|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 17 2016 02:27 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 02:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 17 2016 01:43 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2016 01:19 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2016 01:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 17 2016 01:06 xDaunt wrote:
We ought to bring back firing squads and hanging for conducting executions. Lethal injection is turning into shit show. Let's keep it simple. I read a news article a few years back where some states either wanted to or have brought back firing squads as a more common form of execution. Argument was that lethal injections have been a shit show and that firing squads are actually more humane than they look. Not sure to what extent I believe it but it definitely is a topic that is being considered at the local/state level. Firing squad is cheap, quick, and effective. Yes, it makes a little bit of a mess compared to lethal injection, but let's get real: we're killing a dude. If we're using quick, this is in the context of waiting the average 15 years a sclerotic justice system gets around to the act. And a dysfunctional system that is completely unfair and send innocent people to the slaughter. Especially when they are black and poor. Death penalty is a disgrace, and death penalty in the US is the one biggest shame of that country (even though the list is long). But some people want blood I guess. Eh, if you murdered or raped someone you should just be killed off swiftly. People like that don't deserve to live. This world already has a huge overpopulation problem that shows no signs of slowing down. What is the point in keeping those awful people around?
The fact that for quite a few cases, someone is completely innocent?
|
But killing off unwanted individuals is _the_ way to get rid of unemplyment. You reduce it by one for each guy killed, and you create new jobs(executioners). Those jobs are usually giving a decent salary while requiring no special skills, so you can take almost anyone.
And it is a business the state can freely scale at any time, so adjusting it to the current unemployment situation is always possible. 0 unemployment rate all the time!
|
Can't even fix poverty in your own country - assume you can fix it for the entire world. It's a beautiful sentiment but at the very least arrogant. But it's a lovely soundbite and amen and power to you and all that. But considering the rate of births in poor countries is pretty high it's unlikely to just fix poverty across the entire world. Focus on your own country and prove you can provide true stability there first.
This is a pretty stupid video but gets the basic point across. You can just skim through it and get the general idea.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 17 2016 02:45 BlueBird. wrote:
Solar- population is estimated to stop going up this century, killing off a few prisoners won't change or can't change that. Fixing poverty throughout the world would be the best way to actually make population peak sooner if that is your goal.
I didn't say it would correct the over population issue, just stating that what's the point of keeping those bad people around.
Also, it seems counter intuitive to me that population is expected to decrease this century and thst fixing poverty would stabalize the population.
|
Fixing poverty just speeds up the process of countries shifting from phase 2 in the demographic transition model. Barring a major global catastrophe(which would wipe out a large percentage of population anyways) the numbers say population will peak and then decline.
Maybe its a semantics issue what you probably mean is its a consumption problem. The world has enough resources to feed and maintain a population larger than ours with our current agricultural technologies. Anyways I'm gonna butt my way back out of this thread again, I miss sam + daunt going at it, these new conversations suck.
|
On June 16 2016 14:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 14:07 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:59 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:40 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:21 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:11 oBlade wrote:
We do intern people with mental health problems, in the form of involuntary commitment. Not nearly enough, as evidenced by the frequency of mass shootings in the country. A lot of these mass shooters functioned in society to some extent, and thus may not have been candidates for commitment. Moreover, these mental health problems can deteriorate quickly. So I think, to be safe, we need to intern or monitor every white male with mental health below the optimal level. White males like Omar Mateen?  Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. I get that you're trying to be smart. But there is, as far as I know, no proposal from any presidential candidate to set up internment camps. Psychiatry was a poor example to use because it's a real, long-standing legal mechanism for the government to institutionalize you even if you haven't done anything. No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it? Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. Do you know that most people in the US are white? I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. We have databases of hundreds of thousands of people now, are you trying to argue against those or is this just for you to be sarcastic?
If you're willing to ban Muslims and implement the Muslim database/mosque monitoring, you should be willing to back up that sentiment and do what's necessary to protect our safety and security. Which is a greater threat to American citizens - Muslims or mentally ill white males? Do you want to just let there be more mass murders by mentally ill white males?
|
On June 17 2016 00:43 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 00:34 Plansix wrote:
If you feel sympathetic towards the drug addict is irrelevant to how the problem of their drug addiction is addressed. Laws and their punishments are not based on what makes us feel good or we like, its based on remedying the problem. Perfect response, agreed. Even despite the difference in sentiment. Show nested quote +Addiction isn’t something that is solved by jail time. It is solved through therapy and providing the person the skills to deal with their addiction. Sending them to jail just assures that they will emerge with the same problem, less of a support network and be very likely to become addicted again. That isn’t a solution. And now the only disagreement that may possibly arise is methodology. Whereas I would prefer Singapore to enforce strict standards where everybody knows the drill and you would prefer a more nuanced and humane course of action. I could argue that those who got addicted knew what they were getting themselves into, and I'm not sure how effective rehab is considering many people 'relapse'. Giving skills and a job is most definitely preferrable. I don't know what rates people stay 'clean' or how often it stays for life.
You're doing this again...
Singapore has strict regulations for drugs they don't like, but they have more loose drug laws too. It takes 4 grams of opium in the US to get a trafficking charge, in Singapore you can have more than 20x that without catching a trafficking charge.
What you're really saying is you want to kill people for using/distributing drugs you don't approve of. You can couch it in a way to try to make it look reasonable, but it's more absurd than any of the snarky comments you get in return.
On June 17 2016 02:27 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 02:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 17 2016 01:43 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2016 01:19 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2016 01:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 17 2016 01:06 xDaunt wrote:
We ought to bring back firing squads and hanging for conducting executions. Lethal injection is turning into shit show. Let's keep it simple. I read a news article a few years back where some states either wanted to or have brought back firing squads as a more common form of execution. Argument was that lethal injections have been a shit show and that firing squads are actually more humane than they look. Not sure to what extent I believe it but it definitely is a topic that is being considered at the local/state level. Firing squad is cheap, quick, and effective. Yes, it makes a little bit of a mess compared to lethal injection, but let's get real: we're killing a dude. If we're using quick, this is in the context of waiting the average 15 years a sclerotic justice system gets around to the act. And a dysfunctional system that is completely unfair and send innocent people to the slaughter. Especially when they are black and poor. Death penalty is a disgrace, and death penalty in the US is the one biggest shame of that country (even though the list is long). But some people want blood I guess. Eh, if you murdered or raped someone you should just be killed off swiftly. People like that don't deserve to live. This world already has a huge overpopulation problem that shows no signs of slowing down. What is the point in keeping those awful people around?
So we kill the people who killed innocent people sentenced to death, do we kill the prosecutor and jury too or just the trigger person?
On June 17 2016 03:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On June 17 2016 03:38 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 14:26 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 14:07 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:59 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:40 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:21 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:11 oBlade wrote:
We do intern people with mental health problems, in the form of involuntary commitment. Not nearly enough, as evidenced by the frequency of mass shootings in the country. A lot of these mass shooters functioned in society to some extent, and thus may not have been candidates for commitment. Moreover, these mental health problems can deteriorate quickly. So I think, to be safe, we need to intern or monitor every white male with mental health below the optimal level. White males like Omar Mateen? Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. I get that you're trying to be smart. But there is, as far as I know, no proposal from any presidential candidate to set up internment camps. Psychiatry was a poor example to use because it's a real, long-standing legal mechanism for the government to institutionalize you even if you haven't done anything. No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it? Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. Do you know that most people in the US are white? I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. We have databases of hundreds of thousands of people now, are you trying to argue against those or is this just for you to be sarcastic? If you're willing to ban Muslims and implement the Muslim database/mosque monitoring, you should be willing to back up that sentiment and do what's necessary to protect our safety and security. Which is a greater threat to American citizens - Muslims or mentally ill white males? Do you want to just let there be more mass murders by mentally ill white males? Are you trying to establish some sort of false dichotomy that we can't do both? Hes trying to make a joke that banning Muslims is on the same level as interning all white males that are deemed mentally ill. It became beyond offensive the moment he started trying to defend it.
Yeah, because defending banning all Muslims (from even visiting btw) isn't beyond offensive...
|
On June 17 2016 03:38 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 14:26 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 14:07 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:59 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:40 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:21 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:11 oBlade wrote:
We do intern people with mental health problems, in the form of involuntary commitment. Not nearly enough, as evidenced by the frequency of mass shootings in the country. A lot of these mass shooters functioned in society to some extent, and thus may not have been candidates for commitment. Moreover, these mental health problems can deteriorate quickly. So I think, to be safe, we need to intern or monitor every white male with mental health below the optimal level. White males like Omar Mateen? Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. I get that you're trying to be smart. But there is, as far as I know, no proposal from any presidential candidate to set up internment camps. Psychiatry was a poor example to use because it's a real, long-standing legal mechanism for the government to institutionalize you even if you haven't done anything. No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it? Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. Do you know that most people in the US are white? I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. We have databases of hundreds of thousands of people now, are you trying to argue against those or is this just for you to be sarcastic? If you're willing to ban Muslims and implement the Muslim database/mosque monitoring, you should be willing to back up that sentiment and do what's necessary to protect our safety and security. Which is a greater threat to American citizens - Muslims or mentally ill white males? Do you want to just let there be more mass murders by mentally ill white males?
Are you trying to establish some sort of false dichotomy that we can't do both?
|
On June 17 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 03:38 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 14:26 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 14:07 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:59 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:40 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:21 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:11 oBlade wrote:
We do intern people with mental health problems, in the form of involuntary commitment. Not nearly enough, as evidenced by the frequency of mass shootings in the country. A lot of these mass shooters functioned in society to some extent, and thus may not have been candidates for commitment. Moreover, these mental health problems can deteriorate quickly. So I think, to be safe, we need to intern or monitor every white male with mental health below the optimal level. White males like Omar Mateen? Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. I get that you're trying to be smart. But there is, as far as I know, no proposal from any presidential candidate to set up internment camps. Psychiatry was a poor example to use because it's a real, long-standing legal mechanism for the government to institutionalize you even if you haven't done anything. No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it? Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. Do you know that most people in the US are white? I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. We have databases of hundreds of thousands of people now, are you trying to argue against those or is this just for you to be sarcastic? If you're willing to ban Muslims and implement the Muslim database/mosque monitoring, you should be willing to back up that sentiment and do what's necessary to protect our safety and security. Which is a greater threat to American citizens - Muslims or mentally ill white males? Do you want to just let there be more mass murders by mentally ill white males? Are you trying to establish some sort of false dichotomy that we can't do both?
Hes trying to make a joke that banning Muslims is on the same level as interning all white males that are deemed mentally ill. It became beyond offensive the moment he started trying to defend it.
|
On June 17 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 03:38 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 14:26 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 14:07 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:59 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:40 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:21 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:11 oBlade wrote:
We do intern people with mental health problems, in the form of involuntary commitment. Not nearly enough, as evidenced by the frequency of mass shootings in the country. A lot of these mass shooters functioned in society to some extent, and thus may not have been candidates for commitment. Moreover, these mental health problems can deteriorate quickly. So I think, to be safe, we need to intern or monitor every white male with mental health below the optimal level. White males like Omar Mateen? Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. I get that you're trying to be smart. But there is, as far as I know, no proposal from any presidential candidate to set up internment camps. Psychiatry was a poor example to use because it's a real, long-standing legal mechanism for the government to institutionalize you even if you haven't done anything. No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it? Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. Do you know that most people in the US are white? I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. We have databases of hundreds of thousands of people now, are you trying to argue against those or is this just for you to be sarcastic? If you're willing to ban Muslims and implement the Muslim database/mosque monitoring, you should be willing to back up that sentiment and do what's necessary to protect our safety and security. Which is a greater threat to American citizens - Muslims or mentally ill white males? Do you want to just let there be more mass murders by mentally ill white males? Are you trying to establish some sort of false dichotomy that we can't do both?
Of course he is. The problem is that he ultimately is going to prove our point.
|
On June 17 2016 03:38 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 14:26 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 14:07 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:59 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:40 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:21 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:11 oBlade wrote:
We do intern people with mental health problems, in the form of involuntary commitment. Not nearly enough, as evidenced by the frequency of mass shootings in the country. A lot of these mass shooters functioned in society to some extent, and thus may not have been candidates for commitment. Moreover, these mental health problems can deteriorate quickly. So I think, to be safe, we need to intern or monitor every white male with mental health below the optimal level. White males like Omar Mateen? Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. I get that you're trying to be smart. But there is, as far as I know, no proposal from any presidential candidate to set up internment camps. Psychiatry was a poor example to use because it's a real, long-standing legal mechanism for the government to institutionalize you even if you haven't done anything. No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it? Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. Do you know that most people in the US are white? I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. We have databases of hundreds of thousands of people now, are you trying to argue against those or is this just for you to be sarcastic? If you're willing to ban Muslims and implement the Muslim database/mosque monitoring, you should be willing to back up that sentiment and do what's necessary to protect our safety and security. Which is a greater threat to American citizens - Muslims or mentally ill white males? Do you want to just let there be more mass murders by mentally ill white males?
White male and muslim is not a fair equivalency. One is a race and gender and the other is just a person who practices a certain religion.
|
On June 17 2016 03:53 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 03:38 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 14:26 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 14:07 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:59 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:40 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:21 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:11 oBlade wrote:
We do intern people with mental health problems, in the form of involuntary commitment. Not nearly enough, as evidenced by the frequency of mass shootings in the country. A lot of these mass shooters functioned in society to some extent, and thus may not have been candidates for commitment. Moreover, these mental health problems can deteriorate quickly. So I think, to be safe, we need to intern or monitor every white male with mental health below the optimal level. White males like Omar Mateen? Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. I get that you're trying to be smart. But there is, as far as I know, no proposal from any presidential candidate to set up internment camps. Psychiatry was a poor example to use because it's a real, long-standing legal mechanism for the government to institutionalize you even if you haven't done anything. No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it? Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. Do you know that most people in the US are white? I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. We have databases of hundreds of thousands of people now, are you trying to argue against those or is this just for you to be sarcastic? If you're willing to ban Muslims and implement the Muslim database/mosque monitoring, you should be willing to back up that sentiment and do what's necessary to protect our safety and security. Which is a greater threat to American citizens - Muslims or mentally ill white males? Do you want to just let there be more mass murders by mentally ill white males? White male and muslim is not a fair equivalency. One is a race and gender and the other is just a person who practices a certain religion.
In fairness it could just be all men with an emphasis on white men. Something like 998 out of the last 1000 mass shooters were men, men with sub optimal mental health are unquestionably a bigger threat than Muslims.
Point being creating a ban against Muslims (besides probably being unconstitutional) would do little to nothing to prevent violence, like less effective than the dumbest gun control suggestions.
|
On June 17 2016 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 00:43 SK.Testie wrote:On June 17 2016 00:34 Plansix wrote:
If you feel sympathetic towards the drug addict is irrelevant to how the problem of their drug addiction is addressed. Laws and their punishments are not based on what makes us feel good or we like, its based on remedying the problem. Perfect response, agreed. Even despite the difference in sentiment. Addiction isn’t something that is solved by jail time. It is solved through therapy and providing the person the skills to deal with their addiction. Sending them to jail just assures that they will emerge with the same problem, less of a support network and be very likely to become addicted again. That isn’t a solution. And now the only disagreement that may possibly arise is methodology. Whereas I would prefer Singapore to enforce strict standards where everybody knows the drill and you would prefer a more nuanced and humane course of action. I could argue that those who got addicted knew what they were getting themselves into, and I'm not sure how effective rehab is considering many people 'relapse'. Giving skills and a job is most definitely preferrable. I don't know what rates people stay 'clean' or how often it stays for life. You're doing this again... Singapore has strict regulations for drugs they don't like, but they have more loose drug laws too. It takes 4 grams of opium in the US to get a trafficking charge, in Singapore you can have more than 20x that without catching a trafficking charge. What you're really saying is you want to kill people for using/distributing drugs you don't approve of. You can couch it in a way to try to make it look reasonable, but it's more absurd than any of the snarky comments you get in return. Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 02:27 SolaR- wrote:On June 17 2016 02:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 17 2016 01:43 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2016 01:19 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2016 01:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 17 2016 01:06 xDaunt wrote:
We ought to bring back firing squads and hanging for conducting executions. Lethal injection is turning into shit show. Let's keep it simple. I read a news article a few years back where some states either wanted to or have brought back firing squads as a more common form of execution. Argument was that lethal injections have been a shit show and that firing squads are actually more humane than they look. Not sure to what extent I believe it but it definitely is a topic that is being considered at the local/state level. Firing squad is cheap, quick, and effective. Yes, it makes a little bit of a mess compared to lethal injection, but let's get real: we're killing a dude. If we're using quick, this is in the context of waiting the average 15 years a sclerotic justice system gets around to the act. And a dysfunctional system that is completely unfair and send innocent people to the slaughter. Especially when they are black and poor. Death penalty is a disgrace, and death penalty in the US is the one biggest shame of that country (even though the list is long). But some people want blood I guess. Eh, if you murdered or raped someone you should just be killed off swiftly. People like that don't deserve to live. This world already has a huge overpopulation problem that shows no signs of slowing down. What is the point in keeping those awful people around? So we kill the people who killed innocent people sentenced to death, do we kill the prosecutor and jury too or just the trigger person? Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 03:51 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On June 17 2016 03:38 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 14:26 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 14:07 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:59 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:40 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:21 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Not nearly enough, as evidenced by the frequency of mass shootings in the country. A lot of these mass shooters functioned in society to some extent, and thus may not have been candidates for commitment. Moreover, these mental health problems can deteriorate quickly. So I think, to be safe, we need to intern or monitor every white male with mental health below the optimal level. White males like Omar Mateen? Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. I get that you're trying to be smart. But there is, as far as I know, no proposal from any presidential candidate to set up internment camps. Psychiatry was a poor example to use because it's a real, long-standing legal mechanism for the government to institutionalize you even if you haven't done anything. No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it? Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. Do you know that most people in the US are white? I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. We have databases of hundreds of thousands of people now, are you trying to argue against those or is this just for you to be sarcastic? If you're willing to ban Muslims and implement the Muslim database/mosque monitoring, you should be willing to back up that sentiment and do what's necessary to protect our safety and security. Which is a greater threat to American citizens - Muslims or mentally ill white males? Do you want to just let there be more mass murders by mentally ill white males? Are you trying to establish some sort of false dichotomy that we can't do both? Hes trying to make a joke that banning Muslims is on the same level as interning all white males that are deemed mentally ill. It became beyond offensive the moment he started trying to defend it. Yeah, because defending banning all Muslims (from even visiting btw) isn't beyond offensive...
Im usually with you on a lot of things but are you seriously saying there is something wrong with killing a cold blooded murderer. Insisting that the jury and prosecution are just as guilty of murder for serving justice to a horrible individual?
|
On June 17 2016 03:38 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 14:26 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 14:07 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:59 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:40 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:21 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:11 oBlade wrote:
We do intern people with mental health problems, in the form of involuntary commitment. Not nearly enough, as evidenced by the frequency of mass shootings in the country. A lot of these mass shooters functioned in society to some extent, and thus may not have been candidates for commitment. Moreover, these mental health problems can deteriorate quickly. So I think, to be safe, we need to intern or monitor every white male with mental health below the optimal level. White males like Omar Mateen? Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. I get that you're trying to be smart. But there is, as far as I know, no proposal from any presidential candidate to set up internment camps. Psychiatry was a poor example to use because it's a real, long-standing legal mechanism for the government to institutionalize you even if you haven't done anything. No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it? Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. Do you know that most people in the US are white? I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. We have databases of hundreds of thousands of people now, are you trying to argue against those or is this just for you to be sarcastic? If you're willing to ban Muslims and implement the Muslim database/mosque monitoring, you should be willing to back up that sentiment and do what's necessary to protect our safety and security. Which is a greater threat to American citizens - Muslims or mentally ill white males?
Eyeballing body counts, Islamic terrorists seem like the bigger threat. But having careful immigration isn't only about security. And what you ignored is those databases exist now, what do you think the FBI, NSA, and CIA are doing? Remember, those databases that people keep leaping to in order to block gun sales to people on them?
|
I'm not sure why the American left are always trying to downplay Islamic terrorist attacks with comparing to white males committing mass shootings, yes the chance is going to be higher due to the problems with mental illness, gun control and the vast majority of your population being you know, white.
That does not mean a organised terrorist group like ISIS is any less dangerous to the USA, there is nothing in this world that can come close to the scale of what they can do, and we are reminded of it almost every single month.
|
So long as we're on this road 61%-64% of mass shootings are done by white males according to CNN.
Completely proportional to their population size. Literally not a problem.
|
On June 17 2016 04:01 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 17 2016 00:43 SK.Testie wrote:On June 17 2016 00:34 Plansix wrote:
If you feel sympathetic towards the drug addict is irrelevant to how the problem of their drug addiction is addressed. Laws and their punishments are not based on what makes us feel good or we like, its based on remedying the problem. Perfect response, agreed. Even despite the difference in sentiment. Addiction isn’t something that is solved by jail time. It is solved through therapy and providing the person the skills to deal with their addiction. Sending them to jail just assures that they will emerge with the same problem, less of a support network and be very likely to become addicted again. That isn’t a solution. And now the only disagreement that may possibly arise is methodology. Whereas I would prefer Singapore to enforce strict standards where everybody knows the drill and you would prefer a more nuanced and humane course of action. I could argue that those who got addicted knew what they were getting themselves into, and I'm not sure how effective rehab is considering many people 'relapse'. Giving skills and a job is most definitely preferrable. I don't know what rates people stay 'clean' or how often it stays for life. You're doing this again... Singapore has strict regulations for drugs they don't like, but they have more loose drug laws too. It takes 4 grams of opium in the US to get a trafficking charge, in Singapore you can have more than 20x that without catching a trafficking charge. What you're really saying is you want to kill people for using/distributing drugs you don't approve of. You can couch it in a way to try to make it look reasonable, but it's more absurd than any of the snarky comments you get in return. On June 17 2016 02:27 SolaR- wrote:On June 17 2016 02:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 17 2016 01:43 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2016 01:19 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2016 01:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 17 2016 01:06 xDaunt wrote:
We ought to bring back firing squads and hanging for conducting executions. Lethal injection is turning into shit show. Let's keep it simple. I read a news article a few years back where some states either wanted to or have brought back firing squads as a more common form of execution. Argument was that lethal injections have been a shit show and that firing squads are actually more humane than they look. Not sure to what extent I believe it but it definitely is a topic that is being considered at the local/state level. Firing squad is cheap, quick, and effective. Yes, it makes a little bit of a mess compared to lethal injection, but let's get real: we're killing a dude. If we're using quick, this is in the context of waiting the average 15 years a sclerotic justice system gets around to the act. And a dysfunctional system that is completely unfair and send innocent people to the slaughter. Especially when they are black and poor. Death penalty is a disgrace, and death penalty in the US is the one biggest shame of that country (even though the list is long). But some people want blood I guess. Eh, if you murdered or raped someone you should just be killed off swiftly. People like that don't deserve to live. This world already has a huge overpopulation problem that shows no signs of slowing down. What is the point in keeping those awful people around? So we kill the people who killed innocent people sentenced to death, do we kill the prosecutor and jury too or just the trigger person? On June 17 2016 03:51 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On June 17 2016 03:38 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 14:26 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 14:07 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:59 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:40 oBlade wrote:[quote] White males like Omar Mateen? Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. I get that you're trying to be smart. But there is, as far as I know, no proposal from any presidential candidate to set up internment camps. Psychiatry was a poor example to use because it's a real, long-standing legal mechanism for the government to institutionalize you even if you haven't done anything. No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it? Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. Do you know that most people in the US are white? I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. We have databases of hundreds of thousands of people now, are you trying to argue against those or is this just for you to be sarcastic? If you're willing to ban Muslims and implement the Muslim database/mosque monitoring, you should be willing to back up that sentiment and do what's necessary to protect our safety and security. Which is a greater threat to American citizens - Muslims or mentally ill white males? Do you want to just let there be more mass murders by mentally ill white males? Are you trying to establish some sort of false dichotomy that we can't do both? Hes trying to make a joke that banning Muslims is on the same level as interning all white males that are deemed mentally ill. It became beyond offensive the moment he started trying to defend it. Yeah, because defending banning all Muslims (from even visiting btw) isn't beyond offensive... Im usually with you on a lot of things but are you seriously saying there is something wrong with killing a cold blooded murderer. Insisting that the jury and prosecution are just as guilty of murder for serving justice to a horrible individual?
Think you missed the "innocent" part?
On June 17 2016 04:08 SK.Testie wrote:
So long as we're on this road 61%-64% of mass shootings are done by white males according to CNN.
Completely proportional to their population size. Literally not a problem.
60% of mass shootings aren't a problem because they are proportional, but disproportionate (even if much less in volume) mass shootings mean banning 1.5 billion people is reasonable. That's why you get snarky responses, because that's ridiculous.
Muslim doesn't even make the top 10 of people that are likely to kill me, I have a way higher chance of being killed by a crazy white guy than I do a Muslim woman.
|
On June 17 2016 04:01 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 17 2016 00:43 SK.Testie wrote:On June 17 2016 00:34 Plansix wrote:
If you feel sympathetic towards the drug addict is irrelevant to how the problem of their drug addiction is addressed. Laws and their punishments are not based on what makes us feel good or we like, its based on remedying the problem. Perfect response, agreed. Even despite the difference in sentiment. Addiction isn’t something that is solved by jail time. It is solved through therapy and providing the person the skills to deal with their addiction. Sending them to jail just assures that they will emerge with the same problem, less of a support network and be very likely to become addicted again. That isn’t a solution. And now the only disagreement that may possibly arise is methodology. Whereas I would prefer Singapore to enforce strict standards where everybody knows the drill and you would prefer a more nuanced and humane course of action. I could argue that those who got addicted knew what they were getting themselves into, and I'm not sure how effective rehab is considering many people 'relapse'. Giving skills and a job is most definitely preferrable. I don't know what rates people stay 'clean' or how often it stays for life. You're doing this again... Singapore has strict regulations for drugs they don't like, but they have more loose drug laws too. It takes 4 grams of opium in the US to get a trafficking charge, in Singapore you can have more than 20x that without catching a trafficking charge. What you're really saying is you want to kill people for using/distributing drugs you don't approve of. You can couch it in a way to try to make it look reasonable, but it's more absurd than any of the snarky comments you get in return. On June 17 2016 02:27 SolaR- wrote:On June 17 2016 02:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 17 2016 01:43 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2016 01:19 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2016 01:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 17 2016 01:06 xDaunt wrote:
We ought to bring back firing squads and hanging for conducting executions. Lethal injection is turning into shit show. Let's keep it simple. I read a news article a few years back where some states either wanted to or have brought back firing squads as a more common form of execution. Argument was that lethal injections have been a shit show and that firing squads are actually more humane than they look. Not sure to what extent I believe it but it definitely is a topic that is being considered at the local/state level. Firing squad is cheap, quick, and effective. Yes, it makes a little bit of a mess compared to lethal injection, but let's get real: we're killing a dude. If we're using quick, this is in the context of waiting the average 15 years a sclerotic justice system gets around to the act. And a dysfunctional system that is completely unfair and send innocent people to the slaughter. Especially when they are black and poor. Death penalty is a disgrace, and death penalty in the US is the one biggest shame of that country (even though the list is long). But some people want blood I guess. Eh, if you murdered or raped someone you should just be killed off swiftly. People like that don't deserve to live. This world already has a huge overpopulation problem that shows no signs of slowing down. What is the point in keeping those awful people around? So we kill the people who killed innocent people sentenced to death, do we kill the prosecutor and jury too or just the trigger person? On June 17 2016 03:51 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On June 17 2016 03:38 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 14:26 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 14:07 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:59 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:40 oBlade wrote:[quote] White males like Omar Mateen? Look, gun violence is trending down in the US. I get that you're trying to be smart. But there is, as far as I know, no proposal from any presidential candidate to set up internment camps. Psychiatry was a poor example to use because it's a real, long-standing legal mechanism for the government to institutionalize you even if you haven't done anything. No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it? Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. Do you know that most people in the US are white? I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. We have databases of hundreds of thousands of people now, are you trying to argue against those or is this just for you to be sarcastic? If you're willing to ban Muslims and implement the Muslim database/mosque monitoring, you should be willing to back up that sentiment and do what's necessary to protect our safety and security. Which is a greater threat to American citizens - Muslims or mentally ill white males? Do you want to just let there be more mass murders by mentally ill white males? Are you trying to establish some sort of false dichotomy that we can't do both? Hes trying to make a joke that banning Muslims is on the same level as interning all white males that are deemed mentally ill. It became beyond offensive the moment he started trying to defend it. Yeah, because defending banning all Muslims (from even visiting btw) isn't beyond offensive... Im usually with you on a lot of things but are you seriously saying there is something wrong with killing a cold blooded murderer. Insisting that the jury and prosecution are just as guilty of murder for serving justice to a horrible individual?
But the justice system isn't perfect and it can never truly be perfect enough to justify killing someone. There will always be people who were guilty that were judged innocent and people who were innocent that were judged guilty. What are you going to do when someone gets killed and a decade later they find out the guy never did the crime he was punished for?
|
Yes, convictions are never as clear cut as they are on TV. Even when someone confesses to the crime, it is rarely the whole story. Which is why we don't just execute people for being "cold blooded murders"
|
On June 17 2016 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 04:01 SolaR- wrote:On June 17 2016 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 17 2016 00:43 SK.Testie wrote:On June 17 2016 00:34 Plansix wrote:
If you feel sympathetic towards the drug addict is irrelevant to how the problem of their drug addiction is addressed. Laws and their punishments are not based on what makes us feel good or we like, its based on remedying the problem. Perfect response, agreed. Even despite the difference in sentiment. Addiction isn’t something that is solved by jail time. It is solved through therapy and providing the person the skills to deal with their addiction. Sending them to jail just assures that they will emerge with the same problem, less of a support network and be very likely to become addicted again. That isn’t a solution. And now the only disagreement that may possibly arise is methodology. Whereas I would prefer Singapore to enforce strict standards where everybody knows the drill and you would prefer a more nuanced and humane course of action. I could argue that those who got addicted knew what they were getting themselves into, and I'm not sure how effective rehab is considering many people 'relapse'. Giving skills and a job is most definitely preferrable. I don't know what rates people stay 'clean' or how often it stays for life. You're doing this again... Singapore has strict regulations for drugs they don't like, but they have more loose drug laws too. It takes 4 grams of opium in the US to get a trafficking charge, in Singapore you can have more than 20x that without catching a trafficking charge. What you're really saying is you want to kill people for using/distributing drugs you don't approve of. You can couch it in a way to try to make it look reasonable, but it's more absurd than any of the snarky comments you get in return. On June 17 2016 02:27 SolaR- wrote:On June 17 2016 02:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 17 2016 01:43 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2016 01:19 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2016 01:16 LegalLord wrote:On June 17 2016 01:06 xDaunt wrote:
We ought to bring back firing squads and hanging for conducting executions. Lethal injection is turning into shit show. Let's keep it simple. I read a news article a few years back where some states either wanted to or have brought back firing squads as a more common form of execution. Argument was that lethal injections have been a shit show and that firing squads are actually more humane than they look. Not sure to what extent I believe it but it definitely is a topic that is being considered at the local/state level. Firing squad is cheap, quick, and effective. Yes, it makes a little bit of a mess compared to lethal injection, but let's get real: we're killing a dude. If we're using quick, this is in the context of waiting the average 15 years a sclerotic justice system gets around to the act. And a dysfunctional system that is completely unfair and send innocent people to the slaughter. Especially when they are black and poor. Death penalty is a disgrace, and death penalty in the US is the one biggest shame of that country (even though the list is long). But some people want blood I guess. Eh, if you murdered or raped someone you should just be killed off swiftly. People like that don't deserve to live. This world already has a huge overpopulation problem that shows no signs of slowing down. What is the point in keeping those awful people around? So we kill the people who killed innocent people sentenced to death, do we kill the prosecutor and jury too or just the trigger person? On June 17 2016 03:51 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2016 03:48 LegalLord wrote:On June 17 2016 03:38 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 14:26 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 14:07 Doodsmack wrote:On June 16 2016 13:59 oBlade wrote:On June 16 2016 13:48 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
No, like Adam Lanza and James Holmes (and many others). This is about identifying populations that put our safety and security at risk, and implementing measures to deal with them. White males are significantly more likely to be the perpetrators of mental illness-based mass shootings. Are we just going to let all these people run loose? Why aren't we doing anything stricter about it?
Like I said, I'm open to a compromise of a database coupled with monitoring. Do you know that most people in the US are white? I know that the body count is high, most perpetrators are white males, and the risk continues. Therefore to reduce the risk, since we don't know which exact mentally ill white males will snap next, we should address the population as a whole, knowing that the risk is there. We have databases of hundreds of thousands of people now, are you trying to argue against those or is this just for you to be sarcastic? If you're willing to ban Muslims and implement the Muslim database/mosque monitoring, you should be willing to back up that sentiment and do what's necessary to protect our safety and security. Which is a greater threat to American citizens - Muslims or mentally ill white males? Do you want to just let there be more mass murders by mentally ill white males? Are you trying to establish some sort of false dichotomy that we can't do both? Hes trying to make a joke that banning Muslims is on the same level as interning all white males that are deemed mentally ill. It became beyond offensive the moment he started trying to defend it. Yeah, because defending banning all Muslims (from even visiting btw) isn't beyond offensive... Im usually with you on a lot of things but are you seriously saying there is something wrong with killing a cold blooded murderer. Insisting that the jury and prosecution are just as guilty of murder for serving justice to a horrible individual? Think you missed the "innocent" part?
If you are suggesting that there are innocent people found guilty of murder or rape, then I have a solution. Only give swift executions for the people who undeniably did the crime. For sentences with cloudy "evidence" give them a delayed sentence, while people continue to investigate their supposed crimes.
Also, on the left there are many feminists that complain that so many rapists go free due to lack of evidence. So how would that help their case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
