Author Topic: What is up with all the school shootings...  (Read 4742 times)

Hadriel

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1044
    • View Profile
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2006, 01:23:32 pm »
Quote
My "point," such as it is, is that I find it disgusting that people can discuss so callously the manner and means in which people would be executed without due consideration of the law, a code of ethics, or even common decency--which, as I implied, is not so common after all. It's idiots like yourselves, who never bother to think about the consequences of or justification for their actions, that are responsible for ten thousand years of needless bloodshed, senseless brutality, and endless tribal warfare, culminated in World War II with this--a masterpiece of engineering, yet a travesty of social progress.

You think I don't think about the value of human life and the brutality of the universe?  Fuck you.  I think about it every goddamned day of my life.  It's because of what we are that sociopathy and, occasionally, senseless brutality is necessary to live.  And I hate that.  I hate that more than anything else, but the difference between you and me is that I've accepted it.  We're never going to stop warring over resources; the laws of physics won't permit it.  And we're never going to get rid of people like school shooters; somebody will inevitably get a bad set of genes that makes them socially awkward, and they're going to be shunned, rejected, and denied human companionship in the name of social Darwinism, and if it gets bad enough, they're going to snap and kill someone.  I'm hardly without sympathy for them, but what they've done is unforgivable, and must be repaid in kind.  Best you get used to that; it's the natural state of things, and seeing as how you're someone with a background in science, you know it damned well.  Or at least you claim to have such a background.  I find it difficult to believe the scientific credentials of someone that's enough of a dishonest fuck to put words in my mouth - no, fuck that.  You're trying to tell me what I think, over the Internet no less.  That's not just supporting an ill-conceived position, that's being a dishonest fucking asshole, and I'm not going to stand for it.

Quote
Your kind of idiotic, non-thinking, emotionally conceived, impulsive, vindictive, ill-reasoned slop of a code of ethics is why modern justice took longer to invent than every other human achievement ever--and why it is still so hard for people to uphold justice when given the opportunity.

I'm going to break this down very simply for you.  Executing justice is the act of seeing that every person is given appropriate recompense for either their negative actions or their suffering.  In the case of a murderer, nothing they do can make even a partial recompense to society save giving up their own life.  Murder can be thought of as being equal to a more severe version of theft, where the precious object taken can never be replaced.  Moreover, this "object" is in fact a living, breathing person, and taking them breaks the fundamental contract of civilized human society; I submit to you that by doing this, murderers have in fact ceased to be worthy of being regarded as human.  Further, I fail to see what is gained by keeping them alive.  As much as you'd like to stretch realistic conditions, giving them their just desserts isn't going to lose us a cure for AIDS.

Quote
Let me put it to you in no uncertain terms, Hadriel: You either do not know what the fuck you are talking about, or you are pathologically oblivious to the wellbeing of other creatures. I see, evidenced here, the same irresponsible lack of critical analysis that you brought to your ridiculous attack on fat people. The difference is that when you're talking about the destruction of human life, the crudeness and emotional depravity of your ignoble numbskullery is all the more sobering.

Let me put it to you in no uncertain terms, J: You either do not know what you are talking about, or you are pathologically oblivious to the suffering of the actual goddamned victims of murder.  To that end, please demonstrate that allowing a murderer to remain alive will result in greater recompense for the survivors than disposing of them.

Quote
You think a few comments idly tossed out into a message board in the middle of cyber-nowhere don't mean anything?

More lies and misguided assumptions.

Quote
They are neither. When people sit idly by, and condone the sort of speech that would bring about such a terrible blow to the quality of life for so many people, without any significant benefit whatsoever, then it can end up that crazy ideas will become thinkable, and thinkable ideas doable. ZeaLitY's response to you was witty, but he ignored the substance of what you actually said. Well, that's his choice. My choice is to neither be amused nor tacitly condone your reckless would-be terrorism.

A veritable cornucopia of completely sourceless bullshit.  Care to demonstrate how killing people that deserve it reduces quality of life?  Or to give any support whatsoever for the giant slippery slope fallacy you engaged in immediately thereafter?  Or maybe you'd like to tell me how my approach is even vaguely equivalent to terrorism.  Oh, wait, I know!  He's going to tell us how the assumptions he makes in his thesis are actually valid!

Gather round, kiddies!

Quote
Grow up.

I really don't think you actually understand what growing up is.  Growing up doesn't mean being polite, or even being civil.  It simply means taking responsibility for your actions and beliefs.  And I'm perfectly willing to take responsibility for voting to see that justice is meted out.  Do your beliefs provide that same assurance?  Because as far as I'm concerned, you'd better provide some evidence that they do, and really damned fast, because I've just about had it with your self-righteous, utterly baseless idiocy.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2006, 01:41:02 pm by Hadriel »

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2006, 02:22:31 am »
You think a few comments idly tossed out into a message board in the middle of cyber-nowhere don't mean anything?
Just thought I'd bring this up:


The Amish School Shooting man, he deserved to die. He brought it on himself. There is something that comes along with being a human, and therefore having a sense of freewill: do whatever the fuck you like, but accept the consequences. The consequence here was death, but sadly he put the gun on himself rather than the state fry his brains out...or whatever Pennsylvania has.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #32 on: October 08, 2006, 03:38:27 am »
bitch bitch bitch

Okay, I guess that's not fair. Let me try again...

You think I don't think about the value of human life and the brutality of the universe?  Fuck you.  I think about it every goddamned day of my life.

No, that's obviously an exaggeration. You think about it occasionally, when prompted, and don't extend your "thinking" beyond the simplest lines of a single school of the conventional wisdom. And to prove that I quote:

It's because of what we are that sociopathy and, occasionally, senseless brutality is necessary to live.  And I hate that.  I hate that more than anything else, but the difference between you and me is that I've accepted it.

So you presume a false dilemma and, considering it settled, harden your head from any meaningful contemplation of the issue. Instead, we get a dose of simplistic, reactionary cyncism:

We're never going to stop warring over resources; the laws of physics won't permit it.  And we're never going to get rid of people like school shooters; somebody will inevitably get a bad set of genes that makes them socially awkward, and they're going to be shunned, rejected, and denied human companionship in the name of social Darwinism, and if it gets bad enough, they're going to snap and kill someone.

So, Mr. Wizard, show me the "physics" equation that says "we're never going to stop warring over resources." And show me why it is "inevitable" that some people will inevitably shoot kids in schools because they were socially awkward. The difference between you and me in this case is not that you accept gross illogic whereas I do not; it is that you are a blowhard with lots of opinoins and few facts, whereas I find that sort of personality disgusting. We are both passionate people, but you are passionate about an ignorant worldview and I am passionate against ignorance in all its forms. You were wrong to advocate what you did:

Quote from: Hadriel
You don't have to kill him.  If he's already shot someone, it's better to leave him alive; let him rot in jail because there's no hell to rot in.  That of course depends on your current economic situation.  If you can't afford to keep his sorry murdering ass alive, put a bullet in his head and drop him out back for all I care.  It's all that such people deserve.

All of the bluster in your latest reply is a futile attempt at diverting both me and yourself from the fact that your Big Idea has no credibility. You have shown no consideration of the greater context in which your judgment would be rendered, and if this were a logical reasoning class you'd get a D. Civics class and you'd get an F. Religious people have a phrase for ideas such as yours that are so full of emotional intensity without any regard for the reality out there by which your perceptions are based and unto which your actions would be executed. That phrase is "moral bankruptcy." I just call it plain old stupid.

Now, at this point, your argument breaks down into reptition of what you've already said and colorful, although ineffective personal attacks. First, we have already seen that your dilemma is false, and based more upon rigidity of conviction than actual logic. But you repeat it again nevertheless:

I'm hardly without sympathy for them, but what they've done is unforgivable, and must be repaid in kind.  Best you get used to that; it's the natural state of things, and seeing as how you're someone with a background in science, you know it damned well.

All I know is this:

1. Your argument for punishing criminals is not supported with an actual set of premises, because you presume from the beginning that their crimes warrant the punishment you seek for them;

2. Therefore, the appropriate punishment(s) for these criminals is as yet undetermined for the purposes of this discussion;

3. Therefore, your idea is reckless. And disgusting, but we knew that.

I am not a softy when it comes to crime. Ironically it was the Amish community members themselves who insisted that we should not hate this man. But me, I think the death penalty is a legitimate maneuver in the dispensing of justice. And this fellow would probably have deserved it, had he not obviated the question by himself. But that stands in such contrast to your callous, inconsiderate condemnation:

Quote from: Hadriel
You don't have to kill him.  If he's already shot someone, it's better to leave him alive; let him rot in jail because there's no hell to rot in.  That of course depends on your current economic situation.  If you can't afford to keep his sorry murdering ass alive, put a bullet in his head and drop him out back for all I care.  It's all that such people deserve.

Disgusting!

Moving on, I'll ignore the personal attacks since there isn't anything to rebut. Next up is probably the only passage in your entire argument that has any semblence of coherence:

I'm going to break this down very simply for you.  Executing justice is the act of seeing that every person is given appropriate recompense for either their negative actions or their suffering.  In the case of a murderer, nothing they do can make even a partial recompense to society save giving up their own life.  Murder can be thought of as being equal to a more severe version of theft, where the precious object taken can never be replaced.  Moreover, this "object" is in fact a living, breathing person, and taking them breaks the fundamental contract of civilized human society; I submit to you that by doing this, murderers have in fact ceased to be worthy of being regarded as human.  Further, I fail to see what is gained by keeping them alive.  As much as you'd like to stretch realistic conditions, giving them their just desserts isn't going to lose us a cure for AIDS.

You say, in so many words, that murderers, because of the nature of murder, should lose their human rights. Okay. Prove it.

(That's rhetorical. Don't waste our time by forcing me to actually discredit whatever ridiculous proof you might aspire to concoct. Just take it on my good word that there is no definitive proof anywhere in human history that establishes the most just response to a generic murder.)

Okay, skipping some more personal attacks--oh, what the heck! I'll humor you once:

You ... are pathologically oblivious to the suffering of the actual goddamned victims of murder.

The cute thing about personal attacks is that, when the rest of your argument is bullshit, the personal attacks speak for themselves, and their language is absurdity. If anyone on this entire Compendium actually believes such a ridiculous statement--even you, Hadriel--I'll be glad to put their concerns to rest.

Most of the rest of your post is more personal attacks. Although this one merits a look:

Do your beliefs provide that same assurance?  Because as far as I'm concerned, you'd better provide some evidence that they do, and really damned fast, because I've just about had it with your self-righteous, utterly baseless idiocy.

"Really damned fast"? What are you going to do? Murder me?

You're a sad and lonely cynic. But I never knew until you revealed your hatred for fat people--and now this--just how far that worldview has rotted your mind.

As to the rest of you, let Hadriel be an object lesson.


The Amish School Shooting man, he deserved to die. He brought it on himself. There is something that comes along with being a human, and therefore having a sense of freewill: do whatever the fuck you like, but accept the consequences. The consequence here was death, but sadly he put the gun on himself rather than the state fry his brains out...or whatever Pennsylvania has.

Golly, Zeppy. Despite your bang-up graphic, the things that people say on message boards can and do have serious ramifications. I concede that message board arguments might not take as much courage as standing up to people like Hadriel in public, but they are often just as meaningful. I should hope people always fight for great justice when some tyrant set them up the bomb, no matter the setting.

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2006, 06:32:01 am »
Aw.

Hadriel

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1044
    • View Profile
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #34 on: October 08, 2006, 06:36:57 pm »
Quote
No, that's obviously an exaggeration. You think about it occasionally, when prompted, and don't extend your "thinking" beyond the simplest lines of a single school of the conventional wisdom.

You really, honestly believe that load, don't you?  Okay, I can work with that.

Quote
So you presume a false dilemma and, considering it settled, harden your head from any meaningful contemplation of the issue.

My "false dilemma" is supported by ten thousand years of human warfare and geopolitics, ten thousand years filled with incidences of people willing to murder without regard for the lives of others.  Actually, screw that.  My "false dilemma" is supported by hundreds of millions of years of evolution and all the aforementioned brutality that comes with it.  When you get down to it, human history is simply a microcosm of evolution, as it displays all the trends and tendencies thereof, which include the tendency to kill rivals for resources.  The only difference is that now, instead of only considering whether someone's genetics allow them to survive in a given environment, we have culture to consider, whether it's one person's beliefs versus their culture, or one society's beliefs versus the other societies that surround them and the natural resources they have to work with.  But people are still ultimately selfish.  They will only cooperate if there is individual benefit from doing so, and they will attempt to remove people that they see as being in the way of their satisfaction.  Certain people are excluded because little or no benefit is perceived from associating with them; I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.  All aspects of human behavior, from punishing criminals to choosing a mate, are exercises in cost-benefit analysis with the interest of pleasing the self.  The actual costs and benefits of a given situation are determined by the context in which it takes place.  Such a model handily lends itself to the doctrine of maximum-force response.

To draw a historical example, do you know why Japan likes us so much today, perhaps?  It's because of the effort that we put into rebuilding their economy and infrastructure.  Do you know why they're still around to like us?  Because we were ready to annihilate them, utterly and irreversibly, or at the least, because we gave off such an appearance.  The atomic bomb won us the war, because they weren't willing to die in vain.  The benefit of pride isn't enough to justify the cost of total destruction.  Do you know what would have happened if we hadn't issued the threat to blow up their cities and had gone ahead with conventional warfare?  The ground invasion would have taken millions more lives on both sides.  To take the obvious corollary, do you know why school shooters find it so easy to kill people at school?  Because there's no deterrent to doing so.  There's no assurance that they'll fail.  Having a goodly amount of armed respondents, whether they be teachers or guards, at school can provide much more of an assurance than we have now.

Do you know what would happen if some al-Qaeda bastard detonated a nuke inside American borders, by any chance?  I'm betting you do: the second someone found evidence pointing to it, the Middle East would be glassed, and there would be nationwide riots and mass killings of anyone of Arab descent.  Islam would be a dead religion over here in about two weeks.  Now, I'm not so much up on the rioting, because I have good friends that would be in danger of dying and clearly wouldn't have done anything to deserve it.  But with regards to the military response, once again, the cost-benefit model comes into action in the ensuing maximum force response.  You don't just want your enemy beaten, because then they might get up and try again.  You want them to be so completely destroyed that people for the next ten generations quake in their boots at the thought of facing you.  Maximum force has been repeatedly shown to be the most effective method of dealing with opponents of your chosen social order.  This applies for everyone from terrorists and rival nations all the way down to serial killers and school shooters; the cost to attack you won't be worth the benefits.

But really, do you think I like the idea of slagging entire countries and killing civilians?  Hell no.  But the side that concerns itself with morality in a total war, the side that concerns itself with anything other than self-preservation, is the side that loses.  Of course, a school shooting is different from a total war, in that saving the civilians is the entire objective.  But the same principles apply; if we don't ramp up our security to demonstrate that we have absolutely no tolerance for these kinds of fuckwads, they're going to attempt to act out their homicidal plans.  Further, it is not only acceptable, but necessary, to make examples of such individuals.  Morally, we get off easy because they've already committed one of the most heinous crimes possible, so to our baser natures, anything we do to them is in some measure justified.  To our more contemplative natures, they are still murderers, and it's not like we're taking out innocent bystanders when we off them.  From a cost-benefit perspective, we've already lost in this case.  All that remains is to take everything we can from them in hopes of obtaining partial recompense.  I explained this very clearly in my last post, and you dismissed it out of hand, with nothing but your own opinions as support.  And of course, you're free to do that, just as Fred Phelps is free to hate gay people or Michael Behe is to believe in intelligent design.  But if you think for one second that there aren't exceptions to human rights, you're not only kidding yourself, you're a liar and a hypocrite.

So, now that I'm done with that spiel, what examples do you have that support your model of human behavior?  In fact, what the hell is your model of human behavior?  I haven't seen one thing in any of your posts in this thread to indicate what you actually believe in.

Quote
So, Mr. Wizard, show me the "physics" equation that says "we're never going to stop warring over resources."

Try Conservation of Mass/Energy.  You know, the fundamental principle of all of science?  There's a set amount of stuff in the universe, and there's much, much less of it that we can actually use as resources.  Combine that with the need to satisfy human desires and we've got economics.  And guess what?  In economics, some people get trampled on because others are better able to acquire what they want.  Thus, someone either has a horribly unsatisfying existence, or they start committing crimes.  I'm not saying the subdivision of people who are going to murder someone is large, because it isn't.  In fact, it's very, very small.  But it'll always be there, unless we figure out some way to modify human nature.  And as far as I'm concerned, modifying human nature is about as possible as breaking lightspeed.

Quote
And show me why it is "inevitable" that some people will inevitably shoot kids in schools because they were socially awkward.

Apparently actually seeing it happen, repeatedly, I might add, isn't good enough evidence for you, so I really don't know what to say here.  The odds of a given, physically possible result turning up with an arbitrarily large time frame are 100% for every case in which said result has happened before.  Your refusal to recognize this betrays either a gross lack of knowledge or willful ignorance of reality.

Quote
The difference between you and me in this case is not that you accept gross illogic whereas I do not; it is that you are a blowhard with lots of opinoins and few facts, whereas I find that sort of personality disgusting. We are both passionate people, but you are passionate about an ignorant worldview and I am passionate against ignorance in all its forms.

No, that's not the difference between you and me.  The difference between you and me is in the people we find unbearable to associate with.  And for me, that list mostly consists of people who make claims to knowledge but fail to demonstrate it when requested to do so.

Quote
All of the bluster in your latest reply is a futile attempt at diverting both me and yourself from the fact that your Big Idea has no credibility. You have shown no consideration of the greater context in which your judgment would be rendered, and if this were a logical reasoning class you'd get a D. Civics class and you'd get an F. Religious people have a phrase for ideas such as yours that are so full of emotional intensity without any regard for the reality out there by which your perceptions are based and unto which your actions would be executed. That phrase is "moral bankruptcy." I just call it plain old stupid.

Does this vague "greater context" you speak of somehow alter the variables to where my prescribed form of dealing with murderers is no longer just?  Because the only greater context that exists is human behavior as a whole, as defined by the social contracts necessary to keep society running, which, again, are solely a product of the cost-benefit behavior model.

On another note, which Big Idea are you talking about?  Allowing teachers to carry guns?  I admitted it wasn't a perfect idea; in fact, there are some good arguments against it.  I would, however, like you to demonstrate to me what's wrong with having more armed guards at schools.  I'm hardly the only person who thinks that someone in authority ought to be armed to respond to this sort of thing.

Quote
First, we have already seen that your dilemma is false

Where, exactly?  You haven't proven a goddamned thing.  In fact, you haven't even attempted to respond to it, so I now demand that you do so.  You will either post proof that my model of human interaction is flawed, or you will retract your statements.

Quote
Your argument for punishing criminals is not supported with an actual set of premises, because you presume from the beginning that their crimes warrant the punishment you seek for them.

I have presumed nothing.  The premise, which follows directly from murder being evil, which in turn follows from first principles (in the moral sense, the right to life would be seen as one within the context of human interaction), is that some punishment must be meted out for it.  My line of reasoning simply searches for an appropriate punishment.  If you believe that a different punishment would be appropriate for the crime of murder, I invite you to tell me what it is and to explain why.

Quote
Therefore, the appropriate punishment(s) for these criminals is as yet undetermined for the purposes of this discussion.

I submit to you that it has long since been determined.  If you have come to a different conclusion, explain what it is and why it is logical.  Otherwise, I have no use for the din you continue to produce, and neither does this forum.

Quote
Therefore, your idea is reckless. And disgusting, but we knew that.

"We"?  Last I saw, the only one supporting your arguments is you.  Hell, you're the only one that's even having this debate with me.  I'm not exactly outnumbered here.

Quote
I am not a softy when it comes to crime. Ironically it was the Amish community members themselves who insisted that we should not hate this man. But me, I think the death penalty is a legitimate maneuver in the dispensing of justice. And this fellow would probably have deserved it, had he not obviated the question by himself. But that stands in such contrast to your callous, inconsiderate condemnation:

Quote from: Hadriel
You don't have to kill him.  If he's already shot someone, it's better to leave him alive; let him rot in jail because there's no hell to rot in.  That of course depends on your current economic situation.  If you can't afford to keep his sorry murdering ass alive, put a bullet in his head and drop him out back for all I care.  It's all that such people deserve.

I don't think it contrasts it at all.  In fact, if you believe that the death penalty is a legitimate punishment for murder, why are we even having this debate?  Because you think I'm being callous and vengeful?  Well, I'm so very sorry, but that's your problem.  It's well within my legal AND moral rights to be that way.

Quote
You say, in so many words, that murderers, because of the nature of murder, should lose their human rights. Okay. Prove it.

They already do lose their human rights, dumbass.  In case you didn't notice, there are other rights besides the right to life.  Did the right to property ever occur to you?  Does the right to liberty ring a bell?

Oh, wait, I forgot, it's okay to take those rights away, because it's not like they destroy quality of life or anything, right?

Idiot.

Quote
"Really damned fast"? What are you going to do? Murder me?

You're a sad and lonely cynic. But I never knew until you revealed your hatred for fat people--and now this--just how far that worldview has rotted your mind.

I'm not going to do anything, except be disappointed that you can't back up your claims of intelligence.  Didn't I already say murder is evil, or were you just too dense to pay attention after I've made that clear multiple times?

Quote
As to the rest of you, let Hadriel be an object lesson.

In what, precisely?  It's hard to be an object lesson if you have the better argument.  It's even harder if your opponent hasn't actually presented theirs.

Quote
I concede that message board arguments might not take as much courage as standing up to people like Hadriel in public, but they are often just as meaningful. I should hope people always fight for great justice when some tyrant set them up the bomb, no matter the setting.

Although this was directed at Zeppelin, I really have to laugh at this.  You think you're standing up to me?  Oh, god.  Now that's comedy.  How is it, exactly, that you're standing up to me?  Really, explain that.  Hell, devote an entire post to your persecution complex if you want to.  I need something to laugh at.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2006, 06:40:55 pm by Hadriel »

Exodus

  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 506
  • How do we know we exist?
    • View Profile
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #35 on: October 08, 2006, 08:26:31 pm »
Quiet down, both of you.

Both of you have excellent points to make; however, your goal, which is to change or at least partly alter the other's opinion, is not going to be successful.

It is my recommendation that the both of you quit arguing that which has been argued for centuries and talk Chrono.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #36 on: October 08, 2006, 08:44:03 pm »
Quiet down, both of you.

Both of you have excellent points to make; however, your goal, which is to change or at least partly alter the other's opinion, is not going to be successful.

It is my recommendation that the both of you quit arguing that which has been argued for centuries and talk Chrono.

I owe Hadriel the courtesy of a reply, but I'll tone it down just for you, Exxy.

Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5463
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #37 on: October 08, 2006, 10:12:20 pm »
Quote from: Lord J Esq
So you presume a false dilemma and, considering it settled, harden your head from any meaningful contemplation of the issue.

My "false dilemma" is supported by ten thousand years of human warfare and geopolitics, ten thousand years filled with incidences of people willing to murder without regard for the lives of others.

Well—

Actually, screw that.

Okay.

My "false dilemma" is supported by hundreds of millions of years of evolution and all the aforementioned brutality that comes with it.  When you get down to it, human history is simply a microcosm of evolution, as it displays all the trends and tendencies thereof, which include the tendency to kill rivals for resources.  The only difference is that now, instead of only considering whether someone's genetics allow them to survive in a given environment, we have culture to consider, whether it's one person's beliefs versus their culture, or one society's beliefs versus the other societies that surround them and the natural resources they have to work with.  But people are still ultimately selfish.  They will only cooperate if there is individual benefit from doing so, and they will attempt to remove people that they see as being in the way of their satisfaction.  Certain people are excluded because little or no benefit is perceived from associating with them; I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.  All aspects of human behavior, from punishing criminals to choosing a mate, are exercises in cost-benefit analysis with the interest of pleasing the self.  The actual costs and benefits of a given situation are determined by the context in which it takes place.  Such a model handily lends itself to the doctrine of maximum-force response.

This is a representation of a part of your worldview, and a pretty comprehensive job of it, considering that you tried to say so much in so little space.

I don’t see the world in the way you have just described, but my view isn’t different enough that we have any real problem so far. Thus, your lecture to this point is a welcome clarification of your motivation.

To draw a historical example, do you know why Japan likes us so much today, perhaps?  It's because of the effort that we put into rebuilding their economy and infrastructure.

That is overly simplistic. It is not wrong, but, rather, too general to be of use in making a point. The devil is in the details. Japanese culture itself, and the specifics of our postwar relationship with Japan, as well as the several decades of world affairs that followed, all played a crucial role in Japan’s development during this time.

At this point, you are talking about something which has nothing to do with our debate.

Do you know why they're still around to like us?  Because we were ready to annihilate them, utterly and irreversibly, or at the least, because we gave off such an appearance.  The atomic bomb won us the war, because they weren't willing to die in vain.  The benefit of pride isn't enough to justify the cost of total destruction.  Do you know what would have happened if we hadn't issued the threat to blow up their cities and had gone ahead with conventional warfare?  The ground invasion would have taken millions more lives on both sides.

Ditto. Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

To take the obvious corollary, do you know why school shooters find it so easy to kill people at school?  Because there's no deterrent to doing so.  There's no assurance that they'll fail.  Having a goodly amount of armed respondents, whether they be teachers or guards, at school can provide much more of an assurance than we have now.

Your “obvious” corollary also leads into a topic of discussion that has nothing to do with our debate. I never gave my opinion on the arming of schoolteachers. My problem is what you said here:

Quote from: Hadriel
You don't have to kill him.  If he's already shot someone, it's better to leave him alive; let him rot in jail because there's no hell to rot in.  That of course depends on your current economic situation.  If you can't afford to keep his sorry murdering ass alive, put a bullet in his head and drop him out back for all I care.  It's all that such people deserve.

I can see why you would want to distract us from such an indefensible statement. I can also see that you are intractable—that is, you’re not going to admit that you were wrong to say it.

So, I suppose that’s the end of the dialogue. Your fiery reply is understandable, because I intended it with my fiery reply—but you haven’t got much else to say besides the disgusting thing you said from the very beginning. I think your lack of a coherent defense of your position speaks for itself.

Let’s finish cleaning up the mess:


Do you know what would happen if some al-Qaeda bastard detonated a nuke inside American borders, by any chance?  I'm betting you do: the second someone found evidence pointing to it, the Middle East would be glassed, and there would be nationwide riots and mass killings of anyone of Arab descent.  Islam would be a dead religion over here in about two weeks.  Now, I'm not so much up on the rioting, because I have good friends that would be in danger of dying and clearly wouldn't have done anything to deserve it.  But with regards to the military response, once again, the cost-benefit model comes into action in the ensuing maximum force response.  You don't just want your enemy beaten, because then they might get up and try again.  You want them to be so completely destroyed that people for the next ten generations quake in their boots at the thought of facing you.  Maximum force has been repeatedly shown to be the most effective method of dealing with opponents of your chosen social order.  This applies for everyone from terrorists and rival nations all the way down to serial killers and school shooters; the cost to attack you won't be worth the benefits.

A rather ruthless worldview, Hadriel—especially because you apply it so often, in such overarching tones, and with so few (i.e., zero) explicit exceptions. But we’ll have to save that discussion for another time, because it has no relevance to the discussion here. (Are you getting as tired of hearing me say that as I am?)

But really, do you think I like the idea of slagging entire countries and killing civilians?  Hell no.  But the side that concerns itself with morality in a total war, the side that concerns itself with anything other than self-preservation, is the side that loses.

Ah! Now that is relevant. Okay, so, in The World According To Hadriel, the side that concerns itself with ethics is the side that loses. That’s a pretty bleak worldview, not to mention one that has been proven wrong countless times. I could make a list, you know. You’re sure as hell going to ask for one, because, aside from changing the subject and trying to pass nonsensical opinions as fact, it has been your only other technique thus far to accuse me of being the one who has not supported his argument.

(Never mind that I don’t even have an argument to support; my entire purpose here is to knock down yours; I haven’t proposed an alternative; I’ve just been showing that your solution is  bullshit.)

So, you want a list of decency conquering brutality…sure. In fact, I’ll do better. I will give you the best, most universally recognized example I can imagine:

Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement won increased rights and respect for an entire ethnic group of people in the United States. Even though there were violent factions to the movement, it wasn’t the violence that won. It was the decency. Here was a group of people who were still a stone’s throw from slavery, yet rose up and defeated the system that oppressed them—without destroying anything more than the institutionalized injustices themselves. They certainly did not sacrifice their own ethics; they immortalized those ethics as lessons on which people like me can draw on for centuries to come in discrediting warmongering cynics like yourself who would rather resort to killing and bloodshed than try to create better solutions.

You can’t argue with this accomplishment. Not even you, Hadriel. Sparing some of one’s resources on decency does not necessitate their defeat. What ridiculous logic!

Of course, a school shooting is different from a total war, in that saving the civilians is the entire objective.  But the same principles apply; if we don't ramp up our security to demonstrate that we have absolutely no tolerance for these kinds of fuckwads, they're going to attempt to act out their homicidal plans.

A zero-tolerance policy? That’s extravagant. I have a better solution: Foster a society where people refrain from making bad decisions not because they fear the costs, but because they recognize the benefits. Refraining from a mistake out of fear typically breeds discontent and bitterness. Refraining out of prudence does not cause this. Your solution lacks any component that would encourage people to do better. Instead, you would debase humanity and choke society. By trying to stifle bad behavior under threat of punishment, your answer would ultimately lead to more of it—not to mention we’d also have to become a fascist state where vengeful murder and preemptive murder are the soup and salad of the day, every day.

Mmm…murder salad. Tasty, Hadriel?

Further, it is not only acceptable, but necessary, to make examples of such individuals.  Morally, we get off easy because they've already committed one of the most heinous crimes possible, so to our baser natures, anything we do to them is in some measure justified.

This is a corruption of the concept of justice. What you are actually committing here is the “tu quoque” logical fallacy: They mess up, so we are “justified” in our retaliation. Unfortunately, there is no real consideration of actual justice here: What if our retaliation is also messed up?

Ah, but you were just talking about our “baser natures.” So, how about in our heads:

To our more contemplative natures, they are still murderers, and it's not like we're taking out innocent bystanders when we off them.  From a cost-benefit perspective, we've already lost in this case.  All that remains is to take everything we can from them in hopes of obtaining partial recompense.

Your use of unsubstantiated opinion under the guise of qualitative terminology is particularly galling to anybody who recognizes the importance of the tools of measurement. Your blunt language, dressed up with a few words like “cost-benefit,” belie your grasp of your own thesis. There is no calculus here other than the political calculus of your rhetorical posturing. When a crime is committed, it may be the case that something irretrievable is lost. But you cannot apply a simplistic economic premise to the fabric of society by saying that, because of this loss, we should inflict further loss, this time on the side of the offending party, in order to restore the balance. That’s just talking-head gibberish.

But if you think for one second that there aren't exceptions to human rights, you're not only kidding yourself, you're a liar and a hypocrite.

Human rights may be excepted from time to time. I think I even said in my last post that I do indeed support the death penalty. So, I guess you’re right: I am neither kidding myself, nor am I not a liar or a hypocrite. Thanks! Not that you meant to compliment me, but people who don’t know what they are talking about often unintentionally aid their opponents. =)

So, now that I'm done with that spiel, what examples do you have that support your model of human behavior?  In fact, what the hell is your model of human behavior?  I haven't seen one thing in any of your posts in this thread to indicate what you actually believe in.

Like I said before, I haven’t put one up. I’m just saying that yours is bullshit. Let’s review:

Quote from: Hadriel
You don't have to kill him.  If he's already shot someone, it's better to leave him alive; let him rot in jail because there's no hell to rot in.  That of course depends on your current economic situation.  If you can't afford to keep his sorry murdering ass alive, put a bullet in his head and drop him out back for all I care.  It's all that such people deserve.

Yep. If it looks like bullshit, sounds like bullshit, and stinks like bullshit, it’s probably Hadriel’s latest greatest political philosophy bullshit.

No—that’s not fair of me. In your defense, you aren’t aware of having done anything wrong. Your mistake isn’t intentional. You just need help to recognize what your worldview is leading you to believe these days.

Quote from: Lord J Esq
So, Mr. Wizard, show me the "physics" equation that says "we're never going to stop warring over resources."

Try Conservation of Mass/Energy.  You know, the fundamental principle of all of science? There's a set amount of stuff in the universe, and there's much, much less of it that we can actually use as resources.

Oh, jeez…

Just…jeez…

You need to shut off that damned Star Wars and open up a sixth-grade science book. Let’s go over this point by point:

First of all, the conservation of mass and energy is the principle which holds (rightly or wrongly) that matter and energy are neither destroyed or created, but only transformed. What you are actually talking about, however, is the entropy effect, the phenomenon which follows from the second law of thermodynamics, wherein energy becomes progressively less available to do work.

Second of all, there is no way in hell you can actually graft the second law of thermodynamics onto any aspect, orifice, or pore of your entire, bewildered argument. Show me a set of equations whereby entropy justifies a single one of your views. I’m an engineer by training, so you don’t need to worry about humbling me with the math. I’ll follow any logic you want to pursue symbolically. Not that I won’t need an aspirin after you throw together a heap of nonsense (see: TimeCube), but I’ll recognize any legitimate statement you want to write in that language.

Third of all, I could do more science with a pack of Mentos and a bottle of cola than you could do with an entire laboratory. You seem not to realize who you are dealing with. You cannot talk bullshit, slap a couple of scientific terms onto the top of it, and call it science! Not to me. That’s what the Christian fundamentalists do, and I don’t let them get away with it either. Do you really want to number in their ranks, where credibility is concerned?

None of this is about cost-benefit analyses, or the laws of thermodynamics. It’s about you trying to justify your worldview to yourself under scientific pretenses.

But there is neither science nor justice in what you have said in this topic. As far as I am concerned, the rest of your pseudoscience will be treated as superfluous exclamation marks, and ignored without further comment.

Quote from: Lord J Esq
And show me why it is "inevitable" that some people will inevitably shoot kids in schools because they were socially awkward.

Apparently actually seeing it happen, repeatedly, I might add, isn't good enough evidence for you, so I really don't know what to say here. The odds of a given, physically possible result turning up with an arbitrarily large time frame are 100% for every case in which said result has happened before.

You don’t know what to say, eh? That hasn’t stopped you yet. You could say why exactly you think it is inevitable that some people will shoot kids because they were socially awkward. To do that, you would first have to show that social awkwardness is the sole engine of these tragedies. (A fact I would certainly dispute; I don’t even think you could define “social awkwardness” without getting yourself in trouble.) Then you would have to demonstrate that social awkwardness will always result in school shootings, given, as you put it, “an arbitrarily large time frame.” In doing so, you would necessarily concern yourself with a rather involved discussion of the phenomenon of school shootings and their relationship to the societies in which they occur, with due consideration given to the psychological and sociological pressures that consistently underlie these incidents. That is beyond your means, clearly.

Your refusal to recognize this betrays either a gross lack of knowledge or willful ignorance of reality.

I see you recognize the power of my arguing techniques. But copycatting me isn’t going to give you the same persuasiveness—because the reason I win arguments has nothing to do with my techniques. I win on substance—and by wagering less at the beginning. The techniques just help more people to realize when I have scored a point. You, on the other hand, fight with uncorroborated opinions, pseudoscience, and wager a great deal at the beginning by committing to the defense of elaborate, specific concepts.

The difference between you and me is in the people we find unbearable to associate with.  And for me, that list mostly consists of people who make claims to knowledge but fail to demonstrate it when requested to do so.

Nope. I got our differences right the first time. You accept gross illogic in the reasoning process whereas I do not, and you have too many opinions with too few facts, whereas I find that sort of arrogance disgusting.

Quote from: Lord J Esq
You have shown no consideration of the greater context in which your judgment would be rendered, and if this were a logical reasoning class you'd get a D. Civics class and you'd get an F.

Does this vague "greater context" you speak of somehow alter the variables to where my prescribed form of dealing with murderers is no longer just?

The “greater context” of which I spoke refers to the consequences that would result from the implementation of your little ideological point here:

Quote from: Hadriel
You don't have to kill him.  If he's already shot someone, it's better to leave him alive; let him rot in jail because there's no hell to rot in.  That of course depends on your current economic situation.  If you can't afford to keep his sorry murdering ass alive, put a bullet in his head and drop him out back for all I care.  It's all that such people deserve.

That disgusts me so much that I cannot help but repost it whenever it comes up. And, since you continue to stick by this anvil, you will have to sink right along with it.

You see, to answer your question, we must remember that no part of society exists in vacuum. Very little about our culture makes much sense if you isolate a given piece of it from the rest and analyze it without regards to the social whole. Your premise of callously murdering people makes no consideration whatsoever of the effects that could result from such a policy.

Let me give you an analogy. In framing his so-called “War on Terror,” President Bush has said many times that “terrorists” want to attack us because they hate our freedom. That sort of talk is worse than useless. It actually hurts us, because it stifles our ability to consider the true motivations, various and sundry as they are, behind all of those people who might justifiably be classified as terrorists. In the long run, it makes for an ignorant culture with a prejudiced mindset, despised by its erstwhile allies, and dominated by an ideologically rigid government with no latitude to explore alternative solutions and a reduced military capacity to prosecute its own damn war. It weakens the United States for our president to get up there and tell us the lie that terrorists want to attack us because they hate our freedom.

Likewise, in a society where we deal with crime your way—ruthlessly, murderously, and callously—we make it harder for ourselves to understand why crime actually occurs, and who commits it. By dehumanizing criminals, we lose the means to relate to their motivations, and therefore we lose the means to understand crime, and criminals—which is a key prerequisite to building a society where that type of crime is less likely to occur.

We didn’t end labor abuses by shooting corporate executives. We reduced labor abuses by giving workers more rights under the law, and enforcing those laws.

And we’re not going to cut down on crime by shooting the offenders. Even though the death penalty may, on occasion, be a legitimate form of justice, for crimes sufficiently heinous, I think it is always a disservice to society whenever any of us conceives of criminals as inhuman monsters or freaks of nature, rather than as members of our own people—criminals are ourselves, our neighbors, and our friends and families.

Therefore, Hadriel, your policy of callous killing is not only disgusting in a personal sense, but also is likely to lead to a society where crime is even less understood, and therefore even more abundant. That is just the very beginnings of a due consideration of the “greater context” I described.

You have proposed this fancy idea, which happens to be horrible on the face, and didn’t give it a lick of thought—other than to regurgitate your own hardheaded view that humanity is at odds with the laws of thermodynamics, or whatever the hell it is you tried to say. That’s why you get the D in logic and the F in civics.

On another note, which Big Idea are you talking about?

Oh, I’m glad you asked. It’s been a few paragraphs. Here:

Quote from: Hadriel
You don't have to kill him.  If he's already shot someone, it's better to leave him alive; let him rot in jail because there's no hell to rot in.  That of course depends on your current economic situation.  If you can't afford to keep his sorry murdering ass alive, put a bullet in his head and drop him out back for all I care.  It's all that such people deserve.

And all that goes with it. Admit it, Hadriel: You just don’t care about people, about society, about the human species…or even about civilization itself. You have your hate-filled, cynical model of “humanity as the eternal war-violence factory,” and you either cannot or will not look beyond that. You have spoken up more angrily, and with greater prejudice, of late…and that is what led me to bash heads with you, when until your recent attack on fat people I had not given so much as a second thought to you. All I knew about you is that you’re the guy who likes Zelda. You and I should not be having this discussion right now—we should not be fighting at all; you’re a cool guy—but something snapped in your mind recently, or maybe a long time ago, and you only recently let it show. The result has been sorry and sad and ugly. In all honesty, I think there is something wrong with you…depression, pent-up rage, friend or family issues, substance abuse…I have no clue. But something ain’t right about you of late, and I trust my judgment that it has to do with your harsh view of the world right now.

I would, however, like you to demonstrate to me what's wrong with having more armed guards at schools.

I don’t have an opinion on that. I haven’t sat down to reason it out and look at the evidence.

You will either post proof that my model of human interaction is flawed, or you will retract your statements.

Ugh…that’s enough of this. I’m done. I think I’ve said everything I need to say, and then some. Hopefully the thread speaks for itself by this point. I cede the floor to you.

Hadriel

  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1044
    • View Profile
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #38 on: October 08, 2006, 11:38:19 pm »
Quote
This is a representation of a part of your worldview, and a pretty comprehensive job of it, considering that you tried to say so much in so little space.

I don’t see the world in the way you have just described, but my view isn’t different enough that we have any real problem so far. Thus, your lecture to this point is a welcome clarification of your motivation.

OK.  We can get somewhere, then.

Quote
At this point, you are talking about something which has nothing to do with our debate.

Perhaps.  It isn't important enough for me to flame about, at any rate, so I'll drop it.

I think at this point I'll skip ahead to the relevant parts, since you responded with something substantive this time.

Quote
My problem is what you said here:

Quote from: Hadriel
You don't have to kill him.  If he's already shot someone, it's better to leave him alive; let him rot in jail because there's no hell to rot in.  That of course depends on your current economic situation.  If you can't afford to keep his sorry murdering ass alive, put a bullet in his head and drop him out back for all I care.  It's all that such people deserve.

I can see why you would want to distract us from such an indefensible statement. I can also see that you are intractable—that is, you’re not going to admit that you were wrong to say it.

No, I'm not going to admit I was wrong to say it.  Why would I admit to the wrongness of something that I don't believe is wrong?

Quote
Ah! Now that is relevant. Okay, so, in The World According To Hadriel, the side that concerns itself with ethics is the side that loses. That’s a pretty bleak worldview, not to mention one that has been proven wrong countless times. I could make a list, you know. You’re sure as hell going to ask for one, because, aside from changing the subject and trying to pass nonsensical opinions as fact, it has been your only other technique thus far to accuse me of being the one who has not supported his argument.

I think you misunderstood what I've said.  I said that those conditions apply in a total war.  Nowhere else.

If you wish to prove it wrong within the context of a total war, you're welcome to it.

Quote
I haven’t proposed an alternative; I’ve just been showing that your solution is bullshit.

You haven't actually posted an argument against my solution, though.  So how have you shown that it's bullshit?

Quote
Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement won increased rights and respect for an entire ethnic group of people in the United States. Even though there were violent factions to the movement, it wasn’t the violence that won. It was the decency. Here was a group of people who were still a stone’s throw from slavery, yet rose up and defeated the system that oppressed them—without destroying anything more than the institutionalized injustices themselves. They certainly did not sacrifice their own ethics; they immortalized those ethics as lessons on which people like me can draw on for centuries to come in discrediting warmongering cynics like yourself who would rather resort to killing and bloodshed than try to create better solutions.

You can’t argue with this accomplishment. Not even you, Hadriel. Sparing some of one’s resources on decency does not necessitate their defeat. What ridiculous logic!

Why would I argue with that accomplishment?  Martin Luther King wasn't a criminal, morally or legally, and he certainly didn't kill anyone or have anyone killed.  Decency does great things, and it's the best way to conduct one's life.  The exception is when you're dealing with someone who has no qualms about taking the lives of innocent people.  I don't believe in war for resources, I believe in developing better technology to extend our supplies.  However, I believe strongly in war if someone else is a clear-cut aggressor.

Quote
A zero-tolerance policy? That’s extravagant. I have a better solution: Foster a society where people refrain from making bad decisions not because they fear the costs, but because they recognize the benefits.

And how do you propose to do this, exactly?  I hold that it can't be done.  You're welcome to prove me wrong on this one, though.  I'll be happy.

Quote
Refraining from a mistake out of fear typically breeds discontent and bitterness. Refraining out of prudence does not cause this. Your solution lacks any component that would encourage people to do better. Instead, you would debase humanity and choke society. By trying to stifle bad behavior under threat of punishment, your answer would ultimately lead to more of it—not to mention we’d also have to become a fascist state where vengeful murder and preemptive murder are the soup and salad of the day, every day.

Is it so hard to fund better counseling?  How about teaching parents to be better at recognizing their children's problems?  Anyone who hasn't done something irreparable should be treated as lovingly as possible, in my view.  It's only when you cross that line that the warmonger kicks in.

Quote
This is a corruption of the concept of justice. What you are actually committing here is the “tu quoque” logical fallacy: They mess up, so we are “justified” in our retaliation. Unfortunately, there is no real consideration of actual justice here: What if our retaliation is also messed up?

Then what do you believe that justice is, precisely?  I've already stated what I believe it to be, and under that definition, my approach works.

Quote
Your use of unsubstantiated opinion under the guise of qualitative terminology is particularly galling to anybody who recognizes the importance of the tools of measurement. Your blunt language, dressed up with a few words like “cost-benefit,” belie your grasp of your own thesis. There is no calculus here other than the political calculus of your rhetorical posturing. When a crime is committed, it may be the case that something irretrievable is lost. But you cannot apply a simplistic economic premise to the fabric of society by saying that, because of this loss, we should inflict further loss, this time on the side of the offending party, in order to restore the balance. That’s just talking-head gibberish.

Yes, I can.  Furthermore, society can, and it has.  Are we not taking something away from the offending party when we put them in prison?

Quote
Human rights may be excepted from time to time. I think I even said in my last post that I do indeed support the death penalty. So, I guess you’re right: I am neither kidding myself, nor am I not a liar or a hypocrite. Thanks! Not that you meant to compliment me, but people who don’t know what they are talking about often unintentionally aid their opponents. =)

Very well.  We agree on something.

Quote
First of all, the conservation of mass and energy is the principle which holds (rightly or wrongly) that matter and energy are neither destroyed or created, but only transformed. What you are actually talking about, however, is the entropy effect, the phenomenon which follows from the second law of thermodynamics, wherein energy becomes progressively less available to do work.

Oh, god fucking DAMN IT.  I can't believe I put COM/E instead of entropy.  Fucking son of a cuntslap, I knew that, I knew that, I knew that.  Though you can figure out the basic concept of entropy simply by taking the Second Law together with COM/E, I still shouldn't have said one thing when I was thinking something else.  If you'll excuse me for a minute, I'm going to physically injure myself somehow.  Though the point about limited resources still stands.

As for Star Wars, I've largely given up on it until they remember how to write, so you don't have to worry about that.

Incidentally, what would your response have been if I'd put down what I actually meant to put down?

Quote
You don’t know what to say, eh? That hasn’t stopped you yet. You could say why exactly you think it is inevitable that some people will shoot kids because they were socially awkward. To do that, you would first have to show that social awkwardness is the sole engine of these tragedies. (A fact I would certainly dispute; I don’t even think you could define “social awkwardness” without getting yourself in trouble.)

There are plenty of other engines.  Outrage, perhaps?  Anger at a specific person?

Whatever the reason, it's still wrong to murder someone.  Do differing reasons change what happens?

Quote
Then you would have to demonstrate that social awkwardness will always result in school shootings, given, as you put it, “an arbitrarily large time frame.” In doing so, you would necessarily concern yourself with a rather involved discussion of the phenomenon of school shootings and their relationship to the societies in which they occur, with due consideration given to the psychological and sociological pressures that consistently underlie these incidents. That is beyond your means, clearly.

I didn't say it would always result in shootings.  In fact, I explicitly stated that the number of people who would do such a thing is extremely low.

Quote
Let me give you an analogy. In framing his so-called “War on Terror,” President Bush has said many times that “terrorists” want to attack us because they hate our freedom. That sort of talk is worse than useless. It actually hurts us, because it stifles our ability to consider the true motivations, various and sundry as they are, behind all of those people who might justifiably be classified as terrorists. In the long run, it makes for an ignorant culture with a prejudiced mindset, despised by its erstwhile allies, and dominated by an ideologically rigid government with no latitude to explore alternative solutions and a reduced military capacity to prosecute its own damn war. It weakens the United States for our president to get up there and tell us the lie that terrorists want to attack us because they hate our freedom.

This is largely irrelevant, even though I agree that Bush is a capital-grade moron who's mismanaged virtually every aspect of the presidency.

Quote
Likewise, in a society where we deal with crime your way—ruthlessly, murderously, and callously—we make it harder for ourselves to understand why crime actually occurs, and who commits it. By dehumanizing criminals, we lose the means to relate to their motivations, and therefore we lose the means to understand crime, and criminals—which is a key prerequisite to building a society where that type of crime is less likely to occur.

I don't see how understanding their motivations makes them less guilty or alters the necessary punishment.  Further, I don't see how it follows that treating murderers ruthlessly prevents us from understanding what motivated them to do it.  I hardly support this type of treatment for all criminals.  Thieves can return what they stole.  Vandals can repair damage to property, or pay for repairs.  The idea is that they can theoretically give back what they took, or at least something of equivalent value.

Quote
We didn’t end labor abuses by shooting corporate executives. We reduced labor abuses by giving workers more rights under the law, and enforcing those laws.

Depending on how many deaths resulted from executive stifling, I might have been willing to bring some of them up on charges.

Quote
And we’re not going to cut down on crime by shooting the offenders. Even though the death penalty may, on occasion, be a legitimate form of justice, for crimes sufficiently heinous, I think it is always a disservice to society whenever any of us conceives of criminals as inhuman monsters or freaks of nature, rather than as members of our own people—criminals are ourselves, our neighbors, and our friends and families.

I'm not talking about all criminals.  I'm only talking about murderers, and perhaps rapists.  Pretty much everything else can be made up for in some way.

Quote
And all that goes with it. Admit it, Hadriel: You just don’t care about people, about society, about the human species…or even about civilization itself. You have your hate-filled, cynical model of “humanity as the eternal war-violence factory,” and you either cannot or will not look beyond that. You have spoken up more angrily, and with greater prejudice, of late…and that is what led me to bash heads with you, when until your recent attack on fat people I had not given so much as a second thought to you. All I knew about you is that you’re the guy who likes Zelda. You and I should not be having this discussion right now—we should not be fighting at all; you’re a cool guy—but something snapped in your mind recently, or maybe a long time ago, and you only recently let it show. The result has been sorry and sad and ugly. In all honesty, I think there is something wrong with you…depression, pent-up rage, friend or family issues, substance abuse…I have no clue. But something ain’t right about you of late, and I trust my judgment that it has to do with your harsh view of the world right now.

Well, if you want me to be perfectly honest, I did smoke pot yesterday.  It's not something I'd ever done before, nor is it something I intend to do again.  But I'm writing a short story about escapism from reality, using drugs as the vehicle for discussion.  I didn't want to do a literary disservice to the friends I have that do that sort of thing by portraying it erroneously.

And this is a bit of a touchy subject for me.  You have no idea how many times in my youth that I came immensely close to being one of these people that I'm vilifying with burning abandon.  I was one of these people, the socially awkward ones who end up hating the world, who end up killing someone.  But I knew what kind of a monster I'd be if I did.  That's what stopped me, every single time I thought about it.  It's because of my stubborn sense of what's right and wrong that at least one more person is alive right now.  So many times, I look at these news stories and think "What if that had been me?  What if I'd done that?"  And I can't stand the thought of it.  I can't stand it to the point that I'd have just about anything done to stop people from becoming that kind of damned soul, including turning our school system into an armed camp.

But what really gets me is how I could fail to say entropy when I mean it.  Christ, that's one of the first things I ever learned about physics, from reading Asimov when I was a kid.  Jesus fuckwagons, what the hell is wrong with me...

I can't debate like this.  I'm conceding this for now, until I can remember how to be remotely sane.

Edit: Edited for grammar and syntax, because that's about all I can manage.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2006, 11:45:07 pm by Hadriel »

Exodus

  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 506
  • How do we know we exist?
    • View Profile
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #39 on: October 09, 2006, 02:35:24 am »
You bastards.

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #40 on: October 09, 2006, 06:11:19 am »
Quote from: Lord J est Stupid (eh, it was funny at the time)
You need to shut off that damned Star Wars and open up a sixth-grade science book.

Josh, Josh, Josh. For all your anti-fat talk, you don't hold back on anti, well, anything else talk!



A thing about the whole death penalty thing, wasn't it instated not only as a deterrent to crime, but also as just a way of getting rid of criminals far beyond the reach of rehabilitation (one of the main uses of jail) and just too dangerous to let living, rather than as a punishment or justified retalliation?



Quote from: Lord J esq
Same ol' stuff, with the ususal random, usually irrelevant and not needed anti Christianity talk
Quote from: Hadriel
Angry stuff
You bastards.

Nicely said, the best way to end any argument.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2006, 06:18:59 am by Burning Zeppelin »

Magus22

  • Bounty Hunter
  • Dimension Crosser (+1000)
  • *
  • Posts: 1066
  • Jean-Luc Picard says "It's time for Chrono Break".
    • View Profile
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #41 on: October 09, 2006, 06:20:00 pm »
Today:

Some kid brought an AK-47 in school and pointed it at his principal and said "don't make me use this". He then shot at the ceiling and was somehow convinced to exit the building where police and SWAT teams pwned him. He wasn't shot or anything, he simply got owned.

Where did this kid get an AK-47???

Where do people get AK-47's???? Those things are 7.62mm and will rip you apart. They are more powerful than most of our assault rifles. ( not counting the SAW and M8 )

Romana

  • Springtime of Youth
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2749
  • Fight the Future
    • View Profile
    • Tumblr
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #42 on: October 09, 2006, 06:26:02 pm »
Wow, I think that's the first time I've ever seen you use 'pwned' or 'owned'. :lee:

Anyways, somehow a kid with an AK-47 doesn't surprise me... Kids end up with everything, from teddy-bears to knives.

Simply put, someone will slip up every now and then, and a kid will end up with something they shouldn't have.

Burning Zeppelin

  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
    • View Profile
    • Delicate Cutters
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #43 on: October 09, 2006, 07:57:45 pm »
Yeah, those bastard kids and their teddy bears.

Zaperking

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2210
    • View Profile
Re: What is up with all the school shootings...
« Reply #44 on: October 09, 2006, 09:09:54 pm »
Teddy bears with knives consealed in them :O