|
This guy should be put to death! (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dr. DAS |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Nice edit - for the record I rarely pick apart grammar (feel free to find where I've chastised you on grammar and show me - I don't recall it), but feel free to continue to tell yourself that all I post is totally irrelevant to any of the threads its posted in.
Again, just because you don't see the connection doesn't mean it isn't there, and I don't know how I can explain it more clearly than I have repeatedly done.
And one other thing you'd do well to note is that even if something you say isn't the topic of the thread title, yet is still absurd BS - you're going to get called out on it, especially when you're using it to support the topic of the thread you've created.
Moral: Stop saying dumb things that are apparently unrelated to the topic you're starting if you don't want them discussed. You don't get to say "Canada is awesome, here's why - therefore, I hate it when Americans say they're Canadian because they don't even know how awesome we are" and have the "why" part just be disregarded - that's not how it works.
The logic you're hammering here and in the Canadialand thread is EXACTLY the same logic that got the U.S. into the war in Iraq (not exaggerating here in the least, either) - you say something you *think* is true, then spend a bunch of time trying to convince people it is true without any fact, get yourself in over your head, and then feel as though you have to play defense for the rest of the day because more than one person has called you out on it.
It's a vicious cycle that repeats itself all the time. |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Edit: And here's one last pro-tip for you - when you're providing context for an assertion, that's called a justification, justifications have to be reasoned and are generally rooted in fact, and not statements like "Our boys have got a tough rep!"
|
And i would like to say, once again - and I encourage you to do some research into this - that rep that I *think* Canadians developed in WWI is historical fact.
/ with this
/ with you
/ for the day |
|
|
| Slylee |
| dude i had been lurking from time to time in the cor and everyone was really funny and i missed u guys. now i'm back and it's like WAAH WAAHH WAAHH |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. DAS
I *think* |
|
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
dude i had been lurking from time to time in the cor and everyone was really funny and i missed u guys. now i'm back and it's like WAAH WAAHH WAAHH |
Just the result of dealing with people who don't know how to talk about . |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. DAS
And i would like to say, once again - and I encourage you to do some research into this - that rep that I *think* Canadians developed in WWI is historical fact.
|
ok whatever Canadian soldiers are great we really owe you guys. 1.1 Million Canadians served in WW2 vs 16.5 million Americans, 34 million Russians, and 10 million from the British Commonwealth not including Canadians. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at those numbers and see who was doing the real heavy lifting in WW2. The numbers were even less in WW1.
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
dude i had been lurking from time to time in the cor and everyone was really funny and i missed u guys. now i'm back and it's like WAAH WAAHH WAAHH |
lol the cor will always be the cor. we missed you too :) |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. DAS
that rep that I *think* Canadians developed in WWI is historical fact. |
No one has disputed that. :stongue: What has been disputed is the insinuation that this rep is commonly understood throughout the world and has given Canada a unique and prestigious national image in the eyes of ordinary folks of the rest of the globe, which it hasn't. |
|
|
| Akridrot |
| The longer these threads go on, the less sense they make. In a few pages, we will be discussing the implications of obesity for gay asian children. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
...what we already have, at least insofar as how we legislate actual punishments (or the range within which they fall) for crimes? |
In some respects it is what we already have, but the point was that it's quite different than the sentiments expressed in this thread.
| quote: | | Basically what you seem to be doing is just rationalizing punishments similar to those already metered out (you may as well use "imprison" rather than "quarantine") with language that removes any sense of justice as "revenge" - but it seems regardless of motivation you're advocating the same kinds of punishments people advocate in the name of "revenge" in the name of "societal safety" instead. I don't really think you're accomplishing your goal of creating a justice system that can't have a "revenge" motive mapped onto it rather easily. It's just what society decides collectively is reasonably appropriate "revenge." |
It's certainly true that one could also be motivated by revenge to imprison someone for their crime. It is not necessary to eliminate the potential for a particular punishment to be motivated by revenge, but I think it is better if we avoid those punishments motivated exclusively by revenge (e.g. those punishments which tend to be categorized as cruel and unusual.)
Basically, the issue here is how we choose different appropriate responses to different crimes. If we were motivated by revenge, then we would probably want to increase the cruelty of our punishments proportionately to the degree of our moral outrage at the crime which took place. This is precisely what appears to me to be characteristic of the responses in this thread. This response is natural and I don't have a problem with it per se, but I don't think it really does society and good and, moreover, I can't agree that it satisfactorily handles those cases where individuals might be wrongfully convicted.
So I am only expressing why I believe that these reactions would be misguided if put into action, and offering a different standard by which to determine appropriate responses to crime. That standard is the extent to which society can expect to benefit from its response combined with the extent to which that response minimizes the harm done to anyone who is mistakenly found guilty of such crimes.
At the risk of going off on a bit of a tangent, I would also point out that while this reasoning may appear to rationalize the imprisonment of violent criminals, it is not at all clear that it can be applied to the cases of the vast majority of individuals who are presently imprisoned in the United States. So this is hardly just a justification for the current status quo of our justice system.
| quote: | | I think it's also important to note that crimes like this obviously appeal more heavily to people's emotional sides than those of jaywalking or shoplifting by virtue of nothing more than how utterly horrible the crime was (ground I'm sure we agree on), and as such reactions like those seen in this thread should not only be expected, but I also don't think people should be chastised for reacting with them instead of rational debate solely because you see it as indicating the desire for revenge. |
It may be that my expectations of people are too high but, to be frank, I'm not lowering them anyway. More than that, what troubled me here was less any individual's response so much as the echo chamber effect that was being created. I think that a different point of view was badly needed.
| quote: | In some way, shape, or form, without any sense of "revenge", we fail to have any kind of justice system to begin with and would fall into anarchy. As far as I understand, part of the reason we have legislative and judicial branches of government is to regulate that desire into what society deems as suitable punishment based on the best information available (how well they accomplish that task is another story).
(The word revenge has been used too many times in this post already and I hate that).
At the end of the day, I just don't think separating justice from any notion of revenge is possible, how one idea incorporates the other, however, is an idea that I think most societies have been trying to cope with since the dawn of civilization, and will likely continue until the planet decides it's had enough of us and says "bye." |
I'm not sure I agree that some sense of revenge is really necessary for a functioning system of justice. It's probably impossible to eliminate any 'punishments' that could be used as revenge, but can we create 'punishments' which are all justified in the absence of revenge? I certainly think that we can, and in fact I would say that we are not terribly far from it right now, which is precisely why we can expect the individual featured in the original post to be treated quite a bit more reasonably than many of the people here have advocated. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
It may be that my expectations of people are too high but, to be frank, I'm not lowering them anyway. |
:stongue:
Outstanding, a man after my own heart, and I don't think I'd respect your opinion anywhere near as much as I do if I thought you'd ever compromise your own standards. 
I'll try to get into the meat of your post a bit later on. :) |
|
|
| inconspicuous |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
HE HAD SEX WITH ALL THIS WHITE GIRL. |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Oh man, I couldn't help but lol. |
|
|
|
| Nostalgic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. DAS
And i would like to say, once again - and I encourage you to do some research into this - that rep that I *think* Canadians developed in WWI is historical fact.
/ with this
/ with you
/ for the day |
 |
|
|
| DjWhooCares |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Thank you Rob for eating your for breakfast
:tongue2 |
dont listen to him///hes an idiot... |
|
|
|
|
