It's all getting a bit smashy here in London.
I wanted to say hello to other London-dwelling AGSers. It's quiet where me and Nelly live, but she works in Brixton (where it's even less quiet than usual) and lots of our friends are in Hackney.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14450248
It's a real shame, because these are riots without a real motive. Some people are venting legitimate frustration, but there's no ideology or meaningful protest. Just a lot of people taking advantage of an opportunity for violence and looting.
On a side note, I'm off to Greece tomorrow (they know how to riot there, I'm going to pick up tips).
- Al
That's the thing though, isn't it? It's not like a protest like the Greek do it, it's more like a pointless violence riot and an excuse to smash buildings. This is what the student protests turned into a while ago. I don't know if it's a British thing or a British youngster thing, but it doesn't seem they are actually protesting against something, rather than just randomly trying to show that they are above the law...
1. Bring in the military
2. Authorize rubber bullets
3. Watch, realize its not nearly enough
4. Bring in helicopters
5. Authorize lethal force
6. ?????
7. Profit!
I think the comparisons to the student protests aren't really fair. This kind of pointless violence puts the peaceful occupation of Fortnum & Mason and a spot of cenotaph-swinging into context.
But I agree that this is pointless, and self-destructive violence.
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 09/08/2011 09:42:30
1. Bring in the military
2. Authorize rubber bullets
3. Watch, realize its not nearly enough
4. Bring in helicopters
5. Authorize lethal force
6. ?????
7. Profit!
You forgot rubber nuclear weapons.
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 09/08/2011 09:42:30
1. Bring in the military
2. Authorize rubber bullets
I don't know whether this is a joke, but it makes perfect sense to me ;D
With no resistance there will never be pure discipline. I'd love to live in a world where anarchy is impossible. PM says he is putting 16,000 officers on the streets tonight, and canceling all police leave. Let's hope it goes with a no-restraint policy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14450248
Just look at the video here. It's blatant disregard for authority. I wish they'd just go and beat the hoodies in the streets, or get mounted police and ride them down. These people are destroying homes and businesses, looting shops, some of them have done it for three nights in a row. The government needs to start showing serious aggression (soon, before it inevitably dies down), otherwise for me its image of feeble restraint will be perpetual. It's a good insight into memetic nature though.
I agree, most riots tend to calm down once the government start shooting civilians.
We ought to get those Syrian guys to help us out.
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 09/08/2011 09:42:30
1. Bring in the military
2. Authorize rubber bullets
3. Watch, realize its not nearly enough
4. Bring in helicopters
5. Authorize lethal force
6. ?????
7. Profit!
6. Reduced population leads to lower unemployment, and reduction in welfare payments.....
When a peaceful protest turns violent, the truly peaceful protesters, if they have a brain cell between them, will leave the area when the police arrive.
Thus all thats left on the streets are the hoodlums and anarchists. I say "if they don't follow orders, shoot a few, see if they learn a lesson".
All we get rid of is the hooligans and criminals and those stupid anough not to lie down on the ground when told to do so by the police.
It's hard to say for antoher country, but if this happened in my country - this is clearly not protesting, just pure rioting and oportunistic violence - army, rubber bullets and the dogs seem to be doing a good job. Everybody caught while looting - community service of the lowest level for several years, as for arson and violence - jail time. If your action is against the rest of the society then society can hit back.
This is not to say that a lot of politicians don't deserve the same.
On the plus point, I didn't know where in London Tottenham and Hackney actually were until they showed it on the map in the news.
It's worth mentioning that it's spread to Birmingham, Nottingham, Bristol, and Liverpool too. 99% of the people 'rioting' in these cities have never even heard of Mark Duggan.
Quote from: Ali on Tue 09/08/2011 11:27:04
I agree, most riots tend to calm down once the government start shooting civilians.
In my opinion they lose their citizenship when they put on a balaclava and go out for a night of sticking their middle finger up at society.
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 09/08/2011 11:29:31
Thus all thats left on the streets are the hoodlums and anarchists. I say "if they don't follow orders, shoot a few, see if they learn a lesson".
I think the Brits learned that doesn't work in Northern Ireland.
Shooting at religious fanatics and those with true ideals will just create martyrs and people's heroes.
Shooting at thugs and criminals, I doubt will affect much more than said thugs and those who are like them. Thus we can identify them and act on this knowledge, forcefully.
Also: Community service is fine, jail time is not. These people need to be put into the service of the community, whereas if we put them in prison, the community will pay, thorugh taxes, for them to get dressed, fed and taken care of for long time, while getting nothing back at all.
Saying they lose their citizenship when they go out to riot is just right. No citizenship, no rights. Service guarantees citizenship!
http://www.thereheis.com/nucleus3.22/media/gallery/20090215-starshiptroopers-joinupnow.jpg
http://www.grouchoreviews.com/content/films/3154/3.jpg
I can see this thread is diving headfirst into nonsenseville, so I will say this:
I hope all the London AGSers are okay. Ali, sir, I really hope your area is okay, and that you and your loved ones remain (relatively) unaffected.
I'm contemplating a trip down to see it for myself tonight, obviously not going to join in with the riots. I want to take my video camera and document everything, then i have loads of HD footage of riots, for when i make that big end of the world film.
Quote from: veryweirdguy on Tue 09/08/2011 11:51:20
I can see this thread is diving headfirst into nonsenseville, so I will say this:
I hope all the London AGSers are okay. Ali, sir, I really hope your area is okay, and that you and your loved ones remain (relatively) unaffected.
Thanks vwg, all's well with me and mine at the moment.
Chicky, if you're going filming why not look for something other than the violence. For instance it's quite inspiring to hear this Hackney woman's address to rioters: http://www.twitvid.com/4JTZH
Quote from: Atelier on Tue 09/08/2011 11:36:25
In my opinion they lose their citizenship when they put on a balaclava and go out for a night of sticking their middle finger up at society.
In my opinion, and by coincidence the
law, they don't.
There is genuine, albeit ill-informed anger amongst the rioters. Of course none of that excuses their behaviour and violence is always deplorable but we must keep a level head.
There seems to be a culture of revenge in the UK of late. We should aim to rehabilitate not retribute. (I so hope that is a word)
EDIT: Wait I just reread the thread. Some of you are suggesting *shooting at them*? Like.. with guns?
Italian newspapers are more interested in Cameron not tipping a waitress and then taking a pic with her and whatelse whatever.
Glad to know Ali & fiancée are still in one piece! Please keep us informed!
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 09/08/2011 14:07:36
EDIT: Wait I just reread the thread. Some of you are suggesting *shooting at them*? Like.. with guns?
I know - what is this, a first-person-shooter forum?
We should solve our problems with talking. And if that doesn't work, combining inventory items.
Thanks bicilotti, but I'm flying to Greece this afternoon. Hopefully Nelly will resist the urge to start smashing and looting while I'm away.
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 09/08/2011 11:50:25
Shooting at religious fanatics and those with true ideals will just create martyrs and people's heroes.
Shooting at thugs and criminals, I doubt will affect much more than said thugs and those who are like them.
So your idea to stop riots is to recreate the conditions for a riot?
Quote
Saying they lose their citizenship when they go out to riot is just right. No citizenship, no rights. Service guarantees citizenship!
...and with no rights, they do what exactly? Riot maybe? I would for sure!
As long as society is so brutally organized and hostile as it is, there will be riots. I consider it pointless and even malicious to point fingers on some rioters while there's always
Quote from: Ali on Mon 08/08/2011 18:20:25
legitimate frustration
among the people. Sometimes there's a sudden burst which leads to destruction and violence. Should we care so much about the actual situation that lead to the riot? Should we care so much about who actually participates in the riot? Or should we think about what's going wrong with how people live together?
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 09/08/2011 14:07:36
EDIT: Wait I just reread the thread. Some of you are suggesting *shooting at them*? Like.. with guns?
O yeah, and let's shoot everyone. This thread could function as a fascist's guide to power.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 09/08/2011 14:07:36
EDIT: Wait I just reread the thread. Some of you are suggesting *shooting at them*? Like.. with guns?
Not with live ammunition ;) Talking rubber bullets, water cannons, and the like.
Quote from: Ali on Tue 09/08/2011 13:55:06
Quote from: Atelier on Tue 09/08/2011 11:36:25
In my opinion they lose their citizenship when they put on a balaclava and go out for a night of sticking their middle finger up at society.
In my opinion, and by coincidence the law, they don't.
Ok, but I ask myself why is it like that in the first place?
These people have destroyed whole communities (economically, physically, socially), so why are they shown leniency before during and after? I know it would be different if these were legitimate anger-fueled protests. But they're not! People are just calling on their mates, crawling out the woodwork, and going out for a bit of free late-night shopping. Anybody would be disillusioned to say these people have a cause. Their only cause is to loot phone shops and businesses then burn down flats and wreck cars for the lols. In one area they looted a charity shop. What the hell is the point in that?
And in my book, if you have an attitude like that towards society, you don't deserve to be part of society. What is so wrong with that?
Quote from: Atelier on Tue 09/08/2011 17:16:45
And in my book, if you have an attitude like that towards society, you don't deserve to be part of society. What is so wrong with that?
Because people make mistakes. These are *kids*. You think they should be just kicked out of society for a mistake at 16 years old?
Shooting people is bad. Rioting is bad too. :(
I wish people could be nice and stuff.
What makes this hard is differentiating between people with an actual grievance and people who want to take whatever they can grab from JD Sports because "it's free ennit".
There are many people in this country who feel disenfranchised by the cuts the government have been forced to make during recent times, and for some, this is the only way they feel they can make themselves heard. Shooting rubber bullets and bean bags might stop the violence but it won't cure the problem that allows it to happen. Sure, "thugs" have taken hold of this grievance as an excuse, but it doesn't stop there being a grievance to address. Until we can establish proper communications across the strata of society end everyone can feel like they are being represented, this will not go away.
The violence should stop. It should not be stopped with tear gas.
I'm not sure about offering cookies and milk to rebels. Throughout history, violent and severe suppression has been first choice method when dealing with rebellion of any kind. England should have rich and colorful history/experience on that matter... In Russia, OMON (special purpose police unit) usually blockades rioting mass, breaks into smaller groups, which are forced into separate streets and beaten until everybody wants to go home. Cruel and undemocratic yes, but...
Thing is, it works. Without bullets and heavy number of casualties.
Also, this guarantees orderly innocents normal life. You don't care about police scolding some hoodlums when alternatively, you could get robbed and beaten by that same angry mob instead.
However high our pacifist/anarchist dreams might be, a city/community of the size and ethnic mixture like London has, the law and order must be concrete to make it all work. But of course, it's a free world and choosing to cower in your home while angry mob is burning your car to give ruling power a middle finger and news networks something to chew, while thinking if that shop you work at is still there next morning -- is a choice like any other and not to be criticized... :P
I kind of stumbled into this thread since I'm currently waiting in Seoul in transit to London :(
I'm only there for 3 days before I continue on to France but still... sucky timing on my part. Are they settling down at all? I'm a bit out of the news loop...
I hear Tuesday night was not so bad and the locals say it's quite safe to go around, especially in tourist areas...
If in fact, Great Britain has become a totalitarian state and an unable country like Russia at its best, such riots are expected, and then there needs to be a solution to them. Either you learn how to extinguish your peoples opinions day after day or you find out what's wrong, like civilized countries do, and try to work it out. Hell, the society is there because of the people, and if they keep fucking with them, things like this are bound to happen. And this can be considered an educational example. No, you can't go shooting them, you'll have another riot, which you'll then shoot down again. You'll start a culture of riots and chaos like in countries that really have nothing to do with democracy. GB is going there, fast too, but the cure is to weigh the options, why are the people acting up as they are and what can be done? The solution is a national change in politics, in the approach, that is what makes everyone frustrated, and NOT by shooting them until they go home, lick their wounds and come back again to collect some more rubber.
At this point the guy shot down in his car means nothing, people are angry at the ones who tell them what and how to do, and it's going to continue until something is done. You can't give someone a reason to fight and then complain when he's doing so.
Let me see:
The people are revolting because the police are too brutal and the budget cuts are hitting the poor.
They riot, which will eventually force the police to act even more brutally.
The riots break public property, which has to be repaired and the repair funds come out of tax money, which in turn will cause the budget to suffer.
Result: either no effect or negative effect in police attitudes, even worse financial situation likely to force government to even more budget cuts, which will hit the poor.
Wait the piss in your own cereal!
EDIT: Rubber bullets are now ready and authorized! Only 4 days too late! ;D
Stole from Massive Attack FB account :
In context with the complicit support of the government, the banks looted the nation's wealth while destroying countless small businesses and brought the whole economy to its knees in a covert, clean manner, rather like organised crime.
Our reaction was to march and wave banners and then bail them out. These kids would have to riot and steal every night for a year to run up a bill equivalent to the value of non-paid tax big business has 'avoided' out of the economy this year alone.
They may not articulate their grievances like the politicians that condemn them but this is absolutely political. As for the 'mindless violence'… is there anything more mindless than the British taxpayer quietly paying back the debts of others while contributing bullets to conflicts that we have absolutely no understanding of?
It's mad, sad and scary when we have to take to the streets to defend our homes and businesses from angry thieving kids, but where are the police and what justice is ever done when the mob is dressed in pin stripe.
This, and Matti's post sum my position.
QuoteThere are many people in this country who feel disenfranchised by the cuts the government have been forced to make during recent times, and for some, this is the only way they feel they can make themselves heard.
One must draw a rigid line between peaceful protest and anarchy. Looting is NOT a political statement, it's a statement of people being out of control and reckless and dangerous. As to why the police were ordered to stand down, I have my own theory, and it has a lot to do with restricting the rights of
decent ukers to join and form peaceful protest groups.
Also, and I say this with all honesty, Amazon should be ashamed of themselves for banning ukers from purchasing defensive items to protect themselves and their families and they should not have given in to political pressure to do so. When you no longer have a
right to protect yourself, your belongings, and your family, you may as well be a slave. Seeing videos of the uk police going around and harassing decent shop owners for defending themselves is nothing less than disgusting to me and should be disgusting to any liberty minded individual.
Make no mistake, I am NOT on the side of the looters. They are scum, plain and simple. They have run over people, set innocent shop owners' businesses on fire, and ransacked and pillaged just because they were ALLOWED to get away with it by the police.
I think Sam's point has merit, but not in the case of the looters. To be sure, there are and must be many ukers that, like many Americans, are sick and tired of government enforced 'austerity' brought on by corrupt bankers who sold us all onto a ponzi scheme of trillions of dollars in fake derivatives. For these people I have the greatest sympathy, the middle class especially who is being targeted and systematically eradicated. These people have legitimate reasons for protest, but when you rebel against the SYSTEM, you don't go looting shop-owners...You storm parliament, you burn the homes of the politicians you see as corrupt, you REVOLT against the people responsible. And I'm not saying it's good to burn down parliament officials' homes, either, but at least then I could say 'yeah, these people are in rebellion'.
What I see in the uk right now isn't a rebellion or a protest, it's just some punks and scumbags hurting honest people because they can get away with it. Meanwhile, this 'event' will be used to further restrict the rights of actual protesters from peaceably gathering and making their voices heard.
Riots. Well, I used to believe they are utterly pointless, and sometimes they are. Sometimes they are just a way to kill a movement. But frankly the situation in the world is getting worse every day. Cause this is capitalism. And well, the main thing about capitalism is that , well, rich get richer.
The fact that people break things isn't always the best thing, I'd prefer if it was the parliament, any given day. But well, reaction is a start. Saying that "a riot shall be peaceful and stuff", I'd like to be pointed to a revolution anywhere in any part of the world, at any time, that didn't include a shed of blood.
You can't also expect that people on both sides won't think of doing something stupid. Whether that is police violence out of nowhere, or looting. I'm honestly shaken to see people here and facebook, be so closeminded.
And I wish all that hatred taken to lamp posts and stores and everything else in the way, was just focused on something else.
What I'm saying and i hope I'm not really misunderstood, is that a reaction is good.
I've been keeping track of the news and I've noticed one really great thing: the media are publishing NAMES of people who have been convicted of looting and rioting. This is GREAT!
I think all who are caught and found guilty of looting and violence should get their names and faces and even home addresses posted all over the media and the internet. I can imagine the future of these people, going into job interviews and getting turned down due to their criminal history so they will have to live in misery for the rest of their short days.
Ah, if only the world were so perfect...
This is no revolution or manifestation of freedom- this is a bunch of kids who never bothered to work stealing TVs for the sake of having fun. I read something about taking away their benefits and I really hope that happens- these lazy bastards get paid by hard working people's taxes, well, hopefully not for much longer.
Someone I know suggested we take all hoodies out of the country and onto an isolated island on the Pacific... Now, wouldn't that be great? Until they'd figured how to build boats and come back we'd get ourselves few years of peace and quiet...
Boats? I think you rate their intelligence a little high Grim, these guys can't even make it to the Job Centre.
Quote from: Grim on Sun 14/08/2011 03:44:08
This is no revolution or manifestation of freedom- this is a bunch of kids who never bothered to work stealing TVs for the sake of having fun.
And how do you know of such fact, may I inquire you?
Quote from: Dualnames on Sun 14/08/2011 03:57:25
Quote from: Grim on Sun 14/08/2011 03:44:08
This is no revolution or manifestation of freedom- this is a bunch of kids who never bothered to work stealing TVs for the sake of having fun.
And how do you know of such fact, may I inquire you?
I read a paper.
The finnish newspaper (rag) "Iltalehti" had a small story in which they listed some of the rioters who had been accused already: 11 year old child (too young to take any responsibility), schoolhteacher (good luck having any credibility in your job now), high-school student (missed her exams due to being in jail for a week, has a rich father)...
The list just goes on!
These were not young people without jobs. These are idiots with functional lives who just noticed a chance to have a spot of "fun" and get free stuff while having "fun".
And how sure are you, that the paper is telling the truth? Cause we all know how media are so TRUTHFUL.
I don't know and I dont care. I just hope as many rioters as possible suffer as much as possible. 8)
Quote from: WHAM on Sun 14/08/2011 12:38:02
I don't know and I dont care. I just hope as many rioters as possible suffer as much as possible. 8)
And here comes the big silly question. Why?
I believe a person who disproportionately causes harm to others for personal gain should receive as much punishment as is appropriate.
Look at this picture (link):
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/london_riots/bp23.jpg
"Aaron Biber, 89, assesses the damage to his hairdressing salon after riots on Tottenham High Road on August 7, 2011. (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)"
Just to be safe, look at the whole gallery:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/08/london_riots.html
Now ask who did this and why. Why did the 89 year old barber and thousands of others have their businesses and lives ruined?
I'll just wait until you have your answers to those questions.
. . .
Now that you do have answsers to my questions, I believe you've answered your own one as well.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 09/08/2011 17:18:46
Quote from: Atelier on Tue 09/08/2011 17:16:45
And in my book, if you have an attitude like that towards society, you don't deserve to be part of society. What is so wrong with that?
Because people make mistakes. These are *kids*. You think they should be just kicked out of society for a mistake at 16 years old?
Yes. By then they should know that destroying an innocent person's home, business, car etc is wrong. And nobody makes the accidental purposeful mistake of wearing their best hoody and going out for a few hours looting.
Aside from that, I'm astounded how anybody can actually defend them. Oh they are such poor souls. Their lives are so oppressive, so hard, in comparison to people dying from starvation and disease in Kenyan refugee camps. It's not fair how they're given the chance at a free education. It's not fair their life is served to them on a silver platter. Society must change! Actually no fuck that, why don't they change their attitude and be grateful for living in a country that strives to do everything for them?
Some kids near where I live attacked a police station, as far as I can tell, just because they'd seen stuff on the news and wanted to join in, so presumably they liked the look of it. :(
There were seven of them. The police pretty much sat on them.
Quote from: GrimI read something about taking away their benefits and I really hope that happens
So then you have a load of people who have already shown that they are willing to violently steal who have no legal means of supporting themselves. That don't sound like it'd work out too well, I doubt they'd go "Oh, that's me shown, I guess I'll sit down quietly and starve to death now." Something definitely needs to be done to address the problem, but forcing people into crime to survive isn't the answer.
Quote from: GrimI read a paper.
While I'm in agreement that a lot of the rioters were probably in it for nothing but personal gain, I think we've learned recently in the UK that the press really isn't to be trusted.
Quote from: WhamI believe a person who disproportionately causes harm to others for personal gain should receive as much punishment as is appropriate.
Slightly off topic, but this is something that interests me, I find our human urge/need(?) for revenge pretty fascinating. If, as a hypothetical, criminal behaviour was found to be caused purely by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and could be fixed just by giving someone a pill, would you be happy to have captured criminals given this pill and then sent on their way free, cured and good citizens, or would you still want them to be made to suffer some?
Quote from: WhamNow ask who did this and why. Why did the 89 year old barber and thousands of others have their businesses and lives ruined?
I'll just wait until you have your answers to those questions.
I wish we could answer this question. If we could say why people like to hurt each other, we'd be on our way to somewhere better. I'm coming more and more to the opinion that it's just because we're primates, and that's what we're like. And I can't see much that can be done about that. :(
This whole 'they rioted therefore deserve all the shit we can throw them!' argument is pathetic. WHAM, you sound like an angry teenager who needs something to rant about. Sorry man, you're cool and stuff otherwise.
QuoteNow ask who did this and why. Why did the 89 year old barber and thousands of others have their businesses and lives ruined?
I'll just wait until you have your answers to those questions.
. . .
Now that you do have answsers to my questions, I believe you've answered your own one as well.
The chavs rioted, they smashed shit, they beat people up. This is nothing new in England, this happens every weekend, the only difference is the sheer magnitude of the events. I go out drinking with a girlfriend, we get abuse shouted across a car park, we ignore it, they approach, we get threatened and knocked around, we leave, the chavs go smash up a building site, throw half the materials in the local pond.
These are the people that started the rioting, they did it because they're fucking stupid and have been allowed to get away with it hundreds of times before. When i was but a young teen there was a large fight in my town, a group of say 20 of us 'rockers' and 30 odd 'chavs'. After having the shit scared out of us and a friend held at knife point the police arrive, what do they do? They restrain us whilst the scummy little inbreeders make a run for it.
Now to my point, if i were there when these lads are running off with a new TV and a massive grin; and there was a say a Canon 5D mkII sat waiting to be taken (then most likely smashed by one of them), i'm not sure i would be able to resist taking it. But then it's these people that the police are clamping down on, when in reality a lot of them were probably just jumping on the bandwagon. "why should they get a load of cool free stuff" comes to mind.
I'm not justifying their actions, there's a reason we all didn't start stealing shit. But it's pretty blatant who the real offenders are in this situation. Why waste time punishing someone with a new pair of shoes when there were people throwing fire bombs and brutally attacking innocent bystanders.
@Chicky: I personally believe that punishments for crime should be tougher all around. I truly want to believe that the majority of us humans are civilized and "good people", and that those few who break the law and loot and riot should be punished so heavily that they will either be removed from the society or forced to conform.
Maybe I am naive, maybe I am, as you say, "and angry teenager with a rant", but still I want to believe.
I want to add that I believe the only reason people defend actions like this, or seek to lessen the punishments for criminals, is due to these people being criminals on some level themselves. I see no other reason to defend such activity, which has no place in a civilized society's streets. If people want violent entertainment, let them have an arena and televize the figts, actually, lets just put all criminals in an arena and commercialize their deaths. This would be fine by me. Radical, tough, extreme, but hellishly effective.
Feel free to disagree, but think about it. Do we need prisons? Do we need to pamper criminals? Or could we put these creatures that are closer to beast than a person to some sort of use that could serve the rest of us?
Quote from: Grim on Sun 14/08/2011 03:44:08
Someone I know suggested we take all hoodies out of the country and onto an isolated island on the Pacific... Now, wouldn't that be great? Until they'd figured how to build boats and come back we'd get ourselves few years of peace and quiet...
Battle Royale, anyone? But hide th cameras, or they'll steal them :D
@wham - But does punishing people incredibly harshly stop them from transgressing again? The American prison system looks pretty nightmarish, but they have a very high re-offending rate.
If it isn't effective, then doesn't the desire for such a system speak of sadism in those who desire it?
Quote from: Tuomas on Sun 14/08/2011 15:57:08
Battle Royale, anyone? But hide th cameras, or they'll steal them :D
I approve of this.
@Creed Maladay
As I said above: prisons are ineffective as you eventually get out of them. When criminals are released, their criminal record keeps them from jobs and ensures their lives remain miserable. It would be better to do something else with such individuals. I say we reinstate the roman colosseum!
No, seriously! What was the name of the Schwartzenegger movie where they did something similiar? THAT would be awesome entertainment!
Quote from: WHAM on Sun 14/08/2011 15:26:30
I want to add that I believe the only reason people defend actions like this, or seek to lessen the punishments for criminals, is due to these people being criminals on some level themselves.
I believe the only people making arguments like that are closeted (or not-so-closeted) fascists. And if you disagree with that, you must be a child molester.
Hey, this is a nifty form of argument!
Quote from: WHAM on Sun 14/08/2011 15:26:30
@Chicky: I personally believe that punishments for crime should be tougher all around. I truly want to believe that the majority of us humans are civilized and "good people", and that those few who break the law and loot and riot should be punished so heavily that they will either be removed from the society or forced to conform.
Maybe I am naive, maybe I am, as you say, "and angry teenager with a rant", but still I want to believe.
I want to add that I believe the only reason people defend actions like this, or seek to lessen the punishments for criminals, is due to these people being criminals on some level themselves. I see no other reason to defend such activity, which has no place in a civilized society's streets. If people want violent entertainment, let them have an arena and televize the figts, actually, lets just put all criminals in an arena and commercialize their deaths. This would be fine by me. Radical, tough, extreme, but hellishly effective.
Feel free to disagree, but think about it. Do we need prisons? Do we need to pamper criminals? Or could we put these creatures that are closer to beast than a person to some sort of use that could serve the rest of us?
I agree with lots of what you say. On one hand prisons are ideal for violent offenders (to protect the average person rather than for their own good)... instead I'd like prisons to be a last resort, and the average crim to be put on community service more often! Give them hard work, not a prison cell! Clear up the litter, mow the public park, scrape the chewing gum off pavements, tend to the flowers (ok now I'm pushing it).
Now that I think about it, what kind of punishment is locking somebody up anyway? It's like putting a child on the naughty step, but for longer and with more mental trauma, and with other kids who can give you tricks on the next best way to steal from the cookie jar! And the dad (prison guards) may slip you some sweets (drugs) if you're lucky.
However WHAM you lost me when you spoke about televising bloodshed :P It reminds me of something... I can't quite place it...
Oh yeah, the Middle Ages. This is 2011 not 1311! And just think of how many complaints would go through OFCOM!
What we could do is round all the rioters up and then just gun them down. Kill them.
That would solve the problem, right? [/sarcasm]
It saddens me that you actually do need that /sarcasm tag here. Killing people is bad plzkthnx :(
QuoteThe American prison system looks pretty nightmarish, but they have a very high re-offending rate.
Duh! They are professional criminals; it's what they do.
Over the past decade "three strikes laws", where a third felony conviction carries a life sentence, have been all the rage. In states where it's been adopted crime rates have significantly fallen. After a while you run out of people who choose crime as a profession.
The prison system in the US is also excellent at propping up the economy, providing slave labour for menial tasks.
Everyone loves slavery.
Okay, I'm starting to feel like a troll or an angsty teenager, so I'll stop spouting my madness after this.
@Atelier: Actually I'm not thinking of the middle / dark ages, I'm going even further back to the glorious Roman empire around 2050 years ago. They actually did put criminals either into a colosseum for a good show, or made slaves out of them, with no moral issues or thought about "human rights". While I'm not a fan of raping and pillaging, you have to admit they had some good things going on back there.
Sorry for ranting guys! WHAM, out!
I am actually speechless.
I am nearly speechless. The only speech remaining is the speech conveying that I am nearly speechless and that the only speech remaining is the speech conveying that I am nearly speechless and that the only speech remaining is the and so on and so forth.
I'm sorry but I actually agree with Wham...
Without further explaining, I'll let this link speak of the solution I have in mind for this problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVOSfHFNlcI
And, Dual, I don't think you realize what British hoodies are like... Perhaps it's a bit different in Greece, especially since recent problems you had... But thugs here are real something....
Quote from: veryweirdguy on Tue 09/08/2011 11:51:20
I can see this thread is diving headfirst into nonsenseville,
Told you!
Not enough people in this thread have seen Attack The Block, and when the alien invasion comes, they won't know who to turn to.
Let's shoot the poor. They're not 'productive' anyway.
Just a thought!
@Matti: Stop trolling please! >:(
The way I see it, the English government totally mishandled this situation. Why didn't they deploy watercannons or used rubber bullets from the start? I heard one of those politicians mention it would be inhumane to do so, but in the end 4 innocent people died.
However, I like how they're systematically tracing looters and rioters so their criminal acts won't go unpunished. Thank god for CCTV. One of the most important tools in fighting crime!
Quote from: Sonny Bonds on Sun 21/08/2011 16:10:02
The way I see it, the English government totally mishandled this situation. Why didn't they deploy watercannons or used rubber bullets from the start?
Because that would have been inappropriate.
Overlooking the danger of escalating violence clashes, water cannons and rubber bullets are used to
disperse crowds. The recent riots were many separate instances of looting and violence, there was not one large body of people to disperse. Water cannons and rubber bullets wouldn't have achieved anything.
I'd normally take any opportunity to criticise the coalition government, but they were right to avoid a disproportionately violent response.
Though a bit extreme, this woman does possess clear logic:
http://melaniephillips.com/how-the-liberals-ruined-britain
Collapse of morals and traditional culture (of which, religion CAN BE a part) behind it is pretty much what could lead to such corrupted thinking and emotions that makes people burn down their home street. I'm not preacher of traditional family values nor religious in any way, but maybe chilling the fuck down and trying to fill crazy heads and minds with something that has proven itsself over centuries would help.
In other words, maybe UK should tone down on piranha capitalism and re-domesticate lower class using traditional methods, like nationalism, religion or football. Get everyone involved into something. They sure do want to cooperate and feel united... just that rioting on street isn't the best form of it I think.
Yankees know how to do it perfectly. Like creating image of common enemy in every 5-10 years...
The flaw in all these arguments about how "liberals ruined Britain" and how "the collapse of morals and traditional culture" is to blame for these riots is that these things have happened throughout history (http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2011/08/civil-disorder-and-looting-hits-britain-0). In fact, since the last time English cities burned on a large scale - in the eighties - it's been an unusually long period of calm, so it'd be more logical to argue that liberal policies have reduced the frequency of riots.
Yes, there are probably problems in British society and culture that need to be addressed so people will behave decently, but they are not new developments.
Quote from: Ali on Sun 21/08/2011 18:00:43
Quote from: Sonny Bonds on Sun 21/08/2011 16:10:02
The way I see it, the English government totally mishandled this situation. Why didn't they deploy watercannons or used rubber bullets from the start?
Because that would have been inappropriate.
Overlooking the danger of escalating violence clashes, water cannons and rubber bullets are used to disperse crowds. The recent riots were many separate instances of looting and violence, there was not one large body of people to disperse. Water cannons and rubber bullets wouldn't have achieved anything.
I'd normally take any opportunity to criticise the coalition government, but they were right to avoid a disproportionately violent response.
I may be in the wrong here, but judging by some of these photo's I've seen crowds of rioters outnumbering the police force ten to one. Instead of having the means necessary to drive these crowds back, the police were forced to retreat and give up their space numerous times. I can assure you their desire to riot and loot would be a lot less if only a couple of their friends were made an example of in a non-lethal way. That's what I meant with the usage of rubber bullets.
Criminals need to be dealt with swiftly, they should never feel like they're the ones running the show.
Quote from: Sonny Bonds on Mon 22/08/2011 17:34:13
I may be in the wrong here, but judging by some of these photo's I've seen crowds of rioters outnumbering the police force ten to one. Instead of having the means necessary to drive these crowds back, the police were forced to retreat and give up their space numerous times. I can assure you their desire to riot and loot would be a lot less if only a couple of their friends were made an example of in a non-lethal way. That's what I meant with the usage of rubber bullets.
Criminals need to be dealt with swiftly, they should never feel like they're the ones running the show.
As I said, there were several violent confrontations but it's wrong to imagine the riots were happening in one place with one large group of people who need to be dispersed.
I'm afraid I'm not convinced by your assurances that a spot of violence on the police's part would have cleared matters up. If the police had taken extreme measures then the stakes would have been raised. I think it's much more likely that it would have resulted in more violent retaliation.
The ordinary people have limited capacity for violent response, and in a well run state, the police and the government always have more power at their disposal than the common rabble.
If the police escalate, the normal people will give in and go home, in fear of violence and pain.
The ones who remain on the streets are trash, animals and criminals, and those deserve no mercy on the part of the police.
There should not be a "spot of violence" on the police's part, I'm talking about decisive action to control, assimilate and annihilate these criminal masses who are wrecking the streets, ruining thousands of lives and businesses and causing deaths of good police officers who live to serve and protect the common citizen.
Quote from: Ali on Mon 22/08/2011 19:28:17
Quote from: Sonny Bonds on Mon 22/08/2011 17:34:13
I may be in the wrong here, but judging by some of these photo's I've seen crowds of rioters outnumbering the police force ten to one. Instead of having the means necessary to drive these crowds back, the police were forced to retreat and give up their space numerous times. I can assure you their desire to riot and loot would be a lot less if only a couple of their friends were made an example of in a non-lethal way. That's what I meant with the usage of rubber bullets.
Criminals need to be dealt with swiftly, they should never feel like they're the ones running the show.
As I said, there were several violent confrontations but it's wrong to imagine the riots were happening in one place with one large group of people who need to be dispersed.
I'm afraid I'm not convinced by your assurances that a spot of violence on the police's part would have cleared matters up. If the police had taken extreme measures then the stakes would have been raised. I think it's much more likely that it would have resulted in more violent retaliation.
You can't beat the police, even though technically any police force in the world is outnumbered by civilians, not everyone is willing to wage war against a well-trained organisation such as the police. WHAM is right that after any such violent response from the police, a majority of them would retreat and call it a day. They know they can't beat the police and they won't even try.
I am not trying to condone violence here, but these criminals should have been dealt with in the only way they would understand. Physical punishment.
If you're going to keep talking about criminals as if they're a different species, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Yeah, because I am not buying the "they're just normal people with problems" rhetoric. People like you (I hope) and me would never participate in these kind of riots and lootings because we have standards and values. No matter how tempting a free LCD-TV is, if you take something which is not yours, you are a thief. Taking advantage of a city in shambles is exactly what seperates a criminal from a upstanding citizen.
Indeed, I judge people by their actions, and the way these rioters destroyed their own city deserve nothing but contempt. So yes, I judge them as if they're another species and thats how they should be treated.
Was Sonny Bonds like this in the games?
The reality is that we dont live in a society which thinks that people forfeit their rights the second they break the law. If you actually look at some of the people who were arrested and charged then you find that they *are* normal people. Sometimes kids who have had no other brushes with the law at all.
History has frequently taught us that mob mentality can turn ordinary, hard working people into criminals very very quickly.
And it is the GOOD people who can resist mob mentality, can identify it and can respond to it in a calm and collected manner. It is the BAD people, who cannot control their emotions, their greed and their violence. To be more precise: their ANIMALITY.
It is these people we could do without, it is these people we should, indeed, we MUST control and contain.
I suggest that you read Lord of the Flies.
I take it that's for me, Calin. I've read Lord of the Flies, and enjoyed it greatly, thank you. I actually read it twice.
In my opinion it is a wonderfully accurate depiction of how human society is brought down by its lesser, though more numerous, elements, and how the wise ones are pushed into the sidelines as weak and unwanted.
In a wild environment it is the wild who survive. We must fight to keep our society from collapsing back into a wilderness, to keep it civilized and hospitable.
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 23/08/2011 19:51:43
In a wild environment it is the wild who survive. We must fight to keep our society from collapsing back into a wilderness, to keep it civilized and hospitable.
Yes, and forfeiting people's right is deeply uncivilized. You seem to want to fight evil with evil, you can't do this and claim the moral high-ground.
To me this all sounds like:
"What?! They are causing us harm? LET'S HARM THEM!!!"
...Which is fucking insane.
The so called civilization is what keeps people like [name any politician here] alive, and people in countries all over Africa die from hunger. And not just people. KIDS !!!
So, please, this isn't civilization. This is and always have been an elegant way to hide the real problems.
I prefer wildness over this.
At least there you know, who holds the rock.
:(
Disregard for human rights makes me a sad panda.
Lets not forget that technically speaking certain people's rights are already forfeited when they commit a crime and are 'robbed of their freedom' for it. That's what current law dictates.
Point is, if you can't control your urges and get dragged away in the mob mentality of stealing and vandalizing stuff, or even rob people, you should not cry police brutality if you get your ass kicked. Just because they're doing it, is not an excuse and you should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law possible.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Tue 23/08/2011 19:39:35
Was Sonny Bonds like this in the games?
You're right. I am pretty sure he did not engage in political discussions on internet forums. ;)
@Bror_Jon
So basically what you are saying is: we should only punish criminals if they are ok with it, and even then not too hard, so we don't hurt their feelings. In your perfect world, what happens to criminals? Rioters? We just ask them nicely to stop breaking the law and they do it? We put them in prison, where we the taxpayers pay for their clothes, food, housing and well-being, and then after a while they get to come back for a second round?
I'm sorry, I know I'm ranting, but I'm just enraged by how blind people can be when it comes to handling crime.
So what's your solution?
Fuck it and shoot them?
@WHAM
No, that is not what I am saying. I do not believe it is right to
punish them. They ought to be rehabilitated (criminal-care as we call it here in Sweden). Which might include jail time depending on how sever the crime or their problems are. But jail should be used to make them unable to harm others, not used as a means to harm them.
Tax-money isn't that high of a price for fixing these problems (it's the rich that ought to be taxed anyway).
People who come back to jail is an obvious sign that the system isn't working properly, but I do not believe harsher sentences is the right way to go. The problem is much bigger then that. It's about well-fair of people in general. Education, getting help early, parents and so on.
In short:
Rehabilitate offenders, fix underlying problem.
PS: I also want to add, that these people might not be morally responsible, even though they are doing morally wrong.
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 23/08/2011 20:39:33
I'm sorry, I know I'm ranting, but I'm just enraged by how blind people can be when it comes to handling crime.
Ohh, it's quite all right. I know what you mean. ;)
@Calin: No need to shoot them, make use of them. See my earlier post on the Roman colosseums and such. I wasn't really joking there...
I'm sorry... are you *actually* suggesting that we take petty criminals like looters and put them in fights to entertain the masses.
Have you lost your goddamn mind?
I could say a lot of things, but perhaps it is best I keep the rest to myself for now. so as to not cause more negative response. My view on the matter has already been made abundantly clear.
Actually I think I said a few pages ago that I would leave this thread alone... Hmmm? Guess I just don't know when to stop. ;D Let me try that again...
(http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo24/BleachKing44/Funny%20Pics/EpicSnail.gif)
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 23/08/2011 20:39:33
I'm just enraged by how blind people can be when it comes to handling crime.
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 23/08/2011 21:25:33
See my earlier post on the Roman colosseums and such. I wasn't really joking there...
Of course, this is the obvious solution.
A couple of friends went through a mild shoplifting phase in high school. It's a shame they're now contributing to society as adults rather than forced to fight for the amusement of others.
EDIT: written in hurry, accidental boldification corrected
INCOMING TIRADE FROM AN IDEALIST AND A WOULD-BE WORLD SAVER - BE WARNED
No... You see, this is the issue. Perhaps I haven't been clear enough (yes, I just couldn't stay away after that one VWG).
Petty crime: shoplifting for small value, speeding on the road, urinating in public etc
> Petty Punishment: Monetary fines, public service (ie. slavery on a small scale)
> On repeated offense: escalation to hard crime status due to person's inability to "take a f***'n hint"
Hard crime: Participating in large-scale events such as major riots, looting, destruction of property FOR NO BETTER REASON THAN "Hey, who'se going to stop us?" / cheating others for large sums of money (tens of thousands of @), rape, murder etc
> Hard Punishment: removal of human rights / citizenship permanently, forced hard labour, choise between entertainment sentence or death sentence
No, VWG, I don't believe in ALL crime being punished by being thrown to the lions (this sentence was not 100% literal, we can replace lions with ROBOTS for maximum entertainment in the future), but in my perfect imaginary world, hard-class criminals are given a choise: spend rest of your life in prison, with the requirement that you must either participate in blood-sport or hard labour, which will offset your cost to society either through revenue or work results, or life-termination.
Prisons are made self-sustained and they are a minimalistic drain on tax money, since the inmates have to do their part in keeping the installation funded (in a far greater scale than today). All inmates are also branded with visible permanent facial markings, to minimize likelyhood of successful escape from the prison system. If you attempt escape, you automatically get transferred to death row = they will not even drag you back to jail, but will place a 9mm copper tranquilizer inside your skull.
It...still sounds crazy to me, WHAM. Punishing people so severely on first offenses (referring to rioters, and other members of this "hard" crime status) doesn't really give them the chance to rectify whatever they've done wrong. In your imaginary society, I feel the main deterrent to any crime would be pure fear and nothing else. It's a deterrent, sure, but one I find pretty undesirable. I would always prefer a strict *finite* (unless the conditions are extreme, as in a the case of a murderer, etc.) punishment followed by some sort of counseling to give those who have done wrong a chance to make up for their misdeeds. This can help to establish a good moral compass.
I like the way things are in modern society. I don't pirate software because I feel it would be wrong to do so, not because I'm terrified that if I did, the swat team would crash through my windows at 3 AM and beat the shit out of me.
There's also the problem of where and how the line is drawn, and what qualifies one for being put to death or slavery until death. That's something else entirely, though.
As far as criminals fighting for our entertainment, I think it's simply barbaric. I believe lawful punishment needs to have realistic and humane bounds.
Quote from: Domithan on Wed 24/08/2011 06:51:02
I don't pirate software because I feel it would be wrong to do so, not because I'm terrified that if I did, the swat team would crash through my windows at 3 AM and beat the shit out of me.
Let me correct that for you: "I don't pirate software because I either have rich family or have a proper job, and can AFFORD to buy the software I need, just like I can affor to buy the TV I want. However, other people who are too young to have jobs, or are too lazy to get one, pirate software and loot TV's during riots, because they have nothing to fear from doing so. They break the law because: 'Hey, why not?'"
The fact that there are good people who obey the law, only reinforces the fact that those who do not conform and those who do break the law "just 'cause", need to be put the fear of the law into them, as we can all see how well these puny and pathetic punishments the laws of our current society hands out are working:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CdItaPoMjM4
Yeah, that guy really should just get a little fine and a pat on the head with an encouraging "Heeeey, you shouldn't do that. It's wrong you know! Oh I understand, your clothes look like you are poor and needy so you probably had a good reason for that, off you go, back home."
(*watches video again* : HULK SMASH PUNY HUMAN SKULL!!! RAAAAWR!!!)
I've been checking this thread only to hear more about WHAMland.
Quote from: kconan on Wed 24/08/2011 08:56:38
I've been checking this thread only to hear more about WHAMland.
I fear people will start to get peeved at me for hijacking this thread so effectively.
Maybe I should just write a book! Or even better: do a GAME which is a commentary on the goods and bads of modern society when compared to my personal utopia. Hmmm...
Dunno. If world ends at 2012 and we're all savage, dystopian remnants of human society, WHAM would make a perfect leader. ;D
That, or many leaders before 17th century... when - if I remember correctly, brits rioted also and turned world around... and when British (and French) industrial revolution and urbanization actually started this restless lower class of poor industry workers, which produced skinheads, punk music, chavs and whatnot... all kinds of extremist left-wing movements... Till today when those people are still burning cars. So do French evey now and then. Maybe it's 300-year legacy and we're still seeing a bit of something that started with beheading Charles I Stuart?
So, what's up with the riots? It's all done by now, right?
Yep. They inevitably finished and after a brief post-mortem by the media I haven't heard much more about them.
Hey, a thread about Judge Dredd! Oh, wait.
Quote from: WHAM on Wed 24/08/2011 09:03:01
...do a GAME which is a commentary on the goods and bads of modern society when compared to my personal utopia. Hmmm...
I'd play it. Damn, I'd even make it with you! I'm on the same page as you regarding the whole issue and I can't understand why everyone's being so bloody soft!
These criminals need a good kick up the arse to finally wake up. If I can obide the law and work hard every day, why should I feel my family is threatened by those who don't give a shit about anything and anyone? Good for you WHAM for expressing your views. Like I said before , I couldn't agree more.
I challenge all you crazy people to a game of quake 3. Winner gets to decide what to do with the rioters. If you win, you get to treat them like animals and if we win, we treat them like human beings. Me and calin will pwn/frag your asses.
Is it very human to use violence against innocent people and their posessions without a real reason?
Yes.
Quote from: ddq on Wed 24/08/2011 20:22:02
I challenge all you crazy people to a game of quake 3. Winner gets to decide what to do with the rioters. If you win, you get to treat them like animals and if we win, we treat them like human beings. Me and calin will pwn/frag your asses.
Does not agreeing with your views make them crazy people?
When their views include throwing petty criminals into gladiatorial areas, um... yes. I mean, fuck, "lets just put all criminals in an arena and commercialize their deaths"? Are you serious? These are human beings you're talking about. Hell, the treatment you're suggesting is inhumane even for animals.
I think the critical rift in our schools of thought is that you have the notion that the instant a person breaks the law, they forfeit their human rights, and, in fact, their very humanity. You believe that if someone is acting against society, or even not working to benefit society, that they should be "punished to the full extent of the law", which you interpret to mean "massacred for the enjoyment of the holy elite". Such a totalitarian enforcement of societal conformance will not lead to utopia, but will inevitably prompt revolution from those whose basic human decency is affronted by an utterly oppressive and misguided justice system.
/hippie rant
Quote from: ddq on Wed 24/08/2011 23:16:51
When their views include throwing petty criminals into gladiatorial areas, um... yes. I mean, fuck, "lets just put all criminals in an arena and commercialize their deaths"? Are you serious? These are human beings you're talking about. Hell, the treatment you're suggesting is inhumane even for animals.
I think the critical rift in our schools of thought is that you have the notion that the instant a person breaks the law, they forfeit their human rights, and, in fact, their very humanity. You believe that if someone is acting against society, or even not working to benefit society, that they should be "punished to the full extent of the law", which you interpret to mean "massacred for the enjoyment of the holy elite". Such a totalitarian enforcement of societal conformance will not lead to utopia, but will inevitably prompt revolution from those whose basic human decency is affronted by an utterly oppressive and misguided justice system.
/hippie rant
I don't think anyone here ever said petty criminals should instantly be tossed in an arena.
Whether or not the debate about gladitorial battles is serious, there needs to be another approach to repeat offenders and perpetrators of capital crimes. There is a certain political correctness in especially European nations regarding the approach to these people. Being soft on crime is not the answer. In my country for example, you got people with a criminal record of 200 offences. They are a burden to society, especially after they're offered housing, a job and endless possibilities of bettering their life.
So how do you deal with these people? My suggestion: The three strikes you're out system. It gives them the chance to focus up and better their life after their past mistake. Its almost an offer they can't refuse, if they do, its their fault.
Quote from: ddq on Wed 24/08/2011 23:16:51
When their views include throwing petty criminals into gladiatorial areas, um... yes. I mean, fuck, "lets just put all criminals in an arena and commercialize their deaths"? Are you serious?
Now, you see, that's not what is being said. See the distinction between two levels of crime in the tirade I've linked below.
Shoplifting a candy bar is petty crime, but a full-blown riot with looting and violence is NOT petty crime.
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=44166.msg590446#msg590446
So to summarize WHAMland's justice system using a visual aid:
Petty crime:
(http://www.boltactiongame.com/whamland2.png)
More than petty crime:
(http://www.boltactiongame.com/whamland.png)
Perhaps overtly simplified, but in essence, yes.
Love the pics, kconan! ;D
Great pics, kconan!
But caution - otherwise WHAM becomes megalomaniac,
because it's not that far to this:
(http://www.greenkeepers.cc/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/caesar.gif)
(translation: May the games begin!)
Having watched a load of documentaries of prisons all over the world, I guess imprisonment as rehabilitative method has failed pretty much and works only for innocent/dumb people who kill someone while driving drunk, shot spouse's lover or made some other humanly mistake like this. Shit happens.
But for true hardboiled criminals, it's just a way of life and they spend most of it in prison, going back again and again. And we make it work.
Which - to me - sounds really cowardly. So lawful citizens pay taxes every month just to "keep those monsters away from me" and therefore provide lifetime support for criminals, often till one side dies. So what the fuck?
I jump onto arena/execution/Hammurabi's Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi#Examples) boat. I, as a member of society that created laws and vowed to follow them, do not want to pay ransom (in form of holding up prison system) to people who just want to be a dick and undermine that agreement of our civilization. Also, justice should stop existing as a business. All lawyers should be on strict, ocassionally controlled government payroll so justice would be universal to everyone and not better for ones who can employ more/better lawyers.
Also, I'm quite sure that public whipping or some other form of instant justice would work far better than 2-6 or whatever months of prison when someone steals something or so. It would also greatly reduce amount of bureaucracy and workload of justice system which in turn will raise quality and fairness of justice on other crimes.
E: Am I preaching Sharia law somewhat? Well, maybe muslims got that one right.
Prisons are certainly not perfect but studies have shown that harsher punishments do not act as a deterrent. However prison *does* work to rehabilitate about 50% of the time. (recidivism rate is about 50% in the UK, 60% in the US).
In fact studies have shown that one of the reasons for recidivism (thats being rearrested after being released) is the violent culture within prisons and the assault levels (70%) between prisoners. So realistically *making* them fight each other is unlikely to help.
(Also the death penalty doesnt work as a deterrent either and it costs a *fortune*)
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Sat 27/08/2011 13:45:35
In fact studies have shown that one of the reasons for recidivism (thats being rearrested after being released) is the violent culture within prisons and the assault levels (70%) between prisoners. So realistically *making* them fight each other is unlikely to help.
So if they are afraid of the threat of fighting one another in prison, they try not to commit more crimes after release.
But you are saying that if we make the violence among inmates mandatory and show it to the whole wide world on TV in a way that everyone knows exactly what awaits them after arrest on hard crime charges, that somehow would NOT deter crime?
I am confused, Calin...
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Sat 27/08/2011 13:45:35
(Also the death penalty doesnt work as a deterrent either and it costs a *fortune*)
A 9mm bullet or three in the head is not that expensive. It's the "humane" way to administer the punishment that is costly, and unnecessary. As is the waiting time on death row.
These issues are easy to fix if we take human rights away from those who commit hard crime.
Damn, I actually agree with WHAM now. I've always thought that law & order is non-negotiable and I'd rather have less civil rights but a strong leader (Absolute monarch or something of the kind) leading the country than bunch of corrupted, backhand-dealing parties. At least if things go wrong, there's clear who to blame and if somebody has to be shot, no fuckin lawyer can obstruct justice if king says otherwise.
Right and wrong isn't as abstract and relative as hippies and pacifists try to make it.
Say, you kill and hack 9-year old kid to pieces, bullet into the head is absolutely what you deserve. WHAT IS SO difficult to understand here?
Also, criminal intent should be the line between harsh and not punishments, instantly tripling the punishment. You steal or loot, murder or beat -- there's no friggin way it can happen by accident.
I somehow feel this is in order.
http://oglaf.com/media/comic/Fountain_of_Doubt.jpg
(Warning, do not browse the rest of that site, it's mostly porn)
Something of a tangent off the tangent this thread is already on, but I always thought that all these "humane" methods of capital punishment were mostly nonsense, and only really there to "protect" the people watching. Wouldn't a well placed bullet to the head, or a properly done decapitation result in death a whole lot quicker (almost instantaneously) rather than gas chambers or lethal injections (where we don't really know what is happening about pain and feeling and stuff in the condemned person's body)?
PS: Your link doesn't work properly for me, WHAM.
Can be argued, but if we'd have gallows and 20 looters hanging publically in London right now, there wouldn't be even thought of a riot for next 50 years.
ok so now we are hanging people in the streets of london now? On Oxford Street next to the post office perhaps.
Well since we are quite literally going back to the *dark ages* now I'd like to ask if anyone thinks that they were a time of harmony with no crime or violence. No, they weren't. In fact they were brutal times some of the worst in history because violence was used to supress the public.
Punishments like this Do Not Work. All they do is make the populace more angry at the government. This is exactly what we are seeing in the middle east currently and exactly what happened in europe. If you execute the public for relatively minor crimes then they just get angry and overthrow the government.
Quote from: InCreator on Sat 27/08/2011 14:28:40
I'd rather have less civil rights but a strong leader (Absolute monarch or something of the kind) leading the country than bunch of corrupted, backhand-dealing parties. At least if things go wrong, there's clear who to blame and if somebody has to be shot, no fuckin lawyer can obstruct justice if king says otherwise.
You name a single, just, autocratic leader and I'll name 100 who were assholes.
Quote from: InCreator on Sat 27/08/2011 14:28:40
Right and wrong isn't as abstract and relative as hippies and pacifists try to make it.
Actually right and wrong *are* abstract and relative. That's why our legal systems change over time. We used to hang people for homosexual behaviour. We *killed* people for being gay. We also used to keep slaves. We also believed that it was ok to torture people for information (some still do).
Quote from: InCreator on Sat 27/08/2011 14:28:40
Say, you kill and hack 9-year old kid to pieces, bullet into the head is absolutely what you deserve. WHAT IS SO difficult to understand here?
The reason that judges dont hand down "Cap the bitch in the ass" as a sentence and blow them away in the court room is that you need to be sure they did it. You can't take back a bullet to the brain.
I love how blasé you are about sentencing people to death. The judge and jury have to live with that for the rest of their lives. There have been numerous miscarrages of justice which means that the state *killed innocent people*. You're ok with that?
Also, the death penalty *doesn't work* as a deterrant. The figures show that countries with the death penalty have more violent crime (The USA included) than those that dont.
1. Dark Ages were brutal times becuse life WAS brutal then. Law enforcement was a joke. Criminal investigation did not exist. People were burnt as witches for chrissakes! You can't compare those times to today, because that was in THE PAST!
2. In middle east the situation is quite different. The dividing of wealth is far more unbalanced and people living in porverty over there actually DO live in poverty, while in Europe living in porverty means you can's afford more than three big-macs per week, you ONLY have an old 19" TV, and you'r apartment needs more paint to look nice. In middle east people live under quite literal tyranny. Funny, that's just like europe did IN THE DARK AGES you spout so much about Calin.
3. If punishments were tougher, crime would be deterred. As a result of this, quality of criminal investigation would go up as more resources are available per case. As a result of this, error rates in judgements go down.
I admit, no perfect system can be created. Mistakes WILL be made and innocent people will eventually be found guilty and punished. Now we must think: does the number of innocent lives lost due to such mistakes weigh more than those innocent lives saved when hardcore criminals who might have been released back into the system are now put down like animals instead?
I believe the lowered hard-crime rates would make the system far more manageable, cheap and practical.
And Calin, when you say "you can't take back a bullet", how much good does it do when you CAN take back a life sentence? People have spent decades in maximum security prisons and have later been found innocent. Do these people just suddenly bouce back into the society? Get jobs? Social lives? Homes? An iPod?
F*** NO! (Well, maybe Amnesty International will get them the iPod if they do some publicity stunts for them) They spend the rest of their lives as social outcasts, miserable and hateful for the wrong that was done to them.
Yeah... That's MUCH better, safer and cheaper than my "final solution". There is NO WAY these people, after being released, would seek any kind of revenge on society AT ALL!
Quote from: Atelier on Sun 14/08/2011 14:06:23
Aside from that, I'm astounded how anybody can actually defend them. Oh they are such poor souls. Their lives are so oppressive, so hard, in comparison to people dying from starvation and disease in Kenyan refugee camps. It's not fair how they're given the chance at a free education.
I tell you why: Because you know SHIT about them. They all live their individual lives and you know SHIT about their lives. Don't try to pigeonhole all the looters. That isn't
any better than saying jews are greedy or black people are inferior.
And why the hell do you have to compare their lives to those of Kenyan refugees? Should it make somebody happy that - in comparison to others - they don't have to starve to death? No, why should it! It doesn't make your everyday life any better! And actually you're stating that their lives aren't that good if you're saying that they aren't that bad
in comparison.
Quote
It's not fair their life is served to them on a silver platter. Society must change! Actually no fuck that, why don't they change their attitude and be grateful for living in a country that strives to do everything for them?
So you actually tell people to change their attitude to fit in whatever society they live in? What a stupid suggestion.
Oh, and could you point me towards that silver platter? I've never seen it..
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 23/08/2011 19:45:22
And it is the GOOD people who can resist mob mentality, can identify it and can respond to it in a calm and collected manner. It is the BAD people, who cannot control their emotions, their greed and their violence. To be more precise: their ANIMALITY.
It is these people we could do without, it is these people we should, indeed, we MUST control and contain.
GOOD vs BAD? Rioters = animals? What the hell?! I recommend not going to church anymore, those guys there poison your very thoughts.
Law abiding = Good you say? A concentration camp overseer does act according to the law - and that makes him a good person? Sorry to bring in the Nazis here, but it illustrates my point quite well. Also, InCreator seems to favor leadership and they knew how to do it.
Quote from: WHAM on Sat 13/08/2011 15:46:14
I think all who are caught and found guilty of looting and violence should get their names and faces and even home addresses posted all over the media and the internet. I can imagine the future of these people, going into job interviews and getting turned down due to their criminal history so they will have to live in misery for the rest of their short days.
Ah, if only the world were so perfect...
THAT would be a perfect world for you? I'd say in a perfect world there'd be no need for crimes. But shooting and imprisoning criminals seems to be the favored alternative to cutting the roots for crimes to most people it seems.
Quote from: InCreator on Sat 27/08/2011 14:40:57
Can be argued, but if we'd have gallows and 20 looters hanging publically in London right now, there wouldn't be even thought of a riot for next 50 years.
Disagreed! There'd be a civil war! And if I'd live there I would fight!
I don't want to defend the rioters but I don't want to attack them either. I don't know their individual lives. There might be people who burn down buildings cause they don't know what to do with their day and there might be people who grab a DVD player cause they can't afford one. I don't blame the latter. But one thing is for sure, some of the opinions here are what makes the world a worse place than it could be, not some random looter who steals a fucking TV.
Quote from: WHAM on Sat 27/08/2011 15:27:09
1. Dark Ages were brutal times becuse life WAS brutal then. Law enforcement was a joke. Criminal investigation did not exist. People were burnt as witches for chrissakes! You can't compare those times to today, because that was in THE PAST!
We learn from the past. It's what we do.
If you want to use more recent history, the best examples of the kind of justice system you are talking about are Stalinist russia, Nazi germany, Pre-Revolution France, Iran, North Korea, China. They all have/had summary execution and a lack of appeals system for the convicted.
Quote from: WHAM on Sat 27/08/2011 15:27:09
3. If punishments were tougher, crime would be deterred. As a result of this, quality of criminal investigation would go up as more resources are available per case. As a result of this, error rates in judgements go down.
How many times do I need to say this. *Tougher punishments do not act as deterrents*, you just get more people in prison. In the US for instance (which has very tough sentences) about 1% of their population are in prison at any one time.
Quote from: WHAM on Sat 27/08/2011 15:27:09
I admit, no perfect system can be created. Mistakes WILL be made and innocent people will eventually be found guilty and punished. Now we must think: does the number of innocent lives lost due to such mistakes weigh more than those innocent lives saved when hardcore criminals who might have been released back into the system are now put down like animals instead?
And if you were falsely convicted of murdering your family? Would you be happy to be led to the gallows knowing that your utopia was complete? It just happened to kill innocent people.
Quote from: WHAM on Sat 27/08/2011 15:27:09
And Calin, when you say "you can't take back a bullet", how much good does it do when you CAN take back a life sentence? People have spent decades in maximum security prisons and have later been found innocent. Do these people just suddenly bouce back into the society? Get jobs? Social lives? Homes? An iPod?
Well it doesn't have to be decades but ask someone who was falsely convicted for murder. Ask them if they would rather have spent the years in prison dead instead and see what they say.
Quote from: WHAM on Sat 27/08/2011 15:27:09
Yeah... That's MUCH better, safer and cheaper than my "final solution". There is NO WAY these people, after being released, would seek any kind of revenge on society AT ALL!
I *literally* cannot believe you just used the phrase "final solution". I am stunned.
Quote
Also, the death penalty *doesn't work* as a deterrant. The figures show that countries with the death penalty have more violent crime (The USA included) than those that dont.
Exactly why?
* It is non-argumentable fat that dead scum cannot commit crime anymore. Death is final.
* As for lowering number of new major crimes, I don't think death penalty would
encourage them any way. So we have no repeating offenders (dead!) and no additional new ones (compared to pre-death penalty).
So, with crime, it surely does sound like reduction via simple logic. But additional benefits are:
1) No upkeep for those heavy criminals since they're dead
2) Most prisons double as learning centers for lifetime criminals. With "masters" executed, the probability of petty thief turning into hardcore gangster in prison should lower too. Especially since repeated offense it might cost his life
And as for violence, many prisons actually do employ violent despotic regime, where some of elder prisoners are in charge of others and get some benefits from guards for reducing hassle. Since they have no guns or handcuffs, imagine what's the driving power behind other prisoners obeying... And... it works!
Dark Ages, you say it as it was bad somehow. People have used this or another way to police lands for at least 7000 years, and it wasn't endless crime wave at all. Open any history book! Only major difference between then and now is science and technology -- you cannot really rob someone on forest road and escape, because police can use cars or choppers to reach you quickly - and whining hippies who made justicidal system a joke that doesn't deter even 8-year old kids from looting shops. And hell, I can scare 8-year old with pure words. Tells how weak the laws and punishments are!
Quote from: Matti on Sat 27/08/2011 15:42:02
Disagreed! There'd be a civil war! And if I'd live there I would fight!
So mr. Matti would start a civil war for.... his right to -- loot shops and burn cars. I'd hang you too. Especially if you burned my car and looted my shop because one of your criminal buddies got what he deserved -- or even if not and it was mistake. Gives you still no right to burn the town!
@Matti - regarding the nazi metaphor
Think about it this way: if the Nazis had won the darn war, WOULD that person have been seen as a bad person today? It's the winners who write and shape history, and since the War ended the way it did, those things are now looked down on. But I digress: comparing 1940's world to modern world is just as ridiculous as comparing the dark ages to modern days. These are different times and different things are effective now.
Also, for the record: I haven't gone to church since I finished 9th grade in 2005. It was mandaroty on christmas to go to church, but at heart I am an atheist. Religion is of no matter in thus subject and I find it silly you even brought it up when we are taling about laws and their meaning in relation to the recent riots, when these matters are and should remain completely separate from religious matters.
@ Calin:
1. And all of the examples you mention were ineffective in solving crimes and finding the correct criminal because the technology and sciences weren't even born, or were in their infancy. The comparison is invalid.
3. No we don't get more people in prison because we KILL them. Isn't my view on this quite obvious already?
On killing innocents: is it any better when I get, wrongfully, accused of murdering my family today and I end up in jail for the rest of my life, suffering from prison violence, my life in ruins? Yeah, that WOULD be much better... Oh, wait. NO IT WOULDN'T!!! >:( Even if I spent only a few months in prison, the lenghty trial in courts, the media and publicity and the outcry would still mean I would have lost my friends, my job, my home, everything. So what, I'll just be a happy puppy and go back and start over, not at all pissed off? NO! I would F****G commit suicide rather than go through that!
Lastly: "Final Solution" is a phrase that consists of two words. Just like the swastika, their meanings and sources are many and using them does not have any relation to the historical figures or events you are quite clearly referring to. Feel free to be stunned, but please do not be childish. They are and have always been mere words and symbols, nothing more.
Quote from: InCreator on Sat 27/08/2011 15:56:05
So mr. Matti would start a civil war for.... his right to -- loot shops and burn cars. I'd hang you too. Especially if you burned my car and looted my shop because one of your criminal buddies got what he deserved -- or even if not and it was mistake.
Agreed. Hanged for the greater good of the public, crime: dissention and encouragement of people to riot agains government, with potential to damage to public property and threat for human life
The death penalty isnt an effective deterrent because murderers simply dont think about it before they do it. Despite what you may have seen on Murder, She Wrote, murder is almost always an impulsive crime.
@ WHAM
You used the phrase 'final solution' in quotes. Therefore you meant it as either a quote or an accepted historical phrase. That phrase originated in Nazi Germany and the reference was clearly intended.
There should be some islands for sale in the kingdom of Tonga. Let's buy one and declare independence.
I'm pretty sure we'll be infested with classic european immigrants soon. Like the ones who looted UK. After we hanged most of them, there will be another wave of immigrants, orderly people whose stuff was ruined in riots and who actually like our decorations on palm trees.
/evil mode
@Calin: You keep repeating that "death penalty is not effective" like it was a proven fact, whereas I have repeatedly expalined to you that there is no proof of it ineffectiveness in the form I and others here have spoken of.
"Death penalty" IS admittedly ineffective, for example in the United States, because of bureucracy, lengthy procedures, massive costs and logistical issues, as well as human rights ones. What we propose is a system wholly different, with swifter punishments and less cost in time and taxpayer money. A streamlined process, if you will, which WOULD without a doubt deter hard crime. Even the crimes of passion you mention would be likely to drop as people simply would either think twice of the consequences, or the idiots who don't would stop existing thanks to natural selection: the WHAM way.
And yes, I quoted "final solution" and yes I was thinking of the WORDS Hitler used back in the day. Not the idealism Hitler built on, but the exact WORDS. However, thank you for enforcing Godwin's Law. ;)
Quote from: InCreator on Sat 27/08/2011 16:07:37
There should be some islands for sale in the kingdom of Tonga. Let's buy one and declare independence.
"Welcome, tourists, to the lovely paradise of WHAMstate! To the left you will notice the beatiful palm tree lined beaches you will most certainly come to enjoy during your stay. To the right you can see the gallows, where currently seventeen convicted criminals are hanging for hard crimes, such as murder, rape, drug-dealing and inciting widespread violence amongs the populace. Please note the wonderful bleached white colour of the structure, as it is built entirely out of the bones of those convicted of crimes during the period of time known as the "First trials", which took place soon after the first wave of immigration into WHAMstate..."
EDIT: Shit, sorry, doubleposted by accident. I was supposed to modify my last post. :(
Quote from: InCreator on Sat 27/08/2011 15:56:05
Quote from: Matti on Sat 27/08/2011 15:42:02
Disagreed! There'd be a civil war! And if I'd live there I would fight!
So mr. Matti would start a civil war for.... his right to -- loot shops and burn cars.
No, but I think that fascist governments should be overthrown as soon as possible.
Quote from: WHAM on Sat 27/08/2011 16:01:21
@Matti - regarding the nazi metaphor
Think about it this way: if the Nazis had won the darn war, WOULD that person have been seen as a bad person today? It's the winners who write and shape history, and since the War ended the way it did, those things are now looked down on. But I digress: comparing 1940's world to modern world is just as ridiculous as comparing the dark ages to modern days. These are different times and different things are effective now.
You know, there were people DURING the Nazi regime who DIDN'T think that gassing jews was a good thing. And what have different times to do with that? Killing syrian civilians isn't against syrian law, does that make the assassins and soldiers good people? And why?
Quote
Also, for the record: I haven't gone to church since I finished 9th grade in 2005. It was mandaroty on christmas to go to church, but at heart I am an atheist. Religion is of no matter in thus subject and I find it silly you even brought it up when we are taling about laws and their meaning in relation to the recent riots, when these matters are and should remain completely separate from religious matters.
It's just that I've never heard an atheist using the terms 'good' and 'bad' to describe a human being.
@Matti: So you are simply saying, that taking a hard stance on crime makes you want to overthrow the government, and therefore you believe a government should be lenient on crime? That makes absolutely NO SENSE!
You know, there are people DURING the current regime who believe the current laws suck and summarily executing criminals is a good thing. Does that change anything? No...
I had no idea it was completely legal in Syria for people to kill one another for no reason whatsoever! That is SO COOL!
However, we are again trying to compare the western civilization to that of the one in middle east. As was stated before, such comparisons are unrealistic and pointless.
I learned about good and bad from Disney movies! ;D
Quote from: Matti on Sat 27/08/2011 16:56:54
Quote from: InCreator on Sat 27/08/2011 15:56:05
Quote from: Matti on Sat 27/08/2011 15:42:02
Disagreed! There'd be a civil war! And if I'd live there I would fight!
So mr. Matti would start a civil war for.... his right to -- loot shops and burn cars.
No, but I think that fascist governments should be overthrown as soon as possible.
Good luck defining that. Leftist supporters have used that word so often even for social democracies. So, apparently overthrowing the government is always legitimate as long as you want to intall something more left-wing? Man, the Antifa here in my home country would be proud of you...
Quote from: WHAM on Sat 27/08/2011 17:02:39
@Matti: So you are simply saying, that taking a hard stance on crime makes you want to overthrow the government, and therefore you believe a government should be lenient on crime? That makes absolutely NO SENSE!
Quote from: NsMn on Sat 27/08/2011 17:23:58
Good luck defining that. Leftist supporters have used that word so often even for social democracies. So, apparently overthrowing the government is always legitimate as long as you want to intall something more left-wing? Man, the Antifa here in my home country would be proud of you...
No, I'm saying that a government that publicly hangs people should be overthrown.
Quote
You know, there are people DURING the current regime who believe the current laws suck and summarily executing criminals is a good thing. Does that change anything? No...
I just wanted to point out that what you consider good or bad doesn't depend on who wrote the history.
Quote
However, we are again trying to compare the western civilization to that of the one in middle east. As was stated before, such comparisons are unrealistic and pointless.
It's legal to push a homeless out of a train station at night so that he might die in winter. It's legal to imprison someone who owns a certain amount of dope. It's illegal to have sex with someone <18 if you're older than that. It's illegal to play instruments in a train without permission.
I'd consider doing good things as 'good', not abiding the law.
Quote
I learned about good and bad from Disney movies! ;D
If your thoughts about the world originate from movies then we can stop talking.
This is simply ludicrous. You are advocating oppressive, fear-based, forced forfeiture of freedoms that I cannot see difference from fascism in which you agree with the leader's radical ideals and support their tyranny. Your barbaric adherence to capital punishment as an umbrella solution to all violent offenders informs me that you do not share my appreciation for the value of a human life. The ease with which you suggest execution as retribution for crimes that lie in an alarming range of severity strongly clashes with my ideals.
See, I don't really support killing of any kind since I'm a pussy pacifist. I have wrestled with what the just punishment should be for seriously deranged violent offenders such as serial killers and rapists, but while I do believe that these individuals have become a danger to society and should not be allowed to continue in their crimes, I'm not sure if capital punishment is the most valid solution.
Now everyone keeps talking of "deterrence", but what does that really mean? Essentially, deterrence as WHAM and co. define it is fear. Fear of harsh punishment. Fear of death. But what, really, does this fear accomplish? Practically, the fear does not stem from the criminal act itself, but rather of getting caught and facing the consequences, however severe they may be. Let us examine which criminal acts would be eradicated through this fear. For crimes of passion and opportunity, one is aware only of the immediate results of the act (e.g. dead spouse, new TV, adrenaline rush), and is unfocused on or discounting of possible punishment that would await one after capture. For premeditated cases, the perpetration takes the steps necessary to avoid apprehension and intends on escape. Whether they would spend 10, 25, or 50 years in prison of face the death penalty would have negligible effect on someone who intends to get away with it.
What then should be done with criminals? Should they merely be released with a stiff fine and community service? Of course not. The deterrence lies in the presence of punishment and the closer that punishment is to guaranteed, the more effective the deterrent is. Of course, it is impossible to eliminate the notion in a criminal's mind that they can "get away with it", and equally difficult to have a 100% capture rate for criminal behavior without the termination of many liberties of criminals and law-abiding citizens alike. My point is that more severe "discipline" will have very little effect on those who expect to escape or are caught up in the moment.
And what of the police officers? You speak of them as incorruptible executors of justice who can rightly say "I am the law!" while beating a man's skull in. What do you say to police brutality? Correct me if I am wrong, but your opinion on this matter would seem to be that the "good police officers who live to serve and protect the common citizen" are always in the right, despite being human themselves and susceptible to emotion, prejudice, and corruption. I should not have to remind anyone of the Stanford prison experiment. Police officers are merely Men, albeit Men with a job entrusted to them by the public, with a duty to protect and serve their population, but they're not Jesus Christ with riot batons and tear gas.
Brief aside aside, the only way I can see your suggested lowering of the threshold for capital punishment would have an impact on crime is if the threshold were lowered very dramatically and the death sentence applied to what are considered much less deserving crimes. At least in the United States, opposition to capital punishment for even the highly violent crimes to which it is frequently prescribed is currently fairly strong, and I have a hard time believing that the institution of a much more versatile application of the death penalty to the extent you are suggesting would not meet fervent resistance. What you are suggesting is basically a fascist police state in which all criminals are met with swift and terminal retribution. Setting aside the issue of false accusations since the idea of due process appears to be lost on you, I do not believe that citizens of your golden society would be as welcoming to an oppressive, fearful regime as you are.
In fact, I believe that many would see such a perversion of the justice system as evil and would rise up in protest. I'm talking riots. Not the groupthink, flashmob, wanton destruction, loot everything you can, just for the hell of it, first-world riots as seen in London and Vancouver. I'm talking the rise up against your oppressors, fight for freedom, I'm taking back my country from the dictator who rules it with an iron fist, justified riots seen in Egypt. But by this time, these would no longer be mere riots. This would be revolution. Revolution against a government that does not value human life, a government that believe not all lives are created equal, a government that will execute the small for the benefit of the great, and a government where justice is not blind, where life and liberty are privileges that can be taken away on a whim, and where judges give a bullet to the head to those they see fit.
To conclude, I present a few of your own words.
Quote from: WHAM
I say "if they don't follow orders, shoot a few, see if they learn a lesson".
---
Saying they lose their citizenship when they go out to riot is just right. No citizenship, no rights.
---
I don't know and I dont care. I just hope as many rioters as possible suffer as much as possible.
---
If people want violent entertainment, let them have an arena and televize the figts, actually, lets just put all criminals in an arena and commercialize their deaths.
---
They actually did put criminals either into a colosseum for a good show, or made slaves out of them, with no moral issues or thought about "human rights". While I'm not a fan of raping and pillaging, you have to admit they had some good things going on back there.
---
Hard Punishment: removal of human rights / citizenship permanently, forced hard labour, choise between entertainment sentence or death sentence
---
If you attempt escape, you automatically get transferred to death row = they will not even drag you back to jail, but will place a 9mm copper tranquilizer inside your skull.
---
No we don't get more people in prison because we KILL them.
---
the idiots who don't would stop existing thanks to natural selection: the WHAM way.
---
I had no idea it was completely legal in Syria for people to kill one another for no reason whatsoever! That is SO COOL!
---
These issues are easy to fix if we take human rights away from those who commit hard
crime.
---
if we take human rights away
---
TAKE HUMAN RIGHTS AWAY
And
thank you for horridly misinterpreting one of my favorite novels and twisting its message of the universal reach and power of mob mentality and the capacity for violence that is present in all humans - not just the ones you consider animals - into support for your brutal, social-Darwinist, fuck-it-just-kill-all-the-lesser-human-beings views.
Quote from: Matti on Sat 27/08/2011 17:28:48
I just wanted to point out that what you consider good or bad doesn't depend on who wrote the history.
Yes it does...
Quote
I'd consider doing good things as 'good', not abiding the law.
I'm considering abiding the law in general as good and breaking the law as bad. Maybe that's just me, maybe we don't need laws and eveyone will just magically get along.
Quote
If your thoughts about the world originate from movies then we can stop talking.
My thougts are my own. That is all I can say about that.
Quote from: Matti on Sat 27/08/2011 17:28:48
It's legal to push a homeless out of a train station at night so that he might die in winter. It's legal to imprison someone who owns a certain amount of dope. It's illegal to have sex with someone <18 if you're older than that. It's illegal to play instruments in a train without permission.
I'd consider doing good things as 'good', not abiding the law.
So... in your world, where things are just defined as "wrong" and "right", who told you that having sex with someone younger than 18, annoying people on a train with your mediocre guitar skills or that even consuming drugs is actually not wrong? There's something wrong in your logic. And that is one thing I can definitely say is wrong.
Quote from: WHAM on Sat 27/08/2011 17:37:36
I'm considering abiding the law in general as good and breaking the law as bad. Maybe that's just me, maybe we don't need laws and eveyone will just magically get along.
The law != morality.
Adultery is legal but parking badly is not. Which of those things is least moral?
Lying is legal but gay marriage is not. Which of those things is least moral?
Quote from: WHAM on Sat 27/08/2011 17:37:36
Quote from: Matti on Sat 27/08/2011 17:28:48
I just wanted to point out that what you consider good or bad doesn't depend on who wrote the history.
Yes it does...
Aha! Then why don't all people agree on what's good if they all know the same history and seem not to think about anything other than what people wrote about the past? Why are there still Nazis around?
Maybe, just maybe because they use their brains... (regardless of the quality of their thoughts).
Quote
I'm considering abiding the law in general as good and breaking the law as bad. Maybe that's just me, maybe we don't need laws and eveyone will just magically get along.
Quote from: NsMn on Sat 27/08/2011 17:45:23
Quote from: Matti on Sat 27/08/2011 17:28:48
It's legal to push a homeless out of a train station at night so that he might die in winter. It's legal to imprison someone who owns a certain amount of dope. It's illegal to have sex with someone <18 if you're older than that. It's illegal to play instruments in a train without permission.
I'd consider doing good things as 'good', not abiding the law.
So... in your world, where things are just defined as "wrong" and "right", who told you that having sex with someone younger than 18, annoying people on a train with your mediocre guitar skills or that even consuming drugs is actually not wrong? There's something wrong in your logic. And that is one thing I can definitely say is wrong.
So, you people don't think? You actually
don't think about things? Some laws are being made and then you suddenly know what's good and bad? You study the code of law and then know how to act in life? Why do you want stronger punishment if the laws are good as they are? That's some twisted logic.
Phew, ddq, that a LOT of words there. Let me go through that and see if I have any arguments left.
QuoteFor crimes of passion and opportunity, one is aware only of the immediate results of the act (e.g. dead spouse, new TV, adrenaline rush), and is unfocused on or discounting of possible punishment that would await one after capture.
On this matter I believe in evolution. If those people who fail to control themselves are diminished in number, then they are less likely to reproduce, multiply and grow. I truly believe such people are like cancer. You cut it off, and even if it spreads, you keep cutting or you die. It will hurt, it will disfigure you, but you WILL live. Humankind's "body" in this example is quite strong and healthy, and actually could do with some lopping off of body parts.
QuoteFor premeditated cases, the perpetration takes the steps necessary to avoid apprehension and intends on escape. Whether they would spend 10, 25, or 50 years in prison of face the death penalty would have negligible effect on someone who intends to get away with it.
Well, if we manage to deter even SOME criminals from crime, AND we cut down on the costs of maintaining prisons and prisoners, the money and resources we save can be put to apprehending these clever premeditated criminals. It will never be perfect, but it will be better than what we have now.
QuoteAnd what of the police officers?
They are humans, yes. They make mistakes, overreact and break the rules, yes.
This is why we need more police, more ways for the police force to be internally regulated. Internal investigation departments already exist and their importance will certainly grow in in a world where punishments are tougher, as the risk of critical mistakes on the part of the police grows.
QuoteI have a hard time believing that the institution of a much more versatile application of the death penalty to the extent you are suggesting would not meet fervent resistance.
Sadly I know you are right. Humankind has always HATED change, even if the purpose of the change was to make the life of humans better in some way. It is the few who do not resist change who are siding with me in this argument, and many others like it, who seek to truly better mankind. We can only live as we do now for a certain amount of time and the way we live today will probably one day in the future be called a "dark age" too.
Quotea government that believe not all lives are created equal
Where did you get the idea I think of some lives as less valuable than others? That was nowhere in my earlier writings! The law and the punishments it doles out should be universal, worldwide and equal to all.
QuoteAnd thank you for horridly misinterpreting one of my favorite novels
You are... welcome? However I do not think it as a misinterpertation. The novel, like almost all works of art and literature, are open to interpertation and all who read will have their own interpertations.
I first read The Lord of the Flies when I was about 10 years old and I really hoped the children who "went feral" and killed Pig (I think that was what he was called, the sick but smart boy with astma) didn't deserve to be saved off the island. I felt they deserved a punishment and should be left on the island forever for what they had become.
Quote from: Matti on Sat 27/08/2011 17:28:48
Quote from: WHAM on Sat 27/08/2011 17:02:39
@Matti: So you are simply saying, that taking a hard stance on crime makes you want to overthrow the government, and therefore you believe a government should be lenient on crime? That makes absolutely NO SENSE!
Quote from: NsMn on Sat 27/08/2011 17:23:58
Good luck defining that. Leftist supporters have used that word so often even for social democracies. So, apparently overthrowing the government is always legitimate as long as you want to intall something more left-wing? Man, the Antifa here in my home country would be proud of you...
No, I'm saying that a government that publicly hangs people should be overthrown.
I understand that to be a joke (Neither Hitler, Stalin nor any other modern-day tyrant did that), but it doesn't answer my question except that it hints at you not being able to seriously define that.
I mean if a state is publicly hanging people, it most likely is a brutal, militant, authocratic policestate. It doesn't necessarily have to be a racist one and I don't care if you call that fascist or not, that wasn't the point. My point was that it wouldn't stop the violence at all and should be overthrown.
Also, I'm pretty sure that Mussolini and Pinochet did hang 'enemies of the state' publicly. But I don't really care.
I'm also pretty sure the "good guys" in Italy hanged Mussolini and his allies publicly...
1. I wouldn't do that.
2. He was working hard on getting that reaction from those who survived.
For a dictator, swinging from a lamppost is natural causes.
(I'm still a hippy opponent of capital punishment in all its forms, of course, just not very sympathetic in some cases.)
Soooo.... you ARE for letting criminals pay, eye for an eye, thooth for a tooth? I don't quite get it. Is being a dictator a crime different from any other kind? That's actually worse than what you condemned to this second.
Quote from: NsMn on Sat 27/08/2011 22:03:29
Soooo.... you ARE for letting criminals pay, eye for an eye, thooth for a tooth? I don't quite get it. Is being a dictator a crime different from any other kind? That's actually worse than what you condemned to this second.
If that's directed towards me, I'll assume it was written before I added the depressingly-necessary-on-the-internet disclaimer in parenthises:
Quote from: Ali on Sat 27/08/2011 22:00:44
For a dictator, swinging from a lamppost is natural causes.
(I'm still a hippy opponent of capital punishment in all its forms, of course, just not very sympathetic in some cases.)
EDIT: For future reference, yes being a dictator IS different to other kinds of crime. Obviously. In that it has different characteristics.
I'm not talking about capital punishment, what I mean is that executing someone without a trial is not only harsher than having stronger punishments, but it's also against the principle of rule-by-law.
Or, as historian Ernst Nolte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Nolte) once put it:
QuoteI demand justice for everybody, even for Adolf Hitler!
Little nostalgia passing by.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivOvQBlaRIQ
Quote from: Matti on Sat 27/08/2011 15:42:02
Quote from: Atelier on Sun 14/08/2011 14:06:23
Aside from that, I'm astounded how anybody can actually defend them. Oh they are such poor souls. Their lives are so oppressive, so hard, in comparison to people dying from starvation and disease in Kenyan refugee camps. It's not fair how they're given the chance at a free education.
I tell you why: Because you know SHIT about them. They all live their individual lives and you know SHIT about their lives. Don't try to pigeonhole all the looters.
Ok, don't assume I don't know about their lives, because you know jack shit about
me. I couldn't say 'us' or 'our' because I'm not one of them. Either way I'm hardly socially/financially superior and I certainly didn't profess to be. To avoid generalising, I'll break down the looters some other way shall I, and then hopefully I can explain what I meant.
Each looter made an absolute willful choice to take part. I have been talking about the
looters who claim they're treated unfairly by the state, not the 'lower' class as a whole. Not the old ladies and gentlemen or average law-abiding citizens living just up the road/two tower-block floors up from said looters, who lead
identical lives (in financial and social senses), but clearly they are not identically moral. Just remember that not everybody in Tottenham, poor areas of Manchester, Liverpool, and other flash-points went out rioting, because that is a crucially important point.
Now, in my opinion each looter falls into at least one of these categories:
1. Showing the police they're not in charge
2. Uprising against the rich
3. Free stuff
4. A laugh/nothing else to do
5. Genuine political statement
Now, the first category is simply brought about by a lack of respect for authority,
or an alternative explained in the next paragraph. If they just go out looting, because they don't respect authority and want to throw bricks at police, they are anarchists and are doing it for the adrenaline rush (and of course, those sorts of people fall into multiple of the above categories too). I can't think of anything else to say about these people. You would be crazy to deny it's a fact of life that some people really are brain-dead. This also basically sums up category 4. Look here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ift78O95Bw&feature=related) or here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424) - the last one makes me laugh. Another dolt blamed Tony Blair. And don't forget, over 2000 people have been arrested for involvement in these riots now. Just think of all the hundreds and hundreds of people they
didn't interview, who would have made equally and indubitably more ridiculous statements. Then you will begin to understand why I generalise these looters.
Alternatively, category 1 rioters genuinely feel oppressed by the police and the repressed hostility just boiled over. Now this was quite clearly what first instigated the riots - if Mark Duggan wasn't shot I believe this would never have happened. At least, until another opportunity arose. A protest march organised by family members and members of the community went to the local police station looking for answers about his death. When they waited for 3 or 4 hours the crowd got agitated and things turned nasty and there was a face-off in the streets. Of
course these people had every right to protest! But the protest turned into a riot which gave momentum to other would-be rioters and anarchists across the country, who had
nothing to do with Mark Duggan!
So, the second category is a
serious example of people being brought up to believe that materialism is life's only goal. Having a 'protest' against the rich and 'redistributing'* (ie stealing) the wealth would not achieve and has not achieved anything and it's a lame excuse. The third category is similar
but has more to do with once-in-a-lifetime opportunism. These unprecedented riots happen and people immediately call for societal change, because sure let's blame it on society. It
must be society's fault! Has nobody realised that the fundamental problem could be with people's attitudes and outlooks on life; is British society really betraying these people, or are these people instilled with distorted expectations of the state?
I referenced Kenyan refugee camps (spawned off of Somalian famines) because it was the first thing to spring to mind. It wasn't just a guilt trip, it was part of my point above. Such people would give anything to come and live in Britain (asylum seekers), because the quality of life here is almost incomparable to what they're used to. It's interchangeable with
anything. More permanent slums in Mumbai, people dying in Tripoli as you read this, dozens of other humanitarian crises world-wide; and yes, I
do feel lucky I don't live in those countries and have half of the problems of the people living there. I do not expect anything more from the government than what is currently given. This is why (which I mandatorily have to say: in my opinion), category 5 looters who think they go out looting for solely a political purpose are... deluded. Nobody with a true political cause would go out looting shops... it just doesn't make sense to me.
Quote
That isn't any better than saying jews are greedy or black people are inferior.
Now I'm suddenly only a post away from saying that?? It is so desperately different and I can't even see how you managed to bring race into this argument at all.
* How I heard it described in one interview with a rioter
Anyway the topic has completely changed now so I think it's about time we updated the AGS political compass ;D
(http://i.imgur.com/VxQgK.png)
QuoteNow everyone keeps talking of "deterrence", but what does that really mean? Essentially, deterrence as WHAM and co. define it is fear. Fear of harsh punishment. Fear of death. But what, really, does this fear accomplish? Practically, the fear does not stem from the criminal act itself, but rather of getting caught and facing the consequences, however severe they may be. Let us examine which criminal acts would be eradicated through this fear. For crimes of passion and opportunity, one is aware only of the immediate results of the act (e.g. dead spouse, new TV, adrenaline rush), and is unfocused on or discounting of possible punishment that would await one after capture. For premeditated cases, the perpetration takes the steps necessary to avoid apprehension and intends on escape. Whether they would spend 10, 25, or 50 years in prison of face the death penalty would have negligible effect on someone who intends to get away with it.
Either I don't get it or you don't.
Fear? Fear is very human and basic stuff. How to we raise kids? "You fuck this up, you'll be grounded/dispelled/scolded/whatever". Fear. Fear of unwanted consequences to unruly action.
What is wrong with fear? We get fear injected into us every day. Living in democracy is one endless fear that it might end at some moment. How did brits feel when gangs were on the street? Afraid. How do you counter fear? With hugs? Also, fear is what triggers our survival instincts so we'd be extinct without fear. For example, we got so damn afraid after WWII that we cannot freely talk about it even now, 70 years later. But how much this fear changed world! Space race, anyone?
But yeah, political compass pretty much sums this thread up and shows what a bunch of rebellious hippies we have here. If anybody should govern our newfound state, it's WHAM. Not because he's reborn Stalin, but because a true leader cannot be a undecisive hippie. That's what separates kings and rabble.
As for races, it's not the skin color, but culture that makes people act different.
And yes, people with this or that race have separate culture omitted to the race, so unfortunately, everything said can be taken as attack against both of things.
I'd say "people of African culture are this or that" and crappy thing is, saying "black people are this or that" would be almost same, since most black people leave in Africa so hippes start yelling "racist" before I get to end the sentence.
It's also interesting that "not racist" is more important to be nowadays than "honest". Eh, we'll regret this one day. But then it's too late. But this is totally offtopic here.
Quote from: InCreator on Sun 28/08/2011 14:42:51
As for races, it's not the skin color, but culture that makes people act different.
And yes, people with this or that race have separate culture omitted to the race, so unfortunately, everything said can be taken as attack against both of things.
I'd say "people of African culture are this or that" and crappy thing is, saying "black people are this or that" and it would be almost same, since most black people leave in Africa.
It's also interesting that "not racist" is more important to be nowadays than "honest". Eh, we'll regret this one day. But then it's too late. But this is totally offtopic here.
Especially since today, not being racist only means accepting other cultures, whether similar to ours or horribly inhumane (like those indian tribes who let their children jump from a tower), but one's own cultural surroundings can be insulted as one likes. One example would be the constant atheist vs. christian argument in Europe, but if you criticize Islam, THEN you're clearly a racist.
Quote from: InCreator on Sun 28/08/2011 14:42:51
Fear? Fear is very human and basic stuff. How to we raise kids? "You fuck this up, you'll be grounded/dispelled/scolded/whatever". Fear. Fear of unwanted consequences to unruly action.
I think this is where we fundamentally differ.
I don't believe that fear is an effective governing method or rather I don't think it is the *most* effective. We are, by nature, a social species that instinctively works together. The best way to lower crime rates is better education, both moral and otherwise. Certainly there are aberrations in society that need to be kept separate for everyone's safety but that is not the rule.
If WHAM's assertions were correct, that people are either law abiding by nature or they should be killed then the only way he could account for the widely unbalanced prison population is racism and facism. Why are you more likely to be in prison if you are a poor, black male? Why are you less likely to be in prison if you are more educated even when factoring in things like wealth?
Further more, going back to InCreators point about raising children, what do you think happens to children that are taught right and wrong using fear and violence? Children learn from their parents by *emulation*. If a childs father uses fear and intimidation to tell them what to do then they associate that behaviour as acceptable and use it to get what they want. Children with violent childhoods are far more likely to end up in prison than those without.
"I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."
-Aristotle
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Sun 28/08/2011 18:14:19
We are, by nature, a social species that instinctively works together. The best way to lower crime rates is better education, both moral and otherwise.
No we aren't! Human beings tend to only work for their own personal good. Laws are in place to ensure as many people as possible agree on what is good for YOU and through that, what is good for the community as a whole. Break the law = punishment = not good for YOU = you are discouraged from breaking the law.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Sun 28/08/2011 18:14:19If WHAM's assertions were correct, that people are either law abiding by nature or they should be killed then the only way he could account for the widely unbalanced prison population is racism and facism. Why are you more likely to be in prison if you are a poor, black male? Why are you less likely to be in prison if you are more educated even when factoring in things like wealth?
It is the poor and the minorities who, in their greed and perceived misery ("boo-hoo, I am poor and miserable because I cannot afford a new TV, when millions of people are literally starving to death, but that's neither here nor there!") turn to their animalistic side, abandon the law and abandon humanity and break the law for their own personal gain, like the looters from whom this discussion/debate began from. This is another issue we must be able to resolve, sooner, rather than later: too many people = uneven distribution of wealth = unhappiness in those who perceive themselves as being "poor"
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Sun 28/08/2011 18:14:19
Further more, going back to InCreators point about raising children, what do you think happens to children that are taught right and wrong using fear and violence? Children learn from their parents by *emulation*. If a childs father uses fear and intimidation to tell them what to do then they associate that behaviour as acceptable and use it to get what they want. Children with violent childhoods are far more likely to end up in prison than those without.
Knowing what the mind of the majority here is, I'll get branded for this, but I remember how I was punished as a kid. There were threats of violence, mild but still violence, if I misbehaved repeatedly. If I went far enouh out of line, I got physically punished (spanking etc). I suffered such punishment on three occasions, and I learned from them.
Do not come home by bedtime = punishment = I did not repeat this mistake
Do not take something without permission (steal) = punishment = I did not repeat this mistake
Do not lie to your parents = punishment = I have not told a lie to my parents since the age of 13
Biggest issue of modern society is not the laws or punishments, it is the fact that people are not given the rules, the laws of society, at a young enough age and they do not know what is OK and what is not when they grow up.
Also: I haven't gotten a single fine, have not had a single issue with the police, have never broken the law (well, I did speed that one time, but that's not exactly a major crime now is it?) and have had a normal life in a small apartment, doing 10 hour days at work, living with my girlfriend. I guess that's all the violence and threat thereof I suffered in childhood making me a bad and twisted person, eh?
Quote from: WHAM on Sun 28/08/2011 18:46:09
have never broken the law (well, I did speed that one time, but that's not exactly a major crime now is it?)
Speeding is a serious crime that could cause harm to small children. I think (and the king agrees with me because he happens to prefer bicycles) that you should be executed for your crime. You have just confessed to the crime so no appeals will be given.
You will be executed in 5 minutes.
I do not understand Calin at all.
Look, at some point humans decided to live together. But to make everybody clear how it's going to work, the force/will of majority was established. Laws are just its written form, ethics is the unwritten one.
Say, as a member of this civilization, I want to just walk to this exact spot on the planet. Can I? No damn way. Because between me and the place I want to go is a country border and rest of the civilization pays money for people to guard it. With firearms... I walk, they shoot and nobody cares what I think about this.
The earth is divided by those major groups and they WILL maim and kill if needed, to ensure their laws and right to it. That's called "protecting your country". They are stealing, begging and researching for more and more efficient killing machines every day to be even better at shooting my sorry ass.
Say, I want to walk around naked. What will rest of the humans do? They will send people in blue uniforms who will rob me of my freedom or if I resist, possibly even my life. And I can't do shit about this because majority has agreed that one should not walk around naked. So in fear of imprisonment and death I will definitely not do this. Or stop paying tax. Or anything else.
What I'm saying is that fear is with me all times. Don't howl with the wolves and you're the dinner. By just being born into this or that country, local majority instantly claims me as their own and immediately forces their demands/laws/culture/taxes on me.
Criminals, looters, etc just deny this reality. Say, local crime rate is 7%. That means that concept of fear works for 93% of people. And now let's abandon fear as a psychological tool just because it didn't work for 100%?
Death is the ultimate fear for human being. I seriously, even despite all the statistics in the world cannot see as being less efficient than lifetime imprisonment. As for criminals, I personally know a quite a lot of them and I don't rehabilitation is very likely. Criminal is usually someone who just doesn't give a shit what happens. That's very primary characteristic for anyone turned to serious crime, unless it's a rare case impulsive thing with no preliminary criminal intent.
That said, I'm not saying one should execute anyone for looting London, but if there's no strict and immediate consequences, brits better spend the money they collected for new car or own business in nearest pub, because there could be more of the riots due shitty, eurosoftâ,,¢ justice system. I'm quite sure that heavy immigration plays part in increasing crime rates too, which in the other hand is caused by inequal nature of capitalist countries. If we'd all hunt our food, one forest wouldn't be substantially more desirable than other. And in soviet union, everywhere sucked, so there was no major difference between living in, say - Latvia vs. Ukraine.
(http://www.titanic-magazin.de/typo3temp/pics/3e47b92fab.jpg)
The text says: "London assigns Breivik: Youth riots stopped."
It's a satirical magazin from germany.
I used to like the Titanic magazine, but I don't quite get this.
Indeed. What an odd sense of humour.
I like it! ;D
I'm suprise that the convo didn't halt yet.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Godwin_point.JPG)
There's throwing around "Hitler/nazi/fascist" as an insult (what Godwin's law applies to), and then there's "What you have outlined is literally the philosophy and political program of fascism," which happens more rarely because few people are actually willing to defend fascism and argue that Hitler is only known as a bad guy because he lost.
The conversation is still pretty much redundant at that point, just because of how discredited that position is.
As a side note, trying to explain all human behavior as motivated by fear (and hence claiming that fear is the only way to instill desired behavior), apart from being depressing, is as reductive and simplistic as Freud explaining everything with sex, or classical economists with the maximization of profit. These are motivations, yes, but they are not the only motivations.
If the only reason you dont go around killing people is because you are afraid of the law then you can stay at least 3 countries away from me.
That literally makes you a psychopath in the medical sense of the word.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 29/08/2011 23:35:35
If the only reason you dont go around killing people is because you are afraid of the law then you can stay at least 3 countries away from me.
That literally makes you a psychopath in the medical sense of the word.
Let's look at a country that does not have a police force, shall we?
Iraq?
The nation's police force have been basically driven into hiding, and the foreign military forces who are present are unable to maintain a safe environment. Terrorist movements have risen to seemingly limitless power, vehicles transporting local civilian police to training are bombed to keep a police force from forming and the people...? Live happily ever after? I doubt that...
Indiscriminate bombings of military, police and civilian targets are damn near daily over there, and I can't help but wonder WHY? Why is there nothing stopping these madmen, these animals?
Yes, I am aware the reason Iraq does not have a police force is the war, and yes this is a special situation, but if you cannot see the pattern here, you must be blind! Police were removed from society -> Criminal scum has nothing to really fear as the closest thing to law is far overstretched, poorly trained and ineffective (Coalition troops are good soldiers, but now jack shit about serving and protecting) -> criminal scum keeps a police force from regaining strength -> Anarchy
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 30/08/2011 06:52:36
Indiscriminate bombings of military, police and civilian targets are damn near daily over there, and I can't help but wonder WHY? Why is there nothing stopping these madmen, these animals?
Honestly, it's as if you're a doing an impression of a naive authoritarian (who is otherwise a pretty nice guy, I think).
Why? You answer your own question. An ill-conceived cynically motivated war, which allowed terrorist groups to capitalise upon growing resentment towards the US and the power vacuum left by Saddam's ousting. They're not mad, they're not animals. They are sane human beings, committing terrible acts. The regular attacks on members of the public are morally indefensible, but there is so much more behind them than the lack of a police force.
Bearing in mind that some of the attacks are
suicide bombings, in what way could fear prevent them being committed?
There was an interesting study 2009 by Victoria Talwar of McGill University (which I read about in Born Liars) comparing two African schools. One of which had a discipline code similar to a European School, and a neighboring school with a much harsher regime of in which corporal punishment and public humiliation could be expected for even small misdemeanors. Both schools were pretty similar in social and economic terms.
The researchers played a game with children from both schools, in which the children were given an opportunity to cheat. They all did (they do across all cultures, apparently), but the children from the more draconian school resisted cheating for much, much longer.
So far, so good for beatings.
However, the children were then
asked if they cheated. Children from the first school often admitted cheating quite quickly, though a few lied.
Interestingly,
almost all the children from the second school lied. With a level of expertise from the younger children which shocked the researchers.
I would say, this is because they lived in a violent fear-led regime which rendered morality irrelevant.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 29/08/2011 23:35:35
That literally makes you a psychopath in the medical sense of the word.
In terms of psychiatry, yes,
In every other, normal human being.
Killing (or preparing for it) is what we do best, spend most money on and what is responsible for scientific breakthroughs for millenniums. I would even go as far to say that we need old good war every now and then, to rebuild, improve and invent new stuff. Coming back to space race and nuclear power here is easiest but there's so awfully much more stuff that are more or less war-related.
Also, killing is natural. All lifeforms are in some kind of food chain where's killing involved. Either as eater or the dinner.
Even if we say it's unnatural for humans, it's just hypocrisy, because tonnes of meat were produced as I typed this post and I'm going to eat some of it soon. And at even most holy hippie mode, I don't see any of pacifists doing much to -- say -- help people not get killed in some remote African hellhole.
Or let's try another view: Out of 100 latest video games released until right now, how many of them contains killing someone as an objective? Which types sell best? etc...
There's no point in arguing that "it's just a media conspiracy" because most people really really do enjoy shooting at stuff/people and raining hell from the skies. Games are made exactly like people like them, and how they like them most. I doubt most gamers would ever really kill anyone, but if it's out of question at all, why are we getting more and more realistic kill simulators every day?
Quote from: WHAM on Mon 29/08/2011 20:21:59
I like it! ;D
It was just for you, wham. ::)
Quote from: InCreator on Tue 30/08/2011 13:25:40
Also, killing is natural.
I never spend money for weapons, nor did I ever kill anybody. So either I'm violating my nature and should recieve a treatment or nature doesn't play a fucking role in people's thoughts.
Quote from: Snarky on Mon 29/08/2011 23:16:27
As a side note, trying to explain all human behavior as motivated by fear (and hence claiming that fear is the only way to instill desired behavior), apart from being depressing, is as reductive and simplistic as Freud explaining everything with sex, or classical economists with the maximization of profit.
I don't think it's reductive and simplistic to explain human behavior as motivated by the structure of the society they live in, which â€" in our case â€" bases on the maximization of profit. See HERE.
(http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/psych/0-contents.html)
Quote
I never spend money for weapons, nor did I ever kill anybody. So either I'm violating my nature and should recieve a treatment or nature doesn't play a fucking role in people's thoughts.
Increator didn't say that murder was natural which is what you are implying. I'll bet you did eat yesterday and everyday before that and so directly caused countless organisms to be killed so that you could consume them. Further I'll bet you regularly consume more than (1200 calories/day) what you require to survive. Either you are in denial or just don't care about the killings you commission, which in the latter case would make you a psychopath and a glutton at that... ;)
Quote
I don't think it's reductive and simplistic to explain human behavior as motivated by the structure of the society they live in...
I think it's just plain wrong; people are motivated by their emotions and their desire to maintain and improve their well being. The historical meaning of emotion is "to set in motion". In the context of a person's mental states, it's what initiates behavior. The only affect one's culture and societal structure may have is to color one's perception of "well being".
Here is a link to what appears to be part of a psychology text book that explains this and backs it up with studies and actual data rather than just espousing psychobabble. The first three paragraphs give a pretty good explanation of how behavior is initiated. It's also an interesting read for anyone wanting to implement NPC AI in a game.
http://dionysus.psych.wisc.edu/lit/Topics/Psychophysiology/CacioppoText/Ch.22.pdf
The recent riots can be understood in these terms. The participants were motivated by the opportunity to enhance their "well being" by
1. Experiencing pleasure
2. Acquiring material goods
3. Increasing political power (albeit temporarily)
and because of the lack of fear of the consequences. The lack of fear is due to the relatively mild punishment for such behavior and low likelyhood of any one individual being held accountable ("they can't arrest us all" mindset). So some here advocate a more severe punishment for such activity so as to put more of the participants' "well being" at risk.
Although the ultimate punishment is not appropriate it is sensible to discuss the appropriate consequences of rioting, looting, etc ought to be. It is also foolish and naive to believe that fear of consequences and their severity do not motivate or disincentivize people.
Fun facts from a Finnish daily newspaper:
http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2011090114299305_uu.shtml
There is a poll on that page:
"Kitkevätkö kovemmat rangaistukset rikollisuutta?" = "Would tougher punishments help weed out crime?"
Answers at the moment of posting (with almost 4000 responses): 95% say "yes"
The don't talk about shooting criminals, but the message is clear: tougher response to crime is wanted by the majority of those who responded.
Yes, but if you ask the same people "Is crime on the rise?" or "Are you more afraid of crime?" they inevitably answer yes, whether or not crime is on the rise.
Even leaving aside the fact that the readership of one newspaper is not a balanced cross-section of society, those polls don't give you anything approaching facts.
Some translated quotes from the article I linked to (it's now 7200 people, and still 95%). I've listed a short description of the crime, followed by the punishment the person got in real life and then my belief on what the just punishment would be.
"Man intentionally lit night-guest on fire for loud snoring. Victim suffered extensive burns, spent 7 weeks in hospital and required several skin transplants."
Real life sentence: After a long trial, 360 â,¬ of fines, no prison time (hey, the accused was poor!)
WHAM's sentence: Hard labour for 5 years, then released into society with supervision (electronic collar)
"Eight months old baby's skull was fractured when man assaulted the mother"
Real life sentence: 8 months on conditional discharge (basically 8 month supervision but no time in actual prison), fines
WHAM's sentence: Hard labour for 5 years, then released into society with supervision (electronic collar)
"Police officer raped a 16 year old girl in an alley in the middle of the night"
Real life sentence: 2 years and 6 months in prison, lost his job
WHAM's sentence: Shot in the nuts, then the head
"Multiple rapes, torture, assaults and threats on multiple victims"
Real life sentence: 1 year and 8 months in prison + 40 hours of community service
WHAM's sentence: Shot in the nuts, then the head
Now do tell me you actually think these people got what they deserved? That these people did not deserve harsher punishments? Imagine yourself as the victim in any of these cases, and tell me with a straight face that the above mentioned punishments are adequate and justified, and just try to look in a mirror after that.
They may not have suffered as much as their victims, but to me their suffering seems irrelevant. The impulse to inflict pain is one I try to resist, and I think a society should resist.
The question is not 'were they punished harshly enough'. It's 'how do we prevent these crimes being committed in the future?'
And no amount of nut-shooting will achieve that.
Quote from: Ali on Fri 02/09/2011 08:58:58
They may not have suffered as much as their victims, but to me their suffering seems irrelevant. The impulse to inflict pain is one I try to resist, and I think a society should resist.
The question is not 'were they punished harshly enough'. It's 'how do we prevent these crimes being committed in the future?'
And no amount of nut-shooting will achieve that.
Yeah, the nut shooting is just a symbolic gesture. It's the one bullet to the head that ensures these people do not become repeat offenders.
At least we agree that nut-shooting alone is not a remedy for all society's ills.
But we should also agree that some nuts should be shot.
Say, that someone comes to rape you. Will you perform nut/head shooting combo or preach about society's ills and how you're trying to avoid causing pain/violence while he's tearing you a new one?
If former, then why? Is violent act against you somehow more important than - say, your neighbor? So you're okay if neighbor gets raped and criminal 2 years of soft punishment for this. But not if victim is you?
Would you instantly dump hippie principles for ego and survival instinct? If you answered "yes", team WHAM wins the debate. YAY!
If latter, do you need a doctor?
I just wanted to throw out that more severe punishment doesn't lower crime rates:
Quote(3) Correlations: Severity Effects. In the Farrington studies just mentioned, the statistical associations between severity of punishment and crime rates were much weaker. Such negative correlations between sentence severity and crime rates as were found to exist generally were not sufficient to achieve statistical significance. These patterns, which are consistent with those found in earlier studies, provide little support for an hypothesis of marginal deterrence with respect to severity of punishment. One of these studies, Farrington, Langan and Wikstrom (1994), provides calculations that compare the English and America (as well as Swedish) trends. The absence of a finding in that study of strong correlations for severity is notable -- because U.S. penalty levels have been substantially higher than English levels during the periods studied.
Source: http://members.multimania.co.uk/lawnet/SENTENCE.PDF
So the solution isn't more severe punishment, it's effective prevention.
Quote from: InCreator on Fri 02/09/2011 12:29:43
But we should also agree that some nuts should be shot.
Say, that someone comes to rape you. Will you perform nut/head shooting combo or preach about society's ills and how you're trying to avoid causing pain/violence while he's tearing you a new one?
If former, then why? Is violent act against you somehow more important than - say, your neighbor? So you're okay if neighbor gets raped and criminal 2 years of soft punishment for this. But not if victim is you?
Would you instantly dump hippie principles for ego and survival instinct? If you answered "yes", team WHAM wins the debate. YAY!
If latter, do you need a doctor?
Sorry, I'm taking a firmly anti-nut-shooting stance.
Of course, if someone hurt me or someone I care about I would use force to try to stop them. Of course, I would want to hurt them and I don't know if I would be able to forgive them the way a few victims of crime can (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14356886).
However, when not overcome by pain and anger, I can see that society ought to prevent the kind of violent punishments which turn victims into torturers and killers.
So I don't think Team Nut-Shoot does win the debate.
Quote from: InCreator on Fri 02/09/2011 12:29:43
Say, that someone comes to rape you. Will you [...]
Is violent act against you somehow more important than - say, your neighbor? [...]
Your argumentation feels like:
1) What would your decision be in a situation where you're emotionally charged and act/view things highly irrational and subjective?
2) Now be rational and objective again, and therefore generalize that decision to all similar incidents to treat every case equally.
3) There, you have a perfectly rational judgement!
This doesn't feel like a valid argumentation to me.
Also I want to say I like and advocate the Titanic magazine cover mentioned before, it's good satire to me. As long as there are people who demand all rioters to be shot (and as we see, there are quite some), it is a very valid point, and everyone who finds the humor sick (Titanic has published several letters of people complaining about the cover on their website) should direct their anger towards those who really mean it, not to those who caricature the views of parts of the society and media.
@ Khris: Nowhere in the world is there a system with harsh enough punishments, thus the research is invalid. They are researching based on existing data, whereas I am promoting the activation of a thus-far fictional system of which there is no data to research or correlate.
If you do research to see if people act differently based on the threat of punisment where the levels of punishment are, what, "10 years in jail" versus "20 years in jail". In either of these cases, where long prison sentences are handed out, the result to the person is the same: loss of social life, job and lessened quality of life. It does NOT matter how LONG the prison sentence is. But when you make them decide on actually living or dying, I believe the results would differ greatly. However, to research this is impossible due to the ridiculous rules known as "human rights" and the entitlement of even the worst scum of humanity to them.
@ TomatosInTheHead: All crime should not be viewed solely from the perspective of the victim, this is true. However, a human being should not have the right to destroy another human being's life, and if human A shows the ability to do so, what is there to stop them from repeating the offense? Human A of this example could, in his lifetime, destroy dozens or hundreds of lives directly and indirectly, but if the eliminated human A after the first offense, would there not be many lives saved with a minimal cost when compared to the alternative?
What I am saying is: no we should not think like the victim does, but should instead pre-emptively respond to any potential for future victims decisively and effectively in order to protect our society as a whole.
By the way, if someone did something to me I would not want them to be killed on my behalf.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Fri 02/09/2011 13:16:34
By the way, if someone did something to me I would not want them to be killed on my behalf.
Good for you. I'd want him dead for harming you, so he cannot harm anyone else. Say, you might not want him dead for harming you, but how about if, after harming you he went on and raped your daughter/wife/girlfriend/mother and "harmed" your family and friends.
Oh well, the main thing is that NOBODY WAS KILLED, eh?
I realised that by justifying violence, paradoxally - I might aswell be either Team Calin or Team WHAM and say same stuff about killing being natural and violence as ages-proven way to settle human conflicts so we'd should just accept (and reduce as much as possible) but definitely not deny it.
One side justifies being a dick (from criminals' standpoint - because what else can back-patting for serious crime be?!) and other being a dick... back (on the side of law - vengeance mode).
And yet still, I don't see how promoting being unlawful (by not taking harsh nut-shootin action) would decrease it or decrease better than well, nut shooting.
Sorry to have to say this WHAM, but your view to me is too simplistic and naive.
If I take your viewpoint one step further, why not introduce capital punishment for misdemeanors? If that lowers the crime rate even further, which is what you insinuate, why stop at rape? Let's chop off the hands of thieves and cut out the tongues of liars, while we're at it.
Here's another interesting example:
Some researchers compared two African schools, one employed fairly European methods while the second used draconian punishments. Students were tested for cheating, and both groups were equally likely to cheat, it just took the second group much longer until they started.
The interesting thing though is that the kids were asked if they cheated afterwards, and most of the "European" group in general quickly admitted to having cheated while the other students, even pretty young ones, turned out to be really skilled liars.
So I find it questionable if that's a good basis for building a community.
I know exactly where you're coming from but my views have changed quite a bit during the last few years, particularly because I have listened to the opinions of people who actually know what they're talking about (as opposed to "random guys on a forum" unrelated to the topic).
And calling human rights "ridiculous rules" is ridiculous itself. I'm absolutely convinced that people who hold views like yours are severely lacking in the "put yourself in another person's shoes" department.
According to you, the West Memphis Three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three) would've gotten a nut shot and a head shot in 1994. Imagine being one of them.
The 'Alford Plea' used in the case of the West Memphis Three is also a point against capital punishment.
Alford (after whom the plea is named) was essentially denied a fair trial because he was afraid of receiving the death sentence if he lost. If he pleaded guilty then he would only receive a life sentence but if it went to open trial he could be killed. So an 'Alford Plea' is essentially saying "I didn't do it but i'm too scared to make my case"
I think the experiment Khris talks about is the same one mentioned earlier in the thread. My viewpoint still stands though, you cannot compare the results of these tests to the system I propose, as they are inherently different.
And how is the Alford Plea a point against capital punishment?
A man is accused or a crime, he "fears capital punishment" (likely for good reason, such as... oh, I don't know, being guily?) and chooses a life in prison instead.
So, because he was given this option, he became a lifelong straing on the limited resources of the prison system and a drain on taxpayer money. Result: society loses, convicted criminal suffers lifelong sentence in the prison system, which I think Caling himself previously described as "one so violent that it is unlikely that those who get out of there would commit a crime once more" (I might be thinking of the wrong person, and I'm too lazy to dig up the post).
The Alford plea is only relevant in a scenario where the defendant isn't guilty.
The point of the two studies was to show that the severity of the punishment doesn't have a negative correlation to the crime rate. What does have a negative correlation is the likelihood of getting caught and convicted.
The point of mentioning the West Memphis Three was to show that a small percentage of people ends up being wrongly convicted, and if all they get is a prison sentence, the governing body can at least make amends.
The oldest of them was on death row for 18 years, and he accepted "guilty" because that way he could finally get out of a situation he absolutely couldn't stand any longer.
If our judicial system was perfect, it would be another story. But we have to base our decisions in reality, not in would-be-land.
And more capital punishment rulings means more innocent people getting killed.
The thing is, your view is as misguided as abstinence only sex ed. Sure, in a perfect world, there wouldn't be any abortions; the thing is that abstinence only demonstrably increases the number of unwarranted pregnancies because guess what, teens have sex regardless of whether their parents approve or not.
It's the same with crime, if somebody thinks they can get away with a planned crime, they don't really care how severe the punishment is. They are probably more likely to commit a minor offense, but the number of felonies which in your system would result in execution wouldn't decrease.
This is of course the crux of this discussion, but looking at the available evidence, it seems clear to me that this is the case. There have been societies throughout history were people have been killed simply because they had the wrong sex partner. Some still exist today, death by stoning or beheading for offenses we'd regard as minor is common in Arab countries.
If these drastic measures had had a serious impact on the number of committed crimes, we would have heard it by now, don't you think?
Even if we were to grant that the system of law enforcement you propose would be (a) morally acceptable and (b) effective, have you completely failed to consider the kind of government these practices would lead to?
We'd then have in place a system where the state can arrest you, give you a summary trial (you were arguing earlier that removing all those tedious rights of appeal and other safeguards was a crucial part of your proposal), and then torture and execute you. Where government officials are used to having the power to kill people. Where people lose their human rights if declared criminal.
Do you seriously not think that those in government would abuse these powers? Declare their political opponents traitors, prosecute protesters as rioters and terrorists, threaten criminal investigations to get people to do what they wanted? Since you apparently believe that only the threat of violence keeps people from doing bad things, what would keep those in power, those who decide what's a crime and what isn't, from doing whatever they liked? And what kind of people do you think would be attracted to those positions where they would get to kill and abuse others?
A state under your laws would be a scary, unpleasant place. And that's not just speculation...
I get the impression you don't know a lot of history, but a crash course in the politics of absolutist regimes won't take you long. Spend the weekend on Wikipedia and read up on Argentina's Dirty War, The Soviet Union's Red Terror and Great Purge, the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror, the Cultural Revolution as well as numerous purges in China, the Nazis' Night of the Long Knives, the role of Stasi in East Germany (or just watch The Lives of Others), Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Iran under the Ayatollahs and Libya under Qaddafi, and finally - since you seem to be such a big fan - check out the history of the Roman Empire to see the kind of bloodbaths its system of government entailed.
What you'll find include many of the most infamous state atrocities in history, and if you pay attention it should open your eyes to the benefits of living under a more liberal, humane regime. Historically, harsh criminal penalties have nearly always gone hand in hand with equally harsh political repression and bloody political struggles that make the London riots seem like a nice little cookout.
Do they not make you read Nineteen Eighty-Four in school these days?
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 02/09/2011 16:23:29
Even if we were to grant that the system of law enforcement you propose would be (a) morally acceptable and (b) effective
It's neither of those, so the argumentation need not go further.
I especially emphacise on b). It just doesn't work to lock people up, it only makes things worse.
The greatest trick of people in favor of "autority" is to make it look like it's the
others who are laxists, even though it's actulaly them who are sabotageing law and order.
Khris: The point you make has been discussed before, and just like before, it boils down to this:
Is it truly such a bad thing that some innocents die by mistrial if the fact that we also get rid of thousands upon thousands of legit hard-line criminals who would have potentially repeated their offense upon release, killing more innocents, or destroying lives in other indirect ways.
And in cases where the prison sentence is a life sentence or otherwise very long sentence, how is death a worse option that the prolonged imprisonment? If you've spent decades in prison, there is hardly any chance for such a person to redeem a functioning life afterwards, and most of those people released after long prison sentences live the rest of their lives in misery. However, during their imprisonement, they are a massive drain on taxpayer money, which could otherwise be put to... I don't know... How about more resources put into making sure we accuse the right person instead of the current system where the law enforcement is quite overstretched in pretty much all countries, and the money and resources that could go into this is used to keep inmates clothed, fed, housed and healthy.
As I've said before: we are but humans, we cannot really create the perfect system for this, but would it not be better to distribute our resources a bit differently when it comes to handling crime? Instead of bleeding taxpayer money to maintain prisons, we get rid of the prisoners more quickly, release the resources and create a better justice system with that money instead.
And again, as mentioned before, when it comes to the government / police misusing its power, there already exists internal investigation departments to ensure such wrongdoing is weeded out. This is another area that could be reinforced with the money released from the prison system overhaul, to again ensure a more just legal process.
Ang once more: how is it worse if a government misuses its power to kill opposition compared to imprisoning the opposition for life / prolonged time? How different is the end result for such a government?
Quote from: WHAM on Fri 02/09/2011 17:53:48
The point you make has been discussed before, and just like before, it boils down to this:
Is it truly such a bad thing that some innocents die by mistrial if the fact that we also get rid of thousands upon thousands of legit hard-line criminals who would have potentially repeated their offense upon release, killing more innocents, or destroying lives in other indirect ways.
I guess it does, and in the case of (most, probably?) people in this thread who are opposing you, including myself in this particular point, I'd say that No, I'd say such a thing would be completely and totally unacceptable, and in this way the SYSTEM ITSELF would have no claim or right to call itself "just", and I'd be among those protesting (probably not looting, though).
The thing is that you are suggesting *removing* alot of the safe guards that reduce current miscarriages of justice. The amount that you kill could be *much* higher than it currently is.
Or it *could* be far less.
My observation so far is this: the current system is inadequate and does not produce wanted results, thus, a different system should be tried. In my opinion, a more radical system.
It coul go well, it could go bad. There is no way to tell and unless humanity one day tries to change, we will never find out.
It has been tried, see Snarky's post.
You dont understand. *His* authoritarian dictatorship will be totally different.
Oh, I apologize. I look forward to the day when WHAM and his perfect, incorruptible übermensch finally stamp out all those sub-human miscreants through the elimination of that pesky little thing called freedom.
Quote from: ddq on Fri 02/09/2011 21:55:52
Oh, I apologize. I look forward to the day when WHAM and his perfect, incorruptible übermensch finally stamp out all those sub-human miscreants through the elimination of that pesky little thing called freedom.
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein WHAM!
Heil! Heil! Heil!
Well actualy it is a whole philosophical current that states that freedom is a plague rather than a blessing.
On the paper it sounds good (see Nietzsche and all his followers), but in real life it sucks.
Quote from: RickJ on Thu 01/09/2011 20:04:49
Quote
I never spend money for weapons, nor did I ever kill anybody. So either I'm violating my nature and should recieve a treatment or nature doesn't play a fucking role in people's thoughts.
Increator didn't say that murder was natural which is what you are implying. I'll bet you did eat yesterday and everyday before that and so directly caused countless organisms to be killed so that you could consume them.
So your point is that Increator made a very banal statement that is worth ignoring? Alright then.
Quote
Quote
I don't think it's reductive and simplistic to explain human behavior as motivated by the structure of the society they live in...
I think it's just plain wrong; people are motivated by their emotions and their desire to maintain and improve their well being. [...] The only affect one's culture and societal structure may have is to color one's perception of "well being".
And how can you try to achieve "well being"? You have to play by the rules, respectively transgress them if they force you into a miserable life. So all your thoughts and with them your emotions have to deal with and - in this way - become results of the structure of the society you live in.
Quote
Here is a link to what appears to be part of a psychology text book that explains this and backs it up with studies and actual data rather than just espousing psychobabble.
You're joking, right?
Quote
The recent riots can be understood in these terms. The participants were motivated by the opportunity to enhance their "well being" by
1. Experiencing pleasure
2. Acquiring material goods
Those unhallowed creatures! Didn't they learn that this is sin against God Almighty?
Seriously, I think those are the most reasonable motivations there are.
Quote
and because of the lack of fear of the consequences. The lack of fear is due to the relatively mild punishment for such behavior and low likelyhood of any one individual being held accountable ("they can't arrest us all" mindset).
This is some very funny logic: Someone did something
because he wasn't restrained from doing so!
Quote
Although the ultimate punishment is not appropriate it is sensible to discuss the appropriate consequences of rioting, looting, etc ought to be. It is also foolish and naive to believe that fear of consequences and their severity do not motivate or disincentivize people.
For all of you law-and-order fans in here: A society like this, i.e. a capitalistic, competition-based one, will always produce losers. You may want to beat them, you may want to shoot them, they will always be there and some of them will always try to get what they want in a way the state doesn't permit.
PS From my side the discussion with WHAM is over.
I want the last word too!
Let's end this with a picture instead, says more than thousand words or something:
(http://i52.tinypic.com/2u6018j.png)
This is the message we send out right now. In EU, it's even worse.
EDIT!
I just realized that there is an institution that will provide way better numbers in rehabilitated vs. not scale, works same way as imprisonment (i.e. uses taxpayer money), but provides results.
It's called military. Why gladiators vs poor lions, when lawbreakers can actually serve the country and pay the dues to society?
We need military all the time, everywhere. It should be separated unit, something like French Foreign Legion, but I think it would work. Far better than hotel "barbed wire" anyway... Plus, teach prisoners alot about taking really care of themselves and provide instant job with honest life once term is served. And get the adrenaline out where needed.
Those comparisons are inane. Free housing? Comparing the social benefit of spending in both areas could be meaningful, but this is just propagandist and uninformative.
Also, if you lived in a civilised country the kids would get free heath and dental care.
Well this is Michigan. I don't live in US and we do have free healthcare here.
Quote from: Ali on Tue 06/09/2011 11:01:49
Also, if you lived in a civilised country the kids would get free heath and dental care.
That's exactly what the terrorists want you to think. Why do you hate freedom Ali?
Quote from: InCreator on Tue 06/09/2011 11:02:48
Well this is Michigan. I don't live in US and we do have free healthcare here.
So if it's "worse in the EU" but kids
do get free healthcare in your country then I guess Estonian prisoners are given some kind of super-expensive immortality serum?
Quote from: veryweirdguy on Tue 06/09/2011 11:07:22
Quote from: Ali on Tue 06/09/2011 11:01:49
Also, if you lived in a civilised country the kids would get free heath and dental care.
That's exactly what the terrorists want you to think. Why do you hate freedom Ali?
No time to answer that, I have to go and encourage some women to have abortions. Then have Lesbian marriages.
Hey, this picture pretty much explains what I was trying to say!
We waste money pampering criminals, when that money could be used to educate children and improve society.
Prisons are housing, built and maintained by governments using taxpayer money, and it is in prisons that even MORE taxpayer money is used to "better the lives of criminals to help them adjust and rehabilitate them into society". What a crock of shit! >:(
Finland: yes, children get free healthcare and dental care.
HOWEVER: the government is looking to, again, cut the money provided to parents through childcare support to cut on spendings. They have been nipping away at the funds which are used to support the elderly. It was just on the news too: public healthcare is looking at some cuts, so that those who are "less sick" will pay for all of their own medicine, whereas they used to get a portion of their medicinal bills paid by the government. Gee whiz! I could NOT have thought of a better place to cut spendings!
HAVE A FUCKING GANDER HERE!
http://unlockingamerica.blogspot.com/2008/08/finland.html
That story is not a bleeding joke there! That is REAL!
Isn't that article arguing that liberal prison policies are cheaper and more effective?
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 06/09/2011 11:21:54
We waste money pampering criminals, when that money could be used to educate children and improve society.
Rehabilitating criminals is one of the ways in which we are trying to improve society.
Let me remind you, once again, that
criminals are the same species as you and me. And the place they live is also called 'society'.
That image is the biggest piece of shit i have yet seen on these fora EDIT (apparently it's forums).
On what planet do students in america not have access to a library?
Quote from: Ali on Tue 06/09/2011 11:43:04
Let me remind you, once again, that criminals are the same species as you and me.
We agree to disagree on this point.
Wow, there are some opinions here that are, well, bat-shit insane. Criminals a different species as us? Really?
Well.. Good internet argument you're having here.
*walks away to eat a sandwich*
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 06/09/2011 12:14:30
Quote from: Ali on Tue 06/09/2011 11:43:04
Let me remind you, once again, that criminals are the same species as you and me.
We agree to disagree on this point.
But *you're* a criminal WHAM. You confessed to speeding a few pages back. Speeding is a highly irresponsible crime. I know several people who have lost loved ones because of it.
YOUR SORT who do it are clearly dangerous animals. Maybe if we removed one of your testicles, and told you if you did it again, we'd remove the other one, you'd be encouraged to become a Proper Human Being?
Hey, descending into insanity in debates is fun!
Seriously WHAM, what you're posting here is bordering on being Poe (so absurd it's indistinguishable from parody).
The biggest tabloid here in Germany always acts as inane as you whenever a convicted fellow tries to maintain their human rights, for instance getting compensation for threats of torture, or wanting to get a job or some other outrageous effrontery those third-class apes don't deserve.
They do this to sell their shit to stupid people, so on a level I can sort of respect them, but you aren't gaining anything from this so I must assume that you're actually having these dark age authoritarian viewpoints. I feel sad for you, seriously.
But I guess all is well as long as you don't found a party or something.
Quote from: Khris on Tue 06/09/2011 14:42:04
But I guess all is well as long as you don't found a party or something.
Hell, in Finland there is this thing caled "piraattipuolue", which is basically a party for software pirates who "defend people's rights".
LINK: http://www.piraattipuolue.fi/english
I know one of the guys leading a group here in Tampere, he's actually hoping to get RID of copyright laws as "they hamper peoples freedom, man". A man actively participating in a legit party in Finland is seriously saying "we should not have to pay for Windows".
Also, one of the candidates of this party for the cabinet is a pornstar who actually filmed and distributed an election porn flick on the internet (google it if you dare: "vaaliporno 2011", it's so ridiculous its funny!).
Me starting a political party in this country doesn't seem that far fetcheched now, does it? I'll have to look into that in a few years.
Hey, that's a cool sounding party!
Even PETA is starting their own porn website, not to mention they ripped off Super Meat Boy a while ago.
Porn, indie games and pirates are simply in vogue right now.
EDIT: To be clear: I didn't read through even one page of this thread.
Quote from: Ali on Tue 06/09/2011 11:14:20
So if it's "worse in the EU" but kids do get free healthcare in your country then I guess Estonian prisoners are given some kind of super-expensive immortality serum?
Sort of... While kids are getting all the misery of studying and struggle to become everything capitalist society demands of them, prisons have given birth to a whole subculture of people who spend years there, get out for a week or two, and commit crime to get back in again. They have no obligation to donate anything to society and all they do is milk it for their own welfare. Capitalist society is a bit guilty in this: a former criminal finds really hard time to find any honest work, but most don't even try. Prison life is simply too comfortable (thanks to piece of shit hippie EU "standards" that were imposed on us upon joining) to leave it and join the struggle of ordinary man.
The worse the criminal, the more likely he'll be on this path of being society's burden, because worst criminals have easier time to make his life in prison good.
To me, it feels even more absurd than that image or immortality serum. The worse the scum, the worst should be his life for this. But it's all upside down somehow.
So yeah, thanks hippies. Fight the good fight!
I completely disbelieve that there are people (apart from maybe a small number of mostly harmless wretches in desperate conditions: junkies, drunks and homeless people at the end of their rope) who prefer the "comfy" prison life to freedom, commit crimes in order to go back to jail, and sit there "milking it for their own welfare". That's a paranoid fantasy.
There's a book out now that makes a compelling argument (http://chronicle.com/article/In-Defense-of-Flogging/127208/) that the modern prison system is more brutal and dehumanizing than the old "cruel and unusual" forms of punishment: flogging, stocks, amputation and so on. Think about it. What would you prefer: Five years in a US prison, or twenty lashes? I know I would choose the whipping. (And it's not just the US; conditions in many European prison systems are deplorable.)
I don't know people who would become students just for the benefits either. One studies for education, just like a prisoner is in prison to fulfil his sentence.
Quote from: NsMn on Tue 06/09/2011 19:18:15
I don't know people who would become students just for the benefits either.
Heh, I know plenty.
Haven't read the whole discussion, but from what I did, it seems pretty fucked up. Just to hang on this thought for a moment:
Quote from: WHAM on Sun 28/08/2011 18:46:09
No we aren't! [a social species that instinctively works together] Human beings tend to only work for their own personal good. Laws are in place to ensure (...)
Even if people work for their own good, surely an important part of their
own welfare is a chance to live in a hospitable society, which basically means instinctively working together? Just because your narrow-mindedness doesn't seem to let you grasp certain concepts such as common sense, empathy, a sense of morality that isn't dictated by the laws, and counter-effects that fear and oppression can have on people; it doesn't mean they aren't present. Laws are of course essential to establish some level of control over the masses, but you're just being unreasonable here. Extremist solutions like yours can never work because they're against human nature, and something is bound to break sooner or later in such regimes.
QuoteWe must fight to keep our society from collapsing back into a wilderness, to keep it civilized and hospitable.
You said that yourself. But your idea of a perfect world, or whatever, is worlds apart from being hospitable (or civilised, for that matter). It sends shivers down my spine just thinking of living in a place like that, and I'm not a criminal, obviously.
What I really wanted to say, though, is that people in this thread keep offering you all sorts of facts, and you're just ignoring a great deal of them?
This whole thing isn't moving anywhere, really. Kinda feels like one of Icey's threads.
In fact, if Icey is defined as a troll (go figure), then I shall declare
you a troll as well.
Quote from: Snarky on Tue 06/09/2011 19:14:32
I completely disbelieve that there are people (apart from maybe a small number of mostly harmless wretches in desperate conditions: junkies, drunks and homeless people at the end of their rope) who prefer the "comfy" prison life to freedom, commit crimes in order to go back to jail, and sit there "milking it for their own welfare". That's a paranoid fantasy.
No it's not. I have a relative who gets out, kisses ground and hugs freedom and vows to never go back.... then he tries to find work and listens his mom nagging for few weeks, then goes "fuck it", steals car, robs a gas station with his criminal friends or does smoke runs (that's bringing contraband cigarettes over Russian border, due avoiding insane EU tax, it's actually better business than drugs), parties few days from plunder and gets caught again. He's been in this cycle for 17 years (since age of 15), serving 5th term and many of his buddies are like this too.
Truth to be told, he lives in eastmost area of Estonia that is pretty much a Soviet industrial wasteland with mostly immgrant Russian population and no other industry than chemistry and mining and he's no miner material. But yeah... repeating offenders don't really know how to live a civil life, especially if they're used being taken care of in prison.
I don't think anything but forced and then professional career in military service would save him, but he's too old to be conscripted (they deny over 27 year olds).
I read somewhere (no idea how true it is) how a person in some US state was diagnosed with cancer or something, but didn't have healthcare or any way to treat it, so he finally went to a bank, robbed it for $1, and let himself get caught, sent to prison, and now his cancer is being treated.
...So yeah...
EDIT: Well, I guess it isn't. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/nc-man-allegedly-robs-bank-health-care-jail/story?id=13887040
Quote from: InCreator on Wed 07/09/2011 03:11:07
Quote from: Snarky on Tue 06/09/2011 19:14:32
I completely disbelieve that there are people (apart from maybe a small number of mostly harmless wretches in desperate conditions: junkies, drunks and homeless people at the end of their rope) who prefer the "comfy" prison life to freedom, commit crimes in order to go back to jail, and sit there "milking it for their own welfare". That's a paranoid fantasy.
No it's not. I have a relative who gets out, kisses ground and hugs freedom and vows to never go back.... then he tries to find work and listens his mom nagging for few weeks, then goes "fuck it", steals car, robs a gas station with his criminal friends or does smoke runs (that's bringing contraband cigarettes over Russian border, due avoiding insane EU tax, it's actually better business than drugs), parties few days from plunder and gets caught again. He's been in this cycle for 17 years (since age of 15), serving 5th term and many of his buddies are like this too.
That's not what you said, though. Now you're talking about someone who chooses to live a criminal life, taking the
risk of going to prison, over the difficulties of finding honest work etc. It's pretty clear from your description that your relative doesn't prefer prison to freedom or is deliberately seeking to go back to jail.
It's also arguable that prison robs you of your ability to socialise and interact with society normally which in turn makes you more likely to subvert. i.e commit crime.
The harsher the prison the more it dehumanises the inmates and the more dehumanised the inmates become the less likely they are to behave 'normally' on release.
However, the solution (if one exists) is not to just shoot them all and say "problem solved". Just like you wouldnt cut your head off to cure a tooth ache.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 07/09/2011 12:32:56
However, the solution (if one exists) is not to just shoot them all and say "problem solved". Just like you wouldnt cut your head off to cure a tooth ache.
What you describe is nuking the city where a criminal is caught, and even I would call that an overblown reaction.
What happens in real life is that the dentist identifies the tooth, realizes it is rotten and pulls it, to relieve the pain and keep any possible infections from spreading...
Sounds like my final solution, doesn't it?
You're absolutely right! Let's get rid of them.
First off: speeders. they are endangering the lives of others and are a menace to society. Anyone caught speeding - or has admitted to it - line up for shooting. The world will be better off without you!
Better to take their lives than risk the lives of others, right?
I didn't know you can get an extended prison sentence for speeding where you live, VWG. The prisons over there must be an even bigger drain on tax money, or perhaps you live in some sort of paradise where crime simply does not exist!
I feel sorry for you... I honestly do.
If criminals are a different species, then a criminal is a criminal is a criminal. Mass murderer or speeder, they have both broken the law, and are defined as a "criminal", that is, a species different than upstanding citizens such as Calin or I.
And if they have all given up their rights by committing a crime, then they get no say in what happens to them. Sorry!
Obviously, the actual murder or vehicular homicide doesn't matter, only the tax dollars wasted on imprisoning them since WHAM has proven repeatedly he doesn't value human life.
And stop calling it your "final solution", asshole.
I don't quite see how speeding is a threat to society as long as you don't cause an accident claiming 20 lives.
For the record, of all the death experienced in my life, outside of 'old age' and 'disease', most has been caused by car accidents, likely a result of speeding.
But that's not the point. Speeding. Murder. Downloading a song illegally. Honking your car horn after 11pm (in the UK). Opening someone else's mail. All these things are deemed, by our society, as "crimes", doing any of them makes you a "criminal", and thus a different species. Therefore doing one is as bad as the rest and you should be eliminated in the final solution! Or so I understand it.
Also note that many convicted speeders don't hesitate to speed again, they're really not resocializable!
I guess the percentage of recidivists (identified or not) is much higher among speeders than among murderers. So I'm also in for shooting them in the nuts, at least, and behead them publicly if they do it ever again.
Quote from: WHAM on Tue 06/09/2011 15:41:45
Quote from: Khris on Tue 06/09/2011 14:42:04
But I guess all is well as long as you don't found a party or something.
Hell, in Finland there is this thing caled "piraattipuolue", which is basically a party for software pirates who "defend people's rights".
LINK: http://www.piraattipuolue.fi/english
I know one of the guys leading a group here in Tampere, he's actually hoping to get RID of copyright laws as "they hamper peoples freedom, man". A man actively participating in a legit party in Finland is seriously saying "we should not have to pay for Windows".
Also, one of the candidates of this party for the cabinet is a pornstar who actually filmed and distributed an election porn flick on the internet (google it if you dare: "vaaliporno 2011", it's so ridiculous its funny!).
Me starting a political party in this country doesn't seem that far fetcheched now, does it? I'll have to look into that in a few years.
The same people in Tampere told the newspapers, that we'd be able to provide work for every immigrant woman, if we make them all prostitutes. And everyone will be happy, the get money, we get laid.
It appears my earlier definition of the two major levels of crime "petty crime" and "hard crime" has gone unnoticed in this argument. It's those "petty criminals" who are not quite a burden on society, as their crimes, as long as they are not repeatedly committed, can be punished by fines which *gasp* bring money to the government! Or if the subject is unable to pay their fines, they can be forced to WORK (you know, just like we do nowadays, its called community service).
And are you truly saying you have NEVER, EVER broken one single law? I doubt that very much.
AND FURTHER: are you also saying that anyone who has ever driven too fast on a motorway has automatically commited vehicular manslaughter? If we start accusing people of crimes that MIGHT HAVE happened but DIDN'T, then that would be troubling even by my standards.
And why does calling something a "final solution" make me an asshole? That's just as silly as saying anyone who raises their arm as a greeting is a nazi, because the nazi's did it! (What is commonly known as "Sieg Heil" was also used by the U.S. Navy, among others, as an official military greeting long before the Germans started using it)
This is my honestly, truhfully purposed final solution to the faults in our justice and prison systems. The name does not make it better or worse.
Giving the Hitler salute is generally frowned upon and a criminal offence in Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic. Also among the generally frowned upon things is using the term 'final solution'.
Quote from: WHAM on Wed 07/09/2011 16:34:57What is commonly known as "Sieg Heil" was also used by the U.S. Navy, among others, as an official military greeting long before the Germans started using it
You're referring to the Bellamy salute. Which was similar to the nazi salute. Which the nazis stole from the Italian fascists, who stole it from the Romans. Your argument, however, is so flawed it's ridiculous.
QuoteIn order to prevent further confusion or controversy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute to be rendered by civilians during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem in the United States, instead of the Bellamy salute.
They stopped using it specifically due to the nazi connection. So yes, there's something wrong with people who give the nazi salute.
Quote from: voh on Thu 08/09/2011 01:19:55
Giving the Hitler salute is generally frowned upon and a criminal offence in Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic. Also among the generally frowned upon things is using the term 'final solution'.
Most U.S. presidents still give Hitler salute. George W. Bush did it especially energetically, Obama does too. I've always wondered why.
(http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/june2005/150605bushnazi.jpg)(http://truthorigins.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/obama-hitler-salute.jpg?w=500&h=328)(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FT1AaGsyBj8/TDVwVN98NFI/AAAAAAAAAv0/BiuciCJATnA/s400/Hitler%2BNazi%2BSalute.jpg)
Quote from: Tuomas on Wed 07/09/2011 16:03:33
The same people in Tampere told the newspapers, that we'd be able to provide work for every immigrant woman, if we make them all prostitutes. And everyone will be happy, the get money, we get laid.
Well, those people are not to be taken seriously then, because as most other university towns in northern Europe, clubs of Tampere are packed with single girls, dancing with each other or sadly waiting until their so-called boyfriends get drunk enough to make a move. At least this is what I saw this summer when visited friend there. What do they need prostitutes for?
The swastika, red-black-and-white, the iron cross, Scwartze Sonne, the Vicroty Salute, the term "Final solution"...
These are all symbols and terms that can mean many things, but which most people are silly enough to still connect to the long-gone Reich. I do not see why this needs to be. I find it just plain silly how people are still scared of the symbols like they are the name of Voldemort from Harry Potter. "Shhhhh, Harry! You don't say that name or He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named will return with his silly mustache and murder all the Jews!"
http://www.theage.com.au/world/britains-feral-underclass-how-the-system-failed-a-nation-20110907-1jwoa.html
According to this article, over 75 percent of the adults charged with participating in the riots have criminal records.
Quote from: InCreator on Thu 08/09/2011 07:20:10
Well, those people are not to be taken seriously then, because as most other university towns in northern Europe, clubs of Tampere are packed with single girls, dancing with each other or sadly waiting until their so-called boyfriends get drunk enough to make a move. At least this is what I saw this summer when visited friend there. What do they need prostitutes for?
Funny, how when during all those years I lived in Tampere it felt like quite the opposite. The city has a big tech university that covers at least 50% of the youth there, and little for girls 20+ to do. So what I've experienced in Tampere is that usually there's just guys everywhere, too much sausage on the dance floor, you know? :)
Quote from: WHAM on Thu 08/09/2011 08:31:41
The swastika, red-black-and-white, the iron cross, Scwartze Sonne, the Vicroty Salute, the term "Final solution"...
These are all symbols and terms that can mean many things, but which most people are silly enough to still connect to the long-gone Reich. I do not see why this needs to be. I find it just plain silly how people are still scared of the symbols like they are the name of Voldemort from Harry Potter. "Shhhhh, Harry! You don't say that name or He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named will return with his silly mustache and murder all the Jews!"
I can relate to this. I've been studying freedom of opinion and speech in Germany after the war, but realised quickly, that there really aren't anything published under said label except for essays on nazi-zeit Meinungsfreiheit, which we all know is like beating a dead horse. Of course people associate images and sounds to those feelings that they're most often connected to. If a logo reminds you of a group, company etc, it's good and works. These symbols became the symbols of fear for a lot of people, and the idea has been passed on in history books. It is easy for neo-nazis to use these again because they already have the expected meaning and thus need no explaining. For example the rainbow wasn't an obvious gay-thing until it became so common, that you don't see straight nazi-arians wearing rainbow t-shirts. It's the same with the US flag. It's not something you just put as the logo of your company because it's already in use and has a meaning, to all people on earth, most probably. These are highly influential symbols that always deliver the same message. If Germany for example started putting swastikas up everywhere on red flags and tanks and cannons, people would react accordingly. They couldn't say "it's just a logo" in a world, where every color even has its own meaning.
Quote from: Tuomas on Thu 08/09/2011 12:59:01
Funny, how when during all those years I lived in Tampere it felt like quite the opposite. The city has a big tech university that covers at least 50% of the youth there, and little for girls 20+ to do. So what I've experienced in Tampere is that usually there's just guys everywhere, too much sausage on the dance floor, you know? :)
Well, I was there somewhere in July I think? Maybe most of male students were at their home cities at the moment. We visited most clubs in city I think and picture remained pretty much as I described. Guys often sent angry looks at exchange students who hit on girls and concentrated on drinking while girls showed inhuman patience... eh, who knows. I'm not an insider.
Well of course the whole purpose of hanging around in discos and bars is to get effin drunk, otherwise they wouldn't serve alcohol ;)
Quote from: kconan on Thu 08/09/2011 09:51:19
http://www.theage.com.au/world/britains-feral-underclass-how-the-system-failed-a-nation-20110907-1jwoa.html
According to this article, over 75 percent of the adults charged with participating in the riots have criminal records.
INCREDIBLE!!!! DO YOU ACTUALLY MEAN THAT... ANGRY POOR PEOPLE ARE NOT INNOCENTS?
Wait a minute... Would that mean that there is a link between social distress and criminality!?!
This is the craziest piece of news I've ever heard.
I won't be as crazy as to suggest wasting less saliva on discussing "how those guys should be punished", but instead "how to relieve that distress on the long term". That would be totally loco!
Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Fri 09/09/2011 13:29:24
I won't be as crazy as to suggest wasting less saliva on discussing "how those guys should be punished", but instead "how to relieve that distress on the long term". That would be totally loco!
I thought we were discussing both at the same time?
Quote from: WHAM on Fri 09/09/2011 13:36:29
Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Fri 09/09/2011 13:29:24
I won't be as crazy as to suggest wasting less saliva on discussing "how those guys should be punished", but instead "how to relieve that distress on the long term". That would be totally loco!
I thought we were discussing both at the same time?
That's not what I've read... Especially from you (without sarcasm).
I should really stop coming to this thread, but it seems my points keep getting misunderstood for some reason.
In any case, Mr. OUXX, what I have been promoting is harsh and decisive action to remove criminal elements from society, and turning this venture from the drain on government funds into a productive and profitable proposition through commercialization of the process (a concept proven as viable a couple of millenia ago, and time and time again after that). If we can accomplish this, we will see less criminal elements and as managing these criminal elements are less of an issue we will have greater resources at our disposal in maintaining public services, physical and mental healthcare, support for the needy and so forth.
I know this proposition alone is not the magical solution to all of mankind's ills and shortcomings, but I believe it is the most direct and immediate way towards the improvement process.
I love you Wham, and whether your opinion seems to be on whatever side of the lemon, i love the lemon too.
Quote from: WHAM on Fri 09/09/2011 14:13:38
I should really stop coming to this thread, but it seems my points keep getting misunderstood for some reason.
Gee, I certainly hope so, because as far as I can tell, your points amount to "I am a neo-Nazi." (Arguing that "Sieg Heil", the swastika, "Final Solution" and Hitler salute do not necessarily signify Nazism is the purest form of bullshit, and comes off as the thinnest possible excuse to keep cloaking your argument in Nazi symbols and terminology.)
In related news, this thread has convinced me that WHAM and people who think like him are worse people and more dangerous to society than the rioters (whom I absolutely believe should be prosecuted and punished, BTW).
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 09/09/2011 14:29:33
In related news, this thread has convinced me that WHAM and people who think like him are worse people and more dangerous to society than the rioters (whom I absolutely believe should be prosecuted and punished, BTW).
You did all that from an Internet forum thread? Yikes! :o (especially the point for a specific forum member... other than that I'd also like to see the rioters prosecuted and punished).
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 09/09/2011 14:29:33
Quote from: WHAM on Fri 09/09/2011 14:13:38
I should really stop coming to this thread, but it seems my points keep getting misunderstood for some reason.
Gee, I certainly hope so, because as far as I can tell, your points amount to "I am a neo-Nazi." (Arguing that "Sieg Heil", the swastika, "Final Solution" and Hitler salute do not necessarily signify Nazism is the purest form of bullshit, and comes off as the thinnest possible excuse to keep cloaking your argument in Nazi symbols and terminology.)
That is the shittiest logic ever. That's like saying that someone who argues that a certain nazi Party isn't far-right is a Neo-Nazi.
Quote from: NsMn on Fri 09/09/2011 15:48:12
That's like saying that someone who argues that a certain nazi Party isn't far-right is a Neo-Nazi.
Wait ... wut?
In that case, I must also lack logic.
(http://fatkidatcamp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/wait...wut_.jpg)
Stop throwing "nazi" around like nationalism was bad and source of all evils. It's not.
As ideology, it's absolutely alright, and in increasingly globalizing world, we need it more every day so little nations (much like mine) wouldn't smelt in big pot of nations, those fucking flows of neverending immigrants and international unions - which would also eliminate culture and language - which is never good. Especially if you hippies all praise tolerance and multiculturalism, yet Hollywood products is only thing shown in cinemas and local cuisines are losing to hamburgers badly.
Nationalism is okay and everyone should hold to their nation and traditions, value and expand them. Why does everyone like Japan so much? Nationalism.
It's not okay if you go hitler and try to make your race and culture only one on earth. And I think WHAM is quite far from this extremity yet.
And while you're making hypocrite claims on internet forum, Russians are having genocide party in Chechnya, destroying a whole nation with everything that goes with it, same shit goes on in Darfur and where else...
Quote from: InCreator on Fri 09/09/2011 16:05:45
And while you're making hypocrite claims on internet forum, Russians are having genocide party in Chechnya, destroying a whole nation with everything that goes with it, same shit goes on in Darfur and where else...
Haven't you noticed that a lot of the people committing genocide
are nationalists?
Quote from: InCreator on Fri 09/09/2011 16:05:45
Stop throwing "nazi" around like nationalism was bad and source of all evils. It's not.
Nazi is more than nationalism. It's nationalism brought to an extreme PLUS a detailed list of reasons why jews -- and all other "anti-social" people -- should be suppressed PLUS religious fanatism PLUS whacky justifications of the "white superiority".
It's not hypocrit to say that's not right.
Quote from: InCreator on Fri 09/09/2011 16:05:45
As ideology, nationalism is absolutely alright
In theory, it would be OK to be "excessively patriotic" (another word for "nationalist") -- except for the fact 99% of times it's at the expense of other principles such as "tolerance for the other". It ends up being wrong. It's very often promoted by extreme right-wing. Which brings us back to nazism. It's
still not hypocrit to say that's not right.
Quote from: InCreator on Fri 09/09/2011 16:05:45Russians are having genocide party in Chechnya, destroying a whole nation with everything that goes with it, same shit goes on in Darfur and where else...
Point made. thanks.
EDIT: Ali, you've been faster than me.
In conclusion: There's a HUGE difference between loving one's own country (and trying to make it better in a fair "competition"), and destroying other countries, and cultures -- and then try to blur the limit between the two by throwing in some bogus about nazism, as a diversion ("hey I'm not a nazi THEREFORE it means I'm still a reasonable nationalist").
Now that my secret agendas have been so cleverly unveiled, I've decided to update my avatar temporarily.
Hope you people enjoy this. Kthxbai!
EDIT: Meh, Goebbels felt too mundane, so I decided to go with the highest military award ever presented in Finland, the Mannerheim Cross. It's got a swastika, so that CLEARLY means that all those soldiers who fought in the war and were awarded these were Nazi's and therefore EVIL, right? RIGHT!? FUCKING RIGHT!?!?!?
WHAM. IS. MY. HERO.
(...that's a joke right?)
For me personally, it feels terrible how hard for me is to be or even feel patriotic or nationalistic.
Our whole country is falling apart, with young people going "fuck it" and emigrating and "love for fatherland" is all-time low and decreasing.
I wish to love this country and language more, but everytime I try, I see the country giving me a big middle finger.
It's frightening. That's why we need more nationalistic people to lead and not EU/Russia-bought shitheads selling people to the slavery of swedish banks or finnish supermarkets. If Swedbank for example would declare bankruptcy, whole country would become Iceland in 0.2 seconds.
And that's why "let's be tolerant" and "nazis are bad"-choirs anger me and make me side with WHAM. I'm sure it's all different if you live in a big, rich country which actually can afford to accomodate immigrants, have history full of racist shit to make up for and share a bit of the common wealth and play the ethnics game. But that shouldn't make your words written in stone.
Quote from: WHAM on Fri 09/09/2011 16:12:57
It's got a swastika, so that CLEARLY means that all those soldiers who fought in the war and were awarded these were Nazi's and therefore EVIL, right? RIGHT!? FUCKING RIGHT!?!?!?
Once the extreme right flood has been unleashed, there is an effect of "crowd behaviour". So even though they're still responsible for their crimes, you could say that the true culprits were the ones who first planted the seed in their heads, more or less actively.
Which is what you're doing right now, in a time of peace. That's my opinion.
Quote from: InCreator on Fri 09/09/2011 16:19:45
And that's why (a) "let's be tolerant" and (b) "nazis are bad"-choirs anger me and make me side with WHAM.
That's the trick of extreme right.
They make you believe that (a) "excessive tolerance" and (b) "blaming it on the extreme right" are 2 opposites, to make you feel guilty of (a), hence making you choose to turn to the extreme right.
BUT your cultural disasters are actually to be blamed
on (c) the economic war -- not on (a) "excessive tolerance" nor on (b) "gullibility".
It's the economic war that crushes your culture and makes you a slave.
What I'm trying to say is: There is a 3rd option -- Promote (a) and (b)
AND (c) protect your culture by protecting your economy.
Fight for tolerance AND be the best at what you're doing.
You don't need to either (a) crush other cultures or (b) live in slavery.
Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Fri 09/09/2011 16:25:30
It's the conomic war that crushes your culture and makes you a slave.
I'm not aiming at becoming the right-wing equivalent of the "nazis are bad"-people, but that sounds sucpiciously... "socialist"?
Quote from: NsMn on Fri 09/09/2011 16:30:17
Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Fri 09/09/2011 16:25:30
It's the conomic war that crushes your culture and makes you a slave.
I'm not aiming at becoming the right-wing equivalent of the "nazis are bad"-people, but that sounds sucpiciously... "socialist"?
How is that? Isn't that a fact?
Aren't people migrating from country to country because of excessive misery? Aren't stupid blockbusters all over the place because of the arts having been turned into an industry? Aren't languages being forgotten because everybody has to speak English to get a job?
Isn't Greece currently being forced into selling everything the state owns, inluding its cultural legacy, just to repay bankers who speculated on the US debt, this being made possible only because of American and European banks having been made almighty? It's all over the newspapers.
Oh, and by the way, it's not "suspect" to have socialist ideas. At least not in Europe, where McCarthy never got to arrest, harass or force people to exile.
The fact that something is not currently "suspect" does not mean it should not be or that it will never be.
For proof, see: "Nazis", "National Socialism", "Gays"... the list goes on.
Times change and I hope they change for the better, and I will do what I can to direct my community to what I believe is the right direction.
What does Nazism have in common with "Gays"?
Quote from: WHAM on Fri 09/09/2011 16:40:44
The fact that [socialism] is not currently "suspect" does not mean it (...) will never be.
NO COMMENT.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Fri 09/09/2011 16:43:14
What does Nazism have in common with "Gays"?
Also, what does it have to do with Socialism? (it's a 60 years old way of rewriting history to make people believe that Nazis were in fact connected to Socialism. They only took the name, surfing on the hype). the whole coutry actually tried to switch to the
opposite of nazism, but didn't succeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%931919
The link between all three terms is: they are all things that were at one point considered "suspect" but are such no more, or vice-versa. Opinions change as times change, and things that were once acceptable / unacceptable, might have their classification changed in the minds of men. Thus the TERMS and SYMBOLS are meaningless and should not be given a negative response beyond the time they are used in the questionable context.
I can completely understand an American man looking at a picture with a swastika in a local newspaper in 1945 and thinkig: "That is outrageous! How dare they show that here!". If another American man sees the same image in 2011 and still thinks exactly the same thing, the connection he is making is dated and irrelevant.
Quote from: WHAM on Fri 09/09/2011 17:00:11
The link between all three terms is: they are all things that were at one point considered "suspect" but are such no more, or vice-versa. Opinions change as times change, and things that were once acceptable / unacceptable, might have their classification changed in the minds of men. Thus the TERMS and SYMBOLS are meaningless and should not be given a negative response beyond the time they are used in the questionable context.
I can completely understand an American man looking at a picture with a swastika in a local newspaper in 1945 and thinkig: "That is outrageous! How dare they show that here!". If another American man sees the same image in 2011 and still thinks exactly the same thing, the connection he is making is dated and irrelevant.
Yet again,
in theory yes, but in case you didn't notice, the
entire nazi ideology is based on one, poorly written, single book --Mein Kampf-- which in turn is
entirely rotten (I challenge you to prove otherwise!).
As for the Swatsika is
the symbol of one, single political party, which ideology hasn't moved a bit for the 20 years it was around, and was ruling only in one country.
For example it would be dishonnest to compare it to the communist symbols and ideologies and phrasings, which are around for 150 years, had hundreds of thousands of contributors (from the most brilliant minds in the world!) and variations (Western European, Eastern European, Asian, South American...), and are based on Marx's writings which are not "rotten" (whether or not one agrees with his assertions, they are still considered, even by "capitalist" economists and politologists, as "serious work").
What you're saying doesn't work for nazism. If you think otherwise, think again. "Nazism" doesn't mean several things. It means only one, terrible thing.
Quote from: WHAM on Fri 09/09/2011 17:00:11
Thus the TERMS and SYMBOLS are meaningless and should not be given a negative response beyond the time they are used in the questionable context.
But we are still living in a time in which Nazi terms and symbols are used in a questionable context. For example, the questionable context in which you used "final solution".
And in the case of fascist and right wing organisations the terms and symbols are more villainous than they are questionable. Adopted because the users delight in the horrors and outrages that are connected to them.
And now we come back to what makes things "questionable".
What I proposed is questionable at the moment, but may not be so in the future.
If the Germans had won "The War" we would be having this exact same conversation, except for the fact that we would replace all swastikas with "stars-and-stripes" or "hammers-and-sicles", and instead of talking about how nazi's were evil, we would be talking about how the communists and capitalists were evil.
Names change, ideas do not.
Quote from: WHAM on Fri 09/09/2011 17:13:31
If the Germans had won "The War" we would be having this exact same conversation, except for the fact that we would replace all swastikas with "stars-and-stripes" or "hammers-and-sicles", and instead of talking about how nazi's were evil, we would be talking about how the communists and capitalists were evil.
No we wouldn't, because we wouldn't have unmonitored access to the internet! And that would be the least of our problems.
The Second World War was not a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, it really did matter which side won.
Are you sure you've actually heard of the Nazis?
Quote from: NsMn on Fri 09/09/2011 15:48:12
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 09/09/2011 14:29:33
Gee, I certainly hope so, because as far as I can tell, your points amount to "I am a neo-Nazi." (Arguing that "Sieg Heil", the swastika, "Final Solution" and Hitler salute do not necessarily signify Nazism is the purest form of bullshit, and comes off as the thinnest possible excuse to keep cloaking your argument in Nazi symbols and terminology.)
That is the shittiest logic ever. That's like saying that someone who argues that a certain nazi Party isn't far-right is a Neo-Nazi.
That wasn't my logic. That was two related points. The logic was more something like:
(a) WHAM argues for policies and political solutions that amount to fascism
(b) WHAM has suggested that the bad reputation of the Nazis is just due to the victors writing history
(c) WHAM has expressed admiration for famous Nazis
(d) WHAM "jokingly" throws in Nazi slogans and symbols with his posts
(e) WHAM is currently arguing that things that are currently unacceptable (like Nazism) could become acceptable in the future
If we are to take him seriously (i.e. he's not just trolling), I would argue that the most reasonable way to interpret all of this is to conclude that WHAM has strong Nazi sympathies.
To claim that the nazis were "just the other side" is certainly a troubling thing to do.
You realise what they did right?
OMG WHAM IS TEH NAZI BETTER LOCK HIM INTO DA PRISON!!!!!11111
I realize they did bad things, AND I realize they did good things.
Hey, isn't that true for ALL ruling powers in the world?
This Nazi discussion is actually quite pointless, so I will drop it for my part now.
The major difference is that I live in a country that was allied to the Nazis during The War and most of you guys lived, to my understanding, in countries who fought the Nazis.
Can we get some Germans in here to explain what was wrong with the Nazis?
Having Germans do the explaining would be quite pointless. It has been beaten into their minds that it was THEIR nation who caused all the misery in the world ever, and they are having the worst nationwide guilt-trip ever. The damn nation is so afraid of the swastika that showing it is strictly illegal, for chrissakes!
<jew hat>
You are a monster.
</jew hat>
Shouldn't that be <kippah>?
Quote from: WHAM on Fri 09/09/2011 17:26:29
The major difference is that I live in a country that was allied to the Nazis during The War and most of you guys lived, to my understanding, in countries who fought the Nazis.
Allied until the Lapland War.
@Kconan: true, so true. And still I can't help but feel thankful for them for saving our asses from the Russians in the Continuation War.
So WHAM, at this point you're just straight up defending the Nazis, huh?
Quote from: WHAM on Fri 09/09/2011 17:26:29
I realize they did bad things, AND I realize they did good things.
Hey, isn't that true for ALL ruling powers in the world?
::)
... and yet it's always us liberals who get accused of moral relativism.
Yes, all governments do good and bad things, but
the relative scale of these things matters!So if we take the Nazis:
PRO:
-Created the Volkwagen Beetle
-Helped Finland resist invasion by the Soviet Union
CON:
-Deliberately murdered 6 million innocent men, women and children just because they were Jewish
-Also murdered millions of Gypsies, Slavs and other "inferior races", and planned to murder more
-Murdered thousands of political opponents, rivals and dissenters (imprisoning many more others)
-Instituted a system of widespread slave labor
-Performed gruesome and deadly medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners
-Created a police state that routinely used torture on its citizens to extract confessions
-Invaded most of the European continent, reducing its nations to slave states and taking their resources for German use
-Provoked a war that killed more than 50 million people
-Committed numerous war crimes, especially on the Eastern front
</redundant>
Quote from: WHAM on Fri 09/09/2011 17:48:03
@Kconan: true, so true. And still I can't help but feel thankful for them for saving our asses from the Russians in the Continuation War.
The Russians helped liberate my country from German occupation, but that doesn't mean I can't think Stalin was a monster.
I dont even like Beetles..
Oh there are so many things I could say right now... So many arguments I could go for in that post, but I'll walk away for now.
What, do you really like Beetles?
What, are you more of a Stones guy?
I HATE NAZIS.
Now that i am considered a human being, cause hatred is what this is all about let me state the AMAZING LOGIC.
PRO:
-Created the Volkwagen Beetle
Amazing, my life wouldn't work without this.
-Helped Finland resist invasion by the Soviet Union
So we compare fascists and we take the best one? "Would you like to get raped anally or vaginally?" "How about no rape?"
CON:
-Deliberately murdered 6 million innocent men, women and children just because they were Jewish
Name a war that wasn't toward something that helped separate people apart and not conclude in killing your mother. Namely, it's war, that is legal.
-Murdered thousands of political opponents, rivals and dissenters (imprisoning many more others)
Cause no one has done this before. EVER.
-Created a police state that routinely used torture on its citizens to extract confessions
And now things are so much better. I mean police violence? No such thing exists.
-Invaded most of the European continent, reducing its nations to slave states and taking their resources for German use
While Americans were in post-depression and then SUDDENLY THEY COULD AFFORD ALL THESE SHIT, LIKE GUNS AND TANKS AND SHIT.
-Provoked a war that killed more than 50 million people
One child dies every 6 seconds in Africa, but that's f@#@% democratic.
-Committed numerous war crimes, especially on the Eastern front
While the Russians and everyone else was a f@#@# saint.
THE QUESTION IS, HOW SURE ARE YOU THAT WHAT YOU ARE TOLD IS the ABSOLUTE TRUTH? There's only one reason why things happen. MONEY IS TO BE MADE. BASH MY POST PLEASE.
Quote from: Dualnames on Fri 09/09/2011 18:21:47
One child dies every 6 seconds in Africa, but that's f@#@% democratic.
GRAMMAR NAZI ATTACK! That last word should be "demographic"!!! SIEG HEIL!
</bashing>
Finland wasn't fascist at the time, it was a republic. So that was definitely a good thing.
Quote from: Dualnames on Fri 09/09/2011 18:21:47
CON:
-Deliberately murdered 6 million innocent men, women and children just because they were Jewish
Name a war that wasn't toward something that helped separate people apart and not conclude in killing your mother. Namely, it's war, that is legal.
If there is no just reason to go to war, then the war itself is illegal.
Commiting genocide is not a just reason to go to war, it is the worst crime of all.
And even if the war was just, still, deliberately murdering innocent citizens (some of them even their own citizens which were proud German patriots) is not legal, and therefore considered a war crime.
Quote
THE QUESTION IS, HOW SURE ARE YOU THAT WHAT YOU ARE TOLD IS the ABSOLUTE TRUTH? There's only one reason why things happen. MONEY IS TO BE MADE. BASH MY POST PLEASE.
100%.
I know that from the small amount of my family members (and friends family members) that survived and witnessed their brothers and sisters going to the gas chambers or killed in other various ways.
I doubt that's what WHAM meant. I don't know if you misunderstood that or just think everybody like him is a holocaust denier...
On one hand there is never a good reason to start a war.
On the other hand there always is a good reason to start a war (For the Nazis it was mostly Lebensraum and international political power)
How I see it, the main reason for the Nazi regime's anti-Jew plans was twofold: Jews were a minority and thus easy to turn into scapegoats to unite the majority of the German people. In addition, in many areas it was the Jew populace that held great sums of money in gold, stocks and investments, and "relieving" these people of their riches was an easy way for the Nazis to fund their plans.
When you dig deep enough, there is always a reason for things like this. Whether or not it's a good or a bad thing depends on who you ask and how well the offender does his job.
If the Nazis had won the war, I highly doubt we would be here, pondering on "the poor Jews" and their misery. However, since the war went the way it did, the event we have labelled "the Holocaust" is seen in a purely negative light. No, I am not saying the Holocaus did not happen, nor that it wasn't a terrible thing to do, but what I am trying to do is have historical perspective and neutrality on the subject, instead of jumping on the global "oh the poor Jews" -bandwagon.
Quote from: WHAM on Sat 10/09/2011 15:39:03
what I am trying to do is have historical perspective and neutrality on the subject, instead of jumping on the global "oh the poor Jews" -bandwagon.
Bandwagon? There's no bandwagon.
There were many, many trains. Overcrowded, unheated trains without food, water or sanitation.
Trains carrying millions of adults and children to labour camps where they were
enslaved and murdered.We can be objective and look at the victims of Allied attacks, such as Dresden or Hiroshima. But those comparisons diminish neither the intensity of human suffering, nor the compassion we must feel towards the victims.
Quote from: WHAM on Sat 10/09/2011 15:39:03
However, since the war went the way it did, the event we have labelled "the Holocaust" is seen in a purely negative light.
Can you, in all sincerity, see the Holocaust in anything other than a negative light?
Bearing in mind that from a neutral perspective, killing Jews made no tactical sense because the German war effort was built on Jewish slave labour?
There were other people murdered in the camps, you see. Nobody seems to care about them.
Also, nobody seems to care about this going way, waayyyy off topic.
Did you read my post?
Quote from: Ali on Sat 10/09/2011 16:01:15
those comparisons diminish neither the intensity of human suffering, nor the compassion we must feel towards the victims.
And I'll edit the topic name...
Nice name. Didn't know you guys booked morality and the ability to reject Nazism.
So, politics & region thread this summer it more fun than earlier ones. With less religion.
As for camps, I've been reading up on Gulags alot lately... Seems that camps were just global fashion at this era and "everybody" did it.
Just with less rooms connected to diesel engines and more slave labor. I personally am not really sure what's more humanly: Making prisoners lay thousands of kilometres of railroads and shipping canals with minimum food, tools and clothing, gassing and cremating them, or just burning their shadows into pavement with nuclear bomb... at least first two sound like there's a slight chance of escape or resistance...
Seems that nobody was really a good guy in WWII, nazi or not. One is sure, all superpowers did major research in "how to eliminate masses of people" and got really good results.
I just hope we don't need fruits of this science, ever, although it has evolved into weapons of white phosporous, thermobaric munition and napalm and still going worse.
Maybe so-called "superpowers" should be dismantled like Germany was after war, because all of them continously do crazy inhumane shit, like cropdusting fields of Vietnam with Agent Orange or using gas shells in Grozny or poisoning drinking water in Afghanistan (USSR 1980's). Big countries = evil, no matter what's the leading ideology. To get back on topic #2, I'm trying to say that ultranationalist Germany wasn't much worse than capitalist America or socialist USSR actually, so I don't think ideology is what's to blame.
I certainly agree with most of that.
For me, allied atrocities do not exonerate the Nazis, they just make the Allies guilty as well. And I think it's right to be suspicious of the inclination to play down the Nazi's crimes.
But it is very wrong to imagine that a Nazi victory would have looked the same as an Allied victory. If fascism had triumphed over western democracy (with all its failings) then Europe would be unrecognisably different.
Quote from: NsMn on Sat 10/09/2011 16:44:29
Nice name. Didn't know you guys booked morality and the ability to reject Nazism.
I don't know what your words mean.
In the immortal words of Edwin Starr:
WAR! Huh, good god ya'll, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? Absolutely nothin', say it again.
"What this place needs is a good WAR!"
(can't remember who said that, I think it was an actor in some play or movie, but heck, it's accurate!)
EDIT:
Also "The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
- Me and some other guy from the past
Quote from: WHAM on Sun 11/09/2011 16:11:00
Also "The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
Proof, if proof were needed, that Hitler was a loser.
Quote
We can be objective and look at the victims of Allied attacks, such as Dresden or Hiroshima.
So what your saying is that even though someone is try to kill you, you should not be allowed to fight back in unfair ways? Bah, foolish and naive notion; aggressors got what they deserve IMHO.
Quote
Maybe so-called "superpowers" should be dismantled like Germany was after war, because all of them continously do crazy inhumane shit, like cropdusting fields of Vietnam with Agent Orange or using gas shells in Grozny or poisoning drinking water in Afghanistan (USSR 1980's). Big countries = evil, no matter what's the leading ideology.
Except that the US and USSR kept those evil Europeans in line for the past 60 years. I think that's the longest they went without causing wars.
Btw, Agent orange was dumped on jungle areas to make the leaves fall off trees so that they could see where the enemy was hiding.
So you'd call the children who died in the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo "aggressors"?
I think that is foolish. Bah!
Yes they were; the country of Japan and the country off Germany were aggressor nations. The women and children of those countries were participants and would have been the benefactors of victory. They were important to the Japanese and German soldiers and knowing that they were putting their families and homeland at risk would necessarily have a negative impact their enthusiasm for war.
Yes, I do think it's foolish and naive to believe that any country would not do anything it could to survive. You may wish it wasn't so but that won't change reality.
You're telling me an German infant in a cot was an active and morally culpable participant in the war effort?
The wishful thinking is yours.
Quote from: InCreator on Sun 11/09/2011 13:43:19
As for camps, I've been reading up on Gulags alot lately... Seems that camps were just global fashion at this era and "everybody" did it.
You're throwing a lot of very different things together under the word "camps", there. Nazi death camps, gulags where millions died of slave labor, and prison camps ranging from murderous to relatively humane (including the internment camps for Japanese Americans). "Everyone" did not have camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau or Treblinka. They simply didn't.
QuoteJust with less rooms connected to diesel engines and more slave labor. I personally am not really sure what's more humanly: Making prisoners lay thousands of kilometres of railroads and shipping canals with minimum food, tools and clothing, gassing and cremating them, or just burning their shadows into pavement with nuclear bomb... at least first two sound like there's a slight chance of escape or resistance...
It's certainly possible to condemn certain US/UK actions in the war, like the nuclear bombs, the firebombing of Tokyo, the bombing of Dresden, occasional killings of POWs, etc. But the scale of these (arguable) war crimes are nowhere near German, Japanese and Soviet atrocities, and they had a military rationale beyond just killing for the sake of killing. In terms of WWII atrocities, they belong more with the London Blitz and Katyn massacre than with the Holocaust.
QuoteSeems that nobody was really a good guy in WWII, nazi or not. ... I'm trying to say that ultranationalist Germany wasn't much worse than capitalist America or socialist USSR actually, so I don't think ideology is what's to blame.
If the US was no better than Nazi Germany, why were all the Nazi-occupied countries in Europe so thrilled to be liberated by the Allies? And if it was no better than the Soviet Union, why were German soldiers so desperate to capitulate to American and British forces rather than to Russians?
The truth of the matter is simply that in the 1930s and 40s, the regimes of Nazi Germany & Imperialist Japan (as well as some of their smaller allies) and Stalinist Russia were much crueler than any other significant world powers, and guilty of many more horrific atrocities.
Not at all incidentally, all of these were totalitarian states with fanatical ideologies of devotion to the state and leader, and nationalist/imperialist in actual policy. Ideology is very much to blame.
Quote
You're telling me an German infant in a cot was an active and morally culpable participant in the war effort?
Yes, because his daddy was enthusiastically off to war knowing that wife and baby were safe and secure at home.
Quote from: RickJ on Sun 11/09/2011 16:39:07
Yes they were; the country of Japan and the country off Germany were aggressor nations. The women and children of those countries were participants and would have been the benefactors of victory. They were important to the Japanese and German soldiers and knowing that they were putting their families and homeland at risk would necessarily have a negative impact their enthusiasm for war.
Yes, I do think it's foolish and naive to believe that any country would not do anything it could to survive. You may wish it wasn't so but that won't change reality.
Quote from: RickJ on Sun 11/09/2011 16:21:29
So what your saying is that even though someone is try to kill you, you should not be allowed to fight back in unfair ways? Bah, foolish and naive notion; aggressors got what they deserve IMHO.
Looking at the calendar, it's hard not to notice that this is exactly the kind of thinking that justifies terrorist attacks on the US in the minds of Al Qaeda. (And their conviction that Americans are "aggressors" against Islam and Muslim nations is not
completely groundless.)
Quote from: RickJ on Sun 11/09/2011 17:02:14
Quote
You're telling me an German infant in a cot was an active and morally culpable participant in the war effort?
Yes, because his daddy was enthusiastically off to war knowing that wife and baby were safe and secure at home.
This is an interesting thought. Too bad it doesn't have anything to do with the goals of the bombings of Germany and Japan. Their declared goal was not "fighting back"; It was nothing but "revenge" against a declared "people of murderers". Quite a racist theory if you ask me.
Youre going to have to provide a source for that "people of murderers" quote.
The only reference I can find is one made by a German nazi (Julius Streicher) speaking about the jews. which is kind of the opposite of what youre saying.
Quote from: RickJ on Sun 11/09/2011 17:02:14
Quote
You're telling me an German infant in a cot was an active and morally culpable participant in the war effort?
Yes, because his daddy was enthusiastically off to war knowing that wife and baby were safe and secure at home.
So in the very sense all of the children in the US were also responsible of dropping the bomb and all the people in Germany who hated the Nazis (yes, believe me, there were some), were all responsible of the genosides? That's just stupid. Active and culpable doesn't mean someone who takes a vacation in Hawaii while Al Qaida flies planes into WTC towers. But according to you logics, these people are the ones, that are part of a nation that gives the opponent a reason to act as they do. If it were so, we'd all be responsible of everything everywhere.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Sun 11/09/2011 17:52:17
Youre going to have to provide a source for that "people of murderers" quote.
The only reference I can find is one made by a German nazi (Julius Streicher) speaking about the jews. which is kind of the opposite of what youre saying.
Well, I did not want to reference Streicher, but I did not draw that connection for nothing.
Quote
So in the very sense all of the children in the US were also responsible of dropping the bomb and all the people in Germany who hated the Nazis (yes, believe me, there were some), were all responsible of the genosides?
The Nazis were responsible for the dropping of bombs on Germany ...
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org
...The Blitz (from German, "lightning") was the sustained strategic bombing of Britain by Nazi Germany between 7 September 1940 and 10 May 1941, during the Second World War. The city of London was bombed by the Luftwaffe for 76 consecutive nights and many towns and cities across the country followed. More than one million London houses were destroyed or damaged, and more than 40,000 civilians were killed, half of them in London...
...The first V-1 was launched at London on 13 June 1944, one week after (and prompted by) the successful Allied landing in Europe. At its peak, more than one hundred V-1s a day were fired at southeast England, 9,521 in total, decreasing in number as sites were overrun until October 1944, when the last V-1 site in range of Britain was overrun by Allied forces. This caused the remaining V-1s to be directed at the port of Antwerp and other targets in Belgium, with 2,448 V-1s being launched. The attacks stopped when the last site was overrun on 29 March 1945. In total, the V-1 attacks caused 22,892 casualties (almost entirely civilians)...
...Over 3,000 V-2s were launched as military rockets by the German Wehrmacht against Allied targets during the war, mostly London and later Antwerp. The attacks resulted in the death of an estimated 7,250 military personnel and civilians, while 12,000 forced laborers were killed producing the weapons...
So, the Nazis caused the bombings (which is way too simplified), but the German commoners had to pay for it?
and in Japan it was the children that caused the bombings?
My favourite thing about Hitler is that he drastically reduced unemployment in Germany, established Volkswagen, his paintings revealed talent, and he was a gifted orator. Also Mein Kampf is an extraordinarily interesting book.
It's a shame his passion and charisma were misguided from the onset, as he could have done great things. He turned Germany into a phoenix which rose from the ashes of WWI. Anyway the symbols of Nazi Germany are still somewhat sinister, (rightfully or not, as endless pages have discussed prior), but no they won't always be. The World Wars will never be forgotten but yes over time their relevance to the modern (or future as the case may be) world will be increasingly less. Perspective: 1066 is still a famous date in England but no grudges are held. I only dislike the French because they don't know how to form queues. I cannot WAIT to party at Pevensey on the 1000th anniversary lol.
It's difficult to compare an isolated invasion to a whole world war, but that's the point, we don't have any reference points, WWII being the most cataclysmic war in human history. In 1000 years, will the symbols of Nazis be taboo? Or the things they did? I don't think so. Right now though it's acceptable for them to be - it's still modern history and scars still remain, in memory, culture, and the Cold War was spawned off Nazi Germany's defeat, which is more evidence the echoes of WWII are still very much present. A phantom of the war in the Pacific is that Japanese babies are still being born deformed today. Seriously WHAM you're a funny person who's made a couple of awesome games but you could afford to be a bit more tactful - not many people would think of anything other than Nazism when you use the terms Sieg Heil or 'final solution'. And btw the latter term is actually an official Nazi term, coined by the Nazis:
Quote from: Wikipedia
the German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler termed it "the final solution of the Jewish question" (German: die Endlösung der Judenfrage).
So. Hitler takes a lot of the wrap but cannot be entirely blamed for WWII (obviously he was ultimately instrumental in it occurring). Don't forget the Nazi party existed and held anti-Semitic views long before Hitler came into the scene (and Jews weren't the only ones persecuted - black people, homosexuals, gypsies, spastics (http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mar2007/nazi_poster2.jpg)). Nope, it wasn't solely Hitler's fault. It was Himmler, Goebbels, Heydrich, von Schirach (an interesting one highlighting indoctrination), etc... etc... etc... right down to the person pouring Zyklon B into the hatch, right down to the common Kraut with the gun. The women and children too? They definitely didn't pull a trigger. Oh wait... the boys probably did on Hitler Youth camps. The children were too young to know any different -
or just parroted their parents' views. My point is, anybody who says that a baby in a cot is responsible
solely because their father is fighting must be joking! Sure, they would have grown up to fight just like their father, or been brought up to be a good house-wife just like their mother, either way believing it is for the good of the Father land. But in no way are they responsible for decisions that had been made before they were born. Let's extend that shall we? In no way should anybody feel
personally ashamed of the war, wherever their parents/grandparents allegiance lay.
The blitz was a strategic bombing campaign again military centres.
The bombing of dresden was an obliteration of a largely cultural city with little to no strategic value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baedeker_Blitz
Wasn't there also a carnival on in Dresden at the time? Which makes it more... tragic, if the word fits.
I must say, that ateliers beautiful, even cheesy words are the best this thread has come up with in a long while. :-*
The bombing of Dresden was pointless and tragic. I'm so glad most of the stunning architecture could be rebuilt using original plans. Though things like the Zwinger look impressive and amazing and glorious (and yes, heartbreaking) as ruins as well.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/Fotothek_df_ps_0000115_002_Zwinger._Ruine_des_Wallpavillons_und_der_n%C3%B6rdlichen_B.jpg)