So by your measure I'm now in the same category as these vile individuals; not because I have committed any crime but because I would rather not see society's resources wasted on these people.
This shame I will simply have to shoulder. A just penance for my thoughtcrime, wouldn't you agree?
Using victims of crime as an excuse for your fascist fantasies is no different than using children as excuse for censorship. It also fails just as hard to actually justify anything. It does, however, go to show that a lot of people would probably benefit from consultation.
What's the point of enforcing crime if not to protect the potential victims? It seems perfectly reasonable to me to use this as justification. Perhaps this is a logical fallacy of some kind on my part?
But at least you were honest in the quote: you don't give a shit about the victims.
Very deft move there sparky, I like the part where you take my words, rotate 'em 180 degrees then argue your point - I'm pretty sure that is the missing logical fallacy right there.
You demonstrate exactly the sort of traits that you're calling on us to destroy. Is that what you really want?
You consider lawful state execution and unlawful criminal murder as equally brutal? That is a matter of opinion to which you are completely entitled, however it does limit the potential for interesting debate on the matter.
As for my demonstration of these traits I think you're waxing a bit lyrical there. I do not own a firearm nor any purpose-built offensive weapon (sure I have kitchen knives) and certainly don't advocate vigilante justice. I'm simply a realist - some people are of more value to society as plant food. If I intentionally commit a crime that puts me in this category, I'll happily plead guilty and offer to push the damn button myself.
yeah but dude your stance in favor of EXECUTION as punishment for MUGGING is not justifiable to anyone with a shred of human decency. get a grip.
This wasn't a simple mugging and it's disingenuous for you to frame it as such. This was a violent hijacking by two sadistic individuals whose actions will have lasting effects on their unfortunate victims. Gfxguy's comment above captures our concerns perfectly - they are dysfunctional, dangerous members of society and statistically speaking these people do not change.
How do you rehabilitate someone who gets great pleasure in (effectively) torturing innocent people?
That's certainly what I've read. Am I wrong in thinking that this assumes a thermonuclear weapon design? If so, does that mean the satellite network might miss the detonation if someone managed to cobble together a simple gun-type fission bomb that doesn't need a nuclear primary?
The dirty bomb, as a weapon of mass destruction, is a myth.
Absolutely correct, however a dirty bomb isn't really a weapon of mass destruction, it's a weapon of terror. Given the fear economy that has been driving the US for the last decade or so, I imagine it would be a highly effective weapon too.
If you think stealing a van and hitting someone warrants death, you are an unhinged individual (or more likely, an internet tough guy).
Then I stand before you an unhinged individual. There is no rehabilitation for most people like this and it costs a lot of time and money to try.
This planet's habitable surface is overflowing with humans and yet most of us manage to avoid committing violent crime. Why should we roll over and take it from those people who repeatedly demonstrate their desire to hurt others?
I think it is delightful, myself. When it's my turn to be ruler of Earth I'm going to decree lethal radiation exposure as the standard punishment for criminal hijackings.
You can't accidentally point a gun at someone (and physically beat them, as in this case), drag them out of their vehicle and drive off in it. Someone prepared to voluntarily do that to another human being deserves a slow death.
Yeah, it's extreme.. but so is the punishment the victims themselves have to live with in the form of ongoing trauma. Nobody ever seems to give a shit about the victims of crime, it's all about the criminal and how they had a hard life, boo hoo.
Sorry to reply to you twice in the same thread but it seems to me that this is going to be a common refrain over the coming years. Taxi and transportation companies ought to be thinking hard about the future by now, knowing the impact of autonomous vehicles will be gigantic. Especially so when accounting for the extra pressure the potential of drone deliveries brings. That's two strong areas of development (that have already proven themselves acceptably reliable and safe even this early on in their lifecycles) converging on a single economic sector. In time we're going to have to get used to the shrill protestations of unions across nearly every industry.
And here I was shitting myself as a small-business network administrator fearing obsolescence due to the move to the Cloud...!
Brakes don't suddenly go from good to bad. They have a very graduate wear and it's easy to detect that they should be replaced in the annual checkup. And when it is detected, there's plenty of time usually left, not to mention that you notice a change in the behaviour unless you're very insensitive to your car's signals.
Is it just here in NZ that brakes are typically of the "screamer" variety? I can't imagine we've any monopoly on them here. I occasionally hear them in cars around the place, yelling like tortured pigs because the meat on the brake pad is low. Very embarrassing and a good incentive for the owner to get them changed pronto. Happily, they don't seem to make any difference to the braking performance. It's quite a different noise from that one running the brake pads down to the metal and it certainly is rather motivational..
Make sense. You can't contract your way out of your basic obligations to society (e.g., you might be able to coerce your employees into signing a contract that says they work 80 hours a week for $1 per hour but you'll sure have some questions to answer if you try to actually enforce it) so it seems wise to think about preventing legal slipperyness before it really gets started. If there's one thing common to business around the world it's that given an inch, most will take a mile.
Initially that will be true. But its possible that as this develops, the drones could take off and deliver from the shipping container that is travelling down the highway.
That's pretty darn clever. Although this drone business makes me a little uneasy, I'm fascinated by the novel uses for the things that are already springing up.
What was that old Chinese curse again? May you live in interesting times.
While niggers in their native setting are still chucking spears at each other and niggers taken out of their native setting are chucking bullets and gang signs at each other. But you're not supposed to notice. That would make you a bad terrible person and we will brand you "racist" to make you a modern heretic
I'm gonna go with another theory: repeatedly using 'nigger' in a sentence to describe dark-skinned people is the likely cause of you being branded a 'racist'.
I don't for a second believe this would be an easy task but I do think it is quite doable with our current level of technology. I also don't see this as a cure-all that will magically fix our bureaucratic problems in one sweep.
The main benefit I see with a software-controlled system such as the one I propose is the potential for complete transparency. I'm imagining a way by which every citizen could log into a website to see what decisions were being made at the time, see the current levels of resources available to the society and most importantly, have the facility to browse a log of all activities and decisions (with a powerful filter for ease of use). Yes, this is difficult to do securely but I believe it is quite achievable.
As regards your checks and balances comment I do agree and suggest that with our current tools we can actually verify the correctness of the system and its decisions. There are some jolly smart people out there when it comes to proofs and crypto and whilst I'm not one of them I'm sure the concept is feasible.
The entire fabric of society will have to change in order to accommodate a truly pure democratic government, of which direct-democracy is the only type.
..such as the coming mass-unemployment as society rapidly moves to automate all work that needs doing?
You are right of course, nothing short of a gigantic upheaval like the robot revolution or a popular revolt will change the status quo, there's too much monied interest in keeping things the way they are.
I think majority rule with checks and balances is the only alternative to tyranny
Which is supposedly where we are now, however I would argue that in many western countries (my native NZ included) the democratic process has been effectively poisoned by monied interests. I don't blame the many people who don't bother voting; although I still vote myself, the act is losing significance for me.
For now, the only thing we can do is demand reform and new procedures with published and accessible results. The real solution lies in crystal-clear software; a completely transparent daemon programmed according to the whim of the people. There are certainly challenges with such an idea but the talent required to build a secure system like this is already in plenty of companies and universities around the world.
When our decisions as voters are encoded in the daemon's ruleset for all to see, confidence in our ability to effect change in our own future will grow and democracy may have some new life breathed into it.
Humanistic morality implies a bias. (as a humanist, I am biased towards this bias).
Absolutely, any system we come up with must be designed with a focus on improving everyone's lot. If you see that as a bias towards humanistic morality that's a reasonable position IMHO.
I would of course suggest that building a system such as the one I propose (which itself is no doubt a very old idea) will be difficult but if designed from the beginning with security as its first operating principle, it may in time earn trust. Certainly it couldn't be too difficult to prove itself better than a politician!
How can humans be prevented from having power over other humans if there aren't any humans with power over other humans to prevent the humans from having power over other humans?
Perhaps he means no individual should have power over other humans. Although Joe and Jane Sixpack are usually idiots, I'd still be very glad of their presence as jurors if I was on trial myself.
Until we have cryptographically-verified software making the bulk of these decisions in a provably-unbiased manner, we're just going to have to get by with more checks and balances. These measures do work but the additional overhead significantly slows the process, potentially causing frustration and a desire to throw the whole lot out again.
Stating somebody can't do math isn't an ad hominem. In her case its a sad fact.
Well sure, however I'm pretty sure this qualifies:
I did. And you're IQ comes out negative.
If you're going to take on our friend GirlInTraining (and please do, he/she needs to be taken down a peg from time to time) you're going to need more than insults when the argument get sticky or you just look silly.:)
Your philosophy would be very popular in a certain European country in the early 20th century.
Well, I've got two responses to that.
Firstly I want to thank you for making your point without hyperbole and for responding to my opinion rather than attacking me directly. I'm not being sarcastic, I mean it. I know this can be a contentious conversation to have but there can be no rational discourse when parties begin slinging mud.
Secondly, whilst I appreciate my philosophy may at first blush sound similar to those espoused by those who brought us WWII, if you'll bear with me I'll clarify my position a little:
- I do not believe any race is superior or inferior to any other. From my limited experience of the world, racial interbreeding generally strengthens the genome for everyone and is a desirable thing. [1] My position is quite unrelated to the bedrock beliefs at the centre of Nazism.
- SirocouRaven suggests that the bar to parenthood shouldn't be particularly high and I agree. That said, I would be still unlikely to make the grade myself.
- I fail to see any compassion for the child in our current situation. It seems to me that a great deal of people have children because they want them in much the same way as they might want a pet dog. Very little thought - if any - is given to the child's lot, and whether the prospective parent is capable of taking care of their offspring. They just want, so they get.
I say this because I feel that raising a child is the most significant responsibility most people will ever have in their lives. Society suffers or prospers on how well we collectively take on this responsibility. After all, we test people to ensure they are competent motorists before they are granted a vehicle licence to drive on the road where they might endanger others. Do we all have a God-given right to drive? No! Only those of us who have taken the time to study and learn the Road Code and proven their competence by passing the appropriate test(s).
[1] please forgive my ignorance if my understanding is incorrect or outdated
Slashdot Mirror
Were you talking about the thief or yourself?
So by your measure I'm now in the same category as these vile individuals; not because I have committed any crime but because I would rather not see society's resources wasted on these people.
This shame I will simply have to shoulder. A just penance for my thoughtcrime, wouldn't you agree?
Using victims of crime as an excuse for your fascist fantasies is no different than using children as excuse for censorship. It also fails just as hard to actually justify anything. It does, however, go to show that a lot of people would probably benefit from consultation.
What's the point of enforcing crime if not to protect the potential victims? It seems perfectly reasonable to me to use this as justification. Perhaps this is a logical fallacy of some kind on my part?
But at least you were honest in the quote: you don't give a shit about the victims.
Very deft move there sparky, I like the part where you take my words, rotate 'em 180 degrees then argue your point - I'm pretty sure that is the missing logical fallacy right there.
You demonstrate exactly the sort of traits that you're calling on us to destroy. Is that what you really want?
You consider lawful state execution and unlawful criminal murder as equally brutal? That is a matter of opinion to which you are completely entitled, however it does limit the potential for interesting debate on the matter.
As for my demonstration of these traits I think you're waxing a bit lyrical there. I do not own a firearm nor any purpose-built offensive weapon (sure I have kitchen knives) and certainly don't advocate vigilante justice. I'm simply a realist - some people are of more value to society as plant food. If I intentionally commit a crime that puts me in this category, I'll happily plead guilty and offer to push the damn button myself.
Great reply, thanks! :)
yeah but dude your stance in favor of EXECUTION as punishment for MUGGING is not justifiable to anyone with a shred of human decency. get a grip.
This wasn't a simple mugging and it's disingenuous for you to frame it as such. This was a violent hijacking by two sadistic individuals whose actions will have lasting effects on their unfortunate victims. Gfxguy's comment above captures our concerns perfectly - they are dysfunctional, dangerous members of society and statistically speaking these people do not change.
How do you rehabilitate someone who gets great pleasure in (effectively) torturing innocent people?
That's certainly what I've read. Am I wrong in thinking that this assumes a thermonuclear weapon design? If so, does that mean the satellite network might miss the detonation if someone managed to cobble together a simple gun-type fission bomb that doesn't need a nuclear primary?
Idiots like you are why the places you are from are places worth avoiding.
Planet Earth?
The dirty bomb, as a weapon of mass destruction, is a myth.
Absolutely correct, however a dirty bomb isn't really a weapon of mass destruction, it's a weapon of terror. Given the fear economy that has been driving the US for the last decade or so, I imagine it would be a highly effective weapon too.
If you think stealing a van and hitting someone warrants death, you are an unhinged individual (or more likely, an internet tough guy).
Then I stand before you an unhinged individual. There is no rehabilitation for most people like this and it costs a lot of time and money to try.
This planet's habitable surface is overflowing with humans and yet most of us manage to avoid committing violent crime. Why should we roll over and take it from those people who repeatedly demonstrate their desire to hurt others?
I think it is delightful, myself. When it's my turn to be ruler of Earth I'm going to decree lethal radiation exposure as the standard punishment for criminal hijackings.
You can't accidentally point a gun at someone (and physically beat them, as in this case), drag them out of their vehicle and drive off in it. Someone prepared to voluntarily do that to another human being deserves a slow death.
Yeah, it's extreme.. but so is the punishment the victims themselves have to live with in the form of ongoing trauma. Nobody ever seems to give a shit about the victims of crime, it's all about the criminal and how they had a hard life, boo hoo.
Sorry to reply to you twice in the same thread but it seems to me that this is going to be a common refrain over the coming years. Taxi and transportation companies ought to be thinking hard about the future by now, knowing the impact of autonomous vehicles will be gigantic. Especially so when accounting for the extra pressure the potential of drone deliveries brings. That's two strong areas of development (that have already proven themselves acceptably reliable and safe even this early on in their lifecycles) converging on a single economic sector. In time we're going to have to get used to the shrill protestations of unions across nearly every industry.
And here I was shitting myself as a small-business network administrator fearing obsolescence due to the move to the Cloud...!
Brakes don't suddenly go from good to bad. They have a very graduate wear and it's easy to detect that they should be replaced in the annual checkup. And when it is detected, there's plenty of time usually left, not to mention that you notice a change in the behaviour unless you're very insensitive to your car's signals.
Is it just here in NZ that brakes are typically of the "screamer" variety? I can't imagine we've any monopoly on them here. I occasionally hear them in cars around the place, yelling like tortured pigs because the meat on the brake pad is low. Very embarrassing and a good incentive for the owner to get them changed pronto. Happily, they don't seem to make any difference to the braking performance. It's quite a different noise from that one running the brake pads down to the metal and it certainly is rather motivational..
Erk, sorry, *makes* sense.
Make sense. You can't contract your way out of your basic obligations to society (e.g., you might be able to coerce your employees into signing a contract that says they work 80 hours a week for $1 per hour but you'll sure have some questions to answer if you try to actually enforce it) so it seems wise to think about preventing legal slipperyness before it really gets started. If there's one thing common to business around the world it's that given an inch, most will take a mile.
Initially that will be true. But its possible that as this develops, the drones could take off and deliver from the shipping container that is travelling down the highway.
That's pretty darn clever. Although this drone business makes me a little uneasy, I'm fascinated by the novel uses for the things that are already springing up.
What was that old Chinese curse again? May you live in interesting times.
Straw man. Show me where I was preaching, please.
I provided a simple logical statement that you cannot refute. BTW, I'm not in the US.
While niggers in their native setting are still chucking spears at each other and niggers taken out of their native setting are chucking bullets and gang signs at each other. But you're not supposed to notice. That would make you a bad terrible person and we will brand you "racist" to make you a modern heretic
I'm gonna go with another theory: repeatedly using 'nigger' in a sentence to describe dark-skinned people is the likely cause of you being branded a 'racist'.
Thanks for an interesting reply.
I don't for a second believe this would be an easy task but I do think it is quite doable with our current level of technology. I also don't see this as a cure-all that will magically fix our bureaucratic problems in one sweep.
The main benefit I see with a software-controlled system such as the one I propose is the potential for complete transparency. I'm imagining a way by which every citizen could log into a website to see what decisions were being made at the time, see the current levels of resources available to the society and most importantly, have the facility to browse a log of all activities and decisions (with a powerful filter for ease of use). Yes, this is difficult to do securely but I believe it is quite achievable.
As regards your checks and balances comment I do agree and suggest that with our current tools we can actually verify the correctness of the system and its decisions. There are some jolly smart people out there when it comes to proofs and crypto and whilst I'm not one of them I'm sure the concept is feasible.
The entire fabric of society will have to change in order to accommodate a truly pure democratic government, of which direct-democracy is the only type.
..such as the coming mass-unemployment as society rapidly moves to automate all work that needs doing?
You are right of course, nothing short of a gigantic upheaval like the robot revolution or a popular revolt will change the status quo, there's too much monied interest in keeping things the way they are.
I think majority rule with checks and balances is the only alternative to tyranny
Which is supposedly where we are now, however I would argue that in many western countries (my native NZ included) the democratic process has been effectively poisoned by monied interests. I don't blame the many people who don't bother voting; although I still vote myself, the act is losing significance for me.
For now, the only thing we can do is demand reform and new procedures with published and accessible results. The real solution lies in crystal-clear software; a completely transparent daemon programmed according to the whim of the people. There are certainly challenges with such an idea but the talent required to build a secure system like this is already in plenty of companies and universities around the world.
When our decisions as voters are encoded in the daemon's ruleset for all to see, confidence in our ability to effect change in our own future will grow and democracy may have some new life breathed into it.
Humanistic morality implies a bias. (as a humanist, I am biased towards this bias).
Absolutely, any system we come up with must be designed with a focus on improving everyone's lot. If you see that as a bias towards humanistic morality that's a reasonable position IMHO.
I would of course suggest that building a system such as the one I propose (which itself is no doubt a very old idea) will be difficult but if designed from the beginning with security as its first operating principle, it may in time earn trust. Certainly it couldn't be too difficult to prove itself better than a politician!
How can humans be prevented from having power over other humans if there aren't any humans with power over other humans to prevent the humans from having power over other humans?
Perhaps he means no individual should have power over other humans. Although Joe and Jane Sixpack are usually idiots, I'd still be very glad of their presence as jurors if I was on trial myself.
Until we have cryptographically-verified software making the bulk of these decisions in a provably-unbiased manner, we're just going to have to get by with more checks and balances. These measures do work but the additional overhead significantly slows the process, potentially causing frustration and a desire to throw the whole lot out again.
Stating somebody can't do math isn't an ad hominem. In her case its a sad fact.
Well sure, however I'm pretty sure this qualifies:
I did. And you're IQ comes out negative.
If you're going to take on our friend GirlInTraining (and please do, he/she needs to be taken down a peg from time to time) you're going to need more than insults when the argument get sticky or you just look silly. :)
I did. And you're IQ comes out negative. Yeah, I know, that doesn't actually work - shouldn't have used YOUR math.
And with that you just bested Jane's argument.
Who knew? When logic fails, ad hominen is always there to win the day!
Great post, shame I have no modpoints for you. Please post logged-in next time if you can so other people can read your comments! :)
Your philosophy would be very popular in a certain European country in the early 20th century.
Well, I've got two responses to that.
Firstly I want to thank you for making your point without hyperbole and for responding to my opinion rather than attacking me directly. I'm not being sarcastic, I mean it. I know this can be a contentious conversation to have but there can be no rational discourse when parties begin slinging mud.
Secondly, whilst I appreciate my philosophy may at first blush sound similar to those espoused by those who brought us WWII, if you'll bear with me I'll clarify my position a little:
It seems to me that a great deal of people have children because they want them in much the same way as they might want a pet dog. Very little thought - if any - is given to the child's lot, and whether the prospective parent is capable of taking care of their offspring. They just want, so they get.
I say this because I feel that raising a child is the most significant responsibility most people will ever have in their lives. Society suffers or prospers on how well we collectively take on this responsibility. After all, we test people to ensure they are competent motorists before they are granted a vehicle licence to drive on the road where they might endanger others. Do we all have a God-given right to drive? No! Only those of us who have taken the time to study and learn the Road Code and proven their competence by passing the appropriate test(s).
[1] please forgive my ignorance if my understanding is incorrect or outdated