PDA

View Full Version : Liberals Explained



Odysseus
05-07-2010, 07:42 AM
This letter appeared in the online American Spectator. It is one of the best theories about the liberal mindset that I've ever read. Enjoy.


http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/07/suspecting-americans/print

BLINDED BY HATE
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.'s The Times Square Surprise:

Mr. Tyrrell wrote in conclusion today, "Returning to the Liberals' sympathetic treatment of fundamentalist Islam, let me proffer an explanation. Liberals are sympathetic to it because it is anti-American and anti-Western. In fact, that is the only explanation. Liberals such as Mayor Bloomberg are not very comfortable with their fellow Americans. That is one of history's surprises." Always the gentlemen, he. His explanation seemingly attributes liberals' antipathy to their countrymen as a reasoned, almost calculated, response along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Or at least another pseudo victim-mascot in whose name they can presume to denigrate their own civilization. But, shockingly, Mr. Tyrrell errs on two counts, for it should be of no surprise by now, least of all to Mr. Tyrrell, and it is not the only explanation.

My take is a little less forgiving and far more basic. I credit modern liberalism's 100 year running hatred of all things western to a good old fashioned, deeply rooted misanthropy under a veneer of sneering condescension. Liberals simply hate their fellow man and gussy it up with high-falutin' sounding "causes." Like energy itself, their hatred is indestructible and undiminishable but simply changes forms. Some of their pet peeves began as legitimate complaints or injustices such as civil rights while others, particularly in recent years, are fabricated from whole cloth, i.e., Global Warming. But whatever they're railing against this season all of their complaints eventually reveal two things in common. A license to hate others and a call to oppression, or servitude, depending on whether one stands with them or in their sights. And if you're a victim-mascot wondering where you fit in, those saddle sores are a good clue.

No matter what the "issue" their remedies are always the same at bottom -- anti-human, anti-individual and anti-life but only for others, never themselves. And though they appear cowardly in their hate given there never really was and is not now real danger to themselves in it, it's always easiest to hate those closest to you. Indeed, it's almost a prerequisite, for to hate truly and wholly requires familiarity. There can be no more satisfying hate than the hate of one's own because is not the hate of a kindred fellow's shortcomings itself not proof of one's own more finely tuned sensibilities and superiority? Hating murderous, seventh-century barbarian weird-beards for what they do is a no brainer for pikers but hating family, neighbors and countrymen for who they are requires an attuned, higher consciousness capable of making finer distinctions, no? Yea, such as these are the proper targets of an exquisite awareness traveling on a higher plane.

But what of right and wrong? If deploring the disparities between our ideals and acts over the obvious evil confronting us is proof of a greater sensitivity can that sensitivity not at least see that our overall good outweighs our transgressions? That before there can be a "transgression" there must first be a higher ideal to violate but at least we profess the ideal? And that our failings are held to be just that whereas the very ideals of our enemies are the embodiment of what we see as transgression? That what the adversary proclaims as his goal is the deadly antithesis of all those ideals our liberals claim to hold dear and for which they never tire of castigating their kin? Again, demanding such inquiry would presuppose reason and calculation in our liberals but in truth, they simply hate. Aren't they the ones forever lecturing that hatred blinds? Obviously, they know whereof they speak. And before they could descend to where they hate their own, for hate's sake, more than those who've declared all they hold dear must be overthrown they had to imbibe the oldest hate of all- to hate God. That is why for all of their blather they can no longer discern right from wrong, good from evil, truth from falsehood, beauty from ugliness, freedom from slavery or the imperfect individual next door from a writhing mass of human pathologies to be fixed somehow or eliminated. Even the barbarians know better than they and is why I always say to them, "they'll cut your throat first."
-- Mark Shepler
Jupiter, Florida

Sonnabend
05-07-2010, 07:45 AM
http://t4toby.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/liberal_brain.jpg

noonwitch
05-07-2010, 08:46 AM
That may be true of the extremists, but that is not true of most liberals. Blanket statements are usually unfair.


I don't hate muslims. I don't trust Islam and condemn the way women are treated in countries that are ruled by the laws of that religion, and recognize the connection between some branches of Islam and terrorism. I also live in a community that has a lot of people of middle eastern descent, who represent all three religions in that region. I daily see a community where muslims, christians and jews get along with each other, as neighbors and businesspeople- I love my neighbors the way I was taught to do.

As a liberal christian, I believe God loves all people and wants what is best for them. I think Jesus always had a special place in His heart for the Samaritans, who are kind of like the modern day Palestineans. I don't justify the terrorist acts committed by some in the name of all, but I also don't like seeing the innocent suffer because the Israelis use techniques to fight terrorism that don't always distinguish the guilty from the innnocent. I'm not condemning the Israelis, though, because their battle has been a long, tough one.


I think true liberals do have a tendency to try to see both sides of a situation, and that that is one of those things that gets us in trouble in situations where simple answers and solutions are being demanded. Conservatives tend to see issues as more black and white, and that makes for easier answers at times.

Sonnabend
05-07-2010, 10:35 AM
As a liberal christian, I believe God loves all people and wants what is best for them. I think Jesus always had a special place in His heart for the Samaritans, who are kind of like the modern day PalestineanExcuse me?

The Samaritans helped other people.That's why someone who comes to the aid of another is called a Good Samaritan. Kindness, not killing.

The displaced Arabs that no one wants are bent on killing any Jew they can find, are bent on the destruction of Israel , and will you PLEASE stop using that term?

There is no such place as Palestine, it is not on any map anywhere in the world, it is not a nation, it is not a country.


I don't justify the terrorist acts committed by some in the name of all, but I also don't like seeing the innocent suffer because the Israelis use techniques to fight terrorism that don't always distinguish the guilty from the innocent.All they have ever been asked to do from day one is this: acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, stop lobbing rockets into the cities and stop murdering Israeli citizens.

The day that they renounce violence, and start talking seriously about peace, is the day this will end.

By the way, where's Shalit? The Israeli soldier they kidnapped and promised to hand back years ago, and are still using as a human bargaining chip? The last prisoner exchange the Israelis made? Was live prisoners for two DEAD BODIES that the Arabs had lied about, telling the Israelis they were alive.

They haned back live prisoners and were THEN handed two corpses. MONTHS old.

Every time Israel has extended the hand of peace, all they got back was a bleeding stump.

That stated goal of HAMAS is the destruction of Israel. Arafat was offered a massive peace plan that would have resolved a hell of a lot of issues. What did he do? Start another intifada.


Gaza, a coastal enclave, has remained largely isolated since it came under the control of Hamas, which has refused to accept the conditions set by the so-called quartet of Middle East peacemakers — the United States, the European Union, the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and Russia. The conditions include renouncing violence, recognizing Israel’s right to exist and accepting previous signed agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/palestine_liberation_organization/index.html?inline=nyt-org). From an article dated March 10 this year


The Israeli military said the rocket that killed the foreign worker was the third to land in southern Israel in 24 hours, and the 30th to have landed since the beginning of the year. Yeah, they want peace. Suuure they do....


I also don't like seeing the innocent suffer because the Israelis use techniques to fight terrorism that don't always distinguish the guilty from the innnocent.

It's called self defence and self preservation. How many rockets are they suipposed to tolerate and shrug off before they take punitive action, noonwitch? How many have to die before Israel is "allowed" to defend itself? The man who was killed was Thai, and had no connection to any of this, yet he is dead because some slithering, snivelling cowardly MUSLIM wasnt interested in peace, just in killing whoever he could?

I stand with Israel.

noonwitch
05-07-2010, 10:46 AM
Excuse me?

The Samaritans helped other people.That's why someone who comes to the aid of another is called a Good Samaritan. Kindness, not killing.

The displaced Arabs that no one wants are bent on killing any Jew they can find, are bent on the destruction of Israel , and will you PLEASE stop using that term?

There is no such place as Palestine, it is not on any map anywhere in the world, it is not a nation, it is not a country.



All they have ever been asked to do from day one is this: acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, stop lobbing rockets into the cities and stop murdering Israeli citizens.

The day that they renounce violence, and start talking seriously about peace, is the day this will end.

By the way, where's Shalit? The Israeli soldier they kidnapped and promised to hand back years ago, and are still using as a human bargaining chip? The last prisoner exchange the Israelis made? Was live prisoners for two DEAD BODIES that the Arabs had lied about, telling the Israelis they were alive.

They haned back live prisoners and were THEN handed two corpses. MONTHS old.

Every time Israel has extended the hand of peace, all they got back was a bleeding stump.

That stated goal of HAMAS is the destruction of Israel. Arafat was offered a massive peace plan that would have resolved a hell of a lot of issues. What did he do? Start another intifada.



I am not anti-Israel. I just recognize that not all the palestineans are responsible for the acts of Hamas and other terrorists. I'm also not advocating for a separate state for the palestineans, as I think that would be a very bad move for both sides, in the long run.

I agree, the terrorists among the palestineans commit horrific acts of violence against the Israeli people. But not all the palestinean people are responsible for those acts-the innocent should not pay for the acts of the guilty. There a lots of them who are not even muslims, but are christians. The christian palestineans are still palestineans and considered potential terrorists under Israeli law and policies. They live on "that" side of the wall.

FlaGator
05-07-2010, 11:06 AM
That may be true of the extremists, but that is not true of most liberals. Blanket statements are usually unfair.


I don't hate muslims. I don't trust Islam and condemn the way women are treated in countries that are ruled by the laws of that religion, and recognize the connection between some branches of Islam and terrorism. I also live in a community that has a lot of people of middle eastern descent, who represent all three religions in that region. I daily see a community where muslims, christians and jews get along with each other, as neighbors and businesspeople- I love my neighbors the way I was taught to do.

As a liberal christian, I believe God loves all people and wants what is best for them. I think Jesus always had a special place in His heart for the Samaritans, who are kind of like the modern day Palestineans. I don't justify the terrorist acts committed by some in the name of all, but I also don't like seeing the innocent suffer because the Israelis use techniques to fight terrorism that don't always distinguish the guilty from the innnocent. I'm not condemning the Israelis, though, because their battle has been a long, tough one.


I think true liberals do have a tendency to try to see both sides of a situation, and that that is one of those things that gets us in trouble in situations where simple answers and solutions are being demanded. Conservatives tend to see issues as more black and white, and that makes for easier answers at times.

I do my best to judge people on their character and not on their race, ethnicity, political beliefs or religion. However, some of those things must be taken into account when making a spot judgment. I have read enough of the Islamic doctrine to know that, as you said, they can't be trusted to behave in what I consider a rational manner if you question their beliefs. There are stereotypes of people for a reason. People just don't make up a bunch of unusual behaviors and assign them a related group of people for no purpose. A stereotype, however, is pretty much worthless when dealing with individuals of any group.

FlaGator
05-07-2010, 11:13 AM
The Samaritans where actually shunned by the Jewish people. They were considered unclean and most 1st century Jews would have generally refused help from a Samaritan. The did not help people as a rule. Jesus used the story of the good Samaritan to answer a question asked about how to define one's neighbor. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Christ illustrates that neighbors aren't always of your own people if they won't render assistance when you need help. Neighbors are the ones who will go out of their way to help you if you are in trouble regardless of their ethnicity, race or beliefs.

NJCardFan
05-07-2010, 11:21 AM
That may be true of the extremists, but that is not true of most liberals. Blanket statements are usually unfair.
So, what you're saying is that the MSM is the extreme? :rolleyes: Did you hear or read the abject disappointment when it turned out that the Times Square bomber didn't turn out to be a Tea Partier? The article above hits the nail on the head about the vast, and I do mean vast majority of liberals.

noonwitch
05-07-2010, 01:29 PM
So, what you're saying is that the MSM is the extreme? :rolleyes: Did you hear or read the abject disappointment when it turned out that the Times Square bomber didn't turn out to be a Tea Partier? The article above hits the nail on the head about the vast, and I do mean vast majority of liberals.

Everybody is extreme.

I saw a really funny cartoon about that yesterday-it had a "Times Square Terrorist" horse racetrack betting office: one window labelled "Muslim Extremist", and had elephants lined up with tickets, and the other read "Tea party" and had donkeys lined up.


I made no judgments about who did it until they caught the guy who did it, other than to ask if the location in Times Square was near the Viacom building. When I learned it was, I at that point figured it was a muslim who tried to set off the car bomb.

wilbur
05-07-2010, 04:28 PM
Substitute the word "Liberal" for "Jew" in that OP article, and you'd make the late Adolf one happy corpse.

Wei Wu Wei
05-07-2010, 06:16 PM
By dividing the labor force against one another, the elites at the top of the social and economic hierarchy ensure that we never come together to do anything for the public good of working and middle class wage-laborers, because that would hurt their profits.

Sonnabend
05-07-2010, 06:51 PM
By dividing the labor force against one another, the elites at the top of the social and economic hierarchy ensure that we never come together to do anything for the public good of working and middle class wage-laborers, because that would hurt their profits.

http://livinginstereo.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/Karl%20Marx.jpg

Sod off, swampy.

Sonnabend
05-07-2010, 07:07 PM
The Samaritans where actually shunned by the Jewish people. They were considered unclean and most 1st century Jews would have generally refused help from a Samaritan. The did not help people as a rule.

Did they murder them en masse? No
Did they try to murder them en masse? No
Did they decree that all Samaritans must die? No


Jesus used the story of the good Samaritan to answer a question asked about how to define one's neighbor. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Christ illustrates that neighbors aren't always of your own people if they won't render assistance when you need help. Neighbors are the ones who will go out of their way to help you if you are in trouble regardless of their ethnicity, race or beliefs.

He described Israel, who as you may remember, hands millions of their own tax dollars to feed these troublemakers.

There is no such place as Palestine.

It did once exist, thousands of years ago. Mind ytou thousands of years ago we were saluting Caesar...don't see him anywhere around these days, wonder why... These Arabs are people no one wants, and quite frankly, I'd lose no sleep if the Israelis sent in armour and turned the place into a parking lot.

Egypt turned them back, so did Jordan. If the other Arab states are so torqued about this, let THEM give them a State. Israel is the size of New Jersey.

The definition of "Palestine" has been mutated to fit a political agenda. In fact, the term "Palestinian people" didn't even exist until the late 20th century. It was a creation of Yasir Arafat.

You also knew that in 1948, 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab lands? No?

"Palestine" does not exist. It, like AGW and a dozen other liberal lies, has no existence in reality.

JB
05-07-2010, 07:40 PM
By dividing the labor force against one another, the elites at the top of the social and economic hierarchy ensure that we never come together to do anything for the public good of working and middle class wage-laborers, because that would hurt their profits.Maybe you should try getting ahead on your own. Radical. I know.

Odysseus
05-08-2010, 12:10 AM
Substitute the word "Liberal" for "Jew" in that OP article, and you'd make the late Adolf one happy corpse.
What an inane and stupid comment. Even for you.

By dividing the labor force against one another, the elites at the top of the social and economic hierarchy ensure that we never come together to do anything for the public good of working and middle class wage-laborers, because that would hurt their profits.
The whole concept of a "public good" is absurd in a world of individuals with legitimately competing interests. Similarly, dividing people into classes might make sense if there were no mobility between the classes, as in Medieval Europe or some other feudal society, but American economic strata are fluid, with people improving their standing or falling back daily.

Everybody is extreme.

I saw a really funny cartoon about that yesterday-it had a "Times Square Terrorist" horse racetrack betting office: one window labelled "Muslim Extremist", and had elephants lined up with tickets, and the other read "Tea party" and had donkeys lined up.


I made no judgments about who did it until they caught the guy who did it, other than to ask if the location in Times Square was near the Viacom building. When I learned it was, I at that point figured it was a muslim who tried to set off the car bomb.

Jonah Goldberg had a great take on this here (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWM0MmU3NzliZWY0OTE2NjhhMWY3Yjg0YThlMWUzMTY=). His point was that people who were hoping that the terrorist was a tea partier are deliberating acting to undermine American democracy in a way that those who expected it to be a jihadi weren't:


This liberal tendency is not just offensive because it assumes that American citizens — including vets — are somehow an underappreciated terrorist threat, though that is plenty awful in and of itself.

It is also disgustingly undemocratic. Why? Because so many of these people, starting with Obama himself but including former presidents Clinton and Carter, the Democratic Party, the editorial pages of the New York Times, and much of the rest of the liberal-dominated media, use this talk about the “rhetorical climate” on the right as a means to bully it into silence. That’s what Obama did in his recent commencement address, and that’s what hundreds of commentators and bloggers have been doing in response to the tea parties.

They’re saying, “You people need to shut up because you’re aiding and abetting terrorists.” They’re also trying to say to independents, “If you think the right-wingers are persuasive, you need to think again. They’re all just mouthpieces and stalking horses for the homegrown terrorists and the mentally deranged.”

And, last, it’s also dangerous. Not because it will breed frustration and anger among Americans who feel unfairly demonized for simply voicing their objections (though if liberals really believe the nonsense they spew about conservatives, they might ponder that). No, it’s dangerous because it causes the country to look for terrorists where they aren’t while telling them not to look for them where they are.

OTOH, those whose first thought was jihad were acting on "some massive empirical justification: hundreds of terrorist attacks aimed at America and her allies all over the world by known terrorist organizations that loudly proclaim their views and intentions to wage jihad on America."

Finally, Mark Steyn nailed the loopiness of the assumption that this wasn't a jihadi (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzg3ODg1ZDg0MWU2ZTgzNzU4OTFjNTdkMTNmY2IxOTk=):


Crying Lone Wolf [Mark Steyn]
Whenever something goofy happens — bomb in Times Square, mass shootings at a US military base, etc. — there seem to be two kinds of reactions:


a) Some people go, "Hmm. I wonder if this involves some guy with a name like Mohammed who has e-mails from Yemen."

b) Other people go, "Don't worry, there's no connection to terrorism, and anyway, even if there is, it's all very amateurish, and besides he's most likely an isolated extremist or lone wolf."

Unfortunately, everyone in category (b) seems to work for the government.

To the traditional who-ya-gonna-believe-me-or-your-lyin'-eyes cliches, Mayor Bloomberg has now added the inspired line that the amateurish loner with no connection to terrorism "didn't like the health care bill". I do hope they ask Faisal Shahzad his views on the individual mandate.

Any moment now, Janet Napolitano will announce that effective immediately it will be illegal to remove your sweat shirt in a public place.

By the way, there are so many of these isolated extremists and lone wolves, they surely belong to the United Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves and Isolated Extremists. So their cadillac health care plan probably has an Obamacare opt-out anyway. Very odd.

Why do public officials so reflexively dissemble and misdirect every time? In the end, all they're doing is undermining confidence in the integrity of their own institutions. That doesn't seem a smart move.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-08-2010, 05:51 AM
These Arabs are people no one wants, and quite frankly, I'd lose no sleep if the Israelis sent in armour and turned the place into a parking lot.


Always nice to see someone who supports genocide.

FlaGator
05-08-2010, 07:31 AM
Did they murder them en masse? No
Did they try to murder them en masse? No
Did they decree that all Samaritans must die? No



He described Israel, who as you may remember, hands millions of their own tax dollars to feed these troublemakers.

There is no such place as Palestine.

It did once exist, thousands of years ago. Mind ytou thousands of years ago we were saluting Caesar...don't see him anywhere around these days, wonder why... These Arabs are people no one wants, and quite frankly, I'd lose no sleep if the Israelis sent in armour and turned the place into a parking lot.

Egypt turned them back, so did Jordan. If the other Arab states are so torqued about this, let THEM give them a State. Israel is the size of New Jersey.

The definition of "Palestine" has been mutated to fit a political agenda. In fact, the term "Palestinian people" didn't even exist until the late 20th century. It was a creation of Yasir Arafat.

You also knew that in 1948, 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab lands? No?

"Palestine" does not exist. It, like AGW and a dozen other liberal lies, has no existence in reality.

What are you talking about and what does that have to do with the parable of the Good Samaritan? And why are you talking about Palestine? Where in my post did I mention Palestine? Do you regularly reply to things that aren't asked?

Sonnabend
05-08-2010, 08:38 AM
Always nice to see someone who supports genocide.
gen·o·cide
   /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Show Spelled[jen-uh-sahyd] Show IPA
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.In reference to CITM's comment, see


im·be·cile (mb-sl, -sl)
n.
1. A stupid or silly person; a dolt.
2. A person whose mental acumen is well below par.
3. A person of moderate to severe mental retardation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision.My comments re in response to this


As a liberal christian, I believe God loves all people and wants what is best for them. I think Jesus always had a special place in His heart for the Samaritans, who are kind of like the modern day Palestineans. Did you write this? No. Was I talking to you? NO.


And why are you talking about Palestine? Where in my post did I mention Palestine? Do you regularly reply to things that aren't asked? See above. Try reading before you post in future, FlaGator, I know it's a long thread old chap, but please, do try and keep up with the rest of us? :rolleyes:

Constitutionally Speaking
05-08-2010, 08:58 AM
By dividing the labor force against one another, the elites at the top of the social and economic hierarchy ensure that we never come together to do anything for the public good of working and middle class wage-laborers, because that would hurt their profits.


Just WHO is dividing our country and pitting the labor force against each other????? I seem to remember some candidate who's whole message was "Two Americas". Although he did not win, ALL of the candidates in that party pretty much had that same theme. In fact, that has been damn near their ENTIRE pitch to the American people.

Oh, and it is NOT the conservatives, the Republicans or the Teaparty people.

fettpett
05-08-2010, 09:10 AM
Much of the local Arabic population of Shechem is believed to be descended from Samaritans who converted to Islam. According to the historian Fayyad Altif, large numbers of Samaritans converted due to persecution and because the monotheistic nature of Islam made it easy for them to accept it.[21] The Samaritans themselves describe the Ottoman period as the worst period in their modern history, as many Samaritan families changed their religion during that time.[22] Even today, certain Nabulsi family names including Muslimani, Yaish, and Shakshir among others, are associated with Samaritan ancestry.[21]

For the Samaritans in particular, the passing of the al-Hakem Edict by the Fatimids in 1021, under which all Jews and Christians in the Fatimid ruled southern Levant were ordered to either convert to Islam or leave, along with another notable forced conversion to Islam imposed at the hands of the rebel Ibn Firāsa,[5][6] would contribute to their rapid unprecedented decrease, and ultimately almost complete extinction as a separate religious community. As a result, they have decreased from more than a million in Roman times to just 712 people today.[1]

In 1940, the future Israeli president and historian Yitzhak Ben-Zvi wrote an article in which he stated that two thirds of the residents of Shechem and the surrounding neighboring villages are of Samaritan origin. He mentioned the name of several Palestinian Muslim families as having Samaritan origins, including the Buwarda and Kasem families who protected Samaritans from Muslim persecution in the 1850s. He further claimed that these families had written records testifying to their Samaritan ancestry, which were maintained by their priests and elders.[23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan

yes i know wiki isn't a great source, but it's early and i don't feel like digging.

but, yes the term "Palestinian" was coined by Arafat to give legit claim to the area but really, almost all of those people were unwanted by Jordan and other Muslim countries and put there to cause havoc with Israel's creation. they did a pretty good job.

Syria Palestine was a name given to the area by Hadrian due to all the uprisings and to try and disassociate the area with Judaism.

wilbur
05-08-2010, 09:14 AM
What an inane and stupid comment. Even for you.


Actually, though it seems silly, I think the "Jew test" can actually be a pretty good measure of the material you're listening or reading to.

Take any rant against any ideological, ethnic, or religious group - remove references to that group and replace them with the word "Jew". And afterwards, if it sounds like something Hitler would have said, you can pretty much be guaranteed that you should write it off, as propaganda of the worst kind. In other words, if its made of the same stuff that drives people to man gas chambers, for fucks sake, tune out.

Here, lets work through an example - just try imagining this paragraph from the article, but targeted at Jews:



No matter what the "issue" their remedies are always the same at bottom -- anti-human, anti-individual and anti-life but only for others, never themselves. And though they appear cowardly in their hate given there never really was and is not now real danger to themselves in it, it's always easiest to hate those closest to you. Indeed, it's almost a prerequisite, for to hate truly and wholly requires familiarity. There can be no more satisfying hate than the hate of one's own because is not the hate of a kindred fellow's shortcomings itself not proof of one's own more finely tuned sensibilities and superiority? Hating murderous, seventh-century barbarian weird-beards for what they do is a no brainer for pikers but hating family, neighbors and countrymen for who they are requires an attuned, higher consciousness capable of making finer distinctions, no? Yea, such as these are the proper targets of an exquisite awareness traveling on a higher plane.


But its all true when liberals are the subject, right? :rolleyes:

Homework for CU members: Try listening to Rush Limbaugh with "the Jew test" in mind - you'll swear Hitler has come back from the grave.

fettpett
05-08-2010, 09:25 AM
Homework for CU members: Try listening to Rush Limbaugh with "the Jew test" in mind - you'll swear Hitler has come back from the grave.

if you've ever Actually listened to Rush you would know that he uses a lot of satire to get his point across, and a large part of that is using LIBERALS words to make his point. You in NO WAY can compare the two.

Wei Wu Wei
05-08-2010, 09:52 AM
Actually, though it seems silly, I think the "Jew test" can actually be a pretty good measure of the material you're listening or reading to.

Take any rant against any ideological, ethnic, or religious group - remove references to that group and replace them with the word "Jew". And afterwards, if it sounds like something Hitler would have said, you can pretty much be guaranteed that you should write it off, as propaganda of the worst kind. In other words, if its made of the same stuff that drives people to man gas chambers, for fucks sake, tune out.

Here, lets work through an example - just try imagining this paragraph from the article, but targeted at Jews:

I gotta say this is an excellent test.

It's the exact same sort of propaganda and scapegoating, just inserting one group in place of another.




But its all true when liberals are the subject, right? :rolleyes:

Homework for CU members: Try listening to Rush Limbaugh with "the Jew test" in mind - you'll swear Hitler has come back from the grave.

Also examine Stalinist propaganda against anyone who did not support the Party.

Sonnabend
05-08-2010, 09:55 AM
Actually, though it seems silly,Not seems. Is.


Here, lets work through an example - just try imagining this paragraph from the article, but targeted at climate change deniersPot. Kettle. Over.


but, yes the term "Palestinian" was coined by Arafat to give legit claim to the area but really, almost all of those people were unwanted by Jordan and other Muslim countries and put there to cause havoc with Israel's creation. they did a pretty good job. Not almost all. ALL. They tried to go to Jordan, and Syria, and they were turned back at the border. The Saudi's dont want 'em either.

No one does.

Level the place, and enjoy the peace and quiet that ensues.


Also examine Stalinist propaganda against anyone who did not support the Party.I'd guess Stalin is one of your heroes...the fact that he murdered millions doesnt matter, of course :rolleyes:

FlaGator
05-08-2010, 09:56 AM
In reference to CITM's comment, see

My comments re in response to this

Did you write this? No. Was I talking to you? NO.

See above. Try reading before you post in future, FlaGator, I know it's a long thread old chap, but please, do try and keep up with the rest of us? :rolleyes:

So you make a connection between my post which had nothing to do with CITM's post and you say I'm not keeping up with things.:rolleyes: My post had nothing to do with CITM's post but every thing to do with your statement that "Samaritans helped people". All that my post addresses was your misunderstanding of the Good Samaritan parable and anything else was completely in your head.

Please try to read what a post says and not what you think it says by imagining associations that do not exist.

wilbur
05-08-2010, 09:56 AM
if you've ever Actually listened to Rush you would know that he uses a lot of satire to get his point across, and a large part of that is using LIBERALS words to make his point. You in NO WAY can compare the two.

Of course, its precisely because I do listen - I've been around around Rush since he's been on the air - that I know the ol' "If you actually listened..." meme, is marching order number one. He's cultivated that meme since the beginning, as a front line defence against any and all criticism. His loyal listeners are immune to any unkind words said of him, because obviously anyone who would have unkind words to say about him "just doesnt listen to the show".

Wei Wu Wei
05-08-2010, 09:56 AM
Just WHO is dividing our country and pitting the labor force against each other????? I seem to remember some candidate who's whole message was "Two Americas". Although he did not win, ALL of the candidates in that party pretty much had that same theme. In fact, that has been damn near their ENTIRE pitch to the American people.

Oh, and it is NOT the conservatives, the Republicans or the Teaparty people.

Orthodox Marixist theorists would simply write it off as the Capitalist class dividing the working class against each other, which even though I suggested earlier, is probably far to simplistic given the modern complexity of the economic structure.

While I do think this does happen in times of high economic anxiety, I think the theories based on the split-labor market (which have been used to explain racism and racist segegrationalist policies) are more applicable today.

A split labor market that is perceived to be divided along political party lines (poor people and welfare recipients are all Democrats, working middle class people are all Republicans) is the post-modern example of this.

Wei Wu Wei
05-08-2010, 09:59 AM
Just WHO is dividing our country and pitting the labor force against each other????? I seem to remember some candidate who's whole message was "Two Americas". Although he did not win, ALL of the candidates in that party pretty much had that same theme. In fact, that has been damn near their ENTIRE pitch to the American people.

Oh, and it is NOT the conservatives, the Republicans or the Teaparty people.

The "Two Americas" theme wasn't about dividing the labor force, it was about the entire labor force and the wealthy owners who purchase the labor. Working and middle class workers together contrasted with the wealthy elite.

By dividing the labor force I mean turning working class people against each other by drawing distinctions among them based on ethnic, religious, or political lines, so they blame each other for the problems they face,r ather than working together to negotiate for better nconditions against the owners of industry (who obviously want the cheapest labor possible, as these people compete against each other as well)

fettpett
05-08-2010, 10:03 AM
Of course, its precisely because I do listen - I've been around around Rush since he's been on the air - that I know the ol' "If you actually listened..." meme, is marching order number one. He's cultivated that meme since the beginning, as a front line defence against any and all criticism. His loyal listeners are immune to any unkind words said of him, because obviously anyone who would have unkind words to say about him "just doesnt listen to the show".

there have been a number of things that he's said I don't agree with. Doesn't mean that what you're saying is true. Of course you can take "anything" he says and change it around, but that doesn't mean it fits in with the Context of what is said or how it was said.

FlaGator
05-08-2010, 10:04 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan

yes i know wiki isn't a great source, but it's early and i don't feel like digging.

but, yes the term "Palestinian" was coined by Arafat to give legit claim to the area but really, almost all of those people were unwanted by Jordan and other Muslim countries and put there to cause havoc with Israel's creation. they did a pretty good job.

Syria Palestine was a name given to the area by Hadrian due to all the uprisings and to try and disassociate the area with Judaism.

Actually the term Palestine or the Latin equivalent has been used for that area of the world since the 2nd century AD. Right up through WWII it was called Palestine and the area is still referred to as Palestine by many in Great Britain, Europe and the Middle East. I may be wrong but I believe that the U.N. calls it Palestine and that Israel is just a country in the geographic area know as Palestine. Arafat called it Palestine because that was its name when he was growing up.

Sonnabend
05-08-2010, 10:12 AM
I may be wrong but I believe that the U.N. calls it Palestine and that Israel is just a country in the geographic area know as Palestine. Arafat called it Palestine because that was its name when he was growing up

Zahir Muhsein.

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.



"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
-- Golda Meir, statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.


There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it".

- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937 -

"There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not".

- Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian, 1946 -

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but Southern Syria".

- Representant of Saudi Arabia at the United Nations, 1956 -

fettpett
05-08-2010, 10:14 AM
Actually the term Palestine or the Latin equivalent has been used for that area of the world since the 2nd century AD. Right up through WWII it was called Palestine and the area is still referred to as Palestine by many in Great Britain, Europe and the Middle East. I may be wrong but I believe that the U.N. calls it Palestine and that Israel is just a country in the geographic area know as Palestine. Arafat called it Palestine because that was its name when he was growing up.

Thus the reason why I posted the bit about Hadrian changing the name from Judea to Syria Palestine

Sonnabend
05-08-2010, 10:19 AM
As far as liberals go, Ann Coulter has the last word. "Slander" nailed it.

Damn that lady can write :D

Wei Wu Wei
05-08-2010, 10:20 AM
As far as liberals go, Ann Coulter has the last word. "Slander" nailed it.

Damn that lady can write :D

I preferred "Godless". ;)

Sonnabend
05-08-2010, 10:23 AM
I preferred "Godless".

Both of them described you and wilbur perfectly.

Wei Wu Wei
05-08-2010, 10:28 AM
ahahahha

I'm sorry bro but both of these books were very entertaining and I applaud Coulter for her abliity to provoke and self-promote (she's like the Howard Stern of right-wing political commentary) if you actually believe it well...

hahaha i dont even know what to suggest lol

Wei Wu Wei
05-08-2010, 10:29 AM
Another great source of informed, insightful political commentary: Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld

FlaGator
05-08-2010, 10:31 AM
(http://www.cosmolearning.com/images/soviet-offensive-to-the-oder-12-january-30-march-861/)
http://www.cosmolearning.com/images_dir/education/photos/862-thumbnail-w700.jpg (http://www.cosmolearning.com/images_dir/education/photos/862.jpg)

Map source (http://www.cosmolearning.com/images/world-war-ii-battlefield-the-mediterranean-basin-862/) U.S. Military Academy

FlaGator
05-08-2010, 10:35 AM
Thus the reason why I posted the bit about Hadrian changing the name from Judea to Syria Palestine

I know. I posted that to reaffirm that historicity of the name Palestine. It may not name a country but it defines and area such as North America doesn't define a country called North America nor a people called North Americans but an area that includes the countries of the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Sonnabend
05-08-2010, 10:41 AM
http://www.cosmolearning.com/images/world-war-ii-battlefield-the-mediterranean-basin-862/

Did you even check the link source? That's from the 1940's. :rolleyes:

I can show you a map drawn in the time of Caesar that shows the city called Carthage. is it there now? No.

I posted this before so I'll say it again.

Show me a map dated this year that shows a nation or state or country called Palestine.

Good luck.

Wei Wu Wei
05-08-2010, 10:42 AM
New England doesn't exist because there is no such nation/state.

Sonnabend
05-08-2010, 10:46 AM
New England doesn't exist because there is no such nation/state.That's because it's a region. But it appears on maps dated this year. So does Israel, because it's a nation.

There is no state, nation, or country known as Palestine anywhere in the world. It appears on no maps, has no basis in reality, and is a fictional creation for the sole political purpose of the destruction of Israel.

Wei Wu Wei
05-08-2010, 10:52 AM
That's because it's a region. But it appears on maps dated this year. So does Israel, because it's a nation.

There is no state, nation, or country known as Palestine anywhere in the world. It appears on no maps, has no basis in reality, and is a fictional creation for the sole political purpose of the destruction of Israel.

No maps are in "reality", all maps, regions, and national boundaries are artificial, purely symbolic structures.

NJCardFan
05-08-2010, 10:54 AM
That's because it's a region. But it appears on maps dated this year. So does Israel, because it's a nation.

There is no state, nation, or country known as Palestine anywhere in the world. It appears on no maps, has no basis in reality, and is a fictional creation for the sole political purpose of the destruction of Israel.

Please stop arguing facts with wee wee. Arguing facts with wee wee would be like explaining the affects of gamma radiation on man in the moon marigolds to a wombat.

Wei Wu Wei
05-08-2010, 10:59 AM
Not quite "this" year but....

http://vocaleyes.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/israel-palestine_map.jpg

A map that is a map, rather than a map that is "no map"

FlaGator
05-08-2010, 11:08 AM
That's because it's a region. But it appears on maps dated this year. So does Israel, because it's a nation.

There is no state, nation, or country known as Palestine anywhere in the world. It appears on no maps, has no basis in reality, and is a fictional creation for the sole political purpose of the destruction of Israel.

How about a web page with lots of maps from the web site www.zionism-israel.com (http://www.zionism-israel.com/maps/Israel_Maps.htm)
The page is entitled
Map of Israel

Maps of Palestine- Ancient and Modern


Also there is this. If you go to this link www.mideasweb.org (http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm) you will find it to be an interactive map that is a wealth of information about the area.


http://www.mideastweb.org/israel.gif

Sonnabend
05-08-2010, 11:38 AM
Not quite "this" year but....

Yes, 2000 is ten years ago. And that's an edited map showing claimed territory. Not a real map. If you're going to show me maps from almost ninety years ago I can start posting maps of Carthage. It'll have the same credibility i.e none.

Got to get some sleep, but this has been an enlightening conversation....in more ways than one. I'll leave you to work out what I mean.

AmPat
05-08-2010, 11:52 AM
That may be true of the extremists, but that is not true of most liberals. Blanket statements are usually unfair.



I think true liberals do have a tendency to try to see both sides of a situation, and that that is one of those things that gets us in trouble in situations where simple answers and solutions are being demanded. Conservatives tend to see issues as more black and white, and that makes for easier answers at times.

I beleive that Conservatives see Black and White issues as Black and White. I believe liberals see Black and White issues as millions of shades of gray whenever the obvious answer is devastating to their liberal viewpoint.:cool:

Wei Wu Wei
05-08-2010, 11:53 AM
There are no unedited "natural" maps, or maps with anything other than claimed territory. An unedited natural map would be a satellite photograph and would show no borders, boundaries, nations, states, or regions.

Wei Wu Wei
05-08-2010, 11:54 AM
http://www.beachbrowser.com/Cool-Stuff/images/earth_map.jpg

AmPat
05-08-2010, 12:06 PM
Actually, though it seems silly, I think the "Jew test" can actually be a pretty good measure of the material you're listening or reading to.

Take any rant against any ideological, ethnic, or religious group - remove references to that group and replace them with the word "Jew". And afterwards, if it sounds like something Hitler would have said, you can pretty much be guaranteed that you should write it off, as propaganda of the worst kind. In other words, if its made of the same stuff that drives people to man gas chambers, for fucks sake, tune out.

Here, lets work through an example - just try imagining this paragraph from the article, but targeted at Jews:



But its all true when liberals are the subject, right? :rolleyes:

Homework for CU members: Try listening to Rush Limbaugh with "the Jew test" in mind - you'll swear Hitler has come back from the grave.

The substitution works well only if the verbiage is true once substituted. It is not a good defense if the argument is true and factual in the original, and mere hyperbole after the substitution.

AmPat
05-08-2010, 12:08 PM
http://www.beachbrowser.com/Cool-Stuff/images/earth_map.jpgAnd yet I can make out the boundaries of several countries and states from the satellite image.:rolleyes:

KhrushchevsShoe
05-08-2010, 12:41 PM
The substitution works well only if the verbiage is true once substituted. It is not a good defense if the argument is true and factual in the original, and mere hyperbole after the substitution.

Ive never seen somebody trick themselves into proving their opponents point like you just did. Its almost an accomplishment.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-08-2010, 01:10 PM
Did they murder them en masse? No
Did they try to murder them en masse? No
Did they decree that all Samaritans must die? No



He described Israel, who as you may remember, hands millions of their own tax dollars to feed these troublemakers.

There is no such place as Palestine.

It did once exist, thousands of years ago. Mind ytou thousands of years ago we were saluting Caesar...don't see him anywhere around these days, wonder why... These Arabs are people no one wants, and quite frankly, I'd lose no sleep if the Israelis sent in armour and turned the place into a parking lot.

Egypt turned them back, so did Jordan. If the other Arab states are so torqued about this, let THEM give them a State. Israel is the size of New Jersey.

The definition of "Palestine" has been mutated to fit a political agenda. In fact, the term "Palestinian people" didn't even exist until the late 20th century. It was a creation of Yasir Arafat.

You also knew that in 1948, 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab lands? No?

"Palestine" does not exist. It, like AGW and a dozen other liberal lies, has no existence in reality.


In reference to CITM's comment, see

My comments re in response to this

Did you write this? No. Was I talking to you? NO.

See above. Try reading before you post in future, FlaGator, I know it's a long thread old chap, but please, do try and keep up with the rest of us? :rolleyes:

Well, you said you wouldn't be sorry if Israel turned the area into a parking lot--Flattening the land and killing everything in it. So while you may not feel they are ''Palestinians'' and thus OK to murder, let's call them the ''Arabs no one wants'' as you put it. That's still a group.
I don't support killing a whole group of people even if no one wants them.

Sonnabend
05-08-2010, 08:21 PM
Well, you said you wouldn't be sorry if Israel turned the area into a parking lot--Flattening the land and killing everything in it.

No I did not say that, now you are lying, and adding words. My exact words were and I quote


I'd lose no sleep if the Israelis sent in armour and turned the place into a parking lot.

Where they go after that is their problem.


So while you may not feel they are ''Palestinians'' and thus OK to murder, let's call them the ''Arabs no one wants'' as you put it. That's still a group.

Let's call the HAMAStinians and terrorists. Let's call them Jew haters. Let's call them murderers.


I don't support killing a whole group of people even if no one wants them.

The point you seem to ignore is they want to wipe out "an entire group of people" in a place called Israel. The stated goal of HAMAS is the destruction of Israel.

Yes or no.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-08-2010, 09:40 PM
No I did not say that, now you are lying, and adding words. My exact words were and I quote



Where they go after that is their problem.



Let's call the HAMAStinians and terrorists. Let's call them Jew haters. Let's call them murderers.



The point you seem to ignore is they want to wipe out "an entire group of people" in a place called Israel. The stated goal of HAMAS is the destruction of Israel.

Yes or no.

Hamas doesn't make up the entire group of Palestinian people. So, therefore, I cannot and won't condone the killing of every man, woman and child there. Sorry Charlie.

Sonnabend
05-08-2010, 09:54 PM
Hamas doesn't make up the entire group of Palestinian people. So, therefore, I cannot and won't condone the killing of every man, woman and child there. Sorry Charlie.

Proof that you have no idea of what you are on about.

AGAIN.

Go away and study the subject.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-08-2010, 10:11 PM
No I did not say that, now you are lying, and adding words. My exact words were and I quote



Where they go after that is their problem.



Let's call the HAMAStinians and terrorists. Let's call them Jew haters. Let's call them murderers.



The point you seem to ignore is they want to wipe out "an entire group of people" in a place called Israel. The stated goal of HAMAS is the destruction of Israel.

Yes or no.


Proof that you have no idea of what you are on about.

AGAIN.

Go away and study the subject.

Like your response showed that every man, woman and child in the area regarded as the Palestinian area--we'll limit to the land that's been allotted to them--supports Hamas or is a terrorist.

AmPat
05-09-2010, 09:51 AM
Ive never seen somebody trick themselves into proving their opponents point like you just did. Its almost an accomplishment.

I see reading comprehension is as undeveloped as logic with you. What are you, 8th grade?:cool:

wilbur
05-09-2010, 02:41 PM
The substitution works well only if the verbiage is true once substituted.

Of course, if one is heavily citing specifics current events in their rants, it doesn't map perfectly, but it doesn't have too, nor would one ever really expect it too. The OP article vaguely mentioned some current issues like global warming, and maybe one or two others - but the meat of the whole content was simply a seething rant about how "Liberals are anti-human, they hate you, they hate America", etc, etc. So the test works quite well here.



It is not a good defense if the argument is true and factual in the original, and mere hyperbole after the substitution.

The point of the exercise is to identify irrational hyperbole, and demonization when you might otherwise be taken in by it (you know.. like the Germans). In other words, if it sounds like demonization, hyperbole after the substitution, it should be a clue that perhaps that's exactly what it was before the substitution.

And its easy to let yourself be taken in by that sort of stuff. We're all predisposed to think the worst of our opponents, and it feels good and validating, and rather uncomplicated when we're given permission to view them all as these cartoon villains.

AmPat
05-09-2010, 02:55 PM
The point of the exercise is to identify irrational hyperbole, and demonization when you might otherwise be taken in by it (you know.. like the Germans). In other words, if it sounds like demonization, hyperbole after the substitution, it should be a clue that perhaps that's exactly what it was before the substitution..

I disagree. It may be worth investigation or research to attempt to disprove, but if the statements, however outrageous on the surface prove to be true, it is no longer hyperbole.

wilbur
05-09-2010, 03:06 PM
I disagree. It may be worth investigation or research to attempt to disprove, but if the statements, however outrageous on the surface prove to be true, it is no longer hyperbole.

Just what about the following do you hope to "prove true"?

Liberals simply hate their fellow man and gussy it up with high-falutin' sounding "causes." Like energy itself, their hatred is indestructible and undiminishable but simply changes forms


So apparently, what we're supposed to believe is that liberals have some deep seated hatred of the human race... which is "indestructible and un-diminishable", no less... so they're pretty much like Satan, or a Sith Lord, am I right?

And I guess its this hatred that drives them to dream up social programs (which they generally argue will *help* people), and advocate for things like the environment? Ok....

But wait, what happens, when we adjust it to talk about Jews:

Jews simply hate their fellow man and gussy it up with high-falutin' sounding "causes." Like energy itself, their hatred is indestructible and undiminishable but simply changes forms


Hmm... well... Thats certainly the kind of stuff Hitler said to motivate the people against the Jews, but none of it was true - perhaps thats the case here? Could be? Of course it is.

It doesnt get more absurd and hateful than the OP - which is ironic, because that's exactly how he was trying to cast liberals.

AmPat
05-09-2010, 03:15 PM
Just what about the following do you hope to "prove true"?

Liberals simply hate their fellow man and gussy it up with high-falutin' sounding "causes." Like energy itself, their hatred is indestructible and undiminishable but simply changes forms


So apparently, what we're supposed to believe is that liberals have some deep seated hatred of the human race... which is "indestructible and un-diminishable", no less... so they're pretty much like Satan, or a Sith Lord, am I right?

And I guess its this hatred that drives them to dream up social programs (which they generally argue will *help* people), and advocate for things like the environment? Ok....

But wait, what happens, when we adjust it to talk about Jews:

Jews simply hate their fellow man and gussy it up with high-falutin' sounding "causes." Like energy itself, their hatred is indestructible and undiminishable but simply changes forms


Hmm... well... Thats certainly the kind of stuff Hitler said to motivate the people against the Jews, but none of it was true - perhaps thats the case here? Could be? Of course it is.

It doesnt get more absurd and hateful than the OP - which is ironic, because that's exactly how he was trying to cast liberals.
I see you can't keep up either. Don't you remember this little post?


Take any rant against any ideological, ethnic, or religious group - remove references to that group and replace them with the word "Jew". And afterwards, if it sounds like something Hitler would have said, you can pretty much be guaranteed that you should write it off, as propaganda of the worst kind. In other words, if its made of the same stuff that drives people to man gas chambers, for fucks sake, tune out.
:
I responded to your example which was NOT specific and you attempt to pin me down on specifics. Do try to keep up.:rolleyes:

Average Voter
05-09-2010, 05:59 PM
are the following books:

The Quest for Cosmic Justice by Thomas Sowell
The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell

patriot45
05-09-2010, 07:05 PM
Liberalism is a disease and a mental disorder, lo and behold... medical proof!


Doctors
working at the Univ. of TX., in Austin have petitioned the American Medical Association to define and treat Liberalism as a disease, not unlike Alcoholism. After evaluating the study the AMA has agreed. Liberal behavior, they define as mixture of dependence or codependence coupled with selfishness. They went on to subdivide Liberalism into two categories, Primary and Secondary Liberalism. Research has shown that Liberalism is a heinous and unfortunately common psychological disorder.

Patients suffering from Primary Liberalism have a deep unhealthy low self esteem. They go through life feeling unable to make it on their own. They seek out people, institutions, organizations, and anything that will satisfy their insecurity. They want, need, and desire to be taken care of by somebody or anything. This leads to submissive and clinging behaviors on their part. As you might expect these patients end up screwing up their lives and the lives of the others they touch. They are willing to give up their money, liberties and time just to satisfy their unhappy lives. They exist like a wounded mouse quivering in the corner thinking the world is a room full of cats ready to devour them at any time. Liberals become fixated in the emotional part of their brain where they are unable to see opportunity, take risk, or achieve any degree of happiness unless they know they have someone there to catch them if they fall; they are paranoid they will fall.

Read the rest of this fascinating true medical find here! (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=9&ved=0CDkQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thespoof.com%2Fnews%2Fspoof.c fm%3Fheadline%3Ds5i61864&rct=j&q=liberalism+is+a+disease&ei=LD7nS_nzN4aBlAeEm-GqAw&usg=AFQjCNG-RrmEGRWXjYlx3BOw3QePYxaT-A)

NJCardFan
05-09-2010, 08:34 PM
are the following books:

The Quest for Cosmic Justice by Thomas Sowell
The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell

The Terrible Truth about Liberals by Neal Boortz is a good one too.

Sonnabend
05-10-2010, 04:23 AM
Like your response showed that every man, woman and child in the area regarded as the Palestinian area--we'll limit to the land that's been allotted to them--supports Hamas or is a terrorist.

Yes. They do, seeing as HAMAS was "elected" and is the supposed leader of the displaced Arabs in that region. That land is not "allotted to them" it is where they live, seeing as no one else wants to have anything to do with them.

None of the other Arab states will take them...why do you think that is?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
05-10-2010, 06:24 AM
Yes. They do, seeing as HAMAS was "elected" and is the supposed leader of the displaced Arabs in that region. That land is not "allotted to them" it is where they live, seeing as no one else wants to have anything to do with them.

None of the other Arab states will take them...why do you think that is?

I don't know, you tell me. Are they, to borrow a word from the Germans, Der Untermensch?

Sonnabend
05-10-2010, 06:42 AM
I don't know, you tell me. Are they, to borrow a word from the Germans, Der Untermensch?

Will you, for the love of God, for once shut that pie hole of your and listen?

IF they renounced terrorism, IF they stopped attacking Israel, IF they took action to actually and GENUINELY talk peace with Israel, IF they did more to better their position and did in fact adhere to the many agreements and accords they have wiped their asses with, IF they came to the table with a real intent to actually do something about the peace process and get along with their neighbours, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

IF you knew anything about the history of that region, if you had the smallest understanding of the blood they have spilt, the children they have wantonly murdered...IF you knew their past and the massacres they have undertaken, you wouldn't be uttering this utterly contemptible question.

Fact: In 1972 the PLO carried out a terror attack in Munich and murdered athletes

Fact: The so-called "Palestinians" embarked upon a career of bloodshed and terrorism in the form of dozens of skyjackings

Fact: In 1976 the PFLP sezed and took to Uganda an Air France plane, separating out the Jews and letting everyone else go. These hostages would also have died, if not for the Israelis who carried out Operation Thunderbolt...but not in time to save an elderly woman named Dora Bloch, murdered AFTER the others were freed, in a revenge killing.

Guess how I know about Thunderbolt? I was fourteen years old and it was headline news. People were laughing at the massive black eye Arafat had been given.

Fact: the charter and the stated goal of HAMAS is the destruction of Israel and a second Holocaust.

Here are some incidents of the "peace loving Palestinians" you so glibly talk about. I know about them, because I watched it happen, day by day, week by week, year by blood drenched year.


February 23, 1970, Halhoul, West Bank. Palestinian Liberation Organization terrorists open fire on a busload of pilgrims killing Barbara Ertle of Michigan and wounding two other Americans.

March 28-29, 1970, Beirut, Lebanon. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) fired seven rockets at the U.S. Embassy, the American Insurance Company, Bank of America and the John F. Kennedy library.

September 14, 1970, En route to Amman, Jordan. The PFLP hijacked a TWA flight from Zurich, Switzerland and forced it to land in Amman. Four American citizens were injured.

May 30, 1972, Ben Gurion Airport, Israel. Three members of the Japanese Red Army, acting on the PFLP's bbehalf, carried out a machine-gun and grenade attack at Israel's main airport, killing 26 and wounding 78 people. Many of the casualties were American citizens, mostly from Puerto Rico.

September 5, 1972, Munich, Germany. During the Olympic Games in Munich, Black September, a front for Fatah, took hostage 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. Nine athletes were killed including weightlifter David Berger, an American-Israeli from Cleveland, Ohio.

March 2, 1973, Khartoum, Sudan. Cleo A. Noel, Jr., U.S. ambassador to Sudan, and George C. Moore, also a U.S. diplomat, were held hostage and then killed by terrorists at the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum. It seems likely that Fatah was responsible for the attack.

September 8, 1974, Athens, Greece. TWA Flight 841, flying from Tel Aviv to New York, made a scheduled stop in Athens. Shortly after takeoff, it crashed into the Ionian Sea and all 88 passengers were killed, including 32-year-old Steven R. Lowe, husband Jeremiah Michel and wife, Kathrine Hadley Michel of Poughkeepsie, NY, Frederick and Margaret Hare of Bernardsville, NJ, Ralph H. Bosh of Madison, CT, Seldon and Etan Bard of Tuckahoe, NY, Dr. and Mrs. Frederick Stohlman of Newton, MA, Don H. Holiday of Mahwah, NJ, and Jon L. Chesire of Old Lyme, Ct; all of which were Almerican citizens. An investigation of the crash conclusively established that it was caused by explosives set in the rear cargo department of the plane.

June 29, 1975, Beirut, Lebanon. The PFLP kidnapped the U.S. military attaché to Lebanon, Ernest Morgan, and demanded food, clothing and building materials for indigent residents living near Beirut harbor. The American diplomat was released after an anonymous benefactor provided food to the neighborhood.

November 14, 1975, Jerusalem, Israel. Lola Nunberg, 53, of New York, was injured during a bombing attack in downtown Jerusalem. Fatah claimed responsibility for the bombing, which killed six people and wounded 38.

November 21, 1975, Ramat Hamagshimim, Israel. Michael Nadler, an American-Israeli from Miami Beach, Florida, was killed when axe-wielding terrorists from the Democrat Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a PLO faction, attacked students in the Golan Heights.

August 11, 1976, Istanbul, Turkey. The PFLP launched an attack on the terminal of Israel's major airline, El Al, at the Istanbul airport. Four civilians, including Harold Rosenthal of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were killed and 20 injured.

January 1, 1977, Beirut, Lebanon. Frances E. Meloy, U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, and Robert O.Waring, the U.S. economic counselor, were kidnapped by PFLP members as they crossed a militia checkpoint separating the Christian from the Muslim parts of Beirut. They were later shot to death.

March 11, 1978, Tel Aviv, Israel. Gail Rubin, niece of U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, was among 38 people shot to death by PLO terrorists on an Israeli beach.

June 2, 1978, Jerusalem, Israel. Richard Fishman, a medical student from Maryland, was among six killed in a PLO bus bombing in Jerusalem. Chava Sprecher, another American citizen from Seattle, Washington, was injured.

May 4, 1979, Tiberias, Israel. Haim Mark and his wife, Haya, of New Haven, Connecticut were injured in a PLO bombing attack in northern Israel.

November 4, 1979, Teheran, Iran. After President Carter agreed to admit the Shah of Iran into the U.S., Iranian radicals seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon freed, but the remaining 53 were held until their release on January 20, 1981.

May 2, 1980, Hebron, West Bank. Eli Haze'ev, an American-Israeli from Alexandria, Virginia, was killed in a PLO attack on Jewish worshippers walking home from a synagogue in Hebron.

July 19, 1982, Beirut, Lebanon. Hizballah members kidnapped David Dodge, acting president of the American University in Beirut. After a year in captivity, Dodge was released. Rifat Assad, head of Syrian Intelligence, helped in the negotiation with the terrorists.

August 19, 1982, Paris, France. Two American citizens, Anne Van Zanten and Grace Cutler, were killed when the PLO bombed a Jewish restaurant in Paris.

March 16, 1983, Beirut, Lebanon. Five American Marines were wounded in a hand grenade attack while on patrol north of Beirut International Airport. The Islamic Jihad and Al-Amal, a Shi'ite militia, claimed responsibility for the attack.

April 18, 1983, Beirut, Lebanon. A truck-bomb detonated by a remote control exploded in front of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 employees, including the CIA's Middle East director, and wounding 120. Hizballah, with financial backing from Iran, was responsible for the attack.

Want more? Or is this enough to sink through that thick skull of yours?

Sonnabend
05-10-2010, 06:53 AM
By the way, CITM, if the "Palestinians" had had any brains, they would not have allowed one of their own to shoot a certain Israeli officer in the back during Thunderbolt.

Why?

Because his name was Yehonatan Netanyahu.

Guess who his brother was?

Prime Minister of Israel: Benjamin Netanyahu.

And they expected him to sit down and talk peace with these people? Extend the hand of friendship to people who murdered his brother in cold blood whilst he was busy rescuing hostages taken by these same terrorists?

I knew it the same day it happened, because THAT was headline news as well.

Yehonatan's name and face were plastered all over the papers.

"Death of a hero at the hands of cowards" read one headline

The day Benjamin was sworn into office I knew what was coming. And why.

*sigh*

CITM, you really need to go study, and learn about what you are discussing instead of parroting these foolish memes. I am no expert on history, I do not claim to be.

But you are woefully ill informed.

noonwitch
05-10-2010, 09:09 AM
Will you, for the love of God, for once shut that pie hole of your and listen?

IF they renounced terrorism, IF they stopped attacking Israel, IF they took action to actually and GENUINELY talk peace with Israel, IF they did more to better their position and did in fact adhere to the many agreements and accords they have wiped their asses with, IF they came to the table with a real intent to actually do something about the peace process and get along with their neighbours, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

IF you knew anything about the history of that region, if you had the smallest understanding of the blood they have spilt, the children they have wantonly murdered...IF you knew their past and the massacres they have undertaken, you wouldn't be uttering this utterly contemptible question.

Fact: In 1972 the PLO carried out a terror attack in Munich and murdered athletes

Fact: The so-called "Palestinians" embarked upon a career of bloodshed and terrorism in the form of dozens of skyjackings

Fact: In 1976 the PFLP sezed and took to Uganda an Air France plane, separating out the Jews and letting everyone else go. These hostages would also have died, if not for the Israelis who carried out Operation Thunderbolt...but not in time to save an elderly woman named Dora Bloch, murdered AFTER the others were freed, in a revenge killing.

Guess how I know about Thunderbolt? I was fourteen years old and it was headline news. People were laughing at the massive black eye Arafat had been given.

Fact: the charter and the stated goal of HAMAS is the destruction of Israel and a second Holocaust.

Here are some incidents of the "peace loving Palestinians" you so glibly talk about. I know about them, because I watched it happen, day by day, week by week, year by blood drenched year.


Want more? Or is this enough to sink through that thick skull of yours?



I remember the Thunderbolt operation from the news, too. I remember the Munich Olympics, I'm only a couple of years younger than you.


I'm not Wei or Wilbur. I don't refer to all Palestineans as "peace loving", I prefer to focus statements about Palestinean violence on the faction among the Palestineans that is supporting Hamas and other terrorist groups. I won't defend Arafat. I like Bibi, I think he's a smart leader for Israel. I understand Israel's need for security.


But this is a bloody, endless mess, and it has been generations in the making to reach the point that it is now. Israel fought wars to establish itself as a nation. They continue to have to fight those who oppose the development of their nation. The terrorist Palestinean groups commit acts of extreme violence toward innocent Israeli citizens and don't even care how many of their own they take out with them. In their minds, though, they are still fighting their war by fighting Israel. I'm not justifying any of this, I'm just saying what is.


Israel will have no long-term success or peace as a nation unless there is a way to isolate the extremist and violent terrorists from the rest of the palestinean people. Putting aside the whole concept of the second coming and end times prophecies, what is the point of establishing a nation of Israel if there is never any kind of effort to end the fighting? I don't think having separate states for the Israelis and the Palestineans would ever work. But a cooperative effort in which both sides see common cause and equal opportunity could work, if the terrorist element was removed, isolated or otherwise made obsolete. It's the only thing that I can see working, short of divine intervention. Anything else, however necessary it may seem to either side, is only going to continue the cycle of violence and retribution, until one side totally destroys the other.

Sonnabend
05-10-2010, 09:30 AM
. It's the only thing that I can see working, short of divine intervention. Anything else, however necessary it may seem to either side, is only going to continue the cycle of violence and retribution, until one side totally destroys the other.

Which is HAMAS's wet dream. Israel has done all it can to try and create a peace, every time they extend a hand, they get back a bleeding stump, turned the other cheek so often it is bleeding.

The only things these creeps understand is force. Maybe it's about bloody time to take the damned gloves off and wipe them out...or hit them so hard that they'll beg for peace.

You do not argue with a rabid dog,

You do not reason with it.

You take a fully loaded .45 cal with AP ammo and blow its head off.

noonwitch
05-10-2010, 10:06 AM
Which is HAMAS's wet dream. Israel has done all it can to try and create a peace, every time they extend a hand, they get back a bleeding stump, turned the other cheek so often it is bleeding.

The only things these creeps understand is force. Maybe it's about bloody time to take the damned gloves off and wipe them out...or hit them so hard that they'll beg for peace.

You do not argue with a rabid dog,

You do not reason with it.

You take a fully loaded .45 cal with AP ammo and blow its head off.



The problem with that theory is that to get the rabid dog, the Israelis have to go through a lot of innocent civilians. I'm not comfortable with a lot of dead Palestinean children/families as a result, no matter how much I support Israel's right to exist. I understand that Hamas and their types play those civilian deaths in the court of world opinion, and get a lot of support from people blinded by hatred toward Israel. There has to be a better way of getting to the "rabid dogs", one that values the lives of the innocent among them.

FlaGator
05-10-2010, 11:30 AM
I remember the Thunderbolt operation from the news, too. I remember the Munich Olympics, I'm only a couple of years younger than you.


I'm not Wei or Wilbur. I don't refer to all Palestineans as "peace loving", I prefer to focus statements about Palestinean violence on the faction among the Palestineans that is supporting Hamas and other terrorist groups. I won't defend Arafat. I like Bibi, I think he's a smart leader for Israel. I understand Israel's need for security.


But this is a bloody, endless mess, and it has been generations in the making to reach the point that it is now. Israel fought wars to establish itself as a nation. They continue to have to fight those who oppose the development of their nation. The terrorist Palestinean groups commit acts of extreme violence toward innocent Israeli citizens and don't even care how many of their own they take out with them. In their minds, though, they are still fighting their war by fighting Israel. I'm not justifying any of this, I'm just saying what is.


Israel will have no long-term success or peace as a nation unless there is a way to isolate the extremist and violent terrorists from the rest of the palestinean people. Putting aside the whole concept of the second coming and end times prophecies, what is the point of establishing a nation of Israel if there is never any kind of effort to end the fighting? I don't think having separate states for the Israelis and the Palestineans would ever work. But a cooperative effort in which both sides see common cause and equal opportunity could work, if the terrorist element was removed, isolated or otherwise made obsolete. It's the only thing that I can see working, short of divine intervention. Anything else, however necessary it may seem to either side, is only going to continue the cycle of violence and retribution, until one side totally destroys the other.

The horror of the holocaust was the trigger that set in motion the establishment of Israel. That Israel now has to fight for it's very existence was not an unforeseen consequence. That sometimes they now have to take what seems from our nice safe perspective as drastic measures are necessary actions to secure some level of safety for Israelis. The Palestinian people may wish for peace and some type of homeland but their leaders, prodded on by the other Arab nations, will have none of it. Israel is not dealing with a enemy who wishes to negotiate. Israel is dealing with an enemy who only wants to see the destruction of the Jewish state and the death or poverty of the Jewish people for the sake of the destruction of the Jewish people. I believe it was Golda Meir who said "We will have peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." Truer words have never been spoken about the relationship of the Jews with their Arab neighbors.

noonwitch
05-10-2010, 12:51 PM
The horror of the holocaust was the trigger that set in motion the establishment of Israel. That Israel now has to fight for it's very existence was not an unforeseen consequence. That sometimes they now have to take what seems from our nice safe perspective as drastic measures are necessary actions to secure some level of safety for Israelis. The Palestinian people may wish for peace and some type of homeland but their leaders, prodded on by the other Arab nations, will have none of it. Israel is not dealing with a enemy who wishes to negotiate. Israel is dealing with an enemy who only wants to see the destruction of the Jewish state and the death or poverty of the Jewish people for the sake of the destruction of the Jewish people. I believe it was Golda Meir who said "We will have peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." Truer words have never been spoken about the relationship of the Jews with their Arab neighbors.


I really do get that. I probably have distant maternal relatives who found their way to Israel after the holocaust, if they didn't find themselves on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain. Or, if they didn't make it there, I wish they had, but this is the great-grandmother who hid her jewish upbringing from her children and we have no idea how to track the jewish people in her family.


I am just not going to support any solution that results in the dehumanization of the Palestineans at large, because that too feeds into the methods of the terrorists. My SIL went on a missionary trip to the Palestinean refugee camps for the UMC in the mid 90s. She was unable to show us photos of the conditions in the camps because the Israeli secret police confiscated all of her film at customs when she left the country, so I have to go by her description of the conditions, which was "deplorable" and "inhumane".

Wei Wu Wei
05-10-2010, 12:55 PM
The nation of Israel is guilty of a lot of atrocious crimes. Institutionalized apartheid (which is classified as a crime against humanity), disgusting policies towards palistinians, they've shot children for throwing rocks at Israeli tanks (as if that posed any real threat to the tanks), they deny housing and water to Arabs, even those who are living IN Israel.

Yet, fighting what they see as an evil occupying force, people on the other side have resorted to shameful methods, bombing civilians, recruiting children (as if they had any chance at a real future anyway), and fostering a culture of martyrdom that aggravates the conflict.

If you see either side here as faultless, as innocent, as merely defending themselves, you are a fool.

FlaGator
05-10-2010, 01:13 PM
The nation of Israel is guilty of a lot of atrocious crimes. Institutionalized apartheid (which is classified as a crime against humanity), disgusting policies towards palistinians, they've shot children for throwing rocks at Israeli tanks (as if that posed any real threat to the tanks), they deny housing and water to Arabs, even those who are living IN Israel.

Yet, fighting what they see as an evil occupying force, people on the other side have resorted to shameful methods, bombing civilians, recruiting children (as if they had any chance at a real future anyway), and fostering a culture of martyrdom that aggravates the conflict.

If you see either side here as faultless, as innocent, as merely defending themselves, you are a fool.

I don't believe that I listed either side as faultless. I just recognized the reality for what it is. Both sides are fighting for survival, but the Palestinian leadership seems to close their eyes to the reality of the situation and are less willing to compromise their position. At some point the Palestinians must realize that the Israelis now own Jerusalem and have the strength to keep it. Should they, the Palestinians, become willing to compromise they won't get Jerusalem but they may get a lot of the other things they want in trade for peace.

Sonnabend
05-10-2010, 04:45 PM
The nation of Israel is guilty of a lot of atrocious crimes.

You mean like Al Doura? Or the non existent Jenin massacre?


Institutionalized apartheid (which is classified as a crime against humanity)

A nice meme which, typical for you, does not stand up to reality.


Israel is one of the most open societies in the world. Out of a population of nearly 7 million, about 1.4 million — 20 percent of the population — are non-Jews (approximately 1.2 million Muslims, 130,000 Christians and 100,000 Druze).1

Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights; in fact, it is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women may vote. Arabs currently hold 9 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. Israeli Arabs have also held various government posts, including one who served as Israel’s ambassador to Finland and the current deputy mayor of Tel Aviv. Oscar Abu Razaq was appointed Director General of the Ministry of Interior, the first Arab citizen to become chief executive of a key government ministry. Ariel Sharon’s original cabinet included the first Arab minister, Salah Tarif, a Druze who served as a minister without portfolio. An Arab is also a Supreme Court justice. In October 2005, an Arab professor was named Vice President of Haifa University.

Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language in Israel. More than 300,000 Arab children attend Israeli schools. At the time of Israel’s founding, there was one Arab high school in the country. Today, there are hundreds of Arab schools.

In 2002, the Israeli Supreme Court also ruled that the government cannot allocate land based on religion or ethnicity, and may not prevent Arab citizens from living wherever they choose.

The sole legal distinction between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel is that the latter are not required to serve in the Israeli army.

Israeli law prohibits discrimination in employment. According to the State Department, all Israeli workers “may join and establish labor organizations freely.”4 Most unions are part of the Histadrut or the smaller Histadrut Haovdim Haleumit (National Federation of Labor), both of which are independent of the Government.

Facts are such pesky things, arent they?.......


, disgusting policies towards palistinians,

How DARE they defend themselves from people that fire rockets at them every single day....:rolleyes:


they've shot children for throwing rocks at Israeli tanks (as if that posed any real threat to the tanks), they deny housing and water to Arabs, even those who are living IN Israel.

Uh...no, that's a lie as proven above,.


Yet, fighting what they see as an evil occupying force, people on the other side have resorted to shameful methods, bombing civilians, recruiting children (as if they had any chance at a real future anyway), and fostering a culture of martyrdom that aggravates the conflict.

Oh, they have a real future, they have always had one. All they have to do is stop attacking their neighbour. Simple.


If you see either side here as faultless, as innocent, as merely defending themselves, you are a fool.

Wu Wu Wei calling someone else a fool...........:rolleyes:

NJCardFan
05-10-2010, 05:14 PM
Here are attacks against Israel by Palestinians in descending order since October 28, 2001 to July 22, 2008 alone:


# July 22, 2008: Sixteen people were wounded when a man drove a bulldozer into a bus and four other vehicles in central Jerusalem. The attack was an attempted copycat of an earlier attack on Jerusalem’s Jaffa Road on July 2, 2008. The terrorist was shot dead by police.

# July 2, 2008: An Arab resident of Jerusalem deliberately drove a bulldozer into pedestrians and vehicles in central Jerusalem, overturning and flattening a number of buses and cars. Three people were killed and 66 injured in the attack.

# April 9, 2008: Two Israeli civilians were killed and two wounded when Palestinian terrorists attacked an Israeli-controlled border crossing where fuel is piped into Gaza. The attack at the Nahal Oz depot was carried out by members of various terrorist movements, including the Popular Resistance Committees.

# March 6, 2008: Eight men, seven of them teenagers, were killed when a Palestinian gunman entered the Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva in Jerusalem and opened fire. The terrorist also wounded nine in the attack before he was killed at the scene.

# February 4, 2008: A 73-year-old woman was killed and 40 people were wounded when a suicide bomber blew himself up in a shopping center in the southern city of Dimona. A second bomber was shot by a police officer who noticed him reaching for his explosive belt. Both Hamas’ armed wing, Izaddin Kassam, and Fatah's armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack.

# January 24, 2008: Two terrorists entered the Mekor Hayim High School Yeshiva in Kfar Etzion, south of Jerusalem, and stabbed two students. The terrorists were killed by two of the counselors in the room. The Izaddin al-Kassam's Martyrs Brigades, the Hamas military wing, claimed responsibility for the attack.

# January 24, 2008: Rami Zoari, 20, from Beersheba, a border police officer, was killed and another female officer was seriously wounded after terrorists approached the entrance to Shuafat refugee camp in northern Jerusalem and opened fire on a group of Israelis. The Battalions of Struggle and Return, a previously anonymous offshoot of Fatah's Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades, claimed responsibility for the attack.

# December 28, 2007: Two Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists while hiking outside of Hebron. A third hiker managed to escape.

# January 29, 2007: Three people were killed in a suicide bombing in a bakery in Eilat, the first suicide bombing in the city. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

# June 25, 2006: Eliahu Asheri, 18, of Itamar, was kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists from the Popular Resistance Committees while hitchhiking from Betar Illit, southwest of Bethlehem, to Neveh Tzuf, where he was studying. His body was found on June 29 in Ramallah. Israeli Authorities believe Asheri was murdered by his captors shortly after his kidnapping.

# April 17, 2006: Nine people were killed and at least 40 wounded in a suicide bombing near the old central bus station in Tel Aviv. The blast ripped through Falafel Rosh Ha'ir, the same restaurant that was hit by an attack on January 19. The Islamic Jihad and Fatah’s Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades both claimed responsibility for the attack. The Hamas led PA government defended the suicide bombing, calling it an act of "self-defense." Hamas official spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri called the attack "a natural result of the continued Israeli crimes against our people".

# March 30, 2006: Four people were killed in a suicide bombing outside Kedumim in the northern West Bank. The Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades took responsibility for the attack.

# January 19, 2006: At least 30 people were injured in a suicide bombing near the old central bus station in southern Tel Aviv. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

# December 29, 2005: Three people were killed - two Palestinian civilians and an Israeli soldier - in a suicide bombing at a checkpoint near Tulkarm. The suicide bomber was apparently planning to target one of the many children's events taking place in Tel Aviv for the Hanukkah holiday, but was stopped at the checkpoint. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

# December 5, 2005: Five people were killed and more than 50 others injured in a suicide bombing at the entrance of a shopping mall in Netanya. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

# October 26, 2005: Six people were killed and 55 wounded in a suicide bombing in an outdoor market in the town of Hadera. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

# October 16, 2005: Palestinian gunmen killed three Israelis and wounded as least 5 others in two separate drive-by shootings in the West Bank. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for both attacks.

# August 28, 2005: A suicide bombing outside the Central Bus Station in Beersheba severly injured two security guards who stopped the bomber from entering the bus station. Islamic Jihad and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

# August 4, 2005: An AWOL Israeli soldier killed four Israeli Arabs and wounded 12 on a bus in town of Shfaram. The shooter was killed by a mob that boarded the bus after the shooting.

# July 23, 2005: Two people were killed and three others wounded in a drive-by shooting near the Kissufim crossing in the Gaza Strip. Islamic Jihad and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

# July 12, 2005: Five people were killed and 90 wounded in a suicide bombing outside of a shopping mall in Netanya. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

# June 24, 2005: Two teenagers were killed and three others wounded in a drive-by shooting near Hebron. The Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility for the attack.

# February 25, 2005: Five Israelis were killed and 50 other civilians were wounded in a suicide bombing outside a Tel Aviv nightclub. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

# January 13, 2005: Six Israelis were killed and five other civilians were wounded in a double suicide bombing at the Karni crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip. The two suicide bombers used a very large explosive device to blast through a defensive wall that separates the Israeli and Palestinian sides at the crossing. Following the blast, the bombers crossed into the Israeli side, carrying explosives on their bodies, which they detonated. Hamas and the Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed joint responsiblity for the attack.

# January 4, 2005: Two adults were lightly injured when a mortar shell, fired from Gaza Strip, hit a school bus near Nissanit. None of the children were wounded.


The rest are at the link below

http://www.adl.org/israel/israel_attacks.asp

So, in a sense, there are those here arguing that it's perfectly OK for Hamas to kill innocent civilians but it's not OK for Israel to do so in order to vet out the aggressors. IMO, I could care less if civilians got killed. It's a war. Perhaps if Hamas stops attacking Israel they wouldn't have to worry about civilians getting killed. If they're using them as human shields then so be it. Mow the shields down too.

fettpett
05-10-2010, 05:18 PM
Yes, Isralies have probably killed innocent people. but it HAPPENS in war, especially when your enemy dresses and acts like innocent bystanders. guess what wennie, Israel goes through the 9/11 type attacks on almost a montly if not weekly basis.

lacarnut
05-10-2010, 05:34 PM
. It's a war. Perhaps if Hamas stops attacking Israel they wouldn't have to worry about civilians getting killed. If they're using them as human shields then so be it. Mow the shields down too.

War is hell and it's about killing the other SOB before he kills you. Something the weak minded liberals and pacifists do not understand. If the enemey is hiding in a place of worship or in a place occupied by women and children, blow it up. I would rather see a number of innocent rag heads killed opposed to 1 soldier. We could learn a lesson or two from the Israilies

Odysseus
05-11-2010, 04:48 AM
Of course, if one is heavily citing specifics current events in their rants, it doesn't map perfectly, but it doesn't have too, nor would one ever really expect it too. The OP article vaguely mentioned some current issues like global warming, and maybe one or two others - but the meat of the whole content was simply a seething rant about how "Liberals are anti-human, they hate you, they hate America", etc, etc. So the test works quite well here.

The point of the exercise is to identify irrational hyperbole, and demonization when you might otherwise be taken in by it (you know.. like the Germans). In other words, if it sounds like demonization, hyperbole after the substitution, it should be a clue that perhaps that's exactly what it was before the substitution.

And its easy to let yourself be taken in by that sort of stuff. We're all predisposed to think the worst of our opponents, and it feels good and validating, and rather uncomplicated when we're given permission to view them all as these cartoon villains.

No, the point of the exercise is to dismiss logical argument that you are afraid to address by equating it with irrational hyperbole. Address the substance of the argument if you can, or admit that you can't, but don't pretend that calling liberals out for their positions is the equivalent of persecuting Jews, or that those who object to liberals are therefore the equivalent of Nazis. That's what you're trying to do, and it's dishonest and low.

Constitutionally Speaking
05-15-2010, 04:13 PM
The ONLY way for any REAL and LASTING peace in the middle east is for the utter defeat of the radical Islamic movements. UTTER and complete defeat - unconditional surrender that leaves absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that the terrorists, and those that support them were overwhelmingly defeated. A negotiated peace will do nothing - it never has, and it never will.

wilbur
05-15-2010, 05:40 PM
No, the point of the exercise is to dismiss logical argument that you are afraid to address by equating it with irrational hyperbole. Address the substance of the argument if you can, or admit that you can't, but don't pretend that calling liberals out for their positions is the equivalent of persecuting Jews, or that those who object to liberals are therefore the equivalent of Nazis. That's what you're trying to do, and it's dishonest and low.

Seriously, where in that absurd, hate-filled, textbook piece of flame-bait was there a logical argument? There wasn't one. If there was, I would have addressed it.

He didn't address any specific positions or policy.. all he did was launch an assault on common decency with an absurd hissy fit, that said little else other than that liberals are rotten people, that hate everybody. And its ironic, because that was one of the most irrational, spittle flecked, hateful pieces of trash, I have ever read.

Rockntractor
05-15-2010, 06:03 PM
Seriously, where in that absurd, hate-filled, textbook piece of flame-bait was there a logical argument? There wasn't one. If there was, I would have addressed it.

He didn't address any specific positions or policy.. all he did was launch an assault on common decency with an absurd hissy fit, that said little else other than that liberals are rotten people, that hate everybody. And its ironic, because that was one of the most irrational, spittle flecked, hateful pieces of trash, I have ever read.

Wilbur Explained!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/squeaking_poop_shaped_chew_toy.jpg?t=1273960936

Sonnabend
05-15-2010, 07:27 PM
Seriously, where in that absurd, hate-filled, textbook piece of flame-bait was there a logical argument? There wasn't one. If there was, I would have addressed it.

You never address anyone, nor do you answer questions.

Such as: what are your degrees in climate science?
what are your degrees in anatomy and physiology?


He didn't address any specific positions or policy.. all he did was launch an assault on common decency with an absurd hissy fit, that said little else other than that liberals are rotten people, that hate everybody. And its ironic, because that was one of the most irrational, spittle flecked, hateful pieces of trash, I have ever read.

The Major defined you perfectly.

Odysseus
05-16-2010, 09:34 PM
Seriously, where in that absurd, hate-filled, textbook piece of flame-bait was there a logical argument? There wasn't one. If there was, I would have addressed it.

He didn't address any specific positions or policy.. all he did was launch an assault on common decency with an absurd hissy fit, that said little else other than that liberals are rotten people, that hate everybody. And its ironic, because that was one of the most irrational, spittle flecked, hateful pieces of trash, I have ever read.

Looks like somebody struck a nerve. :D

What he is saying here is that liberals are, at their core, misanthropic, that their preferred solutions to problems real and imagined invariably leads to more centralized economic control, restraints on liberty and the destruction of traditional mores and standards, and that these ends are invariably accompanied by viciously divisive tactics and rhetoric, even as those liberals congratulate themselves on their superior compassion and rationality.

An obvious example would be your take on the death penalty. For all of your rhetorical attacks on the "cruelty" of "punishment for its own sake," it's obvious that your sympathies are with the criminals, rather than their victims. Your "merciful" attitude masks a lack of empathy for people victimized by monsters in human guise, and a completely inappropriate concern for the sensibilities of the monsters. You see yourself as the one person in the town who isn't storming the castle with torches and pitchforks; a superior, more enlightened person than the mob that's running after the poor, misunderstood monster, and everyone else is a vicious troglodyte.

Another example: During the debate on Carrie Prejean and gay marriage, you presented yourself as a beacon of tolerance by arguing that those who opposed gay marriage were bigots who deserved what they got.

Society is functioning as it should. Bigots don't deserve tolerance. There should be a high social cost for the things that contestant said.
For a guy who no doubt sees himself as enlightened, compassionate and tolerant, you don't seem to extend that to those who simply disagree with you. No wonder that post enraged you.

wilbur
05-17-2010, 12:02 PM
Looks like somebody struck a nerve. :D

Well, if you want to play that game, one could only imagine what deep nerves must have been struck in order to produce the OP in the first place. This quote was even bolded, by you:

"Liberals simply hate their fellow man and gussy it up with high-falutin' sounding "causes""

Talk about some injured nerves...



What he is saying here is that liberals are, at their core, misanthropic, that their preferred solutions to problems real and imagined invariably leads to more centralized economic control, restraints on liberty and the destruction of traditional mores and standards, and that these ends are invariably accompanied by viciously divisive tactics and rhetoric, even as those liberals congratulate themselves on their superior compassion and rationality.


Ha, now THAT is a joke - this summary was made straight out of... oh, how did he say it in the OP... "whole cloth". Mine was much more on the mark... this imaginary argument you tried to tease out, is just that. Lets reiterate some of the finer points of the OP again:


Like energy itself, their hatred is indestructible and undiminishable but simply changes forms.

But whatever they're railing against this season all of their complaints eventually reveal two things in common. A license to hate others and a call to oppression, or servitude, depending on whether one stands with them or in their sights.

No matter what the "issue" their remedies are always the same at bottom -- anti-human, anti-individual and anti-life but only for others, never themselves

And though they appear cowardly in their hate given there never really was and is not now real danger to themselves in it, it's always easiest to hate those closest to you

There can be no more satisfying hate than the hate of one's own because is not the hate of a kindred fellow's shortcomings itself not proof of one's own more finely tuned sensibilities and superiority?


Then of course, the coup de grace, was to top it off with a little accusations of god-hatred to boot. Lovely. Why, like the Jews, those liberals would probably kill Christ if he came back too! One can only lament, that you, like the Germans who killed your people in WWII, are so easily fooled by such poison, that hides behind a flimsy disguise of flowery rhetoric.



An obvious example would be your take on the death penalty. For all of your rhetorical attacks on the "cruelty" of "punishment for its own sake," it's obvious that your sympathies are with the criminals, rather than their victims. Your "merciful" attitude masks a lack of empathy for people victimized by monsters in human guise, and a completely inappropriate concern for the sensibilities of the monsters. You see yourself as the one person in the town who isn't storming the castle with torches and pitchforks; a superior, more enlightened person than the mob that's running after the poor, misunderstood monster, and everyone else is a vicious troglodyte.


Of course, my position on the death penalty isnt out of some misplaced sympathy for those who commit crimes - its comes from thoughts about the nature of punishment in society, and thoughts about moral blameworthiness (and praiseworthiness).. and what all that stuff means, and what it should be.

Whatever that caricatured template of a liberal that you have in your mind looks like, it doesnt look like me. It leads you to make false assumptions about my beliefs. It continues below:



Another example: During the debate on Carrie Prejean and gay marriage, you presented yourself as a beacon of tolerance by arguing that those who opposed gay marriage were bigots who deserved what they got.

For a guy who no doubt sees himself as enlightened, compassionate and tolerant, you don't seem to extend that to those who simply disagree with you. No wonder that post enraged you.

Still arguing against some liberal template you have projected onto me, rather than with me. I don't present myself as a "beacon of tolerance" - I have no use for that buzzword. I've do not believe in tolerance, for tolerance's sake any more than I believe in punishment, for punishments sake. I believe we should tolerate things for which we have good and compelling reasons to tolerate, and am all for setting loose pandemics of fierce intolerance on things for which we have no good reasons to tolerate.

AmPat
05-17-2010, 01:05 PM
Wilbur must be a woman. I read that women use 40,000 words a day. All I see is "Blah blah, blah...' Can you please make a point without a lengthy soliloquy?:rolleyes:

Odysseus
05-17-2010, 02:32 PM
Well, if you want to play that game, one could only imagine what deep nerves must have been struck in order to produce the OP in the first place. This quote was even bolded, by you:

"Liberals simply hate their fellow man and gussy it up with high-falutin' sounding "causes""

Talk about some injured nerves...
No argument. Watching this administration annex the entire health care industry, two out of three auto manufacturers and standing poised to do the same for the financial sector, not to mention all of the power to be gained from Cap and Trade would tend to strike a number of nerves, unless your sense of liberty had been completely eroded. But, conservatives admit to a certain amount of anger at these policies (if not as much as liberals claim that we have).


Ha, now THAT is a joke - this summary was made straight out of... oh, how did he say it in the OP... "whole cloth". Mine was much more on the mark... this imaginary argument you tried to tease out, is just that. Lets reiterate some of the finer points of the OP again:
>snip<
Then of course, the coup de grace, was to top it off with a little accusations of god-hatred to boot. Lovely. Why, like the Jews, those liberals would probably kill Christ if he came back too! One can only lament, that you, like the Germans who killed your people in WWII, are so easily fooled by such poison, that hides behind a flimsy disguise of flowery rhetoric.

Wow, going for the Jew card again, even if it's nowhere in the deck, and equating me with the Nazis. Been channeling Gator in your spare time? And yet, the whole God-hatred thing does have a certain truth to it in the case of the left. Let's look at a few of the more obvious examples of the left attacking Christianity and Judaism:


A local ACLU director equated al-Qaida terrrorists with members of a Louisiana school board seeking to open their meetings with prayer. (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45807)

Joe Cook of the ACLU of Louisiana spoke on camera with WAFB-TV, Baton Rouge, La., while staff and teachers of the Tangipahoa Parish district in New Orleans were at a seminar being informed of their free-speech rights by a member of the Alliance Defense Fund.

Referring to the school board, Cook said, "They believe that they answer to a higher power, in my opinion. Which is the kind of thinking that you had with the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country, and the people who did the kind of things in London."

Of course, this is par for the course for the ACLU. They spend their days worrying that somehow, somewhere, someone is praying on public property. It's not like public colleges themselves attack religious sentiments expressed quietly, in say, an office where no one else is around? No, wait, that did happen at Alameda College, where a student and teacher were threatened with suspension for praying.


Kyriacou had gone to the office of an instructor to deliver a Christmas present. Court documents state, "When the instructor indicated she was ill, Kandy offered to pray for her. The instructor bowed her head, and Kandy began to pray – until she was interrupted by another faculty member, Derek Piazza, who walked in and said, 'You can't be doing that in here!'"

Kyriacou and Omaga then were notified by the school of plans to suspend them.

How about a lawsuit to ban "So help me God" from future presidential inaugurals? (http://www.pacificjustice.org/news/court-rejects-atheists%E2%80%99-appeal-suit-challenging-presidential-inauguration)


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the ruling of a federal court dismissing the challenge brought by atheists to prohibit prayers at presidential inaugurations as well the use of “So help me God” in the presidential oath.
But, that's just Christianity, and they're in the majority, so we don't have to worry about them. Now, if Jews were under attack by the left in academia or media, well, that would be different, right? It would evoke the Nazis that you were so eager to compare me to. Well, here we go...

"You Lied to Me, Jew Producer": Comedy Central Shocker
An offensive online game plays on an association of Israel as a child killer.


Recently, the Comedy Central TV network censored an episode of the popular South Park cartoon following threats from Islamic extremists offended at the show's portrayal of the Prophet Mohammad. But while Comedy Central was perceived to have caved in on a matter of free speech, it appears that the network exercises double standards when it comes to producing genuinely offensive material.

Currently appearing on Comedy Central's website is a game called "I.S.R.A.E.L. Attack!". The premise of this game has nothing to do with Israel and, as such, is nothing more than an insidious attempt at association. The game's introduction begins with a character who states:

You lied to me, Jew Producer

referring to a character who has failed to carry out a mission to destroy other child-like cartoon characters. If this piece of anti-Semitism isn't bad enough, a robot - the Intelligent Smart Robot Animation Eraser Lady - is sent to do the job that the Jew Producer failed to achieve.

Wow. But, at least they're sensitive to criticism of Islam.

I could go on all day, but the exercise is over and I have to get back to work. But before I go, I couldn't let this go unanswered:


Of course, my position on the death penalty isnt out of some misplaced sympathy for those who commit crimes - its comes from thoughts about the nature of punishment in society, and thoughts about moral blameworthiness (and praiseworthiness).. and what all that stuff means, and what it should be.
And those thoughts invariably happen to come out on the side of the perpetrators because your extended navel-gazing on blameworthiness doesn't actually include those who are, well, worthy of blame.


Whatever that caricatured template of a liberal that you have in your mind looks like, it doesnt look like me. It leads you to make false assumptions about my beliefs. It continues below:
No, it pretty much looks just like you. But if I had any doubts, you've eliminated them with your over-the-top reactions in this thread.

Still arguing against some liberal template you have projected onto me, rather than with me. I don't present myself as a "beacon of tolerance" - I have no use for that buzzword. I've do not believe in tolerance, for tolerance's sake any more than I believe in punishment, for punishments sake. I believe we should tolerate things for which we have good and compelling reasons to tolerate, and am all for setting loose pandemics of fierce intolerance on things for which we have no good reasons to tolerate.
No, you pretty much do present yourself that way, except when you find something intolerable. That's why it's so funny that you've managed to juxtapose the punishment/tolerance positions so that you end up preaching punishment for those you find intolerant (Carrie Prejean), while demanding tolerance for those who commit monstrous crimes.

One last thought. It occurs to me that there is a means of medically inducing a condition in which criminals will no longer be a threat to others, and it's been around for decades. I can't believe that we both forgot about it, but it takes your "thought experiment" out of the hypothetical and puts it back into reality. Are you saying that you would support the lobotomization of convicted murderers? Or are you asking if I would?

wilbur
05-17-2010, 07:04 PM
No argument. Watching this administration annex the entire health care industry, two out of three auto manufacturers and standing poised to do the same for the financial sector, not to mention all of the power to be gained from Cap and Trade would tend to strike a number of nerves, unless your sense of liberty had been completely eroded. But, conservatives admit to a certain amount of anger at these policies (if not as much as liberals claim that we have).


Well gee, that sounds pretty pessimistic... One might even say its a good old fashioned, deeply rooted misanthropy under a veneer of sneering condescension. Sound familiar?



And those thoughts invariably happen to come out on the side of the perpetrators because your extended navel-gazing on blameworthiness doesn't actually include those who are, well, worthy of blame.

No, it pretty much looks just like you. But if I had any doubts, you've eliminated them with your over-the-top reactions in this thread.

No, you pretty much do present yourself that way, except when you find something intolerable.
That's why it's so funny that you've managed to juxtapose the punishment/tolerance positions so that you end up preaching punishment for those you find intolerant (Carrie Prejean), while demanding tolerance for those who commit monstrous crimes.


There are at least two distinct issues here, that can be thought of separately:

1) The death penalty
2) The purpose of punishment in general, capital or otherwise

To issue number 1), I generally stand opposed, for many reasons, but none among them included "sympathy and tolerance" for criminal behaviour. I've generally been convinced that the DP can't be practically implemented in a free society in a way that in fulfils any of its reasons for existence (deterrence, rehabilitation, restitution). And of course, there are issues such as the fallibility of due process, the number of people on death row who have been exonerated, based on modern evidence gathering, all of which paint a pretty unflattering picture of our capacity to execute criminals in a manner that protects the innocent, while providing any real benefits. And all the same, I've also said that my mind is open to convincing.

On issue 2), well, its simply make believe to act as if there is some "cosmic balance" that can only be fulfilled by causing people to suffer for their bad actions. Here in the real world, we need to justify our actions with reasons that exist. A punishment that solves no problem, except an imaginary one, is not justified.




One last thought. It occurs to me that there is a means of medically inducing a condition in which criminals will no longer be a threat to others, and it's been around for decades. I can't believe that we both forgot about it, but it takes your "thought experiment" out of the hypothetical and puts it back into reality. Are you saying that you would support the lobotomization of convicted murderers? Or are you asking if I would?

No, don't think so. I don't think a lobotomy really counts as rehabilitation.

Odysseus
05-17-2010, 08:28 PM
Well gee, that sounds pretty pessimistic... One might even say its a good old fashioned, deeply rooted misanthropy under a veneer of sneering condescension. Sound familiar?
Familiar, yes. Accurate, no. But you are desperate to project this on anyone but liberals, not that you're a liberal, of course. Can't be. Nope. Nada. :rolleyes:

There are at least two distinct issues here, that can be thought of separately:

1) The death penalty
2) The purpose of punishment in general, capital or otherwise

To issue number 1), I generally stand opposed, for many reasons, but none among them included "sympathy and tolerance" for criminal behaviour. I've generally been convinced that the DP can't be practically implemented in a free society in a way that in fulfils any of its reasons for existence (deterrence, rehabilitation, restitution).
And yet we managed to do that for most of the republic's first 200 years. Is it your contention that America wasn't free before the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty, or that it was not practically implemented? And you made a comment that I never really took you to task on:


Well, sort of. They are the most proximate causes of their crimes, and therefore can be named as the cause - even if the things they (or any of us) do arent their fault in the most ultimate sense.
Just what did you mean by that? Whose fault are the things that they (or any of us) do if not ourselves?


And of course, there are issues such as the fallibility of due process, the number of people on death row who have been exonerated, based on modern evidence gathering, all of which paint a pretty unflattering picture of our capacity to execute criminals in a manner that protects the innocent, while providing any real benefits. And all the same, I've also said that my mind is open to convincing.

Ah, but the modern evidence gathering that you cited (including DNA) demonstrates that we can now have certainty in death penalty cases.


On issue 2), well, its simply make believe to act as if there is some "cosmic balance" that can only be fulfilled by causing people to suffer for their bad actions. Here in the real world, we need to justify our actions with reasons that exist. A punishment that solves no problem, except an imaginary one, is not justified.
But the problem isn't imaginary. The families of the victims of horrific murders continue to see the predators who destroyed their loved ones living on. Whenever a clemency or parole hearing tells us about what a marvelous job the perpetrator has done to better themselves through one of the thousands of programs our prisons have, it's time that their victims will never have. Doesn't that bother you in the slightest, that convicted murderers, child rapists and the like will have decades of food, clothing and shelter, paid for by the families of their victims? That is the balance that I speak of, the balancing of the severity of the crime against the suffering of the victims and their loved ones.

No, don't think so. I don't think a lobotomy really counts as rehabilitation.
That depends on how you define it:
rehabilitation -
1.to restore to a condition of good health, ability to work, or the like.

Except that criminals are often in excellent health, thanks to the gyms and medical care that they get at taxpayer expense. Obviously, this definition does not apply to penal institutions and does not satisfy your purpose.
2.to restore to good condition, operation, or management, as a bankrupt business.

Closer, but the word "restore" is problematical, as it implies that at one time, the criminal was not criminally inclined. How far back would you have to take a serial killer or gang banger before your treatment predated his criminal acts? Would you revert the felon to childhood and then raise them again?
3.to reestablish the good reputation of (a person, one's character or name, etc.).

That's far too easy. Simply sealing a court record can, if not reestablish a good reputation, at least suppress a bad one, at least until another child goes missing and somebody does a web search to discover if that creepy neighbor has a history of leaving evidence in their crawlspace. Clearly, this cannot be what you mean (at least, I hope that it isn't).
4.to restore formally to former capacity, standing, rank, rights, or privileges.

That seems to be what parole boards do now, but they don't actually do much to prevent the formerly incarcerated from actually repeating their crimes, do they? That also seems to be the intent of the talk show circuit, at least for celebrity criminals. Somehow, though, I don't think that is your intent, either
Going back to your little thought experiment, you wanted to know:

What if, sometime in the future, we had the ability to completely rehabilitate any criminal, in a way that was completely pain free, no suffering? Also, lets assume the other items I mentioned (restitution, and deterrence were taken care of as well. Knowing that all these things were taken care of, would you still demand that they suffer as a result of their crime?
Clearly, the closest definition of rehabilitation, #2, would require dialing back a person's cognitive and social development to the point where they were no longer harboring murderous thoughts. At least in that sense, a lobotomy would render a murderer incapable of violence and would be completely pain free (the surgical procedure would be done under anesthetic) and afterwards, the perpetrator would not miss what he no longer had the capacity to feel, so there would be no suffering. Also, deterrence would be taken care of, as lobotomy patients tend to be pretty docile. Restitution would be slow, but there are many minimum wage jobs which someone can perform without many higher brain functions (and if the current congressional leadership is any indication, some very lucrative ones, so maybe restitution could be accelerated). So, why is this particular course of action not satisfactory to you?

Sonnabend
05-18-2010, 07:07 AM
Far as i am concerned, this is the only fact that matters. The recidivism rate amongst executed felons is zero.


well, its simply make believe to act as if there is some "cosmic balance" that can only be fulfilled by causing people to suffer for their bad actions. Here in the real world, we need to justify our actions with reasons that exist.

They caused untold misery to others, took lives that were not theirs to take, shattered lioves, made widows of mothers, tore the lives of children apart forever.

No matter what, someone's mother or father or brother or sister is never coming home again because some callous killer decided their lives were worth nothing. How many of those murdered begged for their lives?

How many young children or teenagers had their lives snuffed out forever because of some pervert's twisted evil?


Thousands of people have paid tribute on Facebook to an Australian teenager allegedly lured to her death by a man she met on the social networking site.The body of Nona Belomesoff was found two days after she went on a trip with the man, who told her they were going to rescue injured animals, police say.
A 20-year-old man has been charged with Ms Belomesoff's murder at a creek south of Sydney.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47862000/jpg/_47862919_nona_226_facebook.jpg

We dont have the DP here. Sadly.

As far as I am concerned, the bastard that did this should be given a 4am wakeup call, a last cigarette, a blindfold, last rites and a firing squad.

wilbur
05-21-2010, 05:06 PM
Took a few days off to chill on the beach before getting to this, but here we go...

Familiar, yes. Accurate, no. But you are desperate to project this on anyone but liberals, not that you're a liberal, of course. Can't be. Nope. Nada. :rolleyes:
And yet we managed to do that for most of the republic's first 200 years. Is it your contention that America wasn't free before the Supreme Court struck down the death penalty, or that it was not practically implemented? And you made a comment that I never really took you to task on:


I find it a little ludicrous, that here we are discussing, among other things, forms of modern evidence gathering, which allow us to look at things like DNA, that have exonerated swaths of convicted innocents on death row, and you hold up as something to aspire too, the numbers of and speed with which executions were carried out in our first 200 years, as if they were somehow doing it better. Are you serious?

Not only did they NOT have 20th century technology and standards of evidence, they provided less legal recourse for the convicted, and executed them far more swiftly. Its a statistical certainty that they executed an even higher proportion of innocent people in the country's first 200 years. Yea, that's something every free man should fear.


Ah, but the modern evidence gathering that you cited (including DNA) demonstrates that we can now have certainty in death penalty cases.

Of course, its great when we can gather such evidence and use it in cases. But, DNA at least, is not available in the vast majority of cases, or for the majority of people on death row. This leads to a rather horrifying realization, or it should, at least - that there is a high probability that large numbers of innocent people are sitting on death row, as we speak, who do not have that particular rescue boat available to them. Now THAT troubles me. Of course, those people are still in jail even if we don't execute them - but if they are alive, some form of restitution may be possible in the future.

And quite frankly, even with all our technology, there is still room for much uncertainty. In our courts, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense, so even if modern technology can introduce enough doubt to exonerate a person, it doesn't necessarily mean that it also produces the certainty needed to convict, or to execute.


But the problem isn't imaginary. The families of the victims of horrific murders continue to see the predators who destroyed their loved ones living on. Whenever a clemency or parole hearing tells us about what a marvelous job the perpetrator has done to better themselves through one of the thousands of programs our prisons have, it's time that their victims will never have. Doesn't that bother you in the slightest, that convicted murderers, child rapists and the like will have decades of food, clothing and shelter, paid for by the families of their victims? That is the balance that I speak of, the balancing of the severity of the crime against the suffering of the victims and their loved ones.

That depends on how you define it:
rehabilitation -

1.to restore to a condition of good health, ability to work, or the like.


Except that criminals are often in excellent health, thanks to the gyms and medical care that they get at taxpayer expense. Obviously, this definition does not apply to penal institutions and does not satisfy your purpose.
....


Actually, #1 seems best, if you view "good health" as more than "good physical condition". I don't know about you, but even if a child raping serial killer hit the gym every single day and got regular medical check ups, I still wouldn't accuse him of "good health". I'd probably argue that most crime is a result of mental "bad health". So therefore, its the mind/brain which needs rehabilitation (not the criminal's body fat/muscle mass ratio).

Now, the question before you is, if we were able to rehabilitate a child-raping serial-killer completely (without chopping up his brain or otherwise incapacitating him) by restoring him to good health (that includes mental) so that all the dysfunction which caused him to engage in his crimes was successfully removed, while leaving intact a well person who was was genuinely sorry for what he did, and from that point on, would do everything in his power to repair the damage he caused, how would you justify further punishment, in the form of suffering or death imposed by the state? And of course, we're assuming the other justifying reasons for punishment are satisfied as well - restitution, and deterrence.


Going back to your little thought experiment, you wanted to know:

Clearly, the closest definition of rehabilitation, #2, would require dialing back a person's cognitive and social development to the point where they were no longer harboring murderous thoughts. At least in that sense, a lobotomy would render a murderer incapable of violence and would be completely pain free (the surgical procedure would be done under anesthetic) and afterwards, the perpetrator would not miss what he no longer had the capacity to feel, so there would be no suffering. Also, deterrence would be taken care of, as lobotomy patients tend to be pretty docile. Restitution would be slow, but there are many minimum wage jobs which someone can perform without many higher brain functions (and if the current congressional leadership is any indication, some very lucrative ones, so maybe restitution could be accelerated). So, why is this particular course of action not satisfactory to you?

I don't agree that a lobotomy fulfills the requirements of my thought experiment - it doesn't rehabilitate, it simply incapacitates.

A lobotomy could possibly accomplish some of the goals for punishment that I laid out, just as the death penalty could. But I don't see a lobotomy as much an improvement over the death penalty, since it essentially physically destroys a person in an irreparable way.

Articulate_Ape
05-21-2010, 05:13 PM
A lobotomy could possibly accomplish some of the goals for punishment that I laid out, just as the death penalty could. But I don't see a lobotomy as much an improvement over the death penalty, since it essentially physically destroys a person in an irreparable way.


Trust him on this, Odysseus, he's had one.

wilbur
05-21-2010, 05:40 PM
Trust him on this, Odysseus, he's had one.

Careful... this would be doubly insulting to regulars here, since few, if any, can actually keep up with me, lobotomy or no. ;)

Wei Wu Wei
05-21-2010, 05:51 PM
Wilbur must be a woman. I read that women use 40,000 words a day. All I see is "Blah blah, blah...' Can you please make a point without a lengthy soliloquy?:rolleyes:

lol this guy

FlaGator
05-21-2010, 06:01 PM
Careful... this would be doubly insulting to regulars here, since few, if any, can actually keep up with me, lobotomy or no. ;)

That is because the absurd is very hard to grasp when one mistakenly tries to make sense of it.

wilbur
05-21-2010, 06:10 PM
That is because the absurd is very hard to grasp when one mistakenly tries to make sense of it.

Sensible things often sound absurd to fools.

FlaGator
05-21-2010, 06:22 PM
Sensible things often sound absurd to fools.

That's funny, the Bible says the exact same thing.

wilbur
05-21-2010, 06:29 PM
That's funny, the Bible says the exact same thing.

I know - If only you and the authors of that particular book took those words to heart....

FlaGator
05-21-2010, 07:04 PM
I know - If only you and the authors of that particular book took those words to heart....

Which proves God's point... thank you

Odysseus
05-21-2010, 07:59 PM
Took a few days off to chill on the beach before getting to this, but here we go...

I find it a little ludicrous, that here we are discussing, among other things, forms of modern evidence gathering, which allow us to look at things like DNA, that have exonerated swaths of convicted innocents on death row, and you hold up as something to aspire too, the numbers of and speed with which executions were carried out in our first 200 years, as if they were somehow doing it better. Are you serious?
Absolutely. You claim that DNA has exonerated "swaths of convicted innocents" but you neglect to mention that before the advent of DNA testing, exoneration of inmates occurred almost as often. From 1973 to 1992, before DNA testing came into it's own, 47 convicts were exonerated, or roughly 2.5 per year. from 1993 through today, 90 have been exonerated, roughly 5 per year. Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit that DNA testing has doubled the exoneration rate, but this only proves that justice is becoming more efficient, not less. We can now prove guilt far more effectively than they could twenty years ago, which means that miscarriages of justice are far less likely. In short, the advent of DNA testing is an argument for the death penalty, not against it.


Not only did they NOT have 20th century technology and standards of evidence, they provided less legal recourse for the convicted, and executed them far more swiftly. Its a statistical certainty that they executed an even higher proportion of innocent people in the country's first 200 years. Yea, that's something every free man should fear.
I have no doubt that the first 200 years had a higher statistical error rate. But let's remember that the total US prison population is roughly 1.5 million, out of whom 5 are exonerated annually. If we assume that the exoneration rate is off by a factor of 100, that for every felon exonerated, there are 99 who ought to be, that still means that they are a statistically insignificant percentage of the prison population as a whole.


Of course, its great when we can gather such evidence and use it in cases. But, DNA at least, is not available in the vast majority of cases, or for the majority of people on death row. This leads to a rather horrifying realization, or it should, at least - that there is a high probability that large numbers of innocent people are sitting on death row, as we speak, who do not have that particular rescue boat available to them. Now THAT troubles me. Of course, those people are still in jail even if we don't execute them - but if they are alive, some form of restitution may be possible in the future.

And quite frankly, even with all our technology, there is still room for much uncertainty. In our courts, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense, so even if modern technology can introduce enough doubt to exonerate a person, it doesn't necessarily mean that it also produces the certainty needed to convict, or to execute.
Well, by that logic, we cannot convict or punish anyone because modern forensics accounts for the vast majority of convictions. If you refuse to believe the science of criminology, then you will refuse to accept the results.


Actually, #1 seems best, if you view "good health" as more than "good physical condition". I don't know about you, but even if a child raping serial killer hit the gym every single day and got regular medical check ups, I still wouldn't accuse him of "good health". I'd probably argue that most crime is a result of mental "bad health". So therefore, its the mind/brain which needs rehabilitation (not the criminal's body fat/muscle mass ratio).
This only works if you assume that crime is the result of psychological maladjustment, rather than moral choices. You are, in effect, eliminating the ideas of free will and arguing that criminals are simply the sum of their conditioning and/or genetic predispositions. And while it is entirely likely that there are some criminals whose behavior can be attributed to specific recognized medical conditions, the fact is that the vast majority of felons are where they are because of the choices that they made, rather than environmental factors. This is a common falacy among intellectual elites, who assume that any problem can be solved if they just approach it correctly. It is the logic behind every totalitarian state that has sought to give us an improved human being, and in every case, it has utterly failed.


Now, the question before you is, if we were able to rehabilitate a child-raping serial-killer completely (without chopping up his brain or otherwise incapacitating him) by restoring him to good health (that includes mental) so that all the dysfunction which caused him to engage in his crimes was successfully removed, while leaving intact a well person who was was genuinely sorry for what he did, and from that point on, would do everything in his power to repair the damage he caused, how would you justify further punishment, in the form of suffering or death imposed by the state? And of course, we're assuming the other justifying reasons for punishment are satisfied as well - restitution, and deterrence.
First, you are assuming the "restoration" of something which may never have been there in the first place, that is, good mental health. Even if you accept the premise that such a killer is the product of decades of abuse, the medical intervention that would produce degree of personality change that you are fantasizing about would have to eliminate whole swathes of a malignant personality in order to eliminate the desire to commit rape or murder. Such erasure and rewriting of a personality would create a whole new person, not salvage a flawed one. In effect, you are still executing the old personality, even if you are only causing it to regress to childhood, but make no mistake about it, you are terminating the mind of the killer. The only difference between that and capital punishment is that you are salvaging a body and filling it with another mind. That is hardly a distinction. And, of course, you fail to take into account what the effect will be on the families of the victims when they see the body of the murderer of their loved ones walking around, hale, hearty and free. That cannot be anything but the stuff of nightmares.

Nope, sorry, but your thought experiment is a failure. It is no different from the lobotomy, except in the aesthetic considerations. Your fantasy treatment produces the same results, but simply feels less like a punishment, but at the end of the day, you have still erased the personality of the killer.


I don't agree that a lobotomy fulfills the requirements of my thought experiment - it doesn't rehabilitate, it simply incapacitates.

A lobotomy could possibly accomplish some of the goals for punishment that I laid out, just as the death penalty could. But I don't see a lobotomy as much an improvement over the death penalty, since it essentially physically destroys a person in an irreparable way.
Whether you see it as an improvement or not, the personality rewrite that you are proposing mentally destroys a person in an irreparable way, just as a lobotomy would. In fact, the only distinction is that a lobotomy can be done with current technology, while a personality rewrite is still the stuff of science fiction, but in the end, it achieves the same result. Do you really believe that a prisoner who has been sentenced to have his personality wiped will see it as any less of a punishment than a lobotomy or death? In fact, I submit that it would come to be seen as a kind of "living death" as those who are rewritten end up being programmed with whatever personality happens to be fashionable among the penal authorities. Thugs will be rewritten to become bland, productive cogs with mass-produced psyches. The only thing missing will be the pods under their beds. And you object to my cruelty?

But, of course, this leads to another question, which is why you are so obsessed with the rehabilitation of a murderer or rapist, who represents a minute fraction of the population, but show no regard for his victims, especially odd when you consider that they will invariably outnumber him.

And you still haven't answered my question about who is responsible for our actions if not ourselves. Do you plan to?

fettpett
05-22-2010, 12:00 AM
how many of those exonerated between '93 and today are really old cases from before DNA testing? I'd gather that most of them are. DNA testing is a great tool, but there are a limited number of labs that can do forensic work, and they are back logged. the "CSI" model of criminology and forensic work is a nice ideal, but not how it works in real life. Madison,WI crime lab is in the bottom of an old school building and their mobile unit has far better equipment. That is the norm. It would be great if we could update crime labs and actually pay Police and Forensic scientist what they are worth, but no, their budget gets cut while social services keep getting more and more money....

wilbur
05-24-2010, 01:55 AM
This is only a partial reply, because the free-will stuff is getting long and in depth, and time is short. I want to get this stuff out of the way first, but more to come:



Well, by that logic, we cannot convict or punish anyone because modern forensics accounts for the vast majority of convictions. If you refuse to believe the science of criminology, then you will refuse to accept the results.


The finality of the death penalty (or the lobotomy suggestion) makes it different from other forms of punishments, like lifelong prison sentences. It is possible, in principle, to somewhat repair the damage done from an unjust prison sentence, as long as the convict remains alive. No other punishment in our society is as extreme or irrevocable as the death penalty is. Understandably, the standards that must be met before the DP is doled out to anyone, must be far more rigorous and far less fallible than the standards are for prison sentences. We can't undo it, if we make a mistake. We can't undo time in prison either, but we can compensate in other ways.

Therefore, its rather easy to believe that the science of criminology is adequate enough to dole out prison sentences, and also believe that it is not adequate to dole out capital punishment. There's simply no problem there, its not an all-or-nothing deal.



... First, you are assuming the "restoration" of something which may never have been there in the first place, that is, good mental health. ...



I don't see that this much matters.. you're trying to find fault with my use of the word "rehabilitate", but I'm more concerned with getting across what I mean, and am not concerned at all with sticking to a particular word - if you just aren't getting what I mean with the word "rehabilitate", then for goodness sake, lets pick something you accept without all the inconsequential quibbling. "Heal" perhaps?

Maybe this will give you a better sense of what I mean. I might also use the word "rehabilitation" (or healing), to describe a process where sight was "restored" to a person whose been blind since birth. In that same way, we could say a life long criminal was "rehabilitated" by treatment. So "rehabilitation" could mean healing a defect that has been present since birth, or not. Either way. Does that clear things up at all? If so, lets drop this unproductive tangent.



Whether you see it as an improvement or not, the personality rewrite that you are proposing mentally destroys a person in an irreparable way, just as a lobotomy would. In fact, the only distinction is that a lobotomy can be done with current technology, while a personality rewrite is still the stuff of science fiction, but in the end, it achieves the same result. Do you really believe that a prisoner who has been sentenced to have his personality wiped will see it as any less of a punishment than a lobotomy or death? In fact, I submit that it would come to be seen as a kind of "living death" as those who are rewritten end up being programmed with whatever personality happens to be fashionable among the penal authorities. Thugs will be rewritten to become bland, productive cogs with mass-produced psyches. The only thing missing will be the pods under their beds. And you object to my cruelty?


Look, these sci-fi "Total Recall"-like personality rewrites that you keep brining up, are not part of my thought experiment to begin with. I'm starting to understand some of the frustrations outlined in this blog post, "The problem with non-philosophers" - see points 4 and 5 for an apt description of what you are doing here:

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2006/05/problem-with-non-philosophers.html



4) They constantly fail to understand how a point (e.g. an analogy or thought experiment) fits in to a particular argument, and instead insist on applying it more broadly -- and then objecting when this irrelevant application fails! It's so frustrating.

For example, it seemed like just about every right-winger who read my "stuck down a well" thought experiment failed to realize that its purpose was to establish the conceptual point that mere non-interference is insufficient for the kind of freedom that we value. (If you think the man stuck down the well lacks freedom, then you are forced to go beyond negative freedom, for he has no lack of that. QED.) Instead, they'd start complaining about how forcing people to help others out of wells would be impractical, yada yada yada. Completely missing the point.


Or in you're case, you are objecting that its impractical to effectively adjust criminal behavior without destructively rewriting their personality (Total Recall, Dollhouse style, etc.). In so doing, you are missing the point, which is to learn something about the principles in play here, not to argue over whether such technology is feasible without destroying a persons mind. It may be, it may not be - either way, its irrelevant.

Maybe this will clear things up… think of a serial killer. For the purposes of the thought experiment, I am only presuming that we have the ability to inhibit or remove his urges to kill. We don't have to presume some high-tech, super-fly "personality wipe" (e.g. Total Recall, Dollhouse, etc) or anything like that, or anything destructive at all. We can remove or inhibit urge to kill, one way or another, without suspending any of his rights or privileges, or otherwise harming any piece of his personhood. In addition, we also have techniques to effectively encourage good behavior. This can be as simple as offering a rewards, or even the threat of punishment (but never needing to carry it out) - they may be completely mundane and low tech - the point is, that they work. That is all.

In effect, I'm just trying to get you to justify your position that the suffering of criminals is intrinsically good. So far, interestingly enough, all you've offered are some weak utilitarian justifications (i.e. the suffering of criminals is good, because it makes the victims happy).



But, of course, this leads to another question, which is why you are so obsessed with the rehabilitation of a murderer or rapist, who represents a minute fraction of the population, but show no regard for his victims, especially odd when you consider that they will invariably outnumber him.


This is simply gross mischaracterization, again. For the world as it is today, I think that state imposed suffering is the best way we've come up with to deal with criminals and crime. We may never come up with anything better or more effective. However, I'm disagreeing with the theory of justice that you (and some others here) seem to hold, that it is our objective duty to make a criminal suffer, because punishment (or the criminal's suffering) is intrinsically good. To that idea, I vehemently disagree. I do say that punishment is justified, but for other reasons - rehabilitation (aka, healing), deterrence, and restitution. I'm not arguing that punishment isnt justified or that monsters need to be coddled! I don't want to freaking sing lullabies to rapists and murders every night, in hopes that they dream of happy forests and fuzzy bunnies, for goodness sake - at least I wouldn't, unless doing so fulfilled my three reasons for punishment better than any other form of punishment could.

Sonnabend
05-24-2010, 04:31 AM
A live prisoner has the possibility of escape

A dead one never will.

A live prisoner may be paroled and go out and do it again

A dead one never will.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Odysseus
05-24-2010, 11:57 AM
The finality of the death penalty (or the lobotomy suggestion) makes it different from other forms of punishments, like lifelong prison sentences. It is possible, in principle, to somewhat repair the damage done from an unjust prison sentence, as long as the convict remains alive. No other punishment in our society is as extreme or irrevocable as the death penalty is. Understandably, the standards that must be met before the DP is doled out to anyone, must be far more rigorous and far less fallible than the standards are for prison sentences. We can't undo it, if we make a mistake. We can't undo time in prison either, but we can compensate in other ways.

Therefore, its rather easy to believe that the science of criminology is adequate enough to dole out prison sentences, and also believe that it is not adequate to dole out capital punishment. There's simply no problem there, its not an all-or-nothing deal.
But it is an either/or. You either believe that the system works, or you don't. If you do, then you apportion punishment without hesitation for crimes that warrant them. If you don't, then you find yourself hemming and hawing and avoiding punishment altogether, as so many now propose.



I don't see that this much matters.. you're trying to find fault with my use of the word "rehabilitate", but I'm more concerned with getting across what I mean, and am not concerned at all with sticking to a particular word - if you just aren't getting what I mean with the word "rehabilitate", then for goodness sake, lets pick something you accept without all the inconsequential quibbling. "Heal" perhaps?

Maybe this will give you a better sense of what I mean. I might also use the word "rehabilitation" (or healing), to describe a process where sight was "restored" to a person whose been blind since birth. In that same way, we could say a life long criminal was "rehabilitated" by treatment. So "rehabilitation" could mean healing a defect that has been present since birth, or not. Either way. Does that clear things up at all? If so, lets drop this unproductive tangent.

"Unproductive tangent" = Argument that I am losing. Badly.

Let us, then, accept that you say that you want to "heal" the criminal. The decision to murder a 7/11 clerk after you've emptied the till isn't the result of faulty wiring or poor potty training, it's a choice that reflects the moral character of the perp. To eliminate that means eliminating the capacity to choose that. One cannot have one without the other.



Look, these sci-fi "Total Recall"-like personality rewrites that you keep brining up, are not part of my thought experiment to begin with. I'm starting to understand some of the frustrations outlined in this blog post, "The problem with non-philosophers" - see points 4 and 5 for an apt description of what you are doing here:

http://www.philosophyetc.net/2006/05/problem-with-non-philosophers.html



4) They constantly fail to understand how a point (e.g. an analogy or thought experiment) fits in to a particular argument, and instead insist on applying it more broadly -- and then objecting when this irrelevant application fails! It's so frustrating.
It must be frustrating to be unable to control the terms of the debate to the narrow focus that would make your argument compelling, but as the "philosopher" fails to point out, if his analogy is flawed (and yours clearly is), it is only by expanding the parameters of the experiment by which we can recognize the flaws. I am not simply applying your point too broadly, I am taking it to its logical conclusion. The principles here are crime and punishment in the context of free will. Your thought experiment presupposes that crime is a medically curable condition, rather than a manifestation of moral and ethical reasoning by an individual.
For example, it seemed like just about every right-winger who read my "stuck down a well" thought experiment failed to realize that its purpose was to establish the conceptual point that mere non-interference is insufficient for the kind of freedom that we value. (If you think the man stuck down the well lacks freedom, then you are forced to go beyond negative freedom, for he has no lack of that. QED.) Instead, they'd start complaining about how forcing people to help others out of wells would be impractical, yada yada yada. Completely missing the point.


Or in you're case, you are objecting that its impractical to effectively adjust criminal behavior without destructively rewriting their personality (Total Recall, Dollhouse style, etc.). In so doing, you are missing the point, which is to learn something about the principles in play here, not to argue over whether such technology is feasible without destroying a persons mind. It may be, it may not be - either way, its irrelevant.
It's not the impracticality that I object to (a lobotomy is eminently practical, in fact, it's one of the cheapest medical procedures known). You propose that it might be theoretically possible to fundamentally change a person's most basic core values in order to make that person a productive member of society through a painless procedure in order to determine whether I would consider that sufficient to eliminate any need for punishment. But, you fail to acknowledge that, regardless of how it is done, the final effect is the replacement of free will with a series of programmed responses. I submit that such a change will, to the subject, be indistinguishable from a lobotomy. They may still be aware of their surroundings, capable of responding to stimuli and go through the motions of what we consider intelligent life, but they will ultimately be robots, manipulated by a procedure which cannot help but either eliminate or suppress whole swaths of their personality. By refusing to even consider the implications of the effects of your 'thought experiment" you have created a sophistry which cannot be discussed except in terms that are so abstract as to render the experiment meaningless. It is hardly irrelevent to point this out.

Maybe this will clear things up… think of a serial killer. For the purposes of the thought experiment, I am only presuming that we have the ability to inhibit or remove his urges to kill. We don't have to presume some high-tech, super-fly "personality wipe" (e.g. Total Recall, Dollhouse, etc) or anything like that, or anything destructive at all. We can remove or inhibit urge to kill, one way or another, without suspending any of his rights or privileges, or otherwise harming any piece of his personhood. In addition, we also have techniques to effectively encourage good behavior. This can be as simple as offering a rewards, or even the threat of punishment (but never needing to carry it out) - they may be completely mundane and low tech - the point is, that they work. That is all.

You object to "balance" as a concept and then bring in something as fluffy as "personhood?" LOL.


In effect, I'm just trying to get you to justify your position that the suffering of criminals is intrinsically good. So far, interestingly enough, all you've offered are some weak utilitarian justifications (i.e. the suffering of criminals is good, because it makes the victims happy).
And you've offered nothing but abstractions of impossible scenarios in order to justify your position that criminals should not suffer unduly. You refuse to accept that a criminal is responsible for his crimes. I, OTOH, believe that all adults, even criminals, are independent entities capable of making decisions for which they are ultimately responsible. The logical implication of this is that when someone commits an act for which they cannot make restitution, they must bear the ultimate penalty. The logical implication of your position is that when someone commits an evil act, they must be rebuilt into something that will go through the motions of humanity.


This is simply gross mischaracterization, again. For the world as it is today, I think that state imposed suffering is the best way we've come up with to deal with criminals and crime. We may never come up with anything better or more effective. However, I'm disagreeing with the theory of justice that you (and some others here) seem to hold, that it is our objective duty to make a criminal suffer, because punishment (or the criminal's suffering) is intrinsically good. To that idea, I vehemently disagree. I do say that punishment is justified, but for other reasons - rehabilitation (aka, healing), deterrence, and restitution. I'm not arguing that punishment isnt justified or that monsters need to be coddled! I don't want to freaking sing lullabies to rapists and murders every night, in hopes that they dream of happy forests and fuzzy bunnies, for goodness sake - at least I wouldn't, unless doing so fulfilled my three reasons for punishment better than any other form of punishment could.

Except that in the case of murder, there can be no restitution, since the damage is irreparable. There can be no "healing" because the murderer is rarely ever willing or able to heal, and it is almost impossible to tell when such repentence is genuine, so you would be forcing a "cure" on the perpetrator. Finally, we disagree on the value of the death penalty as deterrence, although it is obvious that the rise in violent crime rates in the seventies coincided almost exactly with the elimination of the death penalty.

Wei Wu Wei
05-24-2010, 02:50 PM
There's no such thing as the "left".

Just as racial categories are made up along arbitrary lines and change over time and only serve to cause antagonism between common peoples, political leanings are the same.

The "Left" is just a buzzword for people to project their paranoiac fantasies. Anyone who does anything bad is "the Left", so obviously the "Left" is bad, as the evidence shows. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
05-24-2010, 04:45 PM
There's no such thing as the "left".

Just as racial categories are made up along arbitrary lines and change over time and only serve to cause antagonism between common peoples, political leanings are the same.

The "Left" is just a buzzword for people to project their paranoiac fantasies. Anyone who does anything bad is "the Left", so obviously the "Left" is bad, as the evidence shows. :rolleyes:

Except that there clearly is a political left, just as there is a political right, and there are certain issues which have become obvious litmus tests for left/right orientation. The broad, overarching difference tends to be the definition of the limits of government. The left tends to want to see expansive, centralized government exercising greater domestic control, but with more limited sovereignty, while the right tends to want to see limited, decentralized government within the borders, but a robust international capability to project power. Within that context, there are specific policy areas that are almost always guaranteed to put someone clearly on one side of the divide. For example:


Abortion: Far left position is abortion on demand, at all times, under all circumstances. Far right position is absolute restriction of abortion and protection of life from conception.
Gun control: The leftist position is increased restriction on the individual right to keep and bear arms. The right position is decreased restrictions (this, BTW, is an almost perfect illustration of the divide along statist vs. individual rights)
Immigration: The left position is open borders. The right position is controlling the borders and restricting illegal immigration.
National defense posture: The left position is fetal. That is, they believe that basic differences between nations can be resolved through negotiation and assume that, like them, other nations seek peace as an end in itself. The right position is that the interests of the United States will, like those of all nations, sometimes be in conflict with those of other nations. Conservatives do not actively seek opportunities to wage war, but recognize that war is more common than peace, and the failure to prepare for war guarantees it.
Affirmative action: The left position is in favor of affirmative action. They believe that those who are not represented at the highest levels of our economy must be lifted through state intervention. Towards this end, they accept a far more intrusive version of racial profiling than we will ever see on an American highway. The right sees people as individuals, rather than members of groups, and sees attempts to impose group justice as an affront to the basic individual rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Nationalized health care: The left sees health care as a right. The right sees it as a commodity that must be paid for. This leads to...
Economics: The left sees economics as a means to ensure equality of result and favors regulatory approaches that change behaviors to reflect its goals. The right sees markets as an expression of millions of decisions which cannot be predicted or planned for by a central agency.


I could go on, but you get the idea. To try to claim that there is no left is specious, at best.

Wei Wu Wei
05-24-2010, 09:12 PM
sure you can identify two constrasting sides of an argument, but to collectively identify people who take one or more of the "leftist" positions as a group known as "THE LEFT" is silly.

if the right is all about individualism rather than collectivism, then this bs about constantly blaming "The Left" is totally contrary to "rightist" thought.

there's no clear division between the left and right, they only exist in absence of each other and the absense of both represent the monism that unites them.. they aren't different things, just identifying "left" and blaming it is meaningless.

Wei Wu Wei
05-24-2010, 09:14 PM
consider other binary conflicts

Labor vs Business owners

while they depend on each other, their interests are contrasted. Labor wants higher wages, better benefits, ect. Business wants lowest possible labor costs.

So does that mean you are anti-workers or are you anti-business?

Rockntractor
05-24-2010, 09:22 PM
consider other binary conflicts

Labor vs Business owners

while they depend on each other, their interests are contrasted. Labor wants higher wages, better benefits, ect. Business wants lowest possible labor costs.

So does that mean you are anti-workers or are you anti-business?

Your an idiot! What about what the market will pay for the product?

malloc
05-24-2010, 09:56 PM
consider other binary conflicts


He's not talking about any binary conflict. He's accurately describing an arbitrary system of classifying political thinking in terms of government involvement, oversight and regulation of human activity including but not limited to behavior and financial activities. The only person demanding a dichotomy of terms was you.

Allow me to illustrate.




<------------- Left, The--------------------+----------------------Right, The ----------------->


Total No
Governmental Governmental
Control The Center Control
| | | | |
| | | American | |
| | | Exceptionalism | |
| | | Zone | |
+-----------------------+--------------------+--------+---------+---------------+----------+--+-----------+
Dictatorship Socialists 'Moderate' | Moderate Libertarians| Anarchists
Oligarchy Progressives Democrats | Republicans Miniarchists
Mao Modern 'Liberals' NeoCons | Paleo-cons
Hitler,etc Social Conservatives


Somewhere along this line your idea of the "right" role of proper government lies. Since you seem to think that it is just and proper for government to regulate, tax, or outlaw most manner of human activity, including private business, health care, and energy production, your idea of government most definitely belongs on the left side of the spectrum, as do those who think like you.

That doesn't mean that every decision or position you take will be on the left side of this line. But if you look at the statistical mode of where your stance on any given issue might lie along this line, it will give you a close idea of where you are in the spectrum of political thought. One example would be banning abortion. Banning abortion places a governmental control on a human activity, but those on the 'moderate right' reach over to left on this issue because they believe protecting the sanctity of life is a proper function of government. Those on the 'moderate left' reach towards the right on this issue believing that it is not proper for government to interfere with that particular human activity. On the far left, in dictatorships, abortions can, and have been forced which is a power I think we all agree government should not have.

FlaGator
05-24-2010, 09:59 PM
sure you can identify two constrasting sides of an argument, but to collectively identify people who take one or more of the "leftist" positions as a group known as "THE LEFT" is silly.

if the right is all about individualism rather than collectivism, then this bs about constantly blaming "The Left" is totally contrary to "rightist" thought.

there's no clear division between the left and right, they only exist in absence of each other and the absense of both represent the monism that unites them.. they aren't different things, just identifying "left" and blaming it is meaningless.

The left and right are generalities which the use of is acceptable even to the side that supports individualism. Some positions are dominant among those we call the left and some positions are dominant for those on the right. To say that the left is pro-choice is a valid statement because most on the left are pro-choice. The statement is not meant to imply that all of those on the left are pro-choice, must the preponderance of them. Those in either group where this is an overlap of ideas common between the majority of each group would be termed centrist.

http://www.masstutor.net/Statistics_Homework_Help/Property_Functions/statistics_probability_set_theory_9.png

A being those on the left, B being those on the right and the area of commonality would be the centrists.


At this point in history there are very few issues in which the majority of both sides agree upon. When someone identifies the left, that someone is identifying a group of people of which the majority hold a certain set of common beliefs. In the case of the left the majority are pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro regulatory, etc. The right tends to be pro-life, anti regulatory, smaller role of government.

When speaking of the left or right certain accurate commonalities come to mind that are defining of the majority of that group. It is absurd to state one only exists in the absence of the other. If one does not exists then the major of the population is of the same opinion as the one that remains. The terms left and right exists only because there are two prevailing generalizations. With in each group we can define other divisions.

Wei Wu Wei
05-24-2010, 10:58 PM
He's not talking about any binary conflict. He's accurately describing an arbitrary system of classifying political thinking in terms of government involvement, oversight and regulation of human activity including but not limited to behavior and financial activities. The only person demanding a dichotomy of terms was you.

Allow me to illustrate.




<------------- Left, The--------------------+----------------------Right, The ----------------->


Total No
Governmental Governmental
Control The Center Control
| | | | |
| | | American | |
| | | Exceptionalism | |
| | | Zone | |
+-----------------------+--------------------+--------+---------+---------------+----------+--+-----------+
Dictatorship Socialists 'Moderate' | Moderate Libertarians| Anarchists
Oligarchy Progressives Democrats | Republicans Miniarchists
Mao Modern 'Liberals' NeoCons | Paleo-cons
Hitler,etc Social Conservatives


Somewhere along this line your idea of the "right" role of proper government lies. Since you seem to think that it is just and proper for government to regulate, tax, or outlaw most manner of human activity, including private business, health care, and energy production, your idea of government most definitely belongs on the left side of the spectrum, as do those who think like you.


Except I think this only applies for economics.

Issues like prostitution, drugs, death penalty, civil rights, censorship, ect. don't really fit here, because a libertarian would fit firmly on the "left" on some issues and firmly on the "right" of other issues.,



That doesn't mean that every decision or position you take will be on the left side of this line. But if you look at the statistical mode of where your stance on any given issue might lie along this line, it will give you a close idea of where you are in the spectrum of political thought. One example would be banning abortion. Banning abortion places a governmental control on a human activity, but those on the 'moderate right' reach over to left on this issue because they believe protecting the sanctity of life is a proper function of government. Those on the 'moderate left' reach towards the right on this issue believing that it is not proper for government to interfere with that particular human activity. On the far left, in dictatorships, abortions can, and have been forced which is a power I think we all agree government should not have.

While this is more appropriately considered a spectrum, dividing it along a clear middle line (which there isn't one in our "real" society) makes it effectively into a binary when people like to place blame on either "The Right" or "The Left"

AmPat
05-25-2010, 03:48 AM
There's no such thing as the "left".

Just as racial categories are made up along arbitrary lines and change over time and only serve to cause antagonism between common peoples, political leanings are the same.

The "Left" is just a buzzword for people to project their paranoiac fantasies. Anyone who does anything bad is "the Left", so obviously the "Left" is bad, as the evidence shows. :rolleyes:

What a bunch of crap. Standby for much nonsense to explain this moronic statement.:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 05:51 AM
The left and right are generalities which the use of is acceptable even to the side that supports individualism. Some positions are dominant among those we call the left and some positions are dominant for those on the right. To say that the left is pro-choice is a valid statement because most on the left are pro-choice. The statement is not meant to imply that all of those on the left are pro-choice, must the preponderance of them. Those in either group where this is an overlap of ideas common between the majority of each group would be termed centrist.

http://www.masstutor.net/Statistics_Homework_Help/Property_Functions/statistics_probability_set_theory_9.png

A being those on the left, B being those on the right and the area of commonality would be the centrists.


At this point in history there are very few issues in which the majority of both sides agree upon. When someone identifies the left, that someone is identifying a group of people of which the majority hold a certain set of common beliefs. In the case of the left the majority are pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro regulatory, etc. The right tends to be pro-life, anti regulatory, smaller role of government.

When speaking of the left or right certain accurate commonalities come to mind that are defining of the majority of that group. It is absurd to state one only exists in the absence of the other. If one does not exists then the major of the population is of the same opinion as the one that remains. The terms left and right exists only because there are two prevailing generalizations. With in each group we can define other divisions.

How about S?

FlaGator
05-25-2010, 06:43 AM
How about S?

Silly that I actually have to explain the concept of generalizations.

wilbur
05-25-2010, 01:48 PM
But it is an either/or. You either believe that the system works, or you don't. If you do, then you apportion punishment without hesitation for crimes that warrant them. If you don't, then you find yourself hemming and hawing and avoiding punishment altogether, as so many now propose.

I don't find myself hemming or hawing when it comes to punishing criminals, so consider your thesis here to be refuted. I fully support the state's right to punish, with no hems and no haws.

If one were so inclined, one could even raise your "hemming and hawing" concern with any type of punishment, including those that you probably don't support. I mean, surely we risk "hemming and hawing" or a complete abandonment of punishment all together if we decide that chopping off the hands of petty thieves, is a punishment that has no place in this society. Actually, on second thought, I think not. And so it is with the death penalty.


"Unproductive tangent" = Argument that I am losing. Badly.

The "unproductive tangent", in this case is little more than semantic bludgeoning, accompanied by little-to-no good-faith efforts to seek clarification. Im always willing to clarify definitions if the use of certain words leads to confusion.


Let us, then, accept that you say that you want to "heal" the criminal. The decision to murder a 7/11 clerk after you've emptied the till isn't the result of faulty wiring or poor potty training, it's a choice that reflects the moral character of the perp. To eliminate that means eliminating the capacity to choose that. One cannot have one without the other.

Whoa, come again!?!? Neither poor training, nor poor wiring have contributing roles in our moral choices? You've now eliminated both nature AND nurture as components in moral choices, and introduced yet another mysterious underlying force, which you are choosing to label as "moral character". But when most of us think of moral character, we certainly don't think of it like you are using it here. We really think of a state of being that is the end result of our environment (nurture), and/or our inborn nature (ie. "wiring"), not something that stands by itself, uninfluenced by either. Seriously, what can "moral character" actually be, if not an end result of ones inborn nature, and one's moral upbringing? Even if you believe a soul exists, and contributes to moral character, this would surely count as nature.

Your view here is basically unintelligible. Unfortunately, this view seems to be an underlying premise in the rest of your arguments. So you've essentially blown your own head off here, at least until you can explain yourself better.

Now a few final words on the though experiment:


It's not the impracticality that I object to (a lobotomy is eminently practical, in fact, it's one of the cheapest medical procedures known). You propose that it might be theoretically possible to fundamentally change a person's most basic core values in order to make that person a productive member of society through a painless procedure in order to determine whether I would consider that sufficient to eliminate any need for punishment. But, you fail to acknowledge that, regardless of how it is done, the final effect is the replacement of free will with a series of programmed responses. I submit that such a change will, to the subject, be indistinguishable from a lobotomy. They may still be aware of their surroundings, capable of responding to stimuli and go through the motions of what we consider intelligent life, but they will ultimately be robots, manipulated by a procedure which cannot help but either eliminate or suppress whole swaths of their personality.

By refusing to even consider the implications of the effects of your 'thought experiment" you have created a sophistry which cannot be discussed except in terms that are so abstract as to render the experiment meaningless. It is hardly irrelevent to point this out.

The only way this avenue of attack can be successful, is to show that some portion of the thought experiment is logically inconceivable - that is, it cannot even be sensibly imagined in some possible world.

As long as we can make some sort of coherent mental picture out of a scenario where - for example - a murderer, who through some means or another, is relieved of his urges to kill in a way that's non-deleterious to any other part of his character, then the thought experiment stands - or at the very least, it stands against the arguments you have been trying to mount. And, as it turns out, this is very easy to do.

Some examples of things of which we cannot form a coherent mental picture include square circles, or married bachelors. There is no possible state of affairs that could make these ideas logically sensible, and if my thought experiment included such things, you would be right to reject it on those grounds. But the scenarios in my thought experiment are not like square circles or married bachelors at all - they are logically conceivable.

But in any case, in light of your whopper above, I will refrain from commenting further. Your view of "moral character" seems fundamentally flawed beyond all repair, but you can go ahead give it a go - until then, there isnt much to say.

Wei Wu Wei
05-25-2010, 04:05 PM
Silly that I actually have to explain the concept of generalizations.

Lol I know but what you're talking about is clearly defined groups. Things are either A or B or they overlap a little. That's not how things are in reality.

Our groups aren't defined, A and B shift and change on their own, and they are both representing the same thing all the time.

Sonnabend
05-25-2010, 04:46 PM
As long as we can make some sort of coherent mental picture out of a scenario where - for example - a murderer, who through some means or another, is relieved of his urges to kill in a way that's non-deleterious to any other part of his character, then the thought experiment stands - or at the very least, it stands against the arguments you have been trying to mount. And, as it turns out, this is very easy to do.The person he killed is still dead.

Your "thought experiments" are just an excuse for loads of liberal bullshit..and as usual, like most liberals, you sympathise for the plight of the prisoner rather than their victims.

From my POV, closure? Is seeing the scum who murdered is put up against a wall and shot at dawn, or strapped to a gurney, or put in a gas chamber, or rides Ol' Sparky.

Either way I will be satisfied that the subhuman bastard or bitch who took a life never does it again.

Odysseus
05-25-2010, 06:34 PM
How about S?
S=Whigs. :D

sure you can identify two constrasting sides of an argument, but to collectively identify people who take one or more of the "leftist" positions as a group known as "THE LEFT" is silly.

if the right is all about individualism rather than collectivism, then this bs about constantly blaming "The Left" is totally contrary to "rightist" thought.

there's no clear division between the left and right, they only exist in absence of each other and the absense of both represent the monism that unites them.. they aren't different things, just identifying "left" and blaming it is meaningless.
If you prefer progressives and conservatives, then so be it. But there is a divide, even on the issues that you cite. Philosophically, it's the difference between Rousseau and Hobbes, or, if you prefer, Aristotle and Plato, but you cannot pretend that the divide isn't there, or that it cannot be categorized. Observe:

Prostitution: To the extent that there is a movement to legalize prostitution, that movement comes from the progressives and some libertarians, who see it as just another form of work. Conservatives tend to see "sex workers" as victims of a modern slave trade.
Drugs: Surprisingly, the impetus for prohibition originally came from the progressives (the 18th Amendment was fought for by Woodrow Wilson). The current debate over legalization has factions on both sides (William F. Buckley was an advocate of legalization). This one does split across all lines.
Death penalty: Have you not been watching Wilbur and me? Pro-death penalty is a conservative position, anti is the progressive position.
Civil rights: At the risk of sounding Clintonian, it depends on how you define civil rights. Progressives seek equality of result, while conservatives seek equal opportunity. Thus, the progressives favor affirmative action (or racial profiling in hiring and admissions) while conservatives seek to make it so that each individual is weighed on their merits, rather than on their affiliations.
Censorship: That depends on what you want to censor. Progressives seek to use Hate Speech codes, Fairness Doctrines, campaign finance regulations, sedition laws and a host of other tricks to regulate political speech (and before you cry foul, remember that Woodrow Wilson routinely persecuted political opponents under sedition laws). Conservatives generally seek to apply censorship against specific areas of defined obscenity.

I don't find myself hemming or hawing when it comes to punishing criminals, so consider your thesis here to be refuted. I fully support the state's right to punish, with no hems and no haws.

And yet you haven't answered my question regarding your observation that we are not responsible for our crimes. Who is responsible?


If one were so inclined, one could even raise your "hemming and hawing" concern with any type of punishment, including those that you probably don't support. I mean, surely we risk "hemming and hawing" or a complete abandonment of punishment all together if we decide that chopping off the hands of petty thieves, is a punishment that has no place in this society. Actually, on second thought, I think not. And so it is with the death penalty.
Under certain circumstances, it might just be necessary to impose a draconian punishment on petty theft, such as amputation, but that's a thought experiment for another time.

The "unproductive tangent", in this case is little more than semantic bludgeoning, accompanied by little-to-no good-faith efforts to seek clarification. Im always willing to clarify definitions if the use of certain words leads to confusion.
I have no doubt that you're willing to "clarify" definitions if it benefits your argument. Fortunately, I too speak, read and write English, and can therefore determine the meaning of a paragraph. The "semantic bludgeoning" that you refer to is called "logic" among those who practice it.


Whoa, come again!?!? Neither poor training, nor poor wiring have contributing roles in our moral choices? You've now eliminated both nature AND nurture as components in moral choices, and introduced yet another mysterious underlying force, which you are choosing to label as "moral character". But when most of us think of moral character, we certainly don't think of it like you are using it here. We really think of a state of being that is the end result of our environment (nurture), and/or our inborn nature (ie. "wiring"), not something that stands by itself, uninfluenced by either. Seriously, what can "moral character" actually be, if not an end result of ones inborn nature, and one's moral upbringing? Even if you believe a soul exists, and contributes to moral character, this would surely count as nature.
Your view here is basically unintelligible. Unfortunately, this view seems to be an underlying premise in the rest of your arguments. So you've essentially blown your own head off here, at least until you can explain yourself better.

I actually said poor potty training. Try to keep up.
Moral character the choice that we make when faced with a temptation. Everyone has a dark side, and there are conditions (or conditioning) which can amplify it, but ultimately, the decision is what we must account for. Ultimately what decides innocence or guilt is the decision to do or not do what you know you know to be wrong. That is why the legal standard of insanity is that the perpetrator cannot know that his actions are wrong. The overwhelming majority of murderers know that their actions are wrong and take great pains to hide them. They know that they have committed an evil act, even if they cannot admit it to themselves. The punk who, having emptied the till, then shoots the bodega owner, is making a choice, one that he knows is illegal, and one that he knows that he will be punished for if he is caught. That is moral reasoning, and character is the sum of our choices.

Now a few final words on the though experiment:
The only way this avenue of attack can be successful, is to show that some portion of the thought experiment is logically inconceivable - that is, it cannot even be sensibly imagined in some possible world

As long as we can make some sort of coherent mental picture out of a scenario where - for example - a murderer, who through some means or another, is relieved of his urges to kill in a way that's non-deleterious to any other part of his character, then the thought experiment stands - or at the very least, it stands against the arguments you have been trying to mount. And, as it turns out, this is very easy to do.

Some examples of things of which we cannot form a coherent mental picture include square circles, or married bachelors. There is no possible state of affairs that could make these ideas logically sensible, and if my thought experiment included such things, you would be right to reject it on those grounds. But the scenarios in my thought experiment are not like square circles or married bachelors at all - they are logically conceivable.
So, I can only win the argument if I defeat you on your terms? How convenient. For you. Okay, you asked for it.
Your thought experiment demanded that we accept that possibility that you could relieve a murderer of his urges to kill in a way that does not delete any part of his character. In fact, your idea is logically inconceivable because every possible means of eradicating behavior that a criminal finds pleasurable or convenient will inevitably be seen as detrimental. You cannot erase the desires that lead a serial killer to kill without erasing the parts of him that breed those desires, the "training" that made him who he is. Your thought experiment puts you in the position of destroying at least some portion of the minds of the perpetrators. By doing so, you eliminate free will and produce an automaton. You cannot admit that, so you retreat into the vaguest generalities, because the specifics are morally repugnant. You seek to create a utopian fantasy of corrections, which cannot do what you want it to, and then you get angry when your fantasy is exposed as untenable. This is the logical fallacy at the center of your experiment, that you wish to introduce a concept which cannot exist in order to argue against the concrete realities which surround the death penalty.


But in any case, in light of your whopper above, I will refrain from commenting further. Your view of "moral character" seems fundamentally flawed beyond all repair, but you can go ahead give it a go - until then, there isnt much to say.
Since you have called my argument a "whopper" then it must be so. I've defined my view of moral character. I have as yet to hear you define responsibility. How many times must I ask you what you meant when you said, "They are the most proximate causes of their crimes, and therefore can be named as the cause - even if the things they (or any of us) do arent their fault in the most ultimate sense." Whose fault are their crimes if not their own? I believe that this is the fourth time that I've asked you to clarify this. Will you ever?

wilbur
05-28-2010, 12:49 AM
I actually said poor potty training. Try to keep up. Moral character the choice that we make when faced with a temptation. Everyone has a dark side, and there are conditions (or conditioning) which can amplify it, but ultimately, the decision is what we must account for. Ultimately what decides innocence or guilt is the decision to do or not do what you know you know to be wrong. That is why the legal standard of insanity is that the perpetrator cannot know that his actions are wrong. The overwhelming majority of murderers know that their actions are wrong and take great pains to hide them. They know that they have committed an evil act, even if they cannot admit it to themselves. The punk who, having emptied the till, then shoots the bodega owner, is making a choice, one that he knows is illegal, and one that he knows that he will be punished for if he is caught. That is moral reasoning, and character is the sum of our choices.

So, I can only win the argument if I defeat you on your terms? How convenient. For you. Okay, you asked for it. Your thought experiment demanded that we accept that possibility that you could relieve a murderer of his urges to kill in a way that does not delete any part of his character. In fact, your idea is logically inconceivable because every possible means of eradicating behavior that a criminal finds pleasurable or convenient will inevitably be seen as detrimental. You cannot erase the desires that lead a serial killer to kill without erasing the parts of him that breed those desires, the "training" that made him who he is. Your thought experiment puts you in the position of destroying at least some portion of the minds of the perpetrators. By doing so, you eliminate free will and produce an automaton. You cannot admit that, so you retreat into the vaguest generalities, because the specifics are morally repugnant. You seek to create a utopian fantasy of corrections, which cannot do what you want it to, and then you get angry when your fantasy is exposed as untenable. This is the logical fallacy at the center of your experiment, that you wish to introduce a concept which cannot exist in order to argue against the concrete realities which surround the death penalty.


I don't agree that destroying a part of the mind unavoidably eliminates free will. Destroying parts of the mind definitely *can* eliminate one's free will. That's not controversial. But its also not controversial that parts of the mind or brain can be destroyed or altered while leaving freewill intact. So unless you have some insider medical knowledge here, your argument that my thought experiment is logically inconceivable is unfounded. There are more problems.

Again, we don't have to presuppose some invasive freewill-destroying lobotomy or mind-wipe program. In this alternate world, perhaps we have figured out how to induce transformative experiences in criminals, like the types of transformative experiences that people experience frequently, spontaneously, and naturally today. Awakenings, so-to-speak. These kinds of epiphanies have been know reshape entire portions of a person's character, in one fell swoop. And so it could be with criminals in this alternate reality. And of course, experiences like this don't necessarily hinder the freewill of those who experience them. In the thought experiment, we just trigger these experiences intentionally, but we can assume the content of these experiences is genuine and freewill preserving, just like natural experiences (and for the purposes of the thought experiment, we can assume this technique is 100% effective).

Or perhaps in this alternate world, its discovered rape and murder, etc really are the result of biochemical abnormalities, and removing these abnormalities essentially cures the criminal. Here we can honestly say that biochemical abnormalities actually inhibit the criminals true will. There's nothing logically inconceivable about that, so its yet another way the thought experiment can work.

In any case, the thought experiment isn't a trick or a trap. You don't concede anything by playing along. Heck, you might be able to answer it, so that your view comes out on top. Maybe you think the criminal should be made to suffer, even though its known the suffering isn't necessary for restitution, rehabilitation, or deterrence. Maybe you can even support your answer with some solid reasoning - but so far, you've refused to play ball, so we don't know.

And for what its worth, I don't believe the scenarios in the thought experiment are every likely to happen. Its pretty unrealistic. Thought experiments usually are. If the situation isn't unrealistic, the participants often have unrealistic power or knowledge. Or outcomes of certain possibilities are absolutely guaranteed (ex, X or Y are *guaranteed* to occur, or to guarantee some consequence, absolutely). In the real world, we never really have any of these things. We will probably never be in a position to have absolute knowledge that a criminal will never commit another crime as long as he lives, no matter what kind of technology we come up with in the future - but that doesn't matter.

All these little unrealisms are simply tools to help eliminate confounding factors in thought experiments, to zero in on only the stuff that's relevant to the principles being discussed, and nothing more. Despite the fact that nearly all thought experiments contain some wildly unrealistic conditions, they are taken very seriously.



Since you have called my argument a "whopper" then it must be so. I've defined my view of moral character. I have as yet to hear you define responsibility. How many times must I ask you what you meant when you said, "They are the most proximate causes of their crimes, and therefore can be named as the cause - even if the things they (or any of us) do arent their fault in the most ultimate sense." Whose fault are their crimes if not their own? I believe that this is the fourth time that I've asked you to clarify this. Will you ever?

We live in a deterministic universe, or so it seems. Every effect, including our choices, are the results of prior causes. One can follow these prior causes all the way back to the beginning of the universe, theoretically.

So every choice is fully caused. This realization requires us to completely revamp the way we think responsibility, choice, and freewill. When I said 'the things they (or any of us) do aren't their fault in the most ultimate sense', I only mean that in the most ultimate sense, the big bang was the root cause of every event in the universe, including their choices (and ours).

But determinism also commits us to the idea that criminals are the causes of their actions - or at least the most direct causes. And as luck would have it, we can take action against criminals to influence things they cause in the future. But even so, this conclusion pushes us away from finger wagging, retributive punishment, and compels us focus on solving the social ills caused by crime.

Richard Carrier, philosopher/historian explains this sort of view will in his book, Sense and Goodness Without God:



As we shall see, for example, ‘responsibility’, both moral and legal, actually requires determinism. For if determinism were not true, then our actions and choices would not necessarily be caused by who we are. And what “we” (as a set of personality traits, memories, and so on) did not cause, we cannot logically be blamed or praised for.

...

Of course, this means we ought to care more about reforming bad people than punishing them, and a lot more about fixing the social causes of evil than locking up their products… Punishment for vengeance’s sake is pointless cruelty from which no noble benefit accrues to anyone. The only valid punishment is that which has as its end a better society and, if possible, a better person.


People usually find determinism offensive, or scary but consider the alternative - if you aren't determined, then you are random. No punishment could be effective. I find that idea much scarier.

We all agree crime that society needs to address crime. We need to deal with it. It causes problems, and we want to minimize those problems. We punish because its the best way we know to solve the problem of crime. Punishment for vengeance's sake is truly pointless.

malloc
05-28-2010, 07:00 AM
Except I think this only applies for economics.

Well, than that thought just made you an idiot.



Issues like prostitution, drugs, death penalty, civil rights, censorship, ect. don't really fit here, because a libertarian would fit firmly on the "left" on some issues and firmly on the "right" of other issues.,


Did you even read the rest of my post? More likely you just looked at the picture and assumed, as you narcissistic liberals do, that you actually understood the meaning. However, you didn't understand the meaning, and now you have replied stupidly.

Let me point out the evidence of your stupidity:

A.) Prostitution: To a libertarian like me prostitution has always been legal, and a decree from government made it illegal, and thus a black market asset. That moves the issue of freedom to prostitute as far right as libertarians like me. If statist control freak leftists want to "leagalize" prostitution, then they have to move to the right, and vote for less governmental control, on this issue. Or they must believe they are doing a 'favor' to prostitutes by legalizing the human activity of prostitution. Does your dumb ass even realize the difference? Liberals would have to move toward less governmental control over human activity, or gravitate towards more material kickbacks under regulation in order to legalize prostitution.

B.) Death Penalty: Condemning a man to death is a serious responsibility. It seems from your self-proclaimed enlightened thought, that the government should have some sort of sole proprietorship of condemning a man to death. Unfortunately that is just more of your stupidity taking hold. You, no matter how narcissistic and self-proclaimed "enlightened", aren't smarter than a jury of the condemned peers in a court of law determined lawful by your principality.

C.) Censorship:

HAHAHAHA LOL, does your self worshiping ass even know what a libertarian is? Over here on the far right we don't censor no matter what the cost, even if that means that self-serving sub-intellectual piss ants like you can spout your stupidity as fast as the internet can take it. Case in point is CU Vs. DU. Who bans for opposing speech? Who bans for challenging the status quo? I'll give you a hint, narcissists like you cannot stand to have your viewpoint questioned, so the DU bans for almost any breech of the hive mind. Here on CU, I've just advocated the legalization of prostitution! I'm sure there will be some who don't agree with me, but I won't be banned or silenced. Your argument on this point reeks of fail. The less government control imposed, the less censorship can exist. This should be kind of a given. How again am I reaching left for more governmental control over censorship?


Wow, was that it? Was that just each and every point you punctuated refuted? I do believe that is just exactly what happened. Your entire point about libertarians reaching to the "left" for some positions was just entirely refuted. Libertarians constantly reach for less government, and the only solution for every ill is less government, libertarians don't reach left, we know that reaching in that direction is asking for a bite on the hand.



While this is more appropriately considered a spectrum, dividing it along a clear middle line (which there isn't one in our "real" society) makes it effectively into a binary when people like to place blame on either "The Right" or "The Left"

Aww, how cute. Another statement in which you believe your intellect to be "superior" to the "commoners" who visit this forum. Of course, you opened up your mouth, and absolute crap came out. First off, every "spectrum" has a middle line, called a spectrum divider, or statistical median. Therefore your ignorant assertion that a "dividing middle line doesn't exist", should consult some mathematical laws, because your bullshit cannot override mathematics, now matter how awesome you think you are. Second, our society is real, not "real" in quotes as you like to use to show that you are somehow separate from 'them'. There are real people living real lives which require real goods, services and jobs or markets. These real people in our society have had it with know-it-alls like you who don't know shit. The swing vote is done for the liberal, fascist cause. Hope in the government and waiting on governmental change has failed. Once you have a mathematical median you can then absolutely determine a right and a left, just as you can determine a North and South from a fixed reference point. Those on the "left" of this mathematical point are doomed.

Thanks for playing but you fail. The next time you want to play, perhaps you should fill your head with actual knowledge and not some pipe dream fantasy wherein you are the hero. You really are a sad little man aren't you?

Odysseus
05-31-2010, 03:31 PM
I don't agree that destroying a part of the mind unavoidably eliminates free will. Destroying parts of the mind definitely *can* eliminate one's free will. That's not controversial. But its also not controversial that parts of the mind or brain can be destroyed or altered while leaving freewill intact. So unless you have some insider medical knowledge here, your argument that my thought experiment is logically inconceivable is unfounded. There are more problems.
Whether you agree with it or not is not the issue. Provide an example where destroying part of a person's mind didn't eliminate free will and you'll be able to argue the validity of your experiment. I, on the other hand, can cite multiple cases where invasive medical procedures or traumatic events have produced behavioral changes (lobotomies being one example, brain injuries being another), but in every case, the people undergoing the therapy were radically altered in the process. You, on the other hand, cannot cite an example of what you speak of, but retreat to vague hypotheticals.

Again, we don't have to presuppose some invasive freewill-destroying lobotomy or mind-wipe program. In this alternate world, perhaps we have figured out how to induce transformative experiences in criminals, like the types of transformative experiences that people experience frequently, spontaneously, and naturally today. Awakenings, so-to-speak. These kinds of epiphanies have been know reshape entire portions of a person's character, in one fell swoop. And so it could be with criminals in this alternate reality. And of course, experiences like this don't necessarily hinder the freewill of those who experience them. In the thought experiment, we just trigger these experiences intentionally, but we can assume the content of these experiences is genuine and freewill preserving, just like natural experiences (and for the purposes of the thought experiment, we can assume this technique is 100% effective).
An epiphany can be either positive or negative (Hitler's epiphany produced Mein Kamph and resulted in the Holocaust, Marx's resulted in an economic system that murdered millions, etc.). If the technique is 100% effective, then you are guaranteeing that all of the epiphanies will give the desired result, which means that they are not awakenings, but simply mass-produced programming. Again, no free will.


Or perhaps in this alternate world, its discovered rape and murder, etc really are the result of biochemical abnormalities, and removing these abnormalities essentially cures the criminal. Here we can honestly say that biochemical abnormalities actually inhibit the criminals true will. There's nothing logically inconceivable about that, so its yet another way the thought experiment can work.

In any case, the thought experiment isn't a trick or a trap. You don't concede anything by playing along. Heck, you might be able to answer it, so that your view comes out on top. Maybe you think the criminal should be made to suffer, even though its known the suffering isn't necessary for restitution, rehabilitation, or deterrence. Maybe you can even support your answer with some solid reasoning - but so far, you've refused to play ball, so we don't know.

Except that in the real world, we know that violence is not the result of biochemical abnormalities. In order for your "thought experiment" to work, we must assume that everything that we know about behavioral science is false, that enlightenment can be imposed and that removing "biochemical abnormalities" will produce happy, productive citizens. The harder you work to justify this Utopian fantasy, the more you retreat from the known reality. This thought experiment is a fraud, in which you are piling hypothetical on top of hypothetical in order to avoid dealing with the crux of the issue. You are attempting to invite what you admit are unrealistic and impossible scenarios in order to impugn my reasoning, because you cannot answer the fundamental arguments.



Again, we don't have to presuppose some invasive freewill-destroying lobotomy or mind-wipe program. In this alternate world, perhaps we have figured out how to induce transformative experiences in criminals, like the types of transformative experiences that people experience frequently, spontaneously, and naturally today. Awakenings, so-to-speak. These kinds of epiphanies have been know reshape entire portions of a person's character, in one fell swoop. And so it could be with criminals in this alternate reality. And of course, experiences like this don't necessarily hinder the freewill of those who experience them. In the thought experiment, we just trigger these experiences intentionally, but we can assume the content of these experiences is genuine and freewill preserving, just like natural experiences (and for the purposes of the thought experiment, we can assume this technique is 100% effective).
An epiphany is simply a realization, but they can be either positive or negative (Hitler's epiphany produced Mein Kamph and resulted in the Holocaust, Marx's resulted in an economic system that murdered millions, etc.). If the technique is 100% effective, then you are guaranteeing that all of the epiphanies will give the desired result, which means that they are not awakenings, but simply mass-produced programming. Again, no free will.


And for what its worth,I don't believe the scenarios in the thought experiment are every likely to happen. Its pretty unrealistic.

Then you can stop wasting my time with it.


So every choice is fully caused. This realization requires us to completely revamp the way we think responsibility, choice, and freewill. When I said 'the things they (or any of us) do aren't their fault in the most ultimate sense', I only mean that in the most ultimate sense, the big bang was the root cause of every event in the universe, including their choices (and ours).
Let me make sure that I understand this: When you say that the things which they (or any of us) do aren't their fault in the most ultimate sense', it's because you're blaming everything on the origins of the universe? I think that we've redefined "whopper" here.

causes[/i] of their actions - or at least the most direct causes. And as luck would have it, we can take action against criminals to influence things they cause in the future. But even so, this conclusion pushes us away from finger wagging, retributive punishment, and compels us focus on solving the social ills caused by crime.

Richard Carrier, philosopher/historian explains this sort of view will in his book, Sense and Goodness Without God:



As we shall see, for example, ‘responsibility’, both moral and legal, actually requires determinism. For if determinism were not true, then our actions and choices would not necessarily be caused by who we are. And what “we” (as a set of personality traits, memories, and so on) did not cause, we cannot logically be blamed or praised for.
...
Of course, this means we ought to care more about reforming bad people than punishing them, and a lot more about fixing the social causes of evil than locking up their products… Punishment for vengeance’s sake is pointless cruelty from which no noble benefit accrues to anyone. The only valid punishment is that which has as its end a better society and, if possible, a better person.


People usually find determinism offensive, or scary but consider the alternative - if you aren't determined, then you are random. No punishment could be effective. I find that idea much scarier.

We all agree crime that society needs to address crime. We need to deal with it. It causes problems, and we want to minimize those problems. We punish because its the best way we know to solve the problem of crime. Punishment for vengeance's sake is truly pointless.
The number of logical fallacies in that statement would fill this thread. It presumes that the sole interest in justice is societal and not individual, but society is made up of individual interests, and in that regard, vengeance isn't pointless, even if you don't see the point. It provides a deterrent to those who weigh the consequences of future acts, provides peace to the families of victims of past ones (preventing a return to individual acts of retribution, blood feuds and the collapse of proportion in justice), and eliminates those who would repeat their acts before they can do so. In a society in which individuals are responsible for their actions, and bear the consequences for them, the goal is not reforming bad people so much as protecting good people from bad people. If we were able to turn Sirhan Sirhan or Charles Manson into likeable robots, it wouldn't bring back their victims, nor would it erase their crimes, it would just assuage the guilt of those who feel bad about being unable to help them, but one cannot help monsters, except by either enabling their crimes or putting them out of their misery. Capital punishment isn't the easy answer, as you like to pretend, but it is the moral one.

warpig
05-31-2010, 03:59 PM
Cultural determinism, states David Horowitz, is “identity politics—the politics of radical feminism, queer revolution, and Afro-centrism—which is the basis of academic multiculturalism…a form of intellectual fascism and, insofar as it has any politics, of political fascism as well.” (Mussolini and Neo-Fascist Tribalism: Up from Multiculturalism, by David Horowitz, Jan. 1998)

wilbur
05-31-2010, 05:10 PM
Cultural determinism, states David Horowitz, is “identity politics—the politics of radical feminism, queer revolution, and Afro-centrism—which is the basis of academic multiculturalism…a form of intellectual fascism and, insofar as it has any politics, of political fascism as well.” (Mussolini and Neo-Fascist Tribalism: Up from Multiculturalism, by David Horowitz, Jan. 1998)

I have not been talking about cultural determinism here, though its a basic and undeniable fact that culture has an influence in the choices we make.

wilbur
06-03-2010, 12:21 PM
I was going through replying to every bit of this post, till I got here:



... vengeance isn't pointless, even if you don't see the point.
It provides a deterrent to those who weigh the consequences of future acts (aka, deterrence), provides peace to the families of victims of past ones (preventing a return to individual acts of retribution, blood feuds and the collapse of proportion in justice)(aka, restitution, civil order, etc), and eliminates those who would repeat their acts before they can do so (aka, rehabilitation). In a society in which individuals are responsible for their actions, and bear the consequences for them, the goal is not reforming bad people so much as protecting good people from bad people.

See, this just tells me that you don't even understand what the argument has been about. Your laundry list for vengeance *still* contains nothing but consequentialist/utilitarian justifications for punishment. Those types of justifications are indeed valid (at least when accurate) and I have said so the whole time. Ironically, you took issue with me earlier me for only considering utilitarian reasons for punishment, but can't actually provide anything but utilitarian reasons yourself.

The point of the thought experiment, which you keep deftly missing (or avoiding), is to *remove* these utilitarian concerns from the playing field, and to ask if punishment is still justified (and not, as you have been supposing, to argue over the nature of lobotomies). My answer is to say that punishment is unnecessary and unjustified once we remove them.

So lets rephrase - can you justify punishment, even when it fulfills none of those utilitarian justifications you mentioned above? If your answer to this, is "I can't - those are the only justifications I can think of", then you agree with my original thought that started this whole discussion - that punishment for punishment's sake is not justified - and we are arguing past each other.

If your answer is "Yes, I can", then you need to explain yourself.

wilbur
06-03-2010, 03:09 PM
I ran across a blog post today that says all I have been trying to say. But this guy is a pro-philosopher, so he does it much better. In this post he is speaking more narrowly about diseases and how we respond to them. But more broadly, it applies to any issue where models of blameworthiness and praiseworthiness come into play - such as crime and punishment.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/2as/diseased_thinking_dissolving_questions_about/ *I highly recommend reading the whole thing at the link*




Our attitudes toward people with marginal conditions mainly reflect a deontologist libertarian (libertarian as in "free will", not as in "against government") model of blame. In this concept, people make decisions using their free will, a spiritual entity operating free from biology or circumstance. People who make good decisions are intrinsically good people and deserve good treatment; people who make bad decisions are intrinsically bad people and deserve bad treatment. But people who make bad decisions for reasons that are outside of their free will may not be intrinsically bad people, and may therefore be absolved from deserving bad treatment. For example, if a normally peaceful person has a brain tumor that affects areas involved in fear and aggression, they go on a crazy killing spree, and then they have their brain tumor removed and become a peaceful person again, many people would be willing to accept that the killing spree does not reflect negatively on them or open them up to deserving bad treatment, since it had biological and not spiritual causes.

Under this model, deciding whether a condition is biological or spiritual becomes very important, and the rationale for worrying over whether something "is a real disease" or not is plain to see. Without figuring out this extremely difficult question, we are at risk of either blaming people for things they don't deserve, or else letting them off the hook when they commit a sin, both of which, to libertarian deontologists, would be terrible things. But determining whether marginal conditions like depression have a spiritual or biological cause is difficult, and no one knows how to do it reliably.

Determinist consequentialists can do better. We believe it's biology all the way down. Separating spiritual from biological illnesses is impossible and unnecessary. Every condition, from brain tumors to poor taste in music, is "biological" insofar as it is encoded in things like cells and proteins and follows laws based on their structure.

But determinists don't just ignore the very important differences between brain tumors and poor taste in music. Some biological phenomena, like poor taste in music, are encoded in such a way that they are extremely vulnerable to what we can call social influences: praise, condemnation, introspection, and the like. Other biological phenomena, like brain tumors, are completely immune to such influences. This allows us to develop a more useful model of blame.

The consequentialist model of blame is very different from the deontological model. Because all actions are biologically determined, none are more or less metaphysically blameworthy than others, and none can mark anyone with the metaphysical status of "bad person" and make them "deserve" bad treatment. Consequentialists don't on a primary level want anyone to be treated badly, full stop; thus is it written: "Saddam Hussein doesn't deserve so much as a stubbed toe." But if consequentialists don't believe in punishment for its own sake, they do believe in punishment for the sake of, well, consequences. Hurting bank robbers may not be a good in and of itself, but it will prevent banks from being robbed in the future. And, one might infer, although alcoholics may not deserve condemnation, societal condemnation of alcoholics makes alcoholism a less attractive option.


In other words, crime can rightfully be considered, very broadly speaking, as a problem of biology. Unlike brain tumors and broken bones though, crime can be mitigated most effectively by social forces - like jail, fines, and other forms of punishment - at least for the time being. But any rational population, seeking to optimize their responses to social problems, should drop punishment as a response to crime if a more effective response was discovered or invented. And yes, they should do this even if it didn't involve the suffering of the criminal.

Punishment for only punishment's sake is a purposeless waste of time, and an unnecessary brutality.

Sonnabend
06-04-2010, 04:58 AM
Punishment for only punishment's sake is a purposeless waste of time, and an unnecessary brutality.

wilbur


blah blah blah blurble............

I'll repeat my point.

A live prisoner can escape

A dead one cant

A live prisoner will reoffend

An executed one never will

Works for me.

wilbur
06-04-2010, 08:22 AM
wilbur

I'll repeat my point.

A live prisoner can escape

A dead one cant

A live prisoner will reoffend

An executed one never will

Works for me.

*my last posts werent about the DP actually, but about reasons *why* we punish - be it the DP or any other punishment... but anyways....

True enough. An executed prisoner poses no future threat to society. But on the flip-side, a wrongly convicted live person can be exonerated and released. A dead person can't.

Its a bit of a false dichotomy to talk about this like our only two options are to live with an unacceptably large number of dangerous criminals escaping prison, or the death penalty. Perhaps a solution lies in revamping our prison infrastructure. A perfectly secure prison is an impossibility, but so is a death penalty that hasn't executed at least one innocent person.

I have a strong hunch that looking for solutions on the 'prison reform' side of the spectrum, difficult though they may be, will be far easier than looking for solutions on the death penalty side - we can shore up prisons easier than we can shore up due process to the extent that no innocent people are executed. Perhaps even the old conservative desire to remove all the cable TV's, to put the pain back in prison, can make prison more of a deterrent.

And of course, there are those proposing that we expedite due process in death penalty cases, while creating a culture that celebrates execution... what could possibly go wrong there? :eek:

Sonnabend
06-04-2010, 10:07 AM
Perhaps even the old conservative desire to remove all the cable TV's, to put the pain back in prison, can make prison more of a deterrent.

Example please.