Are you naturally retarded, or did it actually take some effort to write that response?
The problem isn't that the "poor" are too wealthy, the problem is that people continue to shift the definition of what it means to be poor. At what point do you say "enough! you're not getting any more free shit!"? When people with large homes, multiple vehicles, plenty of food, medical care, and all sorts of luxuries can still be classified as "poor", and demand our pity (and money), that's WRONG. There's no two ways about it. I don't mind giving money to make sure that people have the basic necessities of life. I'm quite happy to do it in fact. On the other hand, I get a little pissed off when people start forcing me to subsidize some "poor" family's big-screen TV, or their internet access.
Right. Always good to see a member of the "I WANT IT MY WAY AND I WANT IT RIGHT NOW!" culture. I'm not going to get drawn into another pointless discussion of Katrina. Suffice it to say that the Fed response was as timely and efficient as circumstances allowed, and was a damn sight better than anything that any other country could accomplish in similar circumstances. That people like you have chosen to use this disaster as another opportunity to cast spurious accusations against the Bush administration is truly despicable.
If you can afford the required hardware, and the $12 per month, you're not exactly "low income". Especially if you're willing to pay even though there's a FREE service available.
There's something very wrong about a society which classifies "poor" as "someone with only one computer".
I didn't mean to make them sound "nice", and I apologize if that's the way I came across. You're right, they are "gangsters", and that's part of what I was saying. Thugs fight for property and land. They don't fight for an ideology.
So what were their "ideals"? Hitler was leading using a "cult of personality", as do most despots.
Well, death to jews, master race, god, and glory of the fatherland sound familiar, but I'm sure they had nothing to do with it....
Yes, they sought to remove Britsh control over a chunk of territory so they could exert influence over it themelves.
That was my point. They're an example of a group fighting for land. They have small, focused goals, and they stop once they reach them. They had no desire to take over the globe, kill off all the Brits, or make everyone Protestant. There's a big difference. I dson't know how to explain it to you any better than I already have.
Hardly. Most modern wars are about ideology. Starting with WW2. The land captured by the Germans in that war was definitely a welcome bonus, but they didn't fight for land. They fought for the ideals of the Nazi party. Just like todays terrorists don't fight for land or resources, they fight for the ideals mandated by their perversion of Islam.
There's a big difference between organizations which fight for land or resources, and ones who fight for ideology, and they're usually very easy to see. Look at the IRA. They fought for only one goal - the right to self determination within their homeland. Compare them to modern Islamist terror attacks, which are occurring not only on US soil, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in other parts of the middle east as well as, Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa. THAT is an expansionist Ideology. Groups fighting for land or resources usually (these days at least) have modest goals in mind. Groups fighting for ideologies will stop at nothing short of total domination.
Naw man, they make a LOT more money off of YOUR condition. They could have cured paranoid schizophrenia decades ago, but it's much more profitable to just keep feeding you drugs, thereby "managing" your condition. Besides, you're the only thing keeping the tinfoil industry afloat, and everyone knows that Haliburton makes most of it's money from Tin and not Oil.
How does this junk get modded insightful? I mean, I know some people on here are absurdly ignorant of history, but are they really that much of a majority?
Boy smashes in a window... must be the baseball coach's fault for giving him the bat, must be the gangsta rapper's fault for glorifying violence, must be the video game's fault for teaching the kid how to break windows, must be Hollywood's fault for creating an anti-authoritarian culture. But the boy's fault? Never!
While I share your dislike of the "pass-the-buck" culture, the reason you're failing to see the big picture is because you're assuming that smashing the window was the wrong thing to do. If you wanted to work the Iraq war into your analogy, you'd have to have the window working on developing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, invading foreign nations, defying international sanctions, harbouring terrorists, providing funding for terrorism, and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people on the other side of that window. So the boy went and smashed the window, put a stop to any threat it may have posed, attempted to rescue the people behind it...and now everyone's arguing about whether he smashed it properly, and blaming him for not fixing it soon enough. Let's keep things in perspective here. Blaming Bush for the Iraq war is akin to blaming the chief of police when a high-speed pursuit leads to the death of a cop and a bystander. And yes, I'm aware there are people who really think that way, and would like to see police pursuits stopped permanently. Hopefully, you're not one of those people.
For example, minutes were released of Henry Kissinger saying "Anything that flies on anything that moves" , which were his bombing orders for Cambodia. If they had evidence like that against Milosevic, his trial would have been over within days.
Considering that the only genocide in Canbodia was the one carried out by the Khmer Rouge, do you suppose that you might be taking things out of context a wee bit?
On the other hand, the war is a single product of a single administration and the entire US public's attitudes (apathy, ignorance?) towards a single issue. It's much more preventable; it's much more treatable.
Prove it. Show with 100% certainty that the Bush administration is 100% responsible for the war in Iraq.
Can't do it? Didn't think so.
Fact is, using your logic, we could just as easily pin the war on Sadams initial invasion of Kuwait, or on Bush 1's failure to get rid of Saddam in '91, or on the Clinton administrations inability to force Saddam to cooperate, or on the Iraqi people's inability to get their government to act reasonably, or on the UN's inability to do...well, ANYTHING. In addition, you could also blame the vast majority of todays Iraqi deaths on:
1) Muslim clerics who continue to stir up the populace.
2) Foreign terror groups who intentionally target civilians.
3) Iran and Syria, for funding the insurgency and the terrorists.
4) Iraqi politicians/clerics who maintain their own personal armies.
5) Corrupt leftovers of the Saddam era regime, who are currently trying to subvert the ING and IP forces to their own purposes.
In other words, war is a complex business, and saying that it's "a single product of a single administration" is so ignorant that it shouldn't even warrant a response. Unfortunately, way too many people think (or fail to) the way you do.
You got modded up on Slashdot for insulting Americans? Well gee, there's a shocker! Around here you could write a one-line post saying "BUSH IS A FAG!", and you'd get modded +5 insightful. Doesn't make you right though. Argumentum Ad Populum is used often, but is rarely correct.
Nope, can't say I have. But my reason for suggesting it is different anyway. I don't believe that criminal behaviour is genetic. I suggested it on the grounds that:
a) It'll stop sexual offenders from re-offending 99% of the time. b) It'll reduce testosterone levels in the effected individuals, leading to "tamer" criminals in general. It would ensure that some never re-offend, and would reduce violent crime amongst the rest. c) Most men would rather be executed than have Mr. Happy removed. You could get rid of the death penalty.
and, finally:
d) It would ensure that most criminals are unable to RAISE children, which I think has a much bigger impact on how kids grow up. Genes might make them predisposed to be aggressive or violent, but it's upbringing that determines whether they turn into criminals.
Do I think any society is likely to adopt that idea? No, not really. My suggestion was mostly tounge-in-cheek. I think it'd be an effective form of crime reduction, but I know it'll never happen.
If one is sufficiently punished for ones deeds, a person might not be inclined to re-offend, but thats not education, thats the threat of further vengeance.
Yes, but, once again, it's not about getting someone who's already a criminal to stop being a criminal. That would make prisons institutions of rehabilitation, which, for the most part, they're not. The point is to show OTHERS that they cannot commit a crime and get away with it.
What I don't understand is why you keep using the word vengeance. Is it vengeance when you ground your kid? Is it vengeance when you smack your dog? Is it vengeance when a cop gives you a speeding ticket? Not all types of force and control are "vengeance". An act of revenge motivated by emotion is vengeance. On the other hand, a reasonable act of punishment is certainly not, especially when the person being punished is fully aware of the consequences of his or her action. For instance (and don't take this as a threat or anything, because it's definitely not), if someone were to rape your daughter, he's fully aware that his actions are punishable by X years of imprisonment. What he probably doesn't expect is for you to show up with a shotgun and blow his kneecaps away. One is an act of enforcement and discipline - it's expected, it's reasonable, and it's systemic. The other is a emotional act of violence which is nearly random in it's application.
I'm certainly happy to agree to disagree, I just get the feeling that it's not really a disagreement so much as a misunderstanding based on semantics.
First, previous democracies (yes, even previous representative democracies).
List one which has had any influence in modern society. What's that? Can't think of any? Oh. Well...yeah, I'm sure you're right anyway. Just because you're pulling answers out of your ass doesn't mean you're wrong.
Second, the US is not, by founding, a democracy but a Republic.
No shit Sherlock. I'd love to watch you explaining to the founding fathers that a republic is in fact NOT a type of democracy. It would make for an amusing afternoon.
Perhaps you should use your U.S. government brainwashing (err public high school education) for less academic pursuits.
This coming from the idiot who managed not to realize that my sig states "I am not an American". Perhaps YOU should stay off these forums until you've surpassed the literacy standards of an 8 year old.
1) You prevent them from committing crimes for several years. 2) You create incentive for others to follow the law.
Do you really not understand this concept? I don't know how I can make it any clearer; I thought it was a self-explanatory idea. It's constructive not because you're punishing that one individual, but because you're showing others what will happen to them if they try it. It's not about vengeance, but about reducing the number of occurrences through what amounts to intimidation. The same principle holds true for raising children, or training your new puppy. You set rules, create consequences for breaking those rules, and, most importantly, demonstrate them that those consequences will be applied without fail. Otherwise you end up with problem kids, and dog-poo on your carpets.
"Revenge or vengeance consists of retaliation against a person or group in response to perceived wrongdoing. Although many aspects of revenge resemble or echo the concept of making things equal, revenge usually has a more injurious than constructive goal. The vengeful wish to make the other side go through what they went through or make sure they'll never be able to do what they did again."
In other words, vengeance is mostly emotional, and largely destructive. Law is more structured, and more constructive.
I don't think you'll have to worry about police becoming 100% effective any time soon. The bigger problem is that parts of our culture currently encourage and glorify anti-social behaviour, while the consequences for minors acting in a criminal or anti-social manner are pretty much non-existent. The other problem is that many countries are turning into cradle-to-grave nanny states. When you treat your people like children, teach them that their actions will have little to no negative consequence to them personally, and then glorify living outside of the law....what do you expect, really? Hell, teens have always like to "rebel" against whatever they can, so when our popular media is encouraging them to break laws, and our high-schools, universities, and mass media are teaching them to hate and distrust their government, it's only natural that you'll end up with a massive increase in crime. And, ofcourse, when these dysfunctional individuals end up spawning 5 or 6 of their own little hooligans, you're going to have an even bigger problem in the next generation.
Want to control crime?
1) Make every 3+ year sentence come with mandatory castration. 2) Watch the crime rate plummet. 3) Profit:)
Slashdot Mirror
"Yes, society does that. It's called relative poverty, or inequality."
Oh, I see the problem here. You're a commie. Well. No wonder.
Hey, how 'bout we start handing out Olympic medals to everyone? You know, in the name of equality. God forbid some people do better than others.
Poverty is one thing, inequality another. I'll fight poverty, sure, but those trying to make me equal to everyone else can all go to hell.
Are you naturally retarded, or did it actually take some effort to write that response?
The problem isn't that the "poor" are too wealthy, the problem is that people continue to shift the definition of what it means to be poor. At what point do you say "enough! you're not getting any more free shit!"? When people with large homes, multiple vehicles, plenty of food, medical care, and all sorts of luxuries can still be classified as "poor", and demand our pity (and money), that's WRONG. There's no two ways about it. I don't mind giving money to make sure that people have the basic necessities of life. I'm quite happy to do it in fact. On the other hand, I get a little pissed off when people start forcing me to subsidize some "poor" family's big-screen TV, or their internet access.
Right. Always good to see a member of the "I WANT IT MY WAY AND I WANT IT RIGHT NOW!" culture. I'm not going to get drawn into another pointless discussion of Katrina. Suffice it to say that the Fed response was as timely and efficient as circumstances allowed, and was a damn sight better than anything that any other country could accomplish in similar circumstances. That people like you have chosen to use this disaster as another opportunity to cast spurious accusations against the Bush administration is truly despicable.
You're right, it went something like this:
Republican Voter: I do beleive I shall go vote for George Bush tomorrow.
Democrat Voter: Not me! I hate th....OOOOH LOOK, A BUNNY!
I did. "If nothing else" is right.
If you can afford the required hardware, and the $12 per month, you're not exactly "low income". Especially if you're willing to pay even though there's a FREE service available.
There's something very wrong about a society which classifies "poor" as "someone with only one computer".
I didn't mean to make them sound "nice", and I apologize if that's the way I came across. You're right, they are "gangsters", and that's part of what I was saying. Thugs fight for property and land. They don't fight for an ideology.
You must not have much experience with it in that case.
Why would you assume that NORAD wasn't tracking it?
Hardly. Most modern wars are about ideology. Starting with WW2. The land captured by the Germans in that war was definitely a welcome bonus, but they didn't fight for land. They fought for the ideals of the Nazi party. Just like todays terrorists don't fight for land or resources, they fight for the ideals mandated by their perversion of Islam.
There's a big difference between organizations which fight for land or resources, and ones who fight for ideology, and they're usually very easy to see. Look at the IRA. They fought for only one goal - the right to self determination within their homeland. Compare them to modern Islamist terror attacks, which are occurring not only on US soil, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in other parts of the middle east as well as, Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa. THAT is an expansionist Ideology. Groups fighting for land or resources usually (these days at least) have modest goals in mind. Groups fighting for ideologies will stop at nothing short of total domination.
Naw man, they make a LOT more money off of YOUR condition. They could have cured paranoid schizophrenia decades ago, but it's much more profitable to just keep feeding you drugs, thereby "managing" your condition. Besides, you're the only thing keeping the tinfoil industry afloat, and everyone knows that Haliburton makes most of it's money from Tin and not Oil.
How does this junk get modded insightful? I mean, I know some people on here are absurdly ignorant of history, but are they really that much of a majority?
Ah, I see. So, as usual, it's blame the US time. Pol Pot wasn't responsible for his crimes! It all only happened because Bush stole the election!
Thanks, I needed a laugh. Where did you read the bit about the SAS, anyway? PRAVDA?
You're just not getting this whole "logic" thing, are you?
Can't do it? Didn't think so.
Fact is, using your logic, we could just as easily pin the war on Sadams initial invasion of Kuwait, or on Bush 1's failure to get rid of Saddam in '91, or on the Clinton administrations inability to force Saddam to cooperate, or on the Iraqi people's inability to get their government to act reasonably, or on the UN's inability to do...well, ANYTHING. In addition, you could also blame the vast majority of todays Iraqi deaths on:
1) Muslim clerics who continue to stir up the populace.
2) Foreign terror groups who intentionally target civilians.
3) Iran and Syria, for funding the insurgency and the terrorists.
4) Iraqi politicians/clerics who maintain their own personal armies.
5) Corrupt leftovers of the Saddam era regime, who are currently trying to subvert the ING and IP forces to their own purposes.
In other words, war is a complex business, and saying that it's "a single product of a single administration" is so ignorant that it shouldn't even warrant a response. Unfortunately, way too many people think (or fail to) the way you do.
You got modded up on Slashdot for insulting Americans? Well gee, there's a shocker! Around here you could write a one-line post saying "BUSH IS A FAG!", and you'd get modded +5 insightful. Doesn't make you right though. Argumentum Ad Populum is used often, but is rarely correct.
Nope, can't say I have. But my reason for suggesting it is different anyway. I don't believe that criminal behaviour is genetic. I suggested it on the grounds that:
a) It'll stop sexual offenders from re-offending 99% of the time.
b) It'll reduce testosterone levels in the effected individuals, leading to "tamer" criminals in general. It would ensure that some never re-offend, and would reduce violent crime amongst the rest.
c) Most men would rather be executed than have Mr. Happy removed. You could get rid of the death penalty.
and, finally:
d) It would ensure that most criminals are unable to RAISE children, which I think has a much bigger impact on how kids grow up. Genes might make them predisposed to be aggressive or violent, but it's upbringing that determines whether they turn into criminals.
Do I think any society is likely to adopt that idea? No, not really. My suggestion was mostly tounge-in-cheek. I think it'd be an effective form of crime reduction, but I know it'll never happen.
What I don't understand is why you keep using the word vengeance. Is it vengeance when you ground your kid? Is it vengeance when you smack your dog? Is it vengeance when a cop gives you a speeding ticket? Not all types of force and control are "vengeance". An act of revenge motivated by emotion is vengeance. On the other hand, a reasonable act of punishment is certainly not, especially when the person being punished is fully aware of the consequences of his or her action. For instance (and don't take this as a threat or anything, because it's definitely not), if someone were to rape your daughter, he's fully aware that his actions are punishable by X years of imprisonment. What he probably doesn't expect is for you to show up with a shotgun and blow his kneecaps away. One is an act of enforcement and discipline - it's expected, it's reasonable, and it's systemic. The other is a emotional act of violence which is nearly random in it's application.
I'm certainly happy to agree to disagree, I just get the feeling that it's not really a disagreement so much as a misunderstanding based on semantics.
No shit Sherlock. I'd love to watch you explaining to the founding fathers that a republic is in fact NOT a type of democracy. It would make for an amusing afternoon.
This coming from the idiot who managed not to realize that my sig states "I am not an American". Perhaps YOU should stay off these forums until you've surpassed the literacy standards of an 8 year old.
1) You prevent them from committing crimes for several years.
2) You create incentive for others to follow the law.
Do you really not understand this concept? I don't know how I can make it any clearer; I thought it was a self-explanatory idea. It's constructive not because you're punishing that one individual, but because you're showing others what will happen to them if they try it. It's not about vengeance, but about reducing the number of occurrences through what amounts to intimidation. The same principle holds true for raising children, or training your new puppy. You set rules, create consequences for breaking those rules, and, most importantly, demonstrate them that those consequences will be applied without fail. Otherwise you end up with problem kids, and dog-poo on your carpets.
Well, quoting from wikipedia:
"Revenge or vengeance consists of retaliation against a person or group in response to perceived wrongdoing. Although many aspects of revenge resemble or echo the concept of making things equal, revenge usually has a more injurious than constructive goal. The vengeful wish to make the other side go through what they went through or make sure they'll never be able to do what they did again."
In other words, vengeance is mostly emotional, and largely destructive. Law is more structured, and more constructive.
I don't think you'll have to worry about police becoming 100% effective any time soon. The bigger problem is that parts of our culture currently encourage and glorify anti-social behaviour, while the consequences for minors acting in a criminal or anti-social manner are pretty much non-existent. The other problem is that many countries are turning into cradle-to-grave nanny states. When you treat your people like children, teach them that their actions will have little to no negative consequence to them personally, and then glorify living outside of the law....what do you expect, really? Hell, teens have always like to "rebel" against whatever they can, so when our popular media is encouraging them to break laws, and our high-schools, universities, and mass media are teaching them to hate and distrust their government, it's only natural that you'll end up with a massive increase in crime. And, ofcourse, when these dysfunctional individuals end up spawning 5 or 6 of their own little hooligans, you're going to have an even bigger problem in the next generation.
:)
Want to control crime?
1) Make every 3+ year sentence come with mandatory castration.
2) Watch the crime rate plummet.
3) Profit