Zierro

Operant conditioning is the use of consequences to modify the occurrence and form of behavior. How is this irrelevant to the justice system again? Ah, so attacking things that you even admitted you cannot decipher is better? Yes you did: So you're telling me that you don't like stats (which are just murder rates, which are going to be very consistent no matter WHO conducts the study) because it is able to back people's statements up while the other side has none. So you're telling me that when you kill an innocent person you just go "oh [cabbage], my bad, guess I learned from this!"? Lying is bad for your credibility. :shame: I have. You just chose not to read them. How ironic. Wasn't that like the first thing you said to me on this thread? Obviously there were statistics that prove the validity of operant conditioning or else it wouldn't exist. I found out about operant conditioning in my Psychology textbook. The theory was proved with statistics about a rat's box (Skinner Box or something I think). I do not have my textbook anymore so I thought it would be more efficient to give you a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning If you want to get into semantics, it's technically not operant conditioning, but I believe terms like this should be used flexibly to get points across better. To sum it up, if you know you will get shocked if you push a button, you'll most likely stop pushing it. If you know you will get candy if you push a button, you'll most likely keep pushing it. It makes logical sense, because you see it everyday. It's a simple and universal concept. Why are people afraid of messing with bees? Well, people don't like getting stung and bees are known to sting, therefore people would prefer to stay away from bees. If you can't decipher them, then why don't you ask me to clarify instead of responding to something you're not even sure that I said? There's a perfect solution to this. Stop strawmanning and people won't say you are. I agree that strawman is cliched, but complaining about it is cliched too now. Yes, people do tend to become irrational with their fears. Spiders are a good example. The operant conditioning argument is nowhere near perfect, it's just I think it's still better than statistics. With logic, you can argue all you want, good logic overrides the bad logic, and you can always seek a better premise since there are infinite ways to look at things. Statistics are pretty much set in stone, or at least they try to be. People don't expect it, but the possibility is definitely existent in their minds. Every time I skipped a class in school (showing off on the net ftw!), I was a little paranoid about getting caught. But if I knew 100% that I would get caught, why would I do it in the first place? The punishment was worth it to me. A small percent chance that I would get detention. Whoopty doo. However, if skippers were shot on the spot, I wouldn't dare to.

Wow, I thought you out of all people would know what a strawman is since you throw it around quite often. :lol: I can say the same thing about you throwing all logic out the window because you don't like where the evidence lies. In fact, if I remember correctly, you don't even agree with self-defense. Of course you're going to make the death penalty out to be something more immoral than the actual people who deserve it. You just have a weird thing for making people look like they're evil and bigots. :-#

When did I ever say I don't have arguments for my side? :? There are your statistics, which make no logical sense. And then there is the argument and statistics that show the validity of operant conditioning - you are more likely to do things if they offer a good reward, and less likely to do things if they offer a harsh consequence - which makes a lot of logical sense. When did I ever say that either? You really need to stop with the strawmans. My point is that neither system is perfect. Sometimes people will be released or escape and go around murdering again, which is very bad. And sometimes people will get the death penalty even though they were innocent, which is very bad too. Neither sounds any better than the other.

That's a good point and something I thought myself. If you're forced into committing a crime (someone breaks in, or someone threatens to kill you if you don't steal something for them) then of course it is an excuse. I'm mostly aiming at how people bring up broken homes, bad childhoods, and stuff like that. Just because you had a bad life doesn't mean you're any more excused to commit a crime than someone with a good life. I feel very bad for people with horrible lives, but you shouldn't go around and make other innocent people feel equally as miserable.

The thing I dislike the most about statistics is that they barely allow room for arguing against. I think issues like this deserve more thought than trying to interpret some numbers and patterns. Not only do I believe it's more accurate, but to me it's also more fun. :)

Not only that, but sympathizing for someone who would cut your throat in a heartbeat and think nothing of it is just foolish... and dangerous.

Are you really arguing that operant conditioning is a fraud? It's an insult to science that you would even call that crap a "study". There's no way to know if a person would or would not do something depending on if things worked a little differently. But if thinking you can predict the future helps you sleep at night, by all means go for it, but don't belittle people with a little more sense than that. As stated many times, correlation =/= causation. There are numerous factors that can contribute to those statistics. Let me give you an example. Let's say in State A there are 1000 crimes a year. The next year, State A allows the death penalty. The next year, State A has 1000 crimes. Now, you can conveniently jump to the conclusion that the death penalty doesn't do anything, but this doesn't show us what would have happened if they didn't allow the death penalty. For all you know, the number of crimes could have been 1200 if they never allowed the death penalty - there could have been a [bleep]e in crime. This is exactly why I hate when people use nothing but statistics for their argument. All it does is give you a general picture, not an absolute truth. There is plenty of room for your "facts" to be wrong.

7002

Looks like a fat ferret. :lol: It's actually pretty cute.

Pokemon Colosseum

I just recently got into Left 4 Dead. So simple yet so innovative at the same time. 11/10 I'm definitely saving up for an X-Box 360 now.

Then excuses shouldn't be brought up in the first place. Whether someone's wife divorced them and took their money or if their dog crapped on the floor, nothing excuses committing that crime. It's entirely irrelevant. It comes down to the person consciously choosing to commit a crime, not things "leading" them to do it. There are plenty of people that have been in the same situations and yet they have not felt the need to commit atrocities like this. What does that tell us? It doesn't come down to the things that "lead" you to do it. In the end, it comes down to the person. PS: I noticed I quoted the wrong thing from Assassin. I meant to quote how he said the parents were drug addicts. My bad.

Might I suggest reading other people's posts before complaining about them not reading yours? Statistics aren't infallible. There is room for error, manipulation, and the fact that correlation doesn't imply causation which I'm getting sick of repeating. Logic on the other hand can be overridden with better logic. And as for the case with harsh penalties not being a deterrent, I have not seen one yet. If you want to use some real statistics, prove to me that there isn't a single case out there where someone decided not to commit a crime because they feared the death penalty. I'll be waiting. The same thing people do when they release a criminal that goes around raping and murdering again. "[bleep], I gambled the wrong hand."

Taking walks, eating and drinking, and having something to look forward to.

I don't know. RSOF and TIF are the only ones I used, so I guess small.

7050

Dave and Matthews sounds funnier than Steve, but you do have a point about the Miller. -The Cranberries -Weezer

The Real Life Pictures thread, no offense to anyone. I just don't see any reason to show other TIFers what you look like.

The same reason someone wants to become an emo. I don't think homosexuality is a choice though. You can't control whatever physically "turns you on".

The children that beat those kids up are guilty. The kids that got beaten up were innocent. There is clearly a difference. That just sounds like a big excuse to me. Just because you had a bad life does not serve as a justification in the least.

Well that doesn't explain why people are so afraid of skydiving even though it's very unlikely that their parachute would malfunction. The severity of consequences does have something to do with whether people do things or not. Would you rather skydive and have a 1% chance of dying or would you rather skateboard and have a 10% chance of scraping your elbow? I think it's a far stretch to say criminals don't care about their own self-interest. I'm not believing your statistics because I want people to die or anything - I don't believe them because it makes absolutely no sense and that it's more logical to assume there is something fishy about the statistics. Sorry, but I choose logic over statistics. Correlation doesn't imply causation, people can manipulate statistics, bla bla bla. Of course they don't. But they are aware of the possibility, and if they aren't then maybe I'm just giving these people too much credit. :lol: I don't see how people could not care about their own self-interest.

If slavery were legal, I would buy as many as I could then accidentally ( ;) ) free them. I think freedom is one of the greatest things about life, so everyone should be allowed it.

I see where you're going here, but even nationalism allows for prejudices and such. Take Mexicans for example. But I do think the less labels people give each other, the better. :thumbup:

I'm not an atheist but I agree with them here. We're all in the dark when it comes to theology. I find the idea of looking to others for the answers, even though they're no different than you are, to be very entertaining.