The Couch

What's worse?

Comments on What's worse?

henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#26 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/05/13 - 4:44 PM:

"In any case, not useless..."

As I say: 'Matter of perspective, I guess.'

*shrug*
praxis
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 378
praxis
#27 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/05/13 - 8:23 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
"In any case, not useless..."

As I say: 'Matter of perspective, I guess.'

*shrug*


Ignoring the evidence ... sure.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#28 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/05/13 - 8:31 PM:

praxis wrote:


Really? Doesn't that mean you would rather be killed than tortured?


Yes.

Torture is a gift that keeps on giving.

There are some experiences that take away all point of continuing to live. And even lead to endless cycles of violence, depression, rage, and suffering. A quick death has none of that.

A prolonged torture will have people begging for death. Not giving them this is an even more horrible punishment.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#29 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/05/13 - 8:33 PM:

henry quirk wrote:

HA!

You volunteerin' to be the trigger man?



No.

Unless I or my family is directly threatened i have no need or desire to kill other human beings.

People who believe in culling should do us all a favor and lead by example and shoot themselves in the head. Live out their wretched philosophy to the fullest.

I won't do it for them.

8)
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#30 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/06/13 - 10:02 AM:

"Ignoring the evidence ... sure."

HA!

Okeedoke, praxis: I'm callin' you out.

What evidence?

Cite some, please.

##

"People who believe in culling should do us all a favor and lead by example and shoot themselves in the head."

Nonsensical.

If A assesses B as deserving of culling, obviously A assesses him- or her-self as better than B and not deserving of culling.

I'm not arguing that A is, in fact, 'right' in his or her assessments. I'm only pointing out your response is nonsensical and reactionary.

Just sayin'... wink
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#31 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/06/13 - 11:28 AM:

Whether people believe in culling or not is irrevelant, the Human herd is being culled. There is disease, accidents, war, and crime that tends to thin the herd, unfortunately the culling is not keeping up with the supply. The other problem is that those who should be culled, or at least not allowed to pass on faulty genes, are not being selected. If someone knows that they have some genitic defect, they should volunteraly choose to not have children. Many genitic defects and diseases could be eliminated or reduced this way. It could also enhance humanities over all ability for rational thought, perhaps an 'IQ' test for breeding rights.

There are some foolish people who do not believe the world is overpopulated with people, and have expressed the idea that they would be comfortable with bulldozing wild places to make room for more people. That comment ended a conversation I was having rather quickly. The problem is not with how much area each person occupies, but with how much of the Earths resources each person uses.

Edited by thedoc on 02/06/13 - 11:33 AM
praxis
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 378
praxis
#32 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/06/13 - 2:04 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
Okeedoke, praxis: I'm callin' you out.

What evidence?

Some random disturbing statistics:

Over 75% of the murder victims in cases resulting in an execution were white, even though nationally only 50% of murder victims generally are white.

In Louisiana, the odds of a death sentence were 97% higher for those whose victim was white than for those whose victim was black.

A study in California found that those who killed whites were over 3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks and over 4 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed Latinos.

In cases with white defendants and black victims, 18 people have been executed. Where there has been a black defendant and a white victim, 253 people have been executed.
praxis
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 378
praxis
#33 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/06/13 - 2:08 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:


Yes.

Torture is a gift that keeps on giving.

There are some experiences that take away all point of continuing to live. And even lead to endless cycles of violence, depression, rage, and suffering. A quick death has none of that.

A prolonged torture will have people begging for death. Not giving them this is an even more horrible punishment.

8)


I wouldn't say it, but some say that "that which doesn't kill me makes me stronger." A good point, I'm sure.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#34 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/06/13 - 2:47 PM:

praxis,

Maybe we're arguing past one another.

I have no doubt capital executions are misused (for politics and prejudice)

My point all along: a bullet in a mad dog's head ensures that particular mad dog is deterred.

You argue: "a deterrent has a bit less of finality to it."

I argue: 'if that which deters does not do so with finality, then it -- that which is used as deterrent -- is useless.'

That is useless 'as' deterrent.

Again: I fully understand the misuses of capital execution for reasons other than deterrent...can't see how those misuses detract from, or negate, my position.
praxis
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 378
praxis
#35 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/06/13 - 3:41 PM:

Not sure what to say, Henry. I'm glad no one has yet applied the same logic to the nuclear deterrent.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#36 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/06/13 - 3:52 PM:

Class, can anyone tell me what the difference is between shooting a man in the head to stop him from harming others, and eradicating (or, threatening to eradicate) a nation or population by way of atomics?

Anyone?
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#37 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/06/13 - 4:58 PM:

Rather than post something and make everyone mad at me, I'm going to go and sit at my piano for awhile.
praxis
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 378
praxis
#38 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/06/13 - 5:21 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
Class, can anyone tell me what the difference is between shooting a man in the head to stop him from harming others, and eradicating (or, threatening to eradicate) a nation or population by way of atomics?

Anyone?

The latter is believed to result in mutual destruction because there is the time and ability to respond in kind.

Roughly simmer in nature, I suppose, would be if the statistic for capital punishment inequality were highly publicized. There could be riots that might take as many lives on the side of law enforcement as those executed for violent crimes.

Does that work for you?
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#39 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/07/13 - 10:47 AM:

"Rather than post something and make everyone mad at me, I'm going to go and sit at my piano for awhile."

And leave me hanging?

C'mon, Doc: offend away!

#

"...if the statistic for capital punishment inequality were highly publicized."

Seems to me the info is available to all and 'is' publicized. Every anti-execution organization trumpets those stats.

No riots...no civil unrest...why?

'Cause the folks who stand to make a buck offa such things (the Sharptons and Jacksons) see no profit it in. Everyone else just doesn't care.

But: fundamentally, putting down one mad dog, and, visiting lethal atomic hell on a population, are two distinctly different things.

Shooting a mad dog deters 'that' mad dog: this in undeniable.

Obliterating a population is not about deterrence...it's just *genocidal madness.

It's apples and oranges in the extreme...wholly different events, done for wholly different reasons, with wholly different outcomes.

But we wander far a'field: if my notion of deterrence is 'too final', what do you suggest as suitable alternative?









*I have nuthin' against genocidal madness...just sayin' it ain't synonymous with the deterrent effect to be had by putting a bullet in the head of a mad dog.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#40 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/07/13 - 12:11 PM:

Violent crime, whether murder or torture, would indicate that the criminal is not fit to live in civilized society and should be removed. Life in prison is expensive unless you can find away for the prisoner to 'Pay his own way'. Some time ago, on another forum, someone tried to argue that execution was just as expensive as life, but that didn't make sense, nor did it hold up when I questioned someone who worked at the Dept. of Corrections. Of course this would only happen when the whinny assed, bleading-heart liberals want to take care of these criminals and rehibilitate them. If they want to, go for it, but don't try to send me the bill, let the criminals pay their own way. Even those on death row should be made to cough up the cost of execution, or just sit there on a diet of hard tack and stagnant water, they should even have to pay for that. I know someone who was on work reaease, for 30 days, and part of their pay check was taken to help cover the cost of incarceration.

It has occured to me that in view of past events, I should always finish what I start, and I wonder how that would have turned out. Probably all these people who 'didn't hear anything' would be crawling out of the wood work with a story.

(quote Henry)
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#41 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/07/13 - 12:14 PM:

Executing a violent criminal, and wiping out an entire population is in no way comparable. One is elimination a guilty person who does not fit into society, and the other is wiping out the society, and it would seem that the criminal survives.

Edited by thedoc on 02/07/13 - 12:39 PM
praxis
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 378
praxis
#42 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/07/13 - 1:24 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
Shooting a mad dog deters 'that' mad dog: this in undeniable.


You don't seem to be taking into account that the deterrent is not meant for 'that' person.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#43 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/07/13 - 4:36 PM:

A Police officer once said to me that "We only catch the dumb ones." and in this light a deterrend only works when there is a high probibality that they will get caught. Most think that they will get away with it and will never have to face the penalties. Honest people, when faced with a mistake will take the responsibility and then, smart or not, is not a factor. Deterrents are less efective than some would claim and more effective than others will admit, but they are absolutely effective in preventing the criminal who is executed, from commiting another crime.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#44 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/07/13 - 4:45 PM:

It has occured to me that there may be a social niche that needs to be filled with a specific number of criminals, so that if some criminals are removed, others will take up those positions to maintain the equilibrium. If this is true it might be better to just arrest, convict and release known criminals in order to maintain the social ballance. There would be an advantage to this, the known convicted criminals could have a tracking implant and then when a crime is commited just check the tracking device and the crime would be solved. But the criminal must not be incarcerated or some unknown person will fill the niche and solving a crime will be more difficult. It would be like a crime show on TV where there is a known cast of characters who play the bad guy, and it gets easier to spot who did the crime. Also we could start shutting down all those costly prisons, just a quick check in to verify the identity of the particular criminal in each particular crime and it's business as usual.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#45 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/07/13 - 4:47 PM:

"I should always finish what I start..."

Yep.

#


"...I wonder how that would have turned out."

Differently... wink

##

"...the deterrent is not meant for 'that' person."

Irrelevant. Again: 'if that which deters does not do so with finality, then it -- that which is used as deterrent -- is useless.'

Now, up-thread I acknowledged capital executions are useless as deterrent in a wide, societal-sense. That Joe fries in the Chair won't stop Sam from committing the same crime or worse.

But: no one can deny Joe certainly has been deterred, irrevocably and completely.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#46 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/07/13 - 4:51 PM:

"We only catch the dumb ones."

HA!

Yep. Folks who watch the TV dramas are misled in the regard.

Check out the national un-solved murder stats for a bit of truth.

#

"social niche"

Interesting theory. Horrifying too, if real.
praxis
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 18, 2007

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 378
praxis
#47 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/07/13 - 5:06 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
no one can deny Joe certainly has been deterred [by execution], irrevocably and completely.


Synonyms for deter:
discourage, dissuade, put off, scare off; dishearten, demoralize, daunt, intimidate

Synonyms for kill:
take/end the life of, assassinate, eliminate, terminate, dispatch, finish off, put to death, execute; slaughter, butcher, massacre, wipe out, annihilate, exterminate, mow down, shoot down, cut down, cut to pieces
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#48 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/07/13 - 5:21 PM:

Point taken.

I amend, then: deterrents are useless; execution always works.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
#49 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/08/13 - 12:27 AM:

henry quirk wrote:


"social niche"

Interesting theory. Horrifying too, if real.



Every other living creature evolves to fill a particular niche in the environment. I know that there are those who denounce "social evolution" as wrong because Humans "Think", but that Human quality is not much in evidence if you observe just a little of Human interaction. Look at the forums, if the environment is open enough all sorts of users will post an incredable variety of concepts. Users will fill every avalable niche in the environment, so if the environment allows crime there will be enough criminals to fill that niche, but not too many or the criminals will run out of victims.
JrnymnX
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2006

Total Topics: 12
Total Comments: 217
Avatar JrnymnX
#50 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 02/08/13 - 4:46 PM:

People who make this suggestion ought to be the first to get the bullet, immho. They ought to volunteer for immediate dispatching. But they don't do they? Nope, they suggest that its others--always others--who ought to be 'culled' like animals.


So lets see if I'm following this right:

When someone suggests that another person should be killed they should then be the 'first to get the bullet,' leaving the criminal to become the second in line, oops, no, third in line.

This person is second in line because by suggesting that they be killed for their opinion on criminals you now become first in line.

Or do you only earn a place in line when you want to off the violently criminal?

Still a little fuzzy on this I guess. whee
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.