work. Rehabilitation, including getting the perp to actually feel that they have an investment in the society around them, works, but you see the hue and cry and claims of "being soft on crime" every time a truly civilized solution is proposed.
Even here, where we don't have the death penalty, there are people who want revenge on someone who murders while mentally ill. Case in point - Dr. Guy Turcotte killed his 3 young children while temporarily insane. In my opinion, he's already received the worst punishment possible - realizing what he had done when he returned to sanity. How the guilt of that couldn't drive someone insane a second time...he's to be pitied, not punished. It's only when I point this out to others that they "get it" that punishment is completely inappropriate.
Lifetime incarceration w/o an opportunity to rehabilitate, just punish, does NOT give the justice system the moral high ground - and certainly not when compared to the many countries that have banned capital punishment.
So instead of answering the question "what purpose does killing him serve", I was reframing the question - "what purpose does NOT killing him serve?". I then went on to answer that question (which is what you have to do if you want to argue the case that capital punishment is really, REALLY dumb-ass), so how was I trolling again?
Asking "what purpose does killing him serve?" will get responses giving reasons for killing him.
Just saying that the optimal solution is to turn the offender into someone who has "skin in the game" wrt society via rehabilitation. Turn them into a taxpayer rather than a drain on the public purse, etc.
We do it with juvenile offenders (even juveniles who kill), so why not with adults?
Part of being an adult is, to me:
- if shit bothers you, you go fix it, you don't piss and moan over the fence to other people trying to gin up sympathy.
- lead by doing, not by "calling" for leadership
- there's nothing wrong with feeling emotions; there are places where displaying them is ridiculous or inappropriate
- be strong; understand some shit is trivial and not worth regarding. You give it power by whinging about it.
- understand that you are not a special snowflake
- you deserve only the respect you earn...none of these are exemplified by anyone crying about the latest Mad Max film.
FTFY.
There's no reason why men should be considered as the only sex to be able to exhibit these traits w/o detracting from their identity as male or female.
I am glad that you don't have much sympathy for pirates either: and you already gave the solution to yourself (in bold by me, not that you need my help!) - others (even Slashdoters - althrough sometimes i am afraid that some of them don't like people like us...) may help you choose an appropriate distro.
The problem with that is the answer changes, depending on both who you ask and what day of the week it is:-)
Wouldn't it be easier to just answer my question as asked instead of going on a long argument - what purpose does NOT killing him serve? There are plenty, which is why many countries no longer have the death penalty. There are two pretty simple answers that can't be argued against:
1. Mistakes can't be undone
2. No death penalty is cheaper.
So it's both safer and cheaper not to have a death penalty.
Now in his case, there is no question about it being a mistake - he's guilty, and has admitted it.
However, it's still cheaper to just lock him up forever (even though that is also cruel punishment, just not unusual).
Here we have no death penalty, so the original question is generally seen as a non sequitur.
We've already accepted the argument that not killing someone serves the greater good - the US has not. They should be asking the question I posed - what purpose does NOT killing someone serve? But politicians won't make THOSE arguments because they'll be seen as soft on crime.
I am against the death penalty. Both life imprisonment and execution are cruel - the only reason the US constitution allows both is because neither is "unusual." If it had said "cruel OR unusual punishment", neither option would be constitutional, since they're both cruel.
Keeping someone locked up forever is not civilized either. So, rehabilitate him and reintegrate him (catch and release). If you're not going to do that, do you really believe that locking him up forever is less cruel than a quick end?
Punishment doesn't work. Capital punishment doesn't work. Longer jail sentences (including life) doesn't work. Rehabilitation, including getting the perp to actually feel that they have an investment in the society around them, works, but you see the hue and cry and claims of "being soft on crime" every time a truly civilized solution is proposed.
Even here, where we don't have the death penalty, there are people who want revenge on someone who murders while mentally ill. Case in point - Dr. Guy Turcotte killed his 3 young children while temporarily insane. In my opinion, he's already received the worst punishment possible - realizing what he had done when he returned to sanity. How the guilt of that couldn't drive someone insane a second time...he's to be pitied, not punished. It's only when I point this out to others that they "get it" that punishment is completely inappropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying don't have a trial. Just that the death penalty has been proven to be counter-productive, so that more people need to consider the question of what purpose NOT killing him serves, so that they can see that, while there are arguments in favor, the arguments against outweigh them.
There are too many people so focused on "justice" that they won't consider solutions that don't involve "a punishment at least equal to the crime". Fixing the problem just isn't as high on their agenda.
You have a very bitter and warped view of feminism - not all feminists are as abrasive and stupid as Germaine Greer. Her latest brain fart is claiming that trans women aren't women because "they do not know what it is like “to have a big, hairy, smelly vagina”.
She should see her doctor to extract the tampon she forgot to remove more than half a century ago. I'd call her a bit of a douche, but she doesn't know the meaning of the word, obviously never having used one.
There's no reason why men should be considered as the only sex ...
That's true, but even with women in the workforce, the bar is a lot lower for women. When's the last time you heard a husband/boyfriend/lover tell a woman:
- you go fix it
Every time a man breaks something and can't fix it and get frustrated and says, "If it's so easy, you go fix it."
- lead by doing
We try, but no matter how many times we try, men still don't learn how to change the toilet paper roll.
- displaying emotions is ridiculous or inappropriate
Every time men throw a fit because they get angry and break something they can't fix. See also "asking for directions, refusal to."
- some shit is trivial and not worth regarding
Right about when men are going all "road rage" because someone cut them off or took "their" parking spot.
- you deserve only the respect you earn
Funny - in my home, both my parents were telling this to all of us kids.
With women not sewing, knitting, or spending their youth learning IT support, what do women fix in their home now?
Few women mow the lawn but that can be a of division of labour issue, as women complete chores, make party invitations and the weekly budget.
Women are are allowed to display their emotions in public, including very negative emotions.
Women are allowed to whinge about their problems and whinge again on their emotions about their problems.
Women are rarely told they need to be more than healthy and horny, although most women are pushed into university or gainful employment.
This whole last part makes NO sense whatsoever.
You claim:
"someone in prison is just as dangerous to society as a dead person"
That is absolutely not true. People escape from prison all the time. Also, guards other prisoners who are not murderers get killed. Are they not also members of society?
Another example of a justifiable execution is self-defense. So is killing someone who is an immediate threat to others. Or are you going to argue that when the police position a sniper to take out a hostage-taker at the right time, that's not a planned and justified execution?
That doesn't make it right (I am, after all, against the death penalty because it doesn't work, which is why we abolished it decades ago), but sometimes it's the least bad of all bad choices in a country that hasn't gotten out of the "eye for an eye" mentality of the bible-thumpers, who want mercy when they screw up but blood from everyone else.
In other words, fix your society so the election process at all levels no longer panders to the minority right-wing religious extremist views of the few.
Okay, and that has what to do with the original question. You seem to have gone off in left field.
No - you asked a question - I provided an answer. Now you can always get off your butt and do more research, instead of continuing to argue a failed cause. But no, trolls don't do that.
What fact is the reason that discrimination, or slavery, is evil?
The universe is amoral. It has zero sense of good and evil. THAT is a fact. As for why people engage in stupid behaviour, their EXCUSE (not reason - it's not a rational action) is that the societies they were in believed in something (god) that has zero evidence. This was true even when the Egyptians, and later the Romans, believed in their goofy gods as an excuse to maintain the status quo, which was profitable for those who had the status.
Your mis-quoting what I wrote, which was a direct quote from your citation. If you're going to pick and choose what parts of your own citation you're going to believe, you're no better than they hypocritical Xians who pick and choose what parts of the bible they believe.
If you're going to troll, you have to do much better than that.
I agree 100%. Do not embed any of that crap. Remember the people who thought they were ultra-cool because they had a 6-cd jukebox in their trunk? Or the ones with the in-dash GPS maps that required them to purchase a new map CD every year (Infiniti) at close to 1k each? Or the anti-theft radios that, if the battery died, you couldn't start the car because the radio had forgotten the passcode? Or OnStar used by the FBI to spy on people? Or the passenger entertainment systems with their own screens in minivans so your kids could fight over what dvd they were going to watch?
Planned obsolescence? No, just people who can't see that the new shiny gets old and tarnished really really fast.
No - people are just going to bring their devices wherever they go, same as today. What's the point of having an in-car device and then getting to your destination and going "oh snap! I left my smartphone at home!"
If you were the pilot when the co-pilot crashed the plane, you would probably have a different view - except you wouldn't, because you'd be dead.
3 years support (LTS) is NOT long-term support in this business.
Which is why I reframed the question the way I did. It's easy to list reasons why the death penalty is "ok", but by rephrasing the question, it makes it more a question of all the alternatives, rather just the binary for/against.
The death penalty is hypocritical. Lifetime imprisonment should not be the only other possible alternative answer.
I think that having to attend to the needs of some of the people he maimed (supervised, obviously) would do more to rehabilitate him than locking him up forever. And it saves taxpayer money, both in prison and appeals costs.
You still don't get it - Corporations are no different from individuals when it comes to buying labor. Both are customers (or consumers - there is no difference) for those who are willing to sell their labor, and it's only when they actually BUY the labor that a job is created. If you have no buyers, you're not going to create jobs.
Even when someone gambles capital to start up a business, the investor is the customer (because they hope to get a return on their investment). It will create jobs as long as funds are available - either from the original customer (the investor - who may also be the business owner, investing in themselves to create their job) or other customers. Once that's gone ... no jobs.
You need to adjust your understanding. You seem to think that adding the word "corporation" makes them NOT customers (or consumers) when they buy labor. Kind of like the people who add "on the internet" as magic pixie dust. And your math still sucks because you failed to realize that it's almost never a zero-sum game.
I agree - capital punishment is the height of hypocrisy. I've made that obvious elsewhere in this thread, giving reasons why both capital punishment and lifetime imprisonment are stupid. Asking people what purpose killing him serves is not the best way to frame the question if you think the death penalty is wrong.
Riiiight. Whatever.
If you had taken the time to look at some of my other responses - where I actually answer the question :
Keeping someone locked up forever is not civilized either. So, rehabilitate him and reintegrate him (catch and release). If you're not going to do that, do you really believe that locking him up forever is less cruel than a quick end?
Punishment doesn't work. Capital punishment doesn't work. Longer jail sentences (including life) doesn't work. Rehabilitation, including getting the perp to actually feel that they have an investment in the society around them, works, but you see the hue and cry and claims of "being soft on crime" every time a truly civilized solution is proposed.
Even here, where we don't have the death penalty, there are people who want revenge on someone who murders while mentally ill. Case in point - Dr. Guy Turcotte killed his 3 young children while temporarily insane. In my opinion, he's already received the worst punishment possible - realizing what he had done when he returned to sanity. How the guilt of that couldn't drive someone insane a second time ...he's to be pitied, not punished. It's only when I point this out to others that they "get it" that punishment is completely inappropriate.
Lifetime incarceration w/o an opportunity to rehabilitate, just punish, does NOT give the justice system the moral high ground - and certainly not when compared to the many countries that have banned capital punishment.
So instead of answering the question "what purpose does killing him serve", I was reframing the question - "what purpose does NOT killing him serve?". I then went on to answer that question (which is what you have to do if you want to argue the case that capital punishment is really, REALLY dumb-ass), so how was I trolling again?
Asking "what purpose does killing him serve?" will get responses giving reasons for killing him.
What does that have to do with someone incorrectly posting that he only killed 3 people? Or are you just trolling ... oh, an A.C., duh!
Just saying that the optimal solution is to turn the offender into someone who has "skin in the game" wrt society via rehabilitation. Turn them into a taxpayer rather than a drain on the public purse, etc.
We do it with juvenile offenders (even juveniles who kill), so why not with adults?
Part of being an adult is, to me: ...none of these are exemplified by anyone crying about the latest Mad Max film.
- if shit bothers you, you go fix it, you don't piss and moan over the fence to other people trying to gin up sympathy.
- lead by doing, not by "calling" for leadership
- there's nothing wrong with feeling emotions; there are places where displaying them is ridiculous or inappropriate
- be strong; understand some shit is trivial and not worth regarding. You give it power by whinging about it.
- understand that you are not a special snowflake
- you deserve only the respect you earn
FTFY.
There's no reason why men should be considered as the only sex to be able to exhibit these traits w/o detracting from their identity as male or female.
I am glad that you don't have much sympathy for pirates either: and you already gave the solution to yourself (in bold by me, not that you need my help!) - others (even Slashdoters - althrough sometimes i am afraid that some of them don't like people like us...) may help you choose an appropriate distro.
The problem with that is the answer changes, depending on both who you ask and what day of the week it is :-)
Too frequent OS updates is just causing trouble for users.
No wonder there will never be a "year of the linux desktop."
Wouldn't it be easier to just answer my question as asked instead of going on a long argument - what purpose does NOT killing him serve? There are plenty, which is why many countries no longer have the death penalty. There are two pretty simple answers that can't be argued against:
1. Mistakes can't be undone
2. No death penalty is cheaper.
So it's both safer and cheaper not to have a death penalty.
Now in his case, there is no question about it being a mistake - he's guilty, and has admitted it.
However, it's still cheaper to just lock him up forever (even though that is also cruel punishment, just not unusual).
Here we have no death penalty, so the original question is generally seen as a non sequitur.
We've already accepted the argument that not killing someone serves the greater good - the US has not. They should be asking the question I posed - what purpose does NOT killing someone serve? But politicians won't make THOSE arguments because they'll be seen as soft on crime.
I am against the death penalty. Both life imprisonment and execution are cruel - the only reason the US constitution allows both is because neither is "unusual." If it had said "cruel OR unusual punishment", neither option would be constitutional, since they're both cruel.
Keeping someone locked up forever is not civilized either. So, rehabilitate him and reintegrate him (catch and release). If you're not going to do that, do you really believe that locking him up forever is less cruel than a quick end?
Punishment doesn't work. Capital punishment doesn't work. Longer jail sentences (including life) doesn't work. Rehabilitation, including getting the perp to actually feel that they have an investment in the society around them, works, but you see the hue and cry and claims of "being soft on crime" every time a truly civilized solution is proposed.
Even here, where we don't have the death penalty, there are people who want revenge on someone who murders while mentally ill. Case in point - Dr. Guy Turcotte killed his 3 young children while temporarily insane. In my opinion, he's already received the worst punishment possible - realizing what he had done when he returned to sanity. How the guilt of that couldn't drive someone insane a second time ...he's to be pitied, not punished. It's only when I point this out to others that they "get it" that punishment is completely inappropriate.
This is true.