|
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. |
People who undeniably did the crime are unicorns.
|
On June 17 2016 04:14 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
We already have an incredibly long and drawn out process which still results in agents of the government murdering people. That's not a solution, that's just putting in an express lane.
|
On June 17 2016 04:14 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Thats a terrible suggestion it doesn't solve the problem and only increases the burden on the justice system. How many sentences will be perpetually investigated with no new evidence ever coming up and how many resources will be spent on these instead of working the fresh cases that come up every day in this country.
|
On June 17 2016 04:15 Plansix wrote:
People who undeniably did the crime are unicorns.
Then we need to start killing unicorns.
|
On June 17 2016 04:17 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 04:15 Plansix wrote:
People who undeniably did the crime are unicorns. Then we need to start killing unicorns.
Joke is on you, they don't exist.
|
If killing said unicorns would benefit the state we might as well just lock up the serial killers and the "undeniable crime doers" and study them to help us solve other crimes that are more difficult. The closer rate on crimes in america is obscene as it is.
|
On June 17 2016 04:04 oBlade 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? 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?
So you want to do nothing about the problem of white male mass shooters, but ban all Muslims from the country? How hard would it be, if we have the capability to ban and monitor Muslims, to monitor white males with mental illness? Both groups are committing mass murders aren't they?
Yes those agencies have "databases" but there is not one, to my knowledge, that tracks all white males with mental illness (and is backed up by real-life monitoring).
|
On June 17 2016 04:15 Plansix wrote:
People who undeniably did the crime are unicorns.
Do you have any stats to back that up?
|
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.
Getting a little touchy about our own group, are we?
|
On June 17 2016 04:29 Doodsmack wrote: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. Getting a little touchy about our own group, are we?
You're advocating internment camps on the same basis as the Japanese interment camps to solve a problem that doesn't exist beacuse you think theres some comparison to banning Muslims from coming into america. Touchy we are long past.
|
On June 17 2016 04:36 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 04:29 Doodsmack wrote: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. Getting a little touchy about our own group, are we? You're advocating internment camps on the same basis as the Japanese interment camps to solve a problem that doesn't exist beacuse you think theres some comparison to banning Muslims from coming into america. Touchy we are long past.
Well presume that a Muslim ban worked, there are now 0 mass shootings from Muslims, who's now responsible for the overwhelming number of mass shootings of innocent people? The "ban people" do want to address the group responsible for more mass shootings/terrorism than any other group don't they? Or is it only the groups that don't include them?
|
On June 17 2016 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 04:36 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2016 04:29 Doodsmack wrote: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. Getting a little touchy about our own group, are we? You're advocating internment camps on the same basis as the Japanese interment camps to solve a problem that doesn't exist beacuse you think theres some comparison to banning Muslims from coming into america. Touchy we are long past. Well presume that a Muslim ban worked, there are now 0 mass shootings from Muslims, who's now responsible for the overwhelming number of mass shootings of innocent people? The "ban people" do want to address the group responsible for more mass shootings/terrorism than any other group don't they? Or is it only the groups that don't include them?
The next group would be inner city black and Hispanic suspected gang members to be interred if you seriously want to use the arguments hes using. You of all people in this thread should be "touchy" about that.
|
On June 17 2016 04:14 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
Dude what? It's not a suggestion. It's a fact. And why are you trying to connect it to rapists who aren't sentenced? You understand there's a difference between a false positive and a false negative right? And that just because you find false positives to be a really really really bad outcome that that might have almost nothing to do with reducing false negatives?
|
On June 17 2016 04:36 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 04:29 Doodsmack wrote: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. Getting a little touchy about our own group, are we? You're advocating internment camps on the same basis as the Japanese interment camps to solve a problem that doesn't exist beacuse you think theres some comparison to banning Muslims from coming into america. Touchy we are long past.
As I've said I'm open to the idea of a database and monitoring.
And keep in mind Trump's deportation plan would most definitely require camps.
Trump wants databases and monitoring of Muslims so I'm just asking those who support Trump's anti-Muslim policies to prove their commitment to safety and security.
|
On June 17 2016 04:22 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 04:04 oBlade 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? 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? So you want to do nothing about the problem of white male mass shooters, but ban all Muslims from the country? How hard would it be, if we have the capability to ban and monitor Muslims, to monitor white males with mental illness? Both groups are committing mass murders aren't they?
People with mental illness are monitored first by the medical profession and then by law enforcement if they're a threat, the same as anyone else - except for people that weren't considered ill or a terrorist until they killed a ton of people, which usually ends up qualifying them for one or both of those monikers.
On June 17 2016 04:22 Doodsmack wrote:
Yes those agencies have "databases" but there is not one, to my knowledge, that tracks all white males with mental illness (and is backed up by real-life monitoring).
Write to your Congressman?
|
On June 17 2016 04:53 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 04:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 17 2016 04:36 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2016 04:29 Doodsmack wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Getting a little touchy about our own group, are we? You're advocating internment camps on the same basis as the Japanese interment camps to solve a problem that doesn't exist beacuse you think theres some comparison to banning Muslims from coming into america. Touchy we are long past. Well presume that a Muslim ban worked, there are now 0 mass shootings from Muslims, who's now responsible for the overwhelming number of mass shootings of innocent people? The "ban people" do want to address the group responsible for more mass shootings/terrorism than any other group don't they? Or is it only the groups that don't include them? The next group would be inner city black and Hispanic suspected gang members to be interred if you seriously want to use the arguments hes using. You of all people in this thread should be "touchy" about that.
No, while gun violence may be high, black and latino's commit far less terrorist acts than white people, especially if you were only talking about non-muslim black people.
|
On June 17 2016 05:04 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 04:22 Doodsmack wrote:On June 17 2016 04:04 oBlade 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? 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? So you want to do nothing about the problem of white male mass shooters, but ban all Muslims from the country? How hard would it be, if we have the capability to ban and monitor Muslims, to monitor white males with mental illness? Both groups are committing mass murders aren't they? People with mental illness are monitored first by the medical profession and then by law enforcement if they're a threat, the same as anyone else - except for people that weren't considered ill or a terrorist until they killed a ton of people, which usually ends up qualifying them for one or both of those monikers.
You're only talking about a subset. I'm talking about enhancing security measures to encompass the WHOLE group, in order to maximize safety and security.
|
On June 17 2016 05:01 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2016 04:36 Sermokala wrote:On June 17 2016 04:29 Doodsmack wrote: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. Getting a little touchy about our own group, are we? You're advocating internment camps on the same basis as the Japanese interment camps to solve a problem that doesn't exist beacuse you think theres some comparison to banning Muslims from coming into america. Touchy we are long past. As I've said I'm open to the idea of a database and monitoring. And keep in mind Trump's deportation plan would most definitely require camps. Trump wants databases and monitoring of Muslims so I'm just asking those who support Trump's anti-Muslim policies to prove their commitment to safety and security.
See the problem is that you're presenting this like you think its a legitimate idea and are supporting it regardless of its connection to whatever trump said or wants. You've become the guy advocating for this and coming up with justifications for it.
|
Watching John McCain, almost desperately, trying to walk back his comments about Obama and Orlando shooting is sad and hilarious. It's almost as if the man is terrified of not having a job.
|
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?
It's not because some people are disgusting that we have to be disgusting ourselves. And many people deserve death and worse ; this obscene ritual that is death penalty only make us look like them.
And then,
1. There are PLENTY of judicial errors. No justice is perfect, and every single innocent executed makes everyone supporting death penalty, a murderer. I am not a murderer.
You cannot be american and support death penalty without a complete redesign of the whole american judicial system, which is totally fucked up. And if you like the idea of that completely fucked up system sending people to their death, well.. That says a lot about you.
2. Most criminal are mentally ill. Serial killers, sexual offenders and such are often completely disturbed and in very little control of their action. Killing them is at best morally questionable.
3. Many, many criminals have had horrifying lives. Easy to say they should be killed when I have no idea what they went through. And how I would be had I had their lives.
But anyway. The whole process of is so disgusting and obscene that this should be an argument in itself. I don't want to live in a society where such things happen. Killing people like they were animals. With the victim family watching. It's atrocious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
