One thing is for sure, if they don't like it, they can always rid themselves from the world. Less work for the guards, and one less terrorist to worry about.
Okay, so I sound cruel and morbid. But hey, I couldn't resist saying it before either First of Two or Omega took that line.
[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by Lost (Member # 417) on :
MP units are co-ed, so no matter the unit they would see women has their guards....
Posted by StyroFoam Man (Member # 706) on :
Great! That's exactly how we should handle them!
One minor rant: FOR THE LOVE OF PLECOSTOMII ITS A PRISON CAMP, NOT A HOTEL!
Human rights? Ha! They gave those up the moment they defied the will of the Mighty USA! Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
These days people say if a prisoner doesn't have cable tv and airconditioned cells it's cruel and unusual punishment.
If the terrorists took American soldiers prisoner do you really think they'd care about their comfort? The only reason they would even keep them alive would be for hostages.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
But we're supposed to be better then terrorists, Hobbes, isn't that sort of the point?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Yes. We are treating them a hell of a lot better than they'd treat us if they had the chance.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
So, if they haven't already, let Amnesty International in to take a look. That's not that unreasonable, is it?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Human rights? Who needs 'm?"
As I'm sure *some* right-winged individuals here would state.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You've been listening to Tom Daschle too long. Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Listening to YOU too long, you mean.
"If someone steals my Wendy's to-go meal, I have the right to shoot them!"
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
He's got the right not to go hungry... the meal is his property, and he's got the right to that, too. Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Certainly you're not serious in suggesting that one can use deadly force to stop the theft of a $5.00 meal?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I suppose that depends on what you believe the true root cause of the theft of the burger to be.
If it's hunger, real hunger (and for this the thief would have to be unarmed, cause he could pawn the gun for a better price,) then no, absolutely not, ever.
But you'll find that 99 times out of 100, that's NOT the real reason for the theft. That guy didn't need your value meal to survive, or to feed his starving children. He simply WANTED it. Thefts almost NEVER occur out of real need. They occur because the thief is greedy, lazy, mean, and/or rude. I don't have any compassion for that. If we lived in a just universe, those attributes would be deselected by nature. Since nature isn't up to the job, it falls to us.
[ January 29, 2002, 15:39: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yes, because spending the night (or a year, whatever) in jail isn't punishment enough for stealing a meal.
Let it be known: Rob will kill you for $5 worth of food. The man needs to examine himself if he is really prepared to put himself through the agony of taking a life for such a measley sum.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:spending the night (or a year, whatever) in jail isn't punishment enough for stealing a meal
Apparently not. Nor is it adequate punishment for stealing ANYTHING, apparently, because most theives steal agains and again and again and again and again, even after they've been caught a dozen times.
quote:Let it be known: Rob will kill you for $5 worth of food.
Tell me something...
If the above statement were general knowledge...
Would YOU try to get my happy meal? How many people do you think would try?
[ January 29, 2002, 17:26: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I think you'd probably in jail, Rob, if you went around telling people you'd shoot them over a dropped penny.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Tell me something...
If the above statement were general knowledge...
Would YOU try to get my happy meal? How many people do you think would try?[/QB]
1). I'd contact the nearest psychiatric hospital. 2). "Every crime punishable by death" is NOT a deterrent any civilised society would use.
Guess we've still got a long way to go.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Okay, let me rephrase that: by 'general knowledge' I mean an established fact, inherent in the act and therefore not punishable or looked upon as abnormal.
There is a saying "those who play with cats must expect to be scratched."
So say, just put aside your squeamishness and assume, what if "You can expect that Rob will kill you for stealing his $5.00 meal" was as inevitable a fact as "If you jump into lava, you can expect to be burned to death." Or "If you go naked into deep space, you can expect to die." The lava and the vacuum don't get punished, neither do I. All part of the natural order of things.
Then what?
If you know that if you take a certain course of action, you can expect to die, will you do it for nothing?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:neither do I.
How do you figure you wouldn't be punished? This I've got to hear.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I bet alot of man-haters and angry feminists are having a field day over this.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
'There is a saying "those who play with cats must expect to be scratched."'
Notice that there isn't a saying that goes "those who play with cats must expect them to rip their brains out through their eye-sockets".
I really can't believe you are seriously arguing this point Rob, that the death penalty should be invoked for all crimes, regardless of their severity, because it would stop them.
Have you no mp3s on your computer? Have you never sped? Have you never done anything illegal, ever?
'So say, just put aside your squeamishness and assume, what if "You can expect that Rob will kill you for stealing his $5.00 meal" was as inevitable a fact as "If you jump into lava, you can expect to be burned to death." Or "If you go naked into deep space, you can expect to die." The lava and the vacuum don't get punished, neither do I. All part of the natural order of things.'
You've made a huge logistical leap there anyway. You are essentially saying that if the idea of you killing someone if they stole your Happy Meal was accepted as normal, would you do it counts as an argument. Well, duh. What if meeting in groups of three would lead to your death, would you do it? What if mandatory raping of pigs was normal, and not doing it got you shot, would you do it?
Proposing a theory and qualifying it with "if it was normal" is nonsense. Anything can be argued like that.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Thefts almost NEVER occur out of real need. They occur because the thief is greedy, lazy, mean, and/or rude. I don't have any compassion for that. If we lived in a just universe, those attributes would be deselected by nature. Since nature isn't up to the job, it falls to us."
The aforementioned sorts of "self-defense" killings almost NEVER occur out of real need. The occur because the killer is arrogant, and thinks that anyone detrimental to his/her happiness needs to be eliminated, and that he/she has the right to do so, no matter what the circumstances. I don't have any compassion for that. If we lived in a just universe, those attributes would be deselected by nature. Since nature isn't up to the job, we're out of luck, because I'm not going to kill people just because they did something I don't like.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Then maybe next time they'll do it to your daughter.
quote:I really can't believe you are seriously arguing this point Rob, that the death penalty should be invoked for all crimes, regardless of their severity, because it would stop them.
Good. You shouldn't believe that, because I never said it.
I said the threat should be there. Not that it should always be used.
quote:Notice that there isn't a saying that goes "those who play with cats must expect them to rip their brains out through their eye-sockets".
No, but it would be an appropriate saying about playing with Lions.
If you invade a lion's territory, disturb its young, steal its food, maybe even threaten it, do you really have a right to be mad when it mauls you to death? There's nothing 'morally disturbing' when a lion kills a jackal for messing with its meal.
quote:How do you figure you wouldn't be punished? This I've got to hear.
I'm presupposing a society in which the use of lethal force in the defense of self and any property is considered reasonable.
Now, the wannabe social engineers will tell you that such a society would degenerate into mass chaos and mass killings, but this is not so. In fact, the two societies where such a thing has come closest to fruition (the aristocracy in the dueling days, and the American 'Old West') had lower violent incident rates per capita than any other.
A society in which the threat is omnipresent does lead to the 'weeding out' of the elements which are not willing or able to follow the codes of behavior that evolve. When rudeness leads to death, politeness becomes the norm. A man will be courteous to the next man, when he knows that rudeness may drop him in a duel. A man will be careful what he takes offense to, lest he, through oversensitivity, ends up dueling someone better.
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
I'd heard that the murder rates in the Old West were higher than modern cities...mostly because everybody had a gun. You could go and shoot somebody, and unless their was overwhelming evidence that you had done it--meaning witnesses--it was likely that the only thing you had to worry about was revenge from one of the "victims" friends or family.
Not to mention the genocide practiced against the Natives. ("Kill a buffalo, Kill an injun" ring a bell?)
the so called Clean Kill Laws (that eventually mutated into Justifiable Homicide) were at one time the *ahem* law of the land. Time Life says so. Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
You'd heard wrong. Despite the media creations (including the dime novels that popularized many of the now famous 'gunslingers'), the violent crime rate was actually very low. There weren't many 'showdowns at sunset.' There were the occasional range murders, but the families were usually a deterrent... when a guy has six brothers, if you kill him, there's a pretty good chance at least one of them is going to find you.
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
fair enough. I don't claim any great expertise on the Old West. I concede that that particular information may be incorrect.
However, I still feel that holding the Old West up as an example of your argument isn't the best idea. I don't think there was anything Ideal about it, in fact.
In your ideal society everyone would have a gun. In the Old West, not everyone did. Contrary to movies and dime novels.
The only way to level the playing field so to speak would be to give everybody a gun at birth (or jesus, because I know somebodies going to be nitpicky, say at their eighteenth birthday or something). That doesn't sound like a good idea at all.
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
this link is somewhat related to the original topic. It's pretty interesting. Read it if you want to hear about some really inhumane conditions.
web page Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Not much worse than giving everybody a car at sixteen.
Rites of passage are a long-standing societal way of impressing upon a young individual the importance of adulthood and adult responsibility.
You shouldn't just hand the kid a gun when he turns.. eighteen sounds fair, and say 'there ya go,' there should be significance surrounding the event (just as, I think, there should be more significance attatched to other coming-of-age rituals.)
Our kids don't 'come of age' anymore. Half of the time, they're treated like children, and the other half like adults. It's maddening. I think that's a couse of a lot of youth problems in and of itself.
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
I've always thought that this culture needed some kind of formal coming of age ritual too. I don't think it should involve getting a gun (or a car, shit, I still don't have one, and I'm twenty five) but certainly something to invoke a sense of community and responsiblity.
The more esoteric the better, really. Esoteric rituals are always memorable, and more important sounding.
If you've read the Farseer trilogy by Robin Hobb, the ritual that young Fritz underwent in the middle of the night seems about right to me. The men come and get the boy, who is asleep, and take him for the ceremony. The boy never sees their faces...I don't remember all the details, but at the end they gave him a new name, one held in secret and that places him as a man of the society.
fictional, but it seems like a good idea (as long as there are no child molestors or various other shitwits involved). Not nearly as fucked up as other real life rituals (such as the Sun Dance) but perhaps more lasting than, say, a bar mitzvah.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
A good ritual should involve installation of a sense of responsibility, and perhaps secrecy concerning that which is ritualized. For instance, Freemasons must swear oaths that they will perform (or not perform, as the case may be) various tasks. They engage in a long ceremony during which the individual being 'ritualized' takes the representative place of an idealized man. And every word of the ritual is secret, not to be spoken of to those not in the know.
Many rituals require a period of training and preparation, everything from learning the intricasies of sand painting to fasting before a vision quest. To use my previous example, Freemasons must demonstrate a level of knowledge and understanding of their early rituals and undergo a trial period of probation before they are permitted to undergo later ones.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
My eyebrows are so far above my head that it's not true.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I suggest the formation of a secret society dedicated to stamping out secret societies.
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
I wasn't really talking about a secret society. I was talking about some kind of culture bearing ritual, like a personalized chautauqua. The goal of such an event would be to help raise young Dick and Jane into Good Adults.
Humans are ritualistic creatures. It stands to reason that the coming of age thing should be accompanied by some kind of marking, but the best we seem to do is clap their backs and say "You're gonna love this..."
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:I said the threat should be there. Not that it should always be used.
In that case there is no point in even bothering to keep the threat around.
quote:If you invade a lion's territory, disturb its young, steal its food, maybe even threaten it, do you really have a right to be mad when it mauls you to death? There's nothing 'morally disturbing' when a lion kills a jackal for messing with its meal.
Humans != lions. Our "kingdom" is supposed to be above such animal brutality...
quote:I'm presupposing a society in which the use of lethal force in the defense of self and any property is considered reasonable.
I'll keep that in mind when you accidentally bump into me on the street... I might just think you were trying to steal my wallet.
quote:...the two societies where such a thing has come closest to fruition (the aristocracy in the dueling days, and the American 'Old West') had lower violent incident rates per capita than any other.
Yes, let's return to the days where the outlaws were the law!
quote:A society in which the threat is omnipresent does lead to the 'weeding out' of the elements which are not willing or able to follow the codes of behavior that evolve. When rudeness leads to death, politeness becomes the norm. A man will be courteous to the next man, when he knows that rudeness may drop him in a duel. A man will be careful what he takes offense to, lest he, through oversensitivity, ends up dueling someone better.
A society in which threats of brutal force are necessary to invoke "politeness" is not one I'd care to be a part of.
[ January 31, 2002, 05:17: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
*runs hands through hair*
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:In that case there is no point in even bothering to keep the threat around.
"Unused threat" kept the peace between the US and USSR for 40 years. It is the concept behind all deterrents, including nonlethal ones.
quote:Humans != lions. Our "kingdom" is supposed to be above such animal brutality...
We'd like to think so. Meanwhile, back in the REAL world, some gang-bangers killed an infant and a grade-schooler in Pittsburgh a few days ago.
quote:I'll keep that in mind when you accidentally bump into me on the street... I might just think you were trying to steal my wallet.
Be SURE. I'm probably a faster draw and a better shot than you are. And the other thirty or so armed individuals that would be standing around you in this scenario might have something to say about it, too. Anyone who would pull a gun and fire without cause in a place full of other armed people deserves to be deselected.
quote:Yes, let's return to the days where the outlaws were the law!
You've watched too many movies... or you're unaware of just gow much on-the-street power the street thugs have now.
quote:A society in which threats of brutal force are necessary to invoke "politeness" is not one I'd care to be a part of.
I eagerly await your solutions, then.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Be SURE. I'm probably a faster draw and a better shot than you are. And the other thirty or so armed individuals that would be standing around you in this scenario might have something to say about it, too. Anyone who would pull a gun and fire without cause in a place full of other armed people deserves to be deselected.
Oh, sure, you bump him, and he's not allowed to shoot you for being rude? Wasn't that the whole point of your post? An armed society is a polite society? I think all the people standing around would shoot YOU for bumping into him in the first place. Heck, he probably wouldn't even get a chance to draw his gun before your limp body -- which the coroner would later determine to have been shot 67 times -- hit the ground!
And THAT, Rob, is the problem with your grand notion. Have a nice day, and if you ever bump into me in the street, I'll punch you in the face in the spirit of "a society that punches each other is a polite society." And if you punch me back, I suspect a lot of the crowd will punch you since, after all, you did bump into me.
quote:I eagerly await your solutions, then.
Opening your eyes to the real world would be a good start. Or just tossing you and fifty people -- all armed -- into a room and asking you all to enforce the "politeness" doctrine you advocated. We'd see how long you'd last.
[ January 31, 2002, 15:25: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Learn a lesson here, kiddies. A lesson I forgot. "Don't bother fighting a battle of wits with an unarmed Baltimorean."
Fortunately, I feel confident most of the people here can grasp that I wasn't talking about 'bump into you' politeness. I was talking about 'don't steal from other people, it's rude' politeness. I'm talking, and have always been, about deliberate acts.
I was, therefore, talking about the suspicion of theft in the 'bump' post, not the bumping itself. Even this 'armed society' of mine would see an accidental bump as inconsequential. You don't punish people for accidents. You punish them for deliberate, planned actions. (Of course, some folks can't tell that there's a difference, but I chalk that up to a substandard education. Those people will get themselves deselected quickly anyway.)
And as I said before, if you're going to make a charge, better be fairly sure it will stick. The 'Gut reaction is to fire' folks will be deselected.
[ January 31, 2002, 16:23: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
You also forgot "Don't engage in a battle of wits if you lived at home until you were 30."
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Missed the joke again, eh? Your neurotransmitter levels must be dropping.
"battle of wits." "unarmed Baltimorean." Battle. Unarmed. get it?
Let me try another one:
"I'm not arrogant... I'm just better than you."
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Yeah, Rob, I noticed you were resorting to personal attacks since all your arguements have been ripped to shreds. Oh, no, it's okay ... just responding in kind. Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Demolished? Hardly. You misinterpreted (okay, maybe I wasn't clear enough about what I meant -- I do tend to speak my own rareified language sometimes), launched a rant, then declared a victory, ignoring my response totally.
And I believe YOU were the first to make it personal, with the 'punch in the face' comments. Before that, all the "you"s were impersonal, non-specific.
[ January 31, 2002, 18:29: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Two more little boys who wouldn't grow up. I'm sure Peter Pan chairs a support group for this or something.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)