Post: #51

(04-22-2014 11:47 AM)Wutang Wrote:  Obviously the best way to deter crime is to fix the environment that breeds crime. And that should indeed be done to the fullest extent as possible. Also I would like a million dollars - but I can't have that so I have to make do with what I have.

The best way to prevent a fire from consuming a building is through fireproofing the building and other safety measures but when the fire has already broken out, it's too late and you simply have to deal with putting out the fire.

So are you against any sort of punishment whatsoever? I mean if a person really had no choice or free will then you really can't blame them for anything and it would be wrong to punish them in any way - whether it be the death penalty or locking them up.

We should also stop mocking feminists, white knights, and their allies - after all they all most likely have grown up in middle to upper class environments and went to college where these ideologies were pushed upon them and they simply couldn't make any sort of choice about whether to accept it or not.

And I don't see how I am white washing the death penalty. If anything, I am acknowledgeing what a grim matter it is and hence why I believe it should only be reserved for the most heinous crimes and when there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Being removed from society is punishment.

I'm sure most inmates would agree.

Post: #52

Should anyone be punished for committing a crime if they never had a chance to begin with as you are saying?

Post: #53

(04-22-2014 03:48 PM)Wutang Wrote:  Should anyone be punished for committing a crime if they never had a chance to begin with as you are saying?

This is one of the biggest blue pill threads that I have ever seen.

The "deprived poor" in Western nations have a level of ease and comfort that no King of old, with all the wealth of the world, could have ever imagined. Even if those kings could have imagined such ease and comfort, all the wealth of the Earth could not have purchased what "the poor" possess today.

The "deprived poor" in Western nations have shelter, free medical care, free food with no possibility of starvation, refrigeration, stoves, cell phones, indoor plumbing, and even vehicles. A city bus offers more ease and comfort than the finest carriage of antiquity.

In short, the average poor person today lives better than any king of antiquity with no worries of starvation or death by infection and most childhood disease. A poor person today is only poor by comparison to the rest of society -- and certainly not in comparison to traditional notions of poverty.

In fact, while collecting welfare payments from taxpayers, a poor person can not only live a life of luxury -- as compared to the conditions found throughout most of human history -- but also a life of ease and leisure. Not backbreaking work. Not degrading work. Just living with no work at all!

So, a poor person has absolutely no excuse to commit a murder (or any other crime) and then complain that it had something to do with his deprivation. Heinous conduct, such as murder, has everything to do with narcissism and a sense of entitlement in a sick culture and nothing to do with poverty.

Most of this thread is blue pill thinking at its finest. No historical perspective. No moral distinctions. No scrutiny of the meaning of true poverty. No empathy for the victims. No thought for the future consequence of rewarding bad behavior today. Quite simply, no logic or reason.

Post: #54

Soup brings up a good point; America is obsessed with vicariously experiences of death and trauma, but only before it becomes jarring. A land of soft people lack proper context of what they wish for, living out life behind multiple barriers from nature's harsh fundamentals.

Tail gunner has a good point also. Sane murderers know the score, regardless of their living condition, when they kill and all facets of society kill. Framing it as usually caused by desperation isn't reasonable

Post: #55

Know what Im sayin

Post: #56

(04-22-2014 05:20 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:48 PM)Wutang Wrote:  Should anyone be punished for committing a crime if they never had a chance to begin with as you are saying?

This is one of the biggest blue pill threads that I have ever seen.

The "deprived poor" in Western nations have a level of ease and comfort that no King of old, with all the wealth of the world, could have ever imagined. Even if those kings could have imagined such ease and comfort, all the wealth of the Earth could not have purchased what "the poor" possess today.

The "deprived poor" in Western nations have shelter, free medical care, free food with no possibility of starvation, refrigeration, stoves, cell phones, indoor plumbing, and even vehicles. A city bus offers more ease and comfort than the finest carriage of antiquity.

In short, the average poor person today lives better than any king of antiquity with no worries of starvation or death by infection and most childhood disease. A poor person today is only poor by comparison to the rest of society -- and certainly not in comparison to traditional notions of poverty.

In fact, while collecting welfare payments from taxpayers, a poor person can not only live a life of luxury -- as compared to the conditions found throughout most of human history -- but also a life of ease and leisure. Not backbreaking work. Not degrading work. Just living with no work at all!

So, a poor person has absolutely no excuse to commit a murder (or any other crime) and then complain that it had something to do with his deprivation. Heinous conduct, such as murder, has everything to do with narcissism and a sense of entitlement in a sick culture and nothing to do with poverty.

Most of this thread is blue pill thinking at its finest. No historical perspective. No moral distinctions. No scrutiny of the meaning of true poverty. No empathy for the victims. No thought for the future consequence of rewarding bad behavior today. Quite simply, no logic or reason.

All that stuff in your last paragraph. A man can't make decisions if he doesn't know they exist. How can anyone make good decisions if they don't have the education and socialization to do know what's available, and the experience necessary to do those things?

Post: #57

(04-22-2014 06:21 PM)soup Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 05:20 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(04-22-2014 03:48 PM)Wutang Wrote:  Should anyone be punished for committing a crime if they never had a chance to begin with as you are saying?

This is one of the biggest blue pill threads that I have ever seen.

The "deprived poor" in Western nations have a level of ease and comfort that no King of old, with all the wealth of the world, could have ever imagined. Even if those kings could have imagined such ease and comfort, all the wealth of the Earth could not have purchased what "the poor" possess today.

The "deprived poor" in Western nations have shelter, free medical care, free food with no possibility of starvation, refrigeration, stoves, cell phones, indoor plumbing, and even vehicles. A city bus offers more ease and comfort than the finest carriage of antiquity.

In short, the average poor person today lives better than any king of antiquity with no worries of starvation or death by infection and most childhood disease. A poor person today is only poor by comparison to the rest of society -- and certainly not in comparison to traditional notions of poverty.

In fact, while collecting welfare payments from taxpayers, a poor person can not only live a life of luxury -- as compared to the conditions found throughout most of human history -- but also a life of ease and leisure. Not backbreaking work. Not degrading work. Just living with no work at all!

So, a poor person has absolutely no excuse to commit a murder (or any other crime) and then complain that it had something to do with his deprivation. Heinous conduct, such as murder, has everything to do with narcissism and a sense of entitlement in a sick culture and nothing to do with poverty.

Most of this thread is blue pill thinking at its finest. No historical perspective. No moral distinctions. No scrutiny of the meaning of true poverty. No empathy for the victims. No thought for the future consequence of rewarding bad behavior today. Quite simply, no logic or reason.

All that stuff in your last paragraph. A man can't make decisions if he doesn't know they exist. How can anyone make good decisions if they don't have the education and socialization to do know what's available, and the experience necessary to do those things?

I think that you missed the context of that last paragraph. It was aimed not at the poor, but at members of this forum who actively participate in creating a society in which narcissism and a sense of entitlement enable poor people to believe that having less than others provides them with a free pass to harm other people -- despite being far more wealthy than all the kings, emperors, and pharaohs of history.

That feeds directly into your second point: how can anyone make good decisions if they don't have the education and socialization to do know what's available? There is only one way to do that. By rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior. It was true 2000 years ago. It is still true today. While that is something that parents should do, it is also something that society must do, which leads us back to the discussion of capital punishment.

If voters insist on remaining ignorant of history, basic concepts of morality, and no thought for the future consequence of rewarding bad behavior today -- in short, employing no logic or reason when electing policy-makers -- then we will all live in a hell hole. In a democracy, voters get the type of government that they deserve.

Post: #58

Quote: In a democracy, voters get the type of government that they deserve.

democracy comes from the greek demos=mob.

So it literally means mob rule.
I don't know who thought this is a good idea.

Post: #59

That's why "republic" was added to the gov't system's title. Supposedly, chosen representatives are meant offset pure majority rule, but it rarely plays out that way unless a movement hijacked by sensationalism or falsifies.

Post: #60

http://news.yahoo.com/court-drama-oklaho...13001.html

   

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Oklahoma plans to hold its first double execution in nearly 80 years, Gov. Mary Fallin said Thursday.

The move comes a day after the state Supreme Court removed one of the final obstacles, ruling late Wednesday that Clayton Lockett and Charles Warner are not entitled to know the source of the drugs that will be used to kill them. The inmates had sought that information through a civil lawsuit.

"The defendants had their day in court. The court has made a decision," Gov. Mary Fallin said in a statement. "Two men that do not contest their guilt in heinous murders will now face justice, and the families and friends of their victims will now have closure."

The Oklahoma Supreme Court also dissolved a stay of execution it had issued earlier in the week in a sharply divided and much criticized 5-4 decision. Because the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over criminal matters, Fallin and others accused the state's high court of initially overstepping its bounds.

"This ruling shows that our legal system works," Fallin said of the high court's latest decision.

The Oklahoma Department of Corrections is working on specifics and logistics of how the April 29 executions will be carried out, Fallin said. The state has not executed two inmates on the same day since convicted murderers Charlie Sands and Leon Siler were electrocuted on June 11, 1937.

Post: #61

White House: Botched Execution Was Not Humane
The White House is criticizing Oklahoma's botched execution of Clayton Lockett, who appeared to be in pain and struggling to sit up minutes after he was pronounced unconscious.

Press Secretary Jay Carney said that while he has not discussed the case with President Barack Obama, anyone would agree Tuesday's lethal injection was not humane.

"He has long said that while the evidence suggests that the death penalty does little to deter crime, he believes there are some crimes that are so heinous that the death penalty is merited," Carney said.

"In this case, or these cases, the crimes are indisputably horrific and heinous. But it's also the case that we have a fundamental standard in this country that even when the death penalty is justified, it must be carried out humanely. And I think everyone would recognize that this case fell short of that standard."

Lockett's execution was halted by prison officials who said an intravenous line blew, but he died afterward of a massive heart attack.

A second execution scheduled for that night was postponed for at least two weeks while state officials conduct a review.

It was the first execution using Oklahoma's new three-drug protocol, which defense lawyers have denounced as experimental. Lockett also fought unsuccessfully to force the state to reveal where it obtained the chemical.

Lockett's aunt, Deanna Parker, told NBC News that she agreed with the White House's characterization of her nephew's death.

"I wish they would have spoken up before all this," she said.

— Tracy Connor

Post: #62

How the fuck hard is it to OD the guy on barbiturates?

I've had more than one dog put down and it's not a difficult thing to do. Why in holy hell do they need three drugs?

Post: #63

(04-30-2014 06:30 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  How the fuck hard is it to OD the guy on barbiturates?

I've had more than one dog put down and it's not a difficult thing to do. Why in holy hell do they need three drugs?

It is liberalism: why do it the easy way, when you can do it the stupid way?

Post: #64

.45 to the head is the most cost effective way to fix this & it's less than a dollar per bullet.

Post: #65

Glaucon if you don't like democracy, try moving to North Korea.