|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Oof, Brazil fucks elon in the ass.
Some people can agree the freedom of speech is a hallowed right that should be regarded as such, and thus be treated and respected as a privilege that shouldn't be abused. But assholes gonna asshole, it’s just human nature and some people’s self-identity literally revolve around it. When the only thing is diarrhea coming out of these people's mouths (who treat the freedom of speech as if it were diarrhea itself), others aren't going to bat an eye when there are efforts to put duct tape over the mouths of such disrespectful abusers in order to stem the flow of liquid shit. After all, that's how underground cannibals dwelling in the basements of pizzerias get birthed.
Just like how my first grade teacher convinced the loudest kids in class to put tape over their own mouths (didn't stop them from mumbling through the tape though). Or idk, mods banning Russian troll farmers peddling kremlin propaganda garbage in that other thread. I’m fine with some of them getting banned, but TL would become a boring place if all of them were banned. After all, one does not come to the zoo just to find the animals missing.
It’d be nice to live in a world where actions and stupidity have consequences. Open your mouth and say something dumb, and the consequence would be a hit to your credibility and respectability. Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world since our collective intelligence has nosedived to the point where saying retarded shit actually has the opposite effect, and gives one MORE influence and clout.
Actually, it may not be that we have all gotten stupider, but that information (and likewise disinformation) is so much easier to spread in the age of social media, as micronesia and others have pointed out. Starting your own cult and profiting from them is much more accessible to your average layman than it was in the past. Now the Vatican doesn’t have a monopoly on putting on a Halloween costume and claiming they have a direct telegram link to God. Nor does corporate media have a monopoly on the Truth anymore. Any schmuck out there with a phone, mic, camera, and internet connection can claim to know what’s REALLY going on and people will fall for it, in order to feel smarter than they really are. It’s one of the reasons why independent media, prone to audience capture (their source of income), has become a cesspool now. Corporate media, despite its shortcomings, might still be better (no matter how many pill or car ads they shove into your face)?
Here’s a question that was asked of me in grade school: Does the freedom of speech allow one to roam around town at 2am and shout whatever they please into a megaphone, when everyone else is asleep? Do quiet hours and similar ordinances violate the freedom of speech?
You know what, fuck it. My freedom to kill trumps your right to live. You living is getting in the way of my freedom to enjoy life, now die for me please. I might have to kill the dumpster diving neighbor who found your body parts in the trash too, they are invading my privacy and deserve a one-way trip to Hell for that.
|
On September 04 2024 22:20 riotjune wrote:
Oof, Brazil fucks elon in the ass.
Some people can agree the freedom of speech is a hallowed right that should be regarded as such, and thus be treated and respected as a privilege that shouldn't be abused. But assholes gonna asshole, it’s just human nature and some people’s self-identity literally revolve around it. When the only thing is diarrhea coming out of these people's mouths (who treat the freedom of speech as if it were diarrhea itself), others aren't going to bat an eye when there are efforts to put duct tape over the mouths of such disrespectful abusers in order to stem the flow of liquid shit. After all, that's how underground cannibals dwelling in the basements of pizzerias get birthed.
Just like how my first grade teacher convinced the loudest kids in class to put tape over their own mouths (didn't stop them from mumbling through the tape though). Or idk, mods banning Russian troll farmers peddling kremlin propaganda garbage in that other thread. I’m fine with some of them getting banned, but TL would become a boring place if all of them were banned. After all, one does not come to the zoo just to find the animals missing.
It’d be nice to live in a world where actions and stupidity have consequences. Open your mouth and say something dumb, and the consequence would be a hit to your credibility and respectability. Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world since our collective intelligence has nosedived to the point where saying retarded shit actually has the opposite effect, and gives one MORE influence and clout.
Actually, it may not be that we have all gotten stupider, but that information (and likewise disinformation) is so much easier to spread in the age of social media, as micronesia and others have pointed out. Starting your own cult and profiting from them is much more accessible to your average layman than it was in the past. Now the Vatican doesn’t have a monopoly on putting on a Halloween costume and claiming they have a direct telegram link to God. Nor does corporate media have a monopoly on the Truth anymore. Any schmuck out there with a phone, mic, camera, and internet connection can claim to know what’s REALLY going on and people will fall for it, in order to feel smarter than they really are. It’s one of the reasons why independent media, prone to audience capture (their source of income), has become a cesspool now. Corporate media, despite its shortcomings, might still be better (no matter how many pill or car ads they shove into your face)?
Here’s a question that was asked of me in grade school: Does the freedom of speech allow one to roam around town at 2am and shout whatever they please into a megaphone, when everyone else is asleep? Do quiet hours and similar ordinances violate the freedom of speech?
You know what, fuck it. My freedom to kill trumps your right to live. You living is getting in the way of my freedom to enjoy life, now die for me please. I might have to kill the dumpster diving neighbor who found your body parts in the trash too, they are invading my privacy and deserve a one-way trip to Hell for that.
Freedom of speech is a means to end, rather than an end in itself.
I always come down on the side of more freedom of speech, rather than less, but that also has to take into account that if there's a case where granting that freedom only makes the world a worse place, then what is the point in granting the freedom?
Surely we want freedom of speech because of the benefits it provides us, rather than just because freedom of speech is good in of itself.
That's what I'm arguing in this case. If freedom of speech takes the form of criticising, or even provoking, religion or religious belief, then I believe there are benefits to granting that freedom. Obviously public order laws are also a thing in these cases.
|
Norway28709 Posts
I don’t have a hard time distinguishing between disorderly conduct and freedom of speech/expression. These two are generally fairly easy to separate, although I think specifically burning the Quran (and possibly other books or even certain flags) can in certain situations be flagged as disorderly conduct in a situation where there is a very high predictable probability that it'll cause a violent reaction.
Now what I do think is that the reaction to these types of actions should not be some harsh punishment, but rather geared at breaking up the gathering/ moving away the culprit(s). Like if there's an anti muslim demonstration happening, it is permitted to proceed until a Quran is burned, and then it no longer is, but there's no punishment beyond this/some slap on the wrist. At least to me it seems like a reasonable compromise between the - both highly important- needs for respecting freedom of speech and some semblance of societal cohesion and stability.
Kinda feel that way about most forms of civil disobedience, which im generally fond of; the police should certainly be allowed to remove people engaged in such activities (without excessive violence obviously), but fines/punishment beyond that should be low.
|
There is a point to more extreme forms of protest too I feel. The French have made protests against the government into a form of art and spraying government buildings with manure is a very persuasive way of explaining exactly how you feel about an issue.
For sure goverment listens more to the protest that's burning tires in the street compared to the equal sized one gathering for half an hour to submit their proposal before immediately disbanding.
Having the means to escalate both the size of protests and their content is important as a safety valve.
The problem is mostly that lone individuals or small groups max this out in order to provoke counter reactions.
On the other hand having more extreme forms of expression being illegal can be a virtue in itself, because it puts a threshold that needs to be overcome before they happen.
If a lot of people are angry enough to hit the streets you have a problem that needs serious attention.
|
On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo.
Its a major tell how you don't find the cruelty is an issue, your gotcha is the priority list people have when discussing cruelty in their post. You're so blinded by your love for cruelty that you missed the part where Kwark agrees with me that punishment doesn't work. You would be able to know this contradiction if you bother to read the posts you disagree with and the logical arguments I make. Instead you would rather just ignore the things that make your argument uncomfortable and just misconstrude what people say for the sake of internet points. My position is based in Christian morals and logical values like "does thing work" while you provide nothing for your argument other than "man these people giving a shit about other people are wrong because they give a shit about other people".
Ah jeez you really got me that I have a problem with cruelty and I prioritize solving issues by taking into consideration why people do things and not just jump to hurting them and just hopecasting that it solves problems.
|
On September 05 2024 08:46 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo. It’s a major tell how you don't find the cruelty is an issue, your gotcha is the priority list people have when discussing cruelty in their post. You're so blinded by your love for cruelty that you missed the part where Kwark agrees with me that punishment doesn't work.You would be able to know this contradiction if you bother to read the posts you disagree with and the logical arguments I make. Instead you would rather just ignore the things that make your argument uncomfortable and just misconstrude what people say for the sake of internet points. My position is based in Christian morals and logical values like "does thing work" while you provide nothing for your argument other than "man these people giving a shit about other people are wrong because they give a shit about other people". Ah jeez you really got me that I have a problem with cruelty and I prioritize solving issues by taking into consideration why people do things and not just jump to hurting them and just hopecasting that it solves problems.
You think Kwark agrees with you that punishment doesn’t work?
He said “The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty.”
Do I have to explain double negatives to you? He’s literally saying that it works but it’s not worth the cruelty.
Setting aside the debate of whether it’s “cruel” to give someone a small fine for not obeying the transit rules, the point is irrelevant. The debate is whether punishments curtail the unwanted behavior. It’s like if I say “shooting someone between the eyes with a Glock for smoking in public will reduce people smoking in public” and you start ranting about how it’s cruel. Whether it’s cruel is irrelevant. I’ve already tried explaining this to you but there’s no evidence you’re capable of understanding. In fact the only thing I think you will take away from this post is “BJ wants to shoot people between the eyes for smoking in public. Look how evil he is.”
|
On September 05 2024 13:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2024 08:46 Sermokala wrote:On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo. It’s a major tell how you don't find the cruelty is an issue, your gotcha is the priority list people have when discussing cruelty in their post. You're so blinded by your love for cruelty that you missed the part where Kwark agrees with me that punishment doesn't work.You would be able to know this contradiction if you bother to read the posts you disagree with and the logical arguments I make. Instead you would rather just ignore the things that make your argument uncomfortable and just misconstrude what people say for the sake of internet points. My position is based in Christian morals and logical values like "does thing work" while you provide nothing for your argument other than "man these people giving a shit about other people are wrong because they give a shit about other people". Ah jeez you really got me that I have a problem with cruelty and I prioritize solving issues by taking into consideration why people do things and not just jump to hurting them and just hopecasting that it solves problems. You think Kwark agrees with you that punishment doesn’t work? He said “The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty.” Do I have to explain double negatives to you? He’s literally saying that it works but it’s not worth the cruelty. Setting aside the debate of whether it’s “cruel” to give someone a small fine for not obeying the transit rules, the point is irrelevant. The debate is whether punishments curtail the unwanted behavior. It’s like if I say “shooting someone between the eyes with a Glock for smoking in public will reduce people smoking in public” and you start ranting about how it’s cruel. Whether it’s cruel is irrelevant. I’ve already tried explaining this to you but there’s no evidence you’re capable of understanding. In fact the only thing I think you will take away from this post is “BJ wants to shoot people between the eyes for smoking in public. Look how evil he is.”
Maybe try having a conversation without idiotic hyperboles for once. Like, 'if we shoot people with a glock for smoking that would definitely reduce the number of smokers, ergo punishment works as a deterrent!!!' is an idiotic thing to say in an argument about efficacy of justice systems and what makes an effective deterrent against crime in a society.
Now, obviously some degree of punishment is necessary to curtail unwanted behaviors, but there's a mountain of evidence showing that excessive punishment for crimes is not an effective deterrent and that increasing penalties does not reduce crime.
Singapore is not an outlier in safety when compared to its peers, either -- other developed Asian cities like, say, Seoul or Tokyo are no more dangerous than Singapore, and manage that without caning or hanging people. In fact, Americans in Korea consistently complain about how 'shit' the justice system here is because of its leniency and comparatively short prison sentences.
|
Norway28709 Posts
I think it also depends on the type of crime. For say, violent crimes of passion, I think the punishment is largely irrelevant, because it's not a part of the calculus. For crimes steming from desperation, be it stealing out of necessity or using opioids, I feel the same way - the punishment isn't as big of a deterrent.
But for say, cannabis use? Pretty obvious to me that draconican laws work just fine as a deterrence. Obviously cultural factors are also a major part of the explanation, but as an ex-smoker I'm pretty certain I would never have taken my first hit if I knew it resulted in a potential 5 year prison sentence rather than a potential $200 fine.
I also think % of enforcement matters. Like if there's a 0.5% chance of being caught doing something, moving that % to 10% is probably just as much of a deterrence as having 20 times as harsh punishment.
Anyway I'm basically just chiming in to say I think crime kinda boils down to four 'factors' - where 'culture' is one (I think this can be a significant factor in explaining the safety of Asian big cities, or in the relatively low degree of exploiting trust-based Norwegian welfare options/tax fraud, although that latter point has changed over the years), poverty/inequality is one (certain crimes are definitely more prevalent in poorer & less equitable societies), and then how likely are you to be caught + what is the punishment are the final two.
And as an addendum I don't think changing the punishment from 20 years in jail or a life sentence or death penalty really does squat in terms of deterrence, because at that point 20 years in jail is already bad enough that people will only do that crime if they're not thinking straight or thinking they won't get caught, but going from a slap on the wrist fine to a 1 year prison sentence for a minor offense will have major impact.
|
On September 05 2024 17:14 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2024 13:03 BlackJack wrote:On September 05 2024 08:46 Sermokala wrote:On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo. It’s a major tell how you don't find the cruelty is an issue, your gotcha is the priority list people have when discussing cruelty in their post. You're so blinded by your love for cruelty that you missed the part where Kwark agrees with me that punishment doesn't work.You would be able to know this contradiction if you bother to read the posts you disagree with and the logical arguments I make. Instead you would rather just ignore the things that make your argument uncomfortable and just misconstrude what people say for the sake of internet points. My position is based in Christian morals and logical values like "does thing work" while you provide nothing for your argument other than "man these people giving a shit about other people are wrong because they give a shit about other people". Ah jeez you really got me that I have a problem with cruelty and I prioritize solving issues by taking into consideration why people do things and not just jump to hurting them and just hopecasting that it solves problems. You think Kwark agrees with you that punishment doesn’t work? He said “The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty.” Do I have to explain double negatives to you? He’s literally saying that it works but it’s not worth the cruelty. Setting aside the debate of whether it’s “cruel” to give someone a small fine for not obeying the transit rules, the point is irrelevant. The debate is whether punishments curtail the unwanted behavior. It’s like if I say “shooting someone between the eyes with a Glock for smoking in public will reduce people smoking in public” and you start ranting about how it’s cruel. Whether it’s cruel is irrelevant. I’ve already tried explaining this to you but there’s no evidence you’re capable of understanding. In fact the only thing I think you will take away from this post is “BJ wants to shoot people between the eyes for smoking in public. Look how evil he is.” Maybe try having a conversation without idiotic hyperboles for once. Like, 'if we shoot people with a glock for smoking that would definitely reduce the number of smokers, ergo punishment works as a deterrent!!!' is an idiotic thing to say in an argument about efficacy of justice systems and what makes an effective deterrent against crime in a society.
My hyperbole has nothing to do with arguing about the efficacy of justice systems and deterrents. The hyperbole was to point out the absurdity of Serm's position. Him being an empathetic virtuous person and me being a cruel sadistic person is also a stupid point to make on the effectiveness of punishment as a deterrent. But of course you're going to gloss right over that and blame me for the breakdown in conversation.
|
United States43232 Posts
For the record I was saying that excessively cruel punishments would work.
|
On September 05 2024 17:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think it also depends on the type of crime. For say, violent crimes of passion, I think the punishment is largely irrelevant, because it's not a part of the calculus. For crimes steming from desperation, be it stealing out of necessity or using opioids, I feel the same way - the punishment isn't as big of a deterrent.
But for say, cannabis use? Pretty obvious to me that draconican laws work just fine as a deterrence. Obviously cultural factors are also a major part of the explanation, but as an ex-smoker I'm pretty certain I would never have taken my first hit if I knew it resulted in a potential 5 year prison sentence rather than a potential $200 fine.
I also think % of enforcement matters. Like if there's a 0.5% chance of being caught doing something, moving that % to 10% is probably just as much of a deterrence as having 20 times as harsh punishment.
Anyway I'm basically just chiming in to say I think crime kinda boils down to four 'factors' - where 'culture' is one (I think this can be a significant factor in explaining the safety of Asian big cities, or in the relatively low degree of exploiting trust-based Norwegian welfare options/tax fraud, although that latter point has changed over the years), poverty/inequality is one (certain crimes are definitely more prevalent in poorer & less equitable societies), and then how likely are you to be caught + what is the punishment are the final two.
And as an addendum I don't think changing the punishment from 20 years in jail or a life sentence or death penalty really does squat in terms of deterrence, because at that point 20 years in jail is already bad enough that people will only do that crime if they're not thinking straight or thinking they won't get caught, but going from a slap on the wrist fine to a 1 year prison sentence for a minor offense will have major impact.
You're spot on about % of enforcement -- unlike severity of punishment, likelihood of getting caught is a major deterrent when it comes to crime. As for harsh penalties stopping folks from something like smoking pot, I'd say culture plays a far bigger role. Alcohol was accepted in US culturally and prohibition laws were largely inefficient. Meanwhile pot has been legal in the Netherlands for half a century, yet the number of users there is significantly lower than it is in the US. Some studies show that legalization did increase use of cannabis in the US, but it's difficult to separate the legal aspect of it from the cultural -- given how perception of cannabis use in the US seems to be shifting significantly from something basically only hippies and thugs do to a cool and totally harmless thing for everybody to enjoy.
|
On September 05 2024 17:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2024 17:14 Salazarz wrote:On September 05 2024 13:03 BlackJack wrote:On September 05 2024 08:46 Sermokala wrote:On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo. It’s a major tell how you don't find the cruelty is an issue, your gotcha is the priority list people have when discussing cruelty in their post. You're so blinded by your love for cruelty that you missed the part where Kwark agrees with me that punishment doesn't work.You would be able to know this contradiction if you bother to read the posts you disagree with and the logical arguments I make. Instead you would rather just ignore the things that make your argument uncomfortable and just misconstrude what people say for the sake of internet points. My position is based in Christian morals and logical values like "does thing work" while you provide nothing for your argument other than "man these people giving a shit about other people are wrong because they give a shit about other people". Ah jeez you really got me that I have a problem with cruelty and I prioritize solving issues by taking into consideration why people do things and not just jump to hurting them and just hopecasting that it solves problems. You think Kwark agrees with you that punishment doesn’t work? He said “The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty.” Do I have to explain double negatives to you? He’s literally saying that it works but it’s not worth the cruelty. Setting aside the debate of whether it’s “cruel” to give someone a small fine for not obeying the transit rules, the point is irrelevant. The debate is whether punishments curtail the unwanted behavior. It’s like if I say “shooting someone between the eyes with a Glock for smoking in public will reduce people smoking in public” and you start ranting about how it’s cruel. Whether it’s cruel is irrelevant. I’ve already tried explaining this to you but there’s no evidence you’re capable of understanding. In fact the only thing I think you will take away from this post is “BJ wants to shoot people between the eyes for smoking in public. Look how evil he is.” Maybe try having a conversation without idiotic hyperboles for once. Like, 'if we shoot people with a glock for smoking that would definitely reduce the number of smokers, ergo punishment works as a deterrent!!!' is an idiotic thing to say in an argument about efficacy of justice systems and what makes an effective deterrent against crime in a society. My hyperbole has nothing to do with arguing about the efficacy of justice systems and deterrents. The hyperbole was to point out the absurdity of Serm's position. Him being an empathetic virtuous person and me being a cruel sadistic person is also a stupid point to make on the effectiveness of punishment as a deterrent. But of course you're going to gloss right over that and blame me for the breakdown in conversation.
Your hyperbole is, just like most hyperboles are, completely useless. It does not point anything out, because it is not grounded in reality. Shooting people for smoking in public is not an argument for punishments curtailing unwanted behavior, if you tried to do that in reality you'd be more likely to start a revolution than stop people from smoking.
Does it work? Yes/no
If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no
Also, this is an extremely problematic view to hold. Who gets to decide whether 'it' is worth the cruelty or not? How do you figure where to draw the line? And also, if 'it' supposedly does work at an acceptable to you degree of cruelty, how do you ever find out whether perhaps 'it' can be achieved with a lower degree of cruelty, or no cruelty at all? Like, let's say we decide killing 10,000 Palestinians in the name of peace in Israel is worth it. As soon as we accept that paradigm, we're settled on killing 10,000 Palestinians and effectively abandon any exploration of avenues where peace in Israel could be achieved at the price of 5,000 Palestinian lives, or indeed no Palestinian lives at all. Unless you have perfect information on all solutions to whatever 'it' that are possible, accepting whatever trade comes up first so long as it is 'worth it' is a pretty bad way to approach matters.
edit: this is actually how pretty much all of the world's biggest pieces of shit like Mao or whatever operated. 'Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make.'
|
Norway28709 Posts
Tbh I don't really see BJ arguing for harsher punishment across the board (maybe for certain crimes), what he is consistently arguing for is more enforcement. But he's also saying that harsher punishment will to some degree work as a deterrent - not that it's something he is in favor of.
I don't have any issue with culture being a bigger factor than punishment in explaining rate of cannabis consumption in different societies, but are you arguing that whether use of cannabis (assuming a certain non-negligible chance of being caught) results in a $200 fine or up to 5 years in prison has no impact or negligible impact on how many people smoke cannabis? Because I would disagree with that. I still favor the $200 fine over the 5 year prison sentence (and I favor decriminalization over the $200 fine and legalization over decriminalization, but that's besides the point), it just seems intuitive to me that there'd be a noticable difference.
(Whereas as mentioned, I don't think adding torture to a 20 year sentence for murder does much to deter anything.)
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
There is also the factor of punishment purely for the sake of punishment and not couched in any kind of real desire for deterrence at all.
Most people aren’t held back from committing say, a mass shooting, or a decades-long serial rape/murder spree by them being potentially brutally punished for doing so, they simply have no desire to do such a thing.
I think for many people there is a certain category of crime where even a long prison sentence probably doesn’t balance out the scale of what victims suffered. And you’re not a rehabilitation candidate either
They’re probably correct too, at least in some instances
Perhaps there is some secret sauce we’ve yet to discover but to my knowledge there’s no society, culture or political regime that has yet existed which doesn’t have some cohort of completely defective human beings.
They’ll exist in the most repressive, punitive criminal justice regimes going, they’ll exist in the most enlightened and egalitarian states we’ve yet created as a species.
If we had an infallible criminal justice system that sidestepped the pitfall of sending an innocent person to various forms of extreme censure, I imagine many would fully support punishment for the sake of punishment. Hell plenty support that even without that being the standard
|
On September 05 2024 18:50 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2024 17:53 BlackJack wrote:On September 05 2024 17:14 Salazarz wrote:On September 05 2024 13:03 BlackJack wrote:On September 05 2024 08:46 Sermokala wrote:On September 04 2024 11:13 BlackJack wrote:On September 04 2024 09:16 KwarK wrote:On September 04 2024 08:40 Sermokala wrote:
Cruelty for the sake of Cruelty isn't the answer in any circumstance. If you look at the crime rate in America and then look at the amount of people we jail you wouldn't need some silly concept like empathy to question punishments effectiveness at curtailing crime.
If you're serious about considering scientific rigor you would look at examples of successful reductions in crime like camden and bogota and consider them. Sometimes giving a shit about people and looking at why they're exhibiting "anti-social behavior" is a good thing. Giving kids breakfast and lunch for free so they have some sort of nutrition and aren't hungry has shown success in combating behavior issues in school but that would be communism somehow. Eh, look at Singapore. There’s only so many times someone can be caned before they work out which rules aren’t worth breaking. If it’s not capricious and is part of a larger social rules based system then people can and do buy into it. The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty. Yes, this is exactly how a rational person forms an opinion. Does it work? Yes/no If it works, is it worth the cruelty? Yes/no Instead some people prefer to work backwards Is this cruel? Yes/no If it it's cruel then it's bad and it doesn't work. Notice how you end your post talking about cruelty whereas Serm starts his post talking about cruelty. That's a major tell to how each of you apply your reasoning, imo. It’s a major tell how you don't find the cruelty is an issue, your gotcha is the priority list people have when discussing cruelty in their post. You're so blinded by your love for cruelty that you missed the part where Kwark agrees with me that punishment doesn't work.You would be able to know this contradiction if you bother to read the posts you disagree with and the logical arguments I make. Instead you would rather just ignore the things that make your argument uncomfortable and just misconstrude what people say for the sake of internet points. My position is based in Christian morals and logical values like "does thing work" while you provide nothing for your argument other than "man these people giving a shit about other people are wrong because they give a shit about other people". Ah jeez you really got me that I have a problem with cruelty and I prioritize solving issues by taking into consideration why people do things and not just jump to hurting them and just hopecasting that it solves problems. You think Kwark agrees with you that punishment doesn’t work? He said “The problem isn’t that it doesn’t work. It’s that it’s not worth the cruelty.” Do I have to explain double negatives to you? He’s literally saying that it works but it’s not worth the cruelty. Setting aside the debate of whether it’s “cruel” to give someone a small fine for not obeying the transit rules, the point is irrelevant. The debate is whether punishments curtail the unwanted behavior. It’s like if I say “shooting someone between the eyes with a Glock for smoking in public will reduce people smoking in public” and you start ranting about how it’s cruel. Whether it’s cruel is irrelevant. I’ve already tried explaining this to you but there’s no evidence you’re capable of understanding. In fact the only thing I think you will take away from this post is “BJ wants to shoot people between the eyes for smoking in public. Look how evil he is.” Maybe try having a conversation without idiotic hyperboles for once. Like, 'if we shoot people with a glock for smoking that would definitely reduce the number of smokers, ergo punishment works as a deterrent!!!' is an idiotic thing to say in an argument about efficacy of justice systems and what makes an effective deterrent against crime in a society. My hyperbole has nothing to do with arguing about the efficacy of justice systems and deterrents. The hyperbole was to point out the absurdity of Serm's position. Him being an empathetic virtuous person and me being a cruel sadistic person is also a stupid point to make on the effectiveness of punishment as a deterrent. But of course you're going to gloss right over that and blame me for the breakdown in conversation. Your hyperbole is, just like most hyperboles are, completely useless. It does not point anything out, because it is not grounded in reality. Shooting people for smoking in public is not an argument for punishments curtailing unwanted behavior, if you tried to do that in reality you'd be more likely to start a revolution than stop people from smoking.
You're still not understanding. Here is my quote with the context added back in
"It’s like if I say “shooting someone between the eyes with a Glock for smoking in public will reduce people smoking in public” and you start ranting about how it’s cruel. Whether it’s cruel is irrelevant."
The point of the hypothetical is to show that whether it's cruel is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it curtailed the behavior. Either fewer people smoke or they don't. Whether it's cruel doesn't change that. The fact that you're actually trying to argue whether or not shooting people for smoking would be an effective policy tells me you're still missing the point.
Also I'm not sure why it's "problematic" to consider if a punishment is "worth the cruelty." Kwark's point was that caning people was not "worth the cruelty." Those were his words. Are you saying we shouldn't making that consideration and as long as caning is effective just do it anyway? Beat people for stealing bubble gum?
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On September 05 2024 19:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really see BJ arguing for harsher punishment across the board (maybe for certain crimes), what he is consistently arguing for is more enforcement. But he's also saying that harsher punishment will to some degree work as a deterrent - not that it's something he is in favor of.
I don't have any issue with culture being a bigger factor than punishment in explaining rate of cannabis consumption in different societies, but are you arguing that whether use of cannabis (assuming a certain non-negligible chance of being caught) results in a $200 fine or up to 5 years in prison has no impact or negligible impact on how many people smoke cannabis? Because I would disagree with that. I still favor the $200 fine over the 5 year prison sentence (and I favor decriminalization over the $200 fine and legalization over decriminalization, but that's besides the point), it just seems intuitive to me that there'd be a noticable difference.
(Whereas as mentioned, I don't think adding torture to a 20 year sentence for murder does much to deter anything.)
Yeah that makes sense.
I was listening to a podcast recently and they conveyed the quite interesting tidbit that punishment in medieval England was so draconian because, relative to the standards of the time they wanted a permissive state that didn’t infringe on certain base liberties.
Basically we won’t have too much of a detection/enforcement apparatus, people can live relatively free (for the time) and it’s unlikely you’ll get caught because we don’t have efficient mechanisms to do that. But, on the other side of the scale if you do get caught, oh boy that won’t be fun.
Essentially the deterrence was made crazily draconian to compensate for the low likelihood you’d be apprehended. But also as a tradeoff of sorts for having a certain level of liberty and autonomy, for the standards of the time.
To take it to a modern context, where such things are possible theoretically, or at least much easier.
I would wager that a system that would punish you for basically every infraction you ever made, with almost bulletproof reliability, there is no escaping the SentinelTM. But at a lenient level, outside of egregious crimes, like you commit a minor infraction and boom 50 quid disappears from your bank account.
I’d wager that would be much more effective in shaping behaviour than one with draconian penalties, but a much more limited ability to detect transgressions and enforce said draconian punishments.
Anyone whose mother is worryingly addicted to true crime documentaries can tell you, none of those people ever thought they’d be caught. And by default, deterrent measures are going to be rather ineffective if you have that mindset.
|
On September 05 2024 19:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Tbh I don't really see BJ arguing for harsher punishment across the board (maybe for certain crimes), what he is consistently arguing for is more enforcement. But he's also saying that harsher punishment will to some degree work as a deterrent - not that it's something he is in favor of.
Not even that. I didn't even make comments about enforcement or harshness. My argument, and I'll link to the post was literally just that punishment works. This is literally psychology 101 stuff. Put a monkey in a cage and spray it with water if it does a certain behavior and it will stop doing the behavior to avoid the negative stimuli. I made zero comments about whether we need harsher punishments, more punishments, what the right balance of punishments are, etc.
It's pretty fucking cruel to put a monkey in a cage and spray it with cold water so you can test hypotheses. It still has no bearing on whether or not the monkey curtails behaviors to avoid the ice water. The fact that these opinions I'm offering are somehow controversial tells me maybe some people failed their Intro to Psychology class.
|
Norway28709 Posts
Ya I've just seen you comment in favor of more enforcement in the past, not right now.
|
I can give many examples that demonstrate the inefficacy of punishment.
North Korea: South Korean drama films.
America: Abortion rights, transgender rights, prohibition.
All of these cases (and many more) are examples of people being pushed underground and not stopping their activities. South Koreans smuggle their drama films into North Korea and the people there watch them in secret under their blankets at night. They do this despite ownership of these films being punishable by death.
Transgender people in America used to be a rarity. Were they actually though? Most likely they weren't. What happened was that they were just being pushed underground by oppressive culture and law. They weren't seen, but they weren't inactive. They were present the whole time doing their thing less overtly. Now we see transgender people "pop up everywhere". Why? Because they were always far more numerous than we realized. They were always active and they always did their usual transgender things. So what has made them so visible? Less oppressive culture and law. It's a very simple explanation.
Abortion (Roe v Wade) and prohibition (Al Capone) were the same thing. People get pushed underground, nothing else changes. Their activity remains.
The common theme is that punishment just pushes people underground and to the fringes of society, it doesn't actually stop their activities. They do what they do, whether other people like it or not. Doesn't matter the punishment.
What actually deters people from an activity is when the activity becomes literally impossible. For example North Korean escapees have kept succeeding over the years despite plenty of them getting shot. Clearly the deterrent wasn't enough. But a few years ago the methods to catch escapees were improved to the point that they literally can't pull off their stunt anymore, so they practically all get shot now. This is why almost no one can escape anymore. That doesn't mean they stop trying, they just all get shot. As we can see, making something literally impossible is the real "deterrent". Punishment is not, it doesn't work. It often even backfires because the incentive goes the other way (North Korean escapees may not want to escape in the first place if the country was worth living in).
|
Norway28709 Posts
I think it's reasonably likely that more North Koreans would watch South Korean / western media if not for the harsh punishment.
People aren't arguing that draconican punishments results in that activity ceasing to exist, merely that some percentage of people who would go for it will end up not going for it.
If my wife were to get pregnant today, I'd probably want an abortion because I prefer not having more children. (For the sake of the argument, let's say my wife is on the same page as I am). But if the punishment for having an abortion was death and there was a roughly 1% chance we'd be found out if we tried to have one, I'd be like okay I guess we're having another baby. Abortion is a curious case because it's one of those situations where for some people, having a child is absolutely unthinkable and even a risky/dangerous/potentially harshly punished abortion is preferable. However for others, having a child is inconvenient, and then, safe and easily available abortions means you go for it while dangerous and potentially harshly punished abortions will tip the scale to 'nope'.
Prohibition actually caused an initial sharp decline in alcohol consumption, followed by an increase - but still lower than pre-prohibition levels. (First down to 30%, then up to 60-70%). So from the perspective of 'reducing consumption of alcohol', it worked. It's just that there were all sorts of other side effects making it overall an undesirable policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
