Zierro

High hopes getting crushed. Something I've consistently been suffering from.

I don't understand how you all are making the extrapolation that nobody ever decided not to murder somebody based on their punishment, or that there has never been a case where a murderer would have continued his ways. That capital punishment has not prevented any further conflict against the innocent. Even if one innocent person's life has been saved, I believe it is a worthy cause. You are just arguing that capital punishment isn't as effective of a deterrent as you would like it to be. This is completely agreeable. But what none of us know is what the specific crime rates would have been if there was no capital punishment to fear in specific areas/time periods: Let's say in the year 2005 Country A has the death penalty and country B does not. Country A has 100 murders and Country B has 80 that year. What you are doing is jumping to conclusions and treating this as photographic evidence that "nobody is swayed by punishment". From as far as you can tell, IF in 2005 Country A did not have the death penalty and Country B did, the statistics could be that Country A has 100 murders and Country B has 60, in which case 20 murders have been prevented and we actually know this because this would be proof. But again, there is no way to measure prevented crimes, because they do not exist. (Unless you were to use time travel.) Statistics can be immensely suggestive in certain cases, but the ones here are being used to prove something in which they simply cannot. It does not prove that "people don't care about severity of punishment". The approach I prefer is evident amongst human nature altogether: we have plenty of evidence that humans act based off of self-interest. All Blood and Rocco have been doing is ignoring this point and regarding the statistics as indisputable proof anyways, instead of countering my point. So if you still want to go by the statistics, tell me, has it been proven that 0 crimes have been prevented or has it been proven that simply "not enough" crimes have been prevented? What exactly would the statistics look like if one crime has been prevented by the death penalty? I believe I have even heard the claim that prison has never deterred a single crime either, which really says a lot about this whole debate. This is just one of those strange cases where people are going to think they are "right" and "true" because they slap the label of "proof" onto a faulty hypothesis, and don't dare to reconsider their beliefs regardless of the logical fallacies that skeptical scrutiny and mere commonsense point out. I've specifically shown people in real life these arguments and specifically heard them say they would do things if they weren't specifically going to be punished for it, and to say that anyone who does that is just a liar is like me saying your statisticians are just liars. Even if there were solid statistics that punishment significantly deters crime, I get the feeling the same couple of people would be arguing the same exact point about correlations I am making right now.

Statistics can be skewed. Statistics can be coincidental. Statistics can have too small of a sample size. Statistics can be misleading. Statistics don't account for other underlying factors (such as the culture, religions, politics, time period, specific events, media, etc.). The only way to prove a crime has been prevented would be to measure that crime, not patterns of crime which are swayed by a multitude of other factors and sometimes just random. http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/notverygoodatstatistics.html http://www.truthpizza.org/logic/stats.htm The simplest way to put this is to say correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Yet all of you here seem to think this trend proves that people aren't budged when it comes to punishments, and regard it as photographic evidence or something. And here is my evidence: I've heard, and I'm sure many of you have too, of people claiming to want to commit an action, but not going through with it because of the punishment, specifically being their freedom. Also, it has been observed that living things tend to try to avoid negative consequences. However, I never tried to give off the impression this correlation "proves" something, just that it sounds more logically reasonable. Maybe so, but not in the way you're using them. Trying to measure crimes that have been prevented compared to those that have not been prevented and treating it as fool-proof facts. If you want to disregard all of those factors I listed, by all means, go ahead. The statistics aren't completely useless, but not helpful enough to show us whether this guy and that guy didn't go through with their bad thoughts for that reason. You are jumping to a convenient conclusion. I used to believe Jesus's and Ghandi's philosophies were awesome, until I started looking at the EVIDENCE and actually learning about how psychology and society works in reality. When murders are thought out thoroughly, they are in all probability less likely to occur and therefore to not exist, making them unmeasurable. By the way, unmeasurable =/= nonexistent. We don't know how many aliens exist, but that doesn't mean we know zero exist. You keep making logical fallacies, I point them out, and you accuse me of ignoring your "solid infallible proof". Quit crying about how you think you are correct. Next time you say I'm dismissing your "proof", you're going to tempt me to use the "lalaa not listenin cuz im rite!" card. It looks much easier. :wink: Not every country is going to have the same exact crime rate, so what are you comparing your stats to? It can't be prevented crimes because you can't physically find that out. Here's some "evidence" I found: When I flip a coin with my eyes closed, it is heads 30 times and tails 70. When I flip a coin with my eyes open, it is heads 70 times and tails 30 times. This is proof that closing your eyes gives you better chance of scoring tails.

It does prevent a second crime - it makes it impossible for it to happen. Whether it would have or wouldn't have cannot be proven, but the fact is, now it simply can't. We can't find statistics for that, because they are dead. Why do you guys worship statistics so much though? Especially in a subject where they aren't of much help? But there is no "proof" that they have prevented crimes. How can we even discover, or "prove", which crimes have been shot down and by which causes? Prevented crimes never took place, so they cannot be measured. Only inferred. Ahh, okay so you do believe every single person who says, "It's not worth it," is just lying. You are just upset that I question the argument you held so dear as your "objective proof that people don't care about their own self-interest". Interesting opinions, you dog-worshiping revenge-seeking pseudo scientist you. Maybe if you'd learn to be a little less biased instead of believing what you believe and having that be the end-all of the debate, you'd actually learn to criticize my arguments instead of revealing to me that you simply have nothing better to say but get retribution on me. I enjoy seeing how far you're willing to dig your hole though. My friends and I love reading your material, man. We would even recommend becoming the next Doctor Seuss. But seriously, if you're not even going to attempt to reason with me then go do something else, because if you're just here for the flamewar you got a lot of catching up to do dude. I'm spitting mad logic at yo ass. I know, a lot of my points are painfully obvious. It's funny how you dismiss them. "PEOPLE TRY TO AVOID GOING TO JAIL!!!" Lol. What are you even doing here?

There isn't really proof that capital punishment works any better than traditional punishment. But the difference is I don't use stray correlations and extrapolate into firmly believing something as silly as people never fearing to lose their life/freedom. The main reason to have it is because it prevents a second crime, and if there is at least one person who fears that punishment enough to not to go murder someone, it has prevented that crime. The funny thing is though, we act based on self-interest so often. Why is crime and punishment an abnormal exception but staying away from beehives or fire are not? I hear people admit they would do certain things if it wasn't for the law. Are you telling me everyone who does that is a liar?

I told you why those statistics don't prove that "punishment does not deter crime", and you ignored it. Since you want to throw around fancy talk with me: Correlation =/= causation. As far as it being a slippery slope... Unless you incarcerate a serial killer, nothing is stopping him from continuing. Do you know how many times cops had to shoot someone because they were too violent and rampant and just weren't going to be reasoned with? What do you suggest they do then, allow more innocent casualties? We are living a lot safer because criminals like that are contained and because criminals like that are deterred and because criminals like that are gone. But please, go on and ignore all of these facts. PS: Just out of curiosity, what would constitute as me not ignoring your statistics? "OHHH. You're right Roccodog. Nobody has ever ever changed their mind about committing a crime because of the punishment." For the hundredth time, just because all the murder and rape in the world don't come to a screeching halt does not prove that people don't avoid punishment.

This thread is about murderers and rapists - not anyone who makes a mistake. Exactly. The degrees of punishment just aren't proportionate right now. (Someone getting a harsher sentence for selling pills than someone who raped.) Guy 3, 4, and 5 don't get their eyes stabbed out by Guy 1 now.

Because those are the ones that cause the most harm to society. They are the cases we should be most cautious about. In fact, I'm not really that bothered by any other crime. It's the people going around destroying innocent lives that are the issue. I like how you don't even attempt to prove me wrong and go straight for my credibility now. I guess I finally scared you off. \:D/

The world is not full of intelligent people. And are you seriously claiming that people are never held back by the law? Lol. So that means anyone who said they would do stuff like that are liars. I understand your point fully. You think a couple classes and a firm talking to with a serial killer will guide him to the path of righteousness, while Johnny over here is contemplating a bank robbery but then comes to his senses - not because he doesn't want to ruin his life going to prison, but because he saw an inspirational commercial. That sounds a little unrealistic to me. Although I do agree that jail can pose a problem for major criminals. They are still interacting with a portion of society and living in a crime-infested environment which is a dangerous concoction. Jail itself is a flawed system, but picture the alternatives. Can you tell me with complete honesty what you think the succession rate of rehabilitating a killer is? Some people can't be reasoned with, namely people who like killing people for fun. If someone is a major threat to society, it's safest to keep them away from everyone, including other prisoners. The death penalty is extreme I know, but so is allowing them another chance to kill the innocent. I have, and realism is actually the very foundation of all of my opinions on this matter. I don't deny the fact that some [many] people want to commit the crime, but they don't want to do the time. I also don't believe serial killers can just be put in rehabilitation centers and get "fixed" that easily.

What? Are you implying that unless crime is completely void in this world, punishment is not a deterrent? Not every single person is going to fear the punishment to the point of scaring them out of it, but you can't deny that it has been a main motivating factor for potential criminals to not go through with it and become an actual criminal. Prison is holding many people back from doing things they would like to do, including people I personally know. For starters, how many people don't drink and drive because they don't want legal trouble? Oh... one of these "My brain did it! Not me!" arguments again. I love these. :mrgreen: If someone chooses to murder a person, they chose to murder a person. Being bullied does not excuse it any more so than waking up on the wrong side of the bed or having a bad rash. The only exceptions would be people who literally do not understand what they are doing. Most murderers and rapists know full well what they are doing, and some can even be pretty intelligent. CAN SOMEONE BRING THIS MAN A CAN OF REALISM, HE'S ABOUT TO HURT HIMSELF!!@! No but seriously, I agree that changing environmental factors can have a good influence, but it's no replacement for punishment. I think we all know that people will still commit crime - it would just be filtered a little more, deterring it. Same goes for punishment. It doesn't stop everybody, but some are affected, therefore it is a deterrent.

It's commonsense to know not to touch fire a second time since you don't want to get burned. A negative consequence generally makes it more likely for someone to stay away from something. Without the involvement of one's own self-interest on the line, people would commit crime on an even grander scale, so it is prevention. Generally they are considered unstable after the fact. Also, there are no excuses for doing something like raping a woman or murdering an innocent child, no matter who you are. Then if you don't want criminals to get off the hook and you don't want them to go to jail, what do you propose?

Haha, those shows have nothing on The Hills, which believe it or not is actually more frightening than The Hills Have Eyes.

[bleep] Starcraft. I decided to play God of War on Spartan (hard) mode. Just beat the Hydra.

INTJ. I'm so unique. If anyone here is taking this test too seriously, it would be you. We all know there are more than four features to a human being's personality.

That's the beauty behind an eye for an eye. A man who thinks stealing is not wrong should not be bothered if others want to steal from him, but this is not the case, therefore he does believe said action is wrong and you are showing that to him. The reason he steals is not because he doesn't consider it immoral - he does it because he lacks the empathy to care. Since it's so fun to quote the Bible in this thread: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (I'll never understand why some people think an eye for an eye is just masked sadism. It's an educational strategy if you ask me.)

Been getting my ass kicked on Starcraft lately. Although to be honest, I think it's a load of [cabbage]. If it isn't me sucking, it's my team sucking worse. The host always places people with good records on the same team and people with bad records on the same team to ensure that they win and get their records even higher. I've never had a good match yet.

Homophobic as in thinking it is icky or as in thinking it is wrong? I concur. "Moral tyranny" ( :lol: ) can be a good thing. I would like to think of it as the lesser of two evils: fighting for good intentions is much better than fighting for bad ones. Even though I wish it wouldn't even have to come to fighting in the first place, it does, unless of course you want the bad cause to prevail. However, (so this does not get confused with my point on the last page) sometimes people can go over the top and make "slightly distasteful" opponents into demonic opponents and attack them as such, which harms your own credibility giving them more incentive to oppose you, and actually does make you tyrannical. Calling people bigots for having a National Man Day comes to mind. It's really a matter of choosing your battles.

My standards are pretty high. I'm not a yes-man to just any suggestion I hear, so this is imploring posters to recommend me only films they believe to be of high quality, rather than something they deem as merely a so-so film. An average television appreciator's definition of a so-so film is probably my definition of crap, so I thought it was necessary to bring up since I'm not going to go watch "Dude Where's My Car?" to stimulate my mind. Haha, this made me realize that none of the movies in my list have sequels, and for good reasons.

Being a leftist myself, I've noticed this trend too. I never said anyone should let it slide - just that you are harming your own cause if you flame someone who is attempting to have civilized debate (even though they might be wrong).

I agree with this. If someone is vigorously bashing homosexuality, I think you have the right to vigorously bash that line of thinking. However, if someone just says they do not agree with it but they aren't doing so in a vigorous manner, then you are really kicking your own cause in the nuts if you attack them with an overly-passionate level of assertiveness. A loud man will listen to the louder man, and a gentle man will listen to the gentler man. Rhetoric is essential if you want to be listened to.

Incorrect.

Standard. Lol, get it?

What's the difference?

8 cooked lobs, 100 feathers, and a tinderbox.

YEAH RIGHT! I HEARD THAT ONE BEFORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ON TOPIC WHILE I'M BEING BOISTEROUS: I HATE WHEN YOU WALK OUTSIDE AND A GIRAFFE KICKS YOU IN THE BALLS!