I deal daily with students (3rd graders) and punishment is something I deal with all the time. One question that has been nagging at me (but no one has asked) is: why do we punish? Is it to discourage crime? Is it to exact revenge or justice? This question comes to my mind about once a week, and I use it to keep myself from taking things personally when I have to 'mete out justice.'
There is another reason we punish those who commit crimes: it is part of the contract between us and authority. We know the rules, we know the consequences of keeping and breaking the rules, and when someone breaks a rule, we all expect some sort of consequence. It is a contract we have with those in authority over us. So, in part, the punishment is not necessarily to discourage crime, but also to encourage those who obey the laws.
Some say that punishment doesn't discourage crime, but I think it does. We just don't see it because it happens so quietly. The law-abiding citizens stay that way, for the most part. Where the justice system starts to break down and you have a lawless society, you also have a crime-ridden society. I suppose if you have no laws, you can have no crime, but I hope you know what I'm trying to say.
The specs and images look EXACTLY like my ASUS Z71V. I had problems with some of the stuff, though, like I could not get the sound to work until I flashed the BIOS, and then it wouldn't even complete bootup. Not even after a reinstall. Tell me, what version do you have installed?
I am running Suse 10.1, and it works great, but I would like to go back to Ubuntu if I can get it to work.
OK. The very idea of the US government hauling lawyers down to Guantanamo for something like this is being pulled straight out of your butt. The part about you being amazed that it hasn't happened yet is probably accurate.
We're not there yet. I think people talking about it in these extreme terms makes it hard to discuss the issue as it is.
My problem with faith-based initiatives isn't necessarily the effect it has on government, but on religion. What happens when the government takes it away from those churches that, say, don't allow female clergy? And is that scenario really that unthinkable?
Thank goodness my church doesn't accept the funds.
Wouldn't the better course of action be for a church to find out what God wants and do it? A church who follows the people is making a big mistake, it seems to me. I mean what is the purpose of a church? To please its people or to save them?
Yes. Elected government does seem to be what we've chosen. That wasn't really the point, though. I guess the point was that there are some serious moral problems with some people forcing others to follow their societal goals. There is a middle ground of some sort, but I feel like the USA has abandoned that middle ground, and is now trying to foist the plans of a bare majority on society as a whole, and that the rights of some are being sacrificed for the benefit of others.
My question is: how long until someone cuts a deal with blizzard and makes +5 Boots of Speed, Armor, and Fashion by Dr. Martens?
I guess the signature soles of Dr. Martens would be hard to reproduce, but you could have Tommy Hilfiger Whale Plate Armor of the Gods with the logo on it.
I wonder if I could make a Swoosh-shaped scimitar... Dibs on that one! I'm calling my patent lawyer!
the actions of individual consumers will be to the greater good of society; without subsidies and punitive taxes, how can you direct markets towards longer-term social goals?
So here are some honest questions: Who's goals are we talking about here? Who chooses these goals, and on what authority to they force their countrymen to follow these goals? So if 'society' chooses goals, how do we really know if the goals are worthy? The ways we can know are Science (this seems to have proven itself disastrously ineffective), revelation, or vastly superior experience. Have I forgotten anything? I am really afraid I am sounding trollish, but these are serious questions I have, and I have not heard any satisfactory answers. I may be going to far, but I am trying to make a point.
Since God, a monarch, or a parent would be the only entities that could command this sort of authority (the authority to compel a man to reach another's goal), are you suggesting we become a theocracy, a monarchy, or a patriarchy? I may be taking it too far again.
When I saw the History Channel's show about the Autobahn, I wondered that too. There are some differences that might explain it:
1. In the USA, everyone can drive, and does. Every kid 16 and over drives on the freeway. In Germany, I understand that a drivers license is not a gimme like it is here. I hear there are higher costs and stuff like that. So that filters out a lot of people as dumb as you and I were when we first drove on I-70.
2. Cost. They showed the way the Autobahn is constructed, and it can handle higher speeds than the freeway.
3. Terrain. From the little I saw, there are no Rocky Mountains for the Autobahn to cross. This makes a difference in what is a safe speed, and what kind of money you spend on making expensively-safe surfaces.
4. Tradition. I guess the Autobahn was always a speeding zone, and land speed records were even set there.
5. Congestion. Does the Autobahn have anything like the amount of traffic that the Interstates have on them?
Now, not all of these factors apply in all cases (no Rocky Mountains in Nebraska (That John Denver's full of crap!), no congestion on I-70 in Utah, etc.), but I think that when taken together they make a good case.
I guess there are other reasons, too, like different traffic laws that might have a greater impace or something, but I don't know.
Scientists are like other people: they seek the good opinion of their peers. It seems unlikely to me that scientists are more immune than I am to the desire to be thought smart.
It is my understanding that science can make no opinion on whether or not the person should get out of the way of the truck. Science can only make statements about truck size, speed, probability of time of impact, etc.
Whether or not we should get out of the way is another matter. Science might be able to provide us with predictions about how fast we might have to move to get out of the way, how far away might be a safe distance, and other such things.
Am I wrong here?
Note: You'll notice that I didn't make any judgements about what we should do, either.
So then, the question becomes not one of "do you trust your government", but "how much do you trust your government?" Reasonable people can disagree on where that line should be drawn, and oppose faith in the government in one case and favor it in another case without being inconsistent. It is entirely consistent, then, to both oppose things like government sponsored data-mining, which cannot be audited for security purposes, while favoring government healthcare, which can be audited and monitored. One could argue that government programs lend themselves to corruption, but then again, private enterprise is not immune to corruption either.
That's a good way to put it. I'm not ready for total government non-involvement, but I think we have far too much involvement. I'd like to dial it back. Way back.
It's like Thomas Paine said, there's a balance we have to strike. We give up some of our freedoms and responsibilities to the governmnet in exchange for some security. The problem we have is where to strike that balance. I think we have gone too far.
You are right in pointing out the difference between domestic surveillance and health care.
Thank you for the well-thought-out response. I think, though, that there are some problems with it. I don't know how fundamental these are, but I think they are important:
1. If there was no oversight to the powers Bush has amassed to himself, and it was done totally in secret, then how do we know about it? This is the least of my problems with your statement, because of the difference between having to seek it out and being told. Kind of nit-picky. And dumb. I know.
2. Oversight of these new programs. Who will do the overseeing? The same people who oversaw the Big Dig? Is Congress supposed to oversee this? Do you trust them that much more than the President?
3. Public Health Care. I still see a problem with this, because of the idea that if the government is responsible for your health care, the government, not the patient, will be the customer. A part of me feels that it may be time to raise health care to the same level as education (make it free to all), but I'm still not convinced. There's still the problem that it is taking from one by force to give to another. I'm still working on this, but right now I think that it's a bad idea. I just feel that removal of responsibility is usually not the best solution to any problem involving adults.
4. Public Education. I know a little bit about public education, and I can tell you that the reason that it is so messed up is because of federal involvement. We give the schools, teachers, and principals this responsibility, and we don't trust them to take care of it. Who can better be overseen? Your child's teacher, or your elected representatives in Washington? The secret to improving education in the USA is to increase parental involvement, not government involvement. I'll come right out and say it: the only overall-positive involvement the federal government has had in public education is in the area of civil rights.
To summarize: The best way to oversee a program is to keep it as locally-controlled as possible. Give the most responsibility to those who you can hold personally responsible.
is the almost total trust people have in our government in other areas. For example, you don't want the government to have access to your phone records, but you have no problem with them telling your child what to think (if you don't think federal funding of education gives any control over what your child learns in school, think again), or no problem with the government holding all the guns, or no problem with the government being the only person who can pay your doctor.
I don't, of course, know that you trust the government to do all of these things. I just hear lots of arguments telling me how little the government can be trusted, then we start hearing about 'increased federal funding of education is good,' and 'nationalized health care is good,' and 'gun control is good.' It seems completely inconsistent to me.
I have a friend who is very much anti-Bush. This is a man who sees real reasons to mistrust Bush. He is suspicious of our president on every count. This is a good thing. I think Bush has shown himself untrustworthy in many areas. Yet this same friend wants to give over his family's health care into his (and his cronies') hands. He wants to give this government control over who gets to do business with him and how they do business. I just don't get it.
Slashdot Mirror
There is another reason we punish those who commit crimes: it is part of the contract between us and authority. We know the rules, we know the consequences of keeping and breaking the rules, and when someone breaks a rule, we all expect some sort of consequence. It is a contract we have with those in authority over us. So, in part, the punishment is not necessarily to discourage crime, but also to encourage those who obey the laws.
Some say that punishment doesn't discourage crime, but I think it does. We just don't see it because it happens so quietly. The law-abiding citizens stay that way, for the most part. Where the justice system starts to break down and you have a lawless society, you also have a crime-ridden society. I suppose if you have no laws, you can have no crime, but I hope you know what I'm trying to say.
You were right. I installed Dapper last night, and it was like a happy dream. Long, but happy.
No, it's Volkswagens. I'm about half joking. And it's not a bad thing.
Think about it, there's just something similar about the way VWs and Macs are both marketed, unlike anyone else.
I am running Suse 10.1, and it works great, but I would like to go back to Ubuntu if I can get it to work.
The number of different quotes in the movie that could be used: Like a finity.
How did they catch him?
My school district buys bus chassis from Blue Bird, and the motors from Caterpillar. What's the plural for chassis?
You're probably right. It's just that I've heard people say this stuff seriously.
We're not there yet. I think people talking about it in these extreme terms makes it hard to discuss the issue as it is.
Thank goodness my church doesn't accept the funds.
Wouldn't the better course of action be for a church to find out what God wants and do it? A church who follows the people is making a big mistake, it seems to me. I mean what is the purpose of a church? To please its people or to save them?
Is that in Centigrade or Celcius?
I guess the signature soles of Dr. Martens would be hard to reproduce, but you could have Tommy Hilfiger Whale Plate Armor of the Gods with the logo on it.
I wonder if I could make a Swoosh-shaped scimitar... Dibs on that one! I'm calling my patent lawyer!
So here are some honest questions: Who's goals are we talking about here? Who chooses these goals, and on what authority to they force their countrymen to follow these goals? So if 'society' chooses goals, how do we really know if the goals are worthy? The ways we can know are Science (this seems to have proven itself disastrously ineffective), revelation, or vastly superior experience. Have I forgotten anything? I am really afraid I am sounding trollish, but these are serious questions I have, and I have not heard any satisfactory answers. I may be going to far, but I am trying to make a point.
Since God, a monarch, or a parent would be the only entities that could command this sort of authority (the authority to compel a man to reach another's goal), are you suggesting we become a theocracy, a monarchy, or a patriarchy? I may be taking it too far again.
1. In the USA, everyone can drive, and does. Every kid 16 and over drives on the freeway. In Germany, I understand that a drivers license is not a gimme like it is here. I hear there are higher costs and stuff like that. So that filters out a lot of people as dumb as you and I were when we first drove on I-70.
2. Cost. They showed the way the Autobahn is constructed, and it can handle higher speeds than the freeway.
3. Terrain. From the little I saw, there are no Rocky Mountains for the Autobahn to cross. This makes a difference in what is a safe speed, and what kind of money you spend on making expensively-safe surfaces.
4. Tradition. I guess the Autobahn was always a speeding zone, and land speed records were even set there.
5. Congestion. Does the Autobahn have anything like the amount of traffic that the Interstates have on them?
Now, not all of these factors apply in all cases (no Rocky Mountains in Nebraska (That John Denver's full of crap!), no congestion on I-70 in Utah, etc.), but I think that when taken together they make a good case.
I guess there are other reasons, too, like different traffic laws that might have a greater impace or something, but I don't know.
Unless I missed something, your link didn't say anything to imply anything at all regarding the B&MG Foundation.
Well, who ever said that there will never be another conventional war?
Scientists are like other people: they seek the good opinion of their peers. It seems unlikely to me that scientists are more immune than I am to the desire to be thought smart.
Whether or not we should get out of the way is another matter. Science might be able to provide us with predictions about how fast we might have to move to get out of the way, how far away might be a safe distance, and other such things.
Am I wrong here?
Note: You'll notice that I didn't make any judgements about what we should do, either.
Now I can't use Wifi until August. Thanks a lot.
That's a good way to put it. I'm not ready for total government non-involvement, but I think we have far too much involvement. I'd like to dial it back. Way back.
It's like Thomas Paine said, there's a balance we have to strike. We give up some of our freedoms and responsibilities to the governmnet in exchange for some security. The problem we have is where to strike that balance. I think we have gone too far.
You are right in pointing out the difference between domestic surveillance and health care.
1. If there was no oversight to the powers Bush has amassed to himself, and it was done totally in secret, then how do we know about it? This is the least of my problems with your statement, because of the difference between having to seek it out and being told. Kind of nit-picky. And dumb. I know.
2. Oversight of these new programs. Who will do the overseeing? The same people who oversaw the Big Dig? Is Congress supposed to oversee this? Do you trust them that much more than the President?
3. Public Health Care. I still see a problem with this, because of the idea that if the government is responsible for your health care, the government, not the patient, will be the customer. A part of me feels that it may be time to raise health care to the same level as education (make it free to all), but I'm still not convinced. There's still the problem that it is taking from one by force to give to another. I'm still working on this, but right now I think that it's a bad idea. I just feel that removal of responsibility is usually not the best solution to any problem involving adults.
4. Public Education. I know a little bit about public education, and I can tell you that the reason that it is so messed up is because of federal involvement. We give the schools, teachers, and principals this responsibility, and we don't trust them to take care of it. Who can better be overseen? Your child's teacher, or your elected representatives in Washington? The secret to improving education in the USA is to increase parental involvement, not government involvement. I'll come right out and say it: the only overall-positive involvement the federal government has had in public education is in the area of civil rights.
To summarize: The best way to oversee a program is to keep it as locally-controlled as possible. Give the most responsibility to those who you can hold personally responsible.
I don't, of course, know that you trust the government to do all of these things. I just hear lots of arguments telling me how little the government can be trusted, then we start hearing about 'increased federal funding of education is good,' and 'nationalized health care is good,' and 'gun control is good.' It seems completely inconsistent to me.
I have a friend who is very much anti-Bush. This is a man who sees real reasons to mistrust Bush. He is suspicious of our president on every count. This is a good thing. I think Bush has shown himself untrustworthy in many areas. Yet this same friend wants to give over his family's health care into his (and his cronies') hands. He wants to give this government control over who gets to do business with him and how they do business. I just don't get it.
We tried breeding such a superhuman. All he does is poop.