Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ashiraya wrote:


Or better yet, support the political party favouring summary execution, or create one that favours it if none exists, to do this democratically.

That's the problem. You force people to pay for something that they disagree with on a fundamental basis - which is wrong on ohsomany levels. People don't care for votes, people care for money.

 DarkLink wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

Why do you believe this? No other animal treats the world (or other animals) or each other in the manner that humans do. No other animal calculates how to elicit maximum profit or misery from another life form.

You should read up on Sea Otters and Dolphins then.... Scientists have watched Sea Otters kill another otter, then fornicate with the eye hole, just to intimidate another otter. And Dolphins have been shown to rape and kill as well, as observed by marine biologists.

I actually feel like you are pointing out that humans are no better or worse than other animals with this comment. Which is the same standpoint I am arguing, though I'm more jaded.

That's very much not what you said. You explicitly stated that humans do terrible things and that animals do not.

Hmm, my words are not always the best. My intent was to be clear that it is a matter of scale.

Example: We all know Chimpanzee's engage in tribal warfare. Chimpanzee's do not purposefully destroy the food supply of rival tribes in an effort to cause mass scale starvation to elicit social control.

 Sigvatr wrote:
That's the problem. You force people to pay for something that they disagree with on a fundamental basis - which is wrong on ohsomany levels. People don't care for votes, people care for money.

If money is all they care about then don't imprison him. Don't even bother to stop him as that would only involve extra expenditure. What's the worth of the victims anyway, eh?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


Or better yet, support the political party favouring summary execution, or create one that favours it if none exists, to do this democratically.

That's the problem. You force people to pay for something that they disagree with on a fundamental basis - which is wrong on ohsomany levels. People don't care for votes, people care for money.

In a cynical capitalist nightmare state, maybe.

But our high taxes and extensive welfare system should tell you that we are not interested in social Darwinism.

 Ashiraya wrote:


Or better yet, support the political party favouring summary execution, or create one that favours it if none exists, to do this democratically.

Totally unnecessary. Simply codify the circumstances under which the apparatus of the state responsible for the application of violence can legally kill a terrorist. Create a social norm whereby we understand that the police have a legal right to remove the life of an individual presenting a clear violent intent against the citizens around them.


Like when they have a knife in their hand and are murdering children. Thats a very good time. Actually, its pretty much what happened in this case. Right?

Human beings aren't better nor worse than animals, we ARE animals.

Man... this thread is going there there...

But, lemme throw this out there...

Discuss the idea of incarceration as a means to keep the convict out of society, rather than a form a punishment.

 Ashiraya wrote:


But our high taxes and extensive welfare system should tell you that we are not interested in social Darwinism.

As someone with his main home in Germany, I laugh at your "high taxes"!

Seems your state is not interested in it either, then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


Totally unnecessary. Simply codify the circumstances under which the apparatus of the state responsible for the application of violence can legally kill a terrorist. Create a social norm whereby we understand that the police have a legal right to remove the life of an individual presenting a clear violent intent against the citizens around them.


Like when they have a knife in their hand and are murdering children. Thats a very good time. Actually, its pretty much what happened in this case. Right?

And they opened fire, as they should.

Which stopped him. So they did exactly what they should have done.

No need to keep firing after he is disabled.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Seems your state is not interested in it either, then.

No state is interested in it because it's easier to appeal to the emotional part of people than the rational part of humans. People /love/ to get the dumb treatment and highly prefer to do stuff that feels rather than what is actually good.

 LethalShade wrote:
Human beings aren't better nor worse than animals, we ARE animals.

Agreed.


But we make a habit out of gaking where we sleep. Metaphorically and macro scale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Seems your state is not interested in it either, then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


Totally unnecessary. Simply codify the circumstances under which the apparatus of the state responsible for the application of violence can legally kill a terrorist. Create a social norm whereby we understand that the police have a legal right to remove the life of an individual presenting a clear violent intent against the citizens around them.


Like when they have a knife in their hand and are murdering children. Thats a very good time. Actually, its pretty much what happened in this case. Right?

And they opened fire, as they should.

Which stopped him. So they did exactly what they should have done.

No need to keep firing after he is disabled.

A bullet to the skull is a lot cheaper to the taxpayers than taking that fool to the emergency room was, but in the end the guy is dead so whatever.

Hopefully the authorities will incinerate his body, throw the ashes down a toilet, and never put his name into print.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Seems your state is not interested in it either, then.

No state is interested in it because it's easier to appeal to the emotional part of people than the rational part of humans. People /love/ to get the dumb treatment and highly prefer to do stuff that feels rather than what is actually good.

I am extremely happy that pretty much everyone in my country disagrees with your assessment.

Everyone accused of a crime should be taken through the appropriate legal process if such a thing is at all feasible to do.

And in this case, it was, up until he died.

 Ashiraya wrote:


I am extremely happy that pretty much everyone in my country disagrees with your assessment.

So you suddenly became a spokesperson for the entirety of Sweden.

I'm not debating politics. Politics and objective thinking are mutually exclusive. That isn't up for debate.

No, I just observe the results of our votes.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Seems your state is not interested in it either, then.

No state is interested in it because it's easier to appeal to the emotional part of people than the rational part of humans. People /love/ to get the dumb treatment and highly prefer to do stuff that feels rather than what is actually good.

So you're interested in social Darwinism ?

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


Hopefully the authorities will incinerate his body, throw the ashes down a toilet, and never put his name into print.

We can only hope.

Don't flush them though, the next person to use the toilet gets the honor of gaking on his remains.

 Sigvatr wrote:


I'm not debating politics. Politics and objective thinking are mutually exclusive. That isn't up for debate.

There is nothing at all about your argument that is objective.

You think it is isn't worth it to keep such criminals alive. But your opinion is not some kind of single truth.

 Alex C wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


Hopefully the authorities will incinerate his body, throw the ashes down a toilet, and never put his name into print.

We can only hope.

Don't flush them though, the next person to use the toilet gets the honor of gaking on his remains.

Oh see now you are tempting me to be malicious and vengeful. Or maybe its that basic human animal thing of establishing dominance by defecating on your opponent.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:


Hopefully the authorities will incinerate his body, throw the ashes down a toilet, and never put his name into print.

We can only hope.

Don't flush them though, the next person to use the toilet gets the honor of gaking on his remains.

Oh see now you are tempting me to be malicious and vengeful. Or maybe its that basic human animal thing of establishing dominance by defecating on your opponent.

Or skullfething them, in the case of Otters.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


I'm not debating politics. Politics and objective thinking are mutually exclusive. That isn't up for debate.

There is nothing at all about your argument that is objective.

You think it is isn't worth it to keep such criminals alive.

I am from America, where we have been running an enormous social experiment centered around "keeping such criminals alive." Most of our society will tell you that warehousing violent, maladaptive, completely irredeemable criminals is an astronomical cost to society, is vulnerable to the worst type of profiteering from the private sector, and really serves to addtionally harden the "worst of the worst" who then go on to commit additional atrocities upon release.

It isn't that its "worth more" to keep violet criminals alive, its that the cost of commiting that behavior on a large scale is absolutely enormous. Thats in terms of property damage, taxpayer burden, and most important the cost to social stability.

 whembly wrote:
Man... this thread is going there there...

But, lemme throw this out there...

Discuss the idea of incarceration as a means to keep the convict out of society, rather than a form a punishment.

Would this shift the focus to only releasing a criminal f they are no longer a danger to society, with more availability of mental health services, drug treatments, addiction treatment, etc.?

 Sigvatr wrote:
No state is interested in it because it's easier to appeal to the emotional part of people than the rational part of humans. People /love/ to get the dumb treatment and highly prefer to do stuff that feels rather than what is actually good.

Yeah, right wing is always so objective and rational. LIke, I never see Fox news appeal to people sense of fear over things like crime and immigration... And lets not get onto terrorism... There could be a terrorist hiding under your bed right now.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


I'm not debating politics. Politics and objective thinking are mutually exclusive. That isn't up for debate.

There is nothing at all about your argument that is objective.

You think it is isn't worth it to keep such criminals alive.

I am from America, where we have been running an enormous social experiment centered around "keeping such criminals alive." Most of our society will tell you that warehousing violent, maladaptive, completely irredeemable criminals is an astronomical cost to society, is vulnerable to the worst type of profiteering from the private sector, and really serves to addtionally harden the "worst of the worst" who then go on to commit additional atrocities upon release.

It isn't that its "worth more" to keep violet criminals alive, its that the cost of commiting that behavior on a large scale is absolutely enormous. Thats in terms of property damage, taxpayer burden, and most important the cost to social stability.

So what ? Give police officers the right to kill any violent criminal ?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Man... this thread is going there there...

But, lemme throw this out there...

Discuss the idea of incarceration as a means to keep the convict out of society, rather than a form a punishment.

Would this shift the focus to only releasing a criminal f they are no longer a danger to society, with more availability of mental health services, drug treatments, addiction treatment, etc.?

To estrapulate that further... focus more on re-habilitation (while keeping convicts out of society ) rather than focusing the punishment.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
I am from America, where we have been running an enormous social experiment centered around "keeping such criminals alive." Most of our society will tell you that warehousing violent, maladaptive, completely irredeemable criminals is an astronomical cost to society, is vulnerable to the worst type of profiteering from the private sector, and really serves to addtionally harden the "worst of the worst" who then go on to commit additional atrocities upon release.

It isn't that its "worth more" to keep violet criminals alive, its that the cost of commiting that behavior on a large scale is absolutely enormous. Thats in terms of property damage, taxpayer burden, and most important the cost to social stability.

And I am from Sweden, where we imprison criminals and try to rehabilitate them into functioning members of society, and I'd say it works pretty okay.

What is true in your country may not be true in ours.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Man... this thread is going there there...

But, lemme throw this out there...

Discuss the idea of incarceration as a means to keep the convict out of society, rather than a form a punishment.

Would this shift the focus to only releasing a criminal f they are no longer a danger to society, with more availability of mental health services, drug treatments, addiction treatment, etc.?

To estrapulate that further... focus more on re-habilitation (while keeping convicts out of society ) rather than focusing the punishment.

Damn straight.

 LethalShade wrote:


So what ? Give police officers the right to kill any violent criminal ?

Generally speaking, yes. That is what I support.

Problem is that cops are human, they feth up, and the wrong people end up dead. Then someone gets sued, the leftists start protesting to try and stir gak up, the media goes nuts, and all of a sudden people give a damn about human life. Which really does make me laugh, given the state of violence around the globe.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
I am from America, where we have been running an enormous social experiment centered around "keeping such criminals alive." Most of our society will tell you that warehousing violent, maladaptive, completely irredeemable criminals is an astronomical cost to society, is vulnerable to the worst type of profiteering from the private sector, and really serves to addtionally harden the "worst of the worst" who then go on to commit additional atrocities upon release.

It isn't that its "worth more" to keep violet criminals alive, its that the cost of commiting that behavior on a large scale is absolutely enormous. Thats in terms of property damage, taxpayer burden, and most important the cost to social stability.

And I am from Sweden, where we imprison criminals and try to rehabilitate them into functioning members of society, and I'd say it works pretty okay.

What is true in your country may not be true in ours.

What has historically "worked" for your nation "worked" because of the structure of your society. That structure is changing, and intentionally so. Globalization will bring you all of the lovey social ills that America suffers from. Trust me on that.

This guy is just another Ander's Breivik, though with a lot less (insane) planning and a sword instead of guns/bombs.

Cops aren't reliable enough, you can't give them the right to judge the "value" of a criminal. They shoot whenever threatened, and it is enough.

Don't make a single person judge, jury and executioner.

 whembly wrote:


To estrapulate that further... focus more on re-habilitation (while keeping convicts out of society ) rather than focusing the punishment.

This has my vote. It would release a lot of non-violent offenders, reduce the prison population, prevent crime, and act as a meaningful deterrent.

This would also necessitate ending the war on drugs and moving away from the for-profit prisons.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


To estrapulate that further... focus more on re-habilitation (while keeping convicts out of society ) rather than focusing the punishment.

This has my vote. It would release a lot of non-violent offenders, reduce the prison population, prevent crime, and act as a meaningful deterrent.

This would also necessitate ending the war on drugs and moving away from the for-profit prisons.

This 1000%.

Do we need to find Frazzled and start up the Weiner party? (T-bone in every doggie bowl!)


OP: Sorry for derailing this thread a bit. Anytime something like this happens, I can only hope we can learn from it and move on.

 LethalShade wrote:
Cops aren't reliable enough, you can't give them the right to judge the "value" of a criminal. They shoot whenever threatened, and it is enough.

I did a lot of thinking about this, esp during the period of time when I lived in Oakland. Sadly, there were many chances to savor the multiplicity of violences that we humans do while I lived there.

But I digress. Cops pull a trigger any time they feel "threatened"....absolutely right and therein lies a problem. The element of fear is serious, and should be removed as much as possible from any state agent who has the right of lethal force. I'm not entirely sure how to do that, but it doesn't change the fact that there are a good many people who really do not belong in civilized society. There is also the insane issue where people seem to think "baiting" or "resisting" cops is legal or acceptable.

So then you get a well meaning citizen who decides to provoke a cop, the cop gets emotional, shoots them, and there's a catastrophe etc.

Meanwhile, James Holmes was intelligent enough to know he could murder dozens of people and that if he sat down and looked "harmless" he wouldn't be shot. <sigh>