Conquer Club

That was shorter than I thought it might be. Thanks for that Saxi.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, seems fairer to me than allowing some central planner arbitrarily deem that that mass murderer must serve 21 years. [tort snip]

Strongly disagree. In my [utopic] view there is no way a grieving victim can provide a more objective outcome than an ideal central planner. And for me the objectivity of the outcome is the most important thing.

Yeh yeh, no ideal central planners exist in practice; but bugger off, nature/nurture and its impact on humans (and their crimes) more than over-rides any possible benefit from letting the "people" decide (that is criminals are more products of their environment than rational free thinkers imo... inb4 free choice philosophy debate).

ps: I am very much a supporter of the rehabilitation approach to criminals; however in very extreme cases suchs as the Breivik case I believe exceptions should be made and they should be locked away for the rest of their life (containment) and given the option for euthinasia if they want it (voluntary capital punishment).

Symmetry wrote:That was shorter than I thought it might be. Thanks for that Saxi.

I've been instructed not to publicly disagree with you.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:That was shorter than I thought it might be. Thanks for that Saxi.

I've been instructed not to publicly disagree with you.

Feel free to disagree in private.

Lootifer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, seems fairer to me than allowing some central planner arbitrarily deem that that mass murderer must serve 21 years. [tort snip]

Strongly disagree. In my [utopic] view there is no way a grieving victim can provide a more objective outcome than an ideal central planner. And for me the objectivity of the outcome is the most important thing.

Yeh yeh, no ideal central planners exist in practice; but bugger off, nature/nurture and its impact on humans (and their crimes) more than over-rides any possible benefit from letting the "people" decide (that is criminals are more products of their environment than rational free thinkers imo... inb4 free choice philosophy debate).

ps: I am very much a supporter of the rehabilitation approach to criminals; however in very extreme cases suchs as the Breivik case I believe exceptions should be made and they should be locked away for the rest of their life (containment) and given the option for euthinasia if they want it (voluntary capital punishment).

pretty much exactly how i was going to respond to stalin's post. well said

Lootifer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, seems fairer to me than allowing some central planner arbitrarily deem that that mass murderer must serve 21 years. [tort snip]

Strongly disagree. In my [utopic] view there is no way a grieving victim can provide a more objective outcome than an ideal central planner. And for me the objectivity of the outcome is the most important thing.

Yeh yeh, no ideal central planners exist in practice; but bugger off, nature/nurture and its impact on humans (and their crimes) more than over-rides any possible benefit from letting the "people" decide (that is criminals are more products of their environment than rational free thinkers imo... inb4 free choice philosophy debate).

ps: I am very much a supporter of the rehabilitation approach to criminals; however in very extreme cases suchs as the Breivik case I believe exceptions should be made and they should be locked away for the rest of their life (containment) and given the option for euthinasia if they want it (voluntary capital punishment).

Breivik was sentenced to spend his life in jail. Objectively that's where he will die. Do you really think he'll be released?

I have no idea. I just skimmed Saxis post saying he got 21 years (quite frankly ive spent more than enough time looking at this fuckwad, i refuse to do any more research).

Lootifer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sure, seems fairer to me than allowing some central planner arbitrarily deem that that mass murderer must serve 21 years. [tort snip]

Strongly disagree. In my [utopic] view there is no way a grieving victim can provide a more objective outcome than an ideal central planner. And for me the objectivity of the outcome is the most important thing.

Yeh yeh, no ideal central planners exist in practice; but bugger off, nature/nurture and its impact on humans (and their crimes) more than over-rides any possible benefit from letting the "people" decide (that is criminals are more products of their environment than rational free thinkers imo... inb4 free choice philosophy debate).

ps: I am very much a supporter of the rehabilitation approach to criminals; however in very extreme cases suchs as the Breivik case I believe exceptions should be made and they should be locked away for the rest of their life (containment) and given the option for euthinasia if they want it (voluntary capital punishment).

Rehabilitation as Norway designed it works great for their relatively homogenous country. Can we expect the same outcomes if their institution of prisons and laws is somehow transplanted into the US? (How is that even possible?)

Since you're not willing to listen to a "free choice philosophy" regarding customary law and the restructuring of criminal law, then there's not much I can do to convince you.

So, your monologue was decent, but with a "comparison" involving only your ideal central planner, then of course your position is correct if you assume it to be perfect. You may as well have summarized: "government is perfect. If you disagree, shut up," which encompasses the general sentiment of many central planners and their disastrous policies.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:IMO, Breivik was a Zionist Terrorist, it would be a stretch to call him a Christian Terrorist.

References to Christianity in his manifesto are almost incidental and he even includes an essay to critically evaluating it, called "Christianity: Pros and Cons." Christianity is an antecedent to what he sees as the need for Europe to support Israel.

Hmm, not even close to true.

ok

Yeah, didn't you read his massive defense of nothing? Just google it! It's out there with the Israeli commandos who caused 9-11 with termite kittens!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:IMO, Breivik was a Zionist Terrorist, it would be a stretch to call him a Christian Terrorist.

References to Christianity in his manifesto are almost incidental and he even includes an essay to critically evaluating it, called "Christianity: Pros and Cons." Christianity is an antecedent to what he sees as the need for Europe to support Israel.

Hmm, not even close to true.

ok

Yeah, didn't you read his massive defense of nothing? Just google it! It's out there with the Israeli commandos who caused 9-11 with termite kittens!

It's till easy to find,if you want. Breivik left a manifesto defending his actions. Part video, part written.

Can we agree that it's easy to take a position by providing no citations? What's great is that I could find something which supports or doesn't support your contention, and after providing a source, you're free to change your position at your convenience because currently your claims are completely groundless.

Why do you continue to choose to be intellectually slothful?

Is being intellectually slothful a great English tradition, or should I have you google that to confirm?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Can we agree that it's easy to take a position by providing no citations? What's great is that I could find something which supports or doesn't support your contention, and after providing a source, you're free to change your position at your convenience because currently your claims are completely groundless.

Why do you continue to choose to be intellectually slothful?

Is being intellectually slothful a great English tradition, or should I have you google that to confirm?

Troll much? I'd have to ask a mod if posting the link was ok. It's widely banned, although you can find it via google.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Rehabilitation as Norway designed it works great for their relatively homogenous country. Can we expect the same outcomes if their institution of prisons and laws is somehow transplanted into the US? (How is that even possible?)

Since you're not willing to listen to a "free choice philosophy" regarding customary law and the restructuring of criminal law, then there's not much I can do to convince you.

So, your monologue was decent, but with a "comparison" involving only your ideal central planner, then of course your position is correct if you assume it to be perfect. You may as well have summarized: "government is perfect. If you disagree, shut up," which encompasses the general sentiment of many central planners and their disastrous policies.

Hey you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning old man?!

Firstly I am happy to go down the path of free choice philosophy, the inb4 comment was just a observation of the way the convo was headed.

Secondly my central planner doesnt even have to be particularly ideal to get far more objective outcomes, on average, than victim-based punishment. Take someone like me who is [possibly stupidly so] willing to give 2nd chances easily; compared to an eye for an eye stalwart. Both of our wives are murdered in clear cut cases.

I would [maybe, not sure, my wife has never been murdered] advocate for a major rehabilitation based form of sentence; i'd assume it is likely the eye for an eye stalwart would quickly call for capital punishment. Can you explain how this outcome when averaged over the population (bell curve of punishments centred on a mean of popular belief) is better than a fixed punishment (regardless of how harsh or lenient the punishment is)?

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Can we agree that it's easy to take a position by providing no citations? What's great is that I could find something which supports or doesn't support your contention, and after providing a source, you're free to change your position at your convenience because currently your claims are completely groundless.

Why do you continue to choose to be intellectually slothful?

Is being intellectually slothful a great English tradition, or should I have you google that to confirm?

Troll much? I'd have to ask a mod if posting the link was ok. It's widely banned, although you can find it via google.

I have good reasons for describing you as being intellectually slothful. The past several pages of your lack of defense should be enough. The last question is tongue-in-cheek because you've been ridiculous for the past several pages.


Anyway, if his material was really your excuse, then why not post that to begin with? Because you're looking for CYA excuses. Besides, we can talk about racism and bigotry, as long as you aren't being bigoted or racist. You could even censor the bad words. I might concede that you don't even have to quote him, as long as you give a link and mention which paragraph(s) cover your assertion.

There, that's several great ways to get around your excuse, so why not defend your claim that he's a Christian terrorist?

Lootifer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Rehabilitation as Norway designed it works great for their relatively homogenous country. Can we expect the same outcomes if their institution of prisons and laws is somehow transplanted into the US? (How is that even possible?)

Since you're not willing to listen to a "free choice philosophy" regarding customary law and the restructuring of criminal law, then there's not much I can do to convince you.

So, your monologue was decent, but with a "comparison" involving only your ideal central planner, then of course your position is correct if you assume it to be perfect. You may as well have summarized: "government is perfect. If you disagree, shut up," which encompasses the general sentiment of many central planners and their disastrous policies.

Hey you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning old man?!

Firstly I am happy to go down the path of free choice philosophy, the inb4 comment was just a observation of the way the convo was headed.

Secondly my central planner doesnt even have to be particularly ideal to get far more objective outcomes, on average, than victim-based punishment. Take someone like me who is [possibly stupidly so] willing to give 2nd chances easily; compared to an eye for an eye stalwart. Both of our wives are murdered in clear cut cases.

I would [maybe, not sure, my wife has never been murdered] advocate for a major rehabilitation based form of sentence; i'd assume it is likely the eye for an eye stalwart would quickly call for capital punishment. Can you explain how this outcome when averaged over the population (bell curve of punishments centred on a mean of popular belief) is better than a fixed punishment (regardless of how harsh or lenient the punishment is)?

It's a spontaneous order approach. Basically, people would be allowed to find multiple solutions to these kinds of problems--at the same time. So, the most effective forms of punishment, deterrence, containment, etc., which are most suitable for various "cultures," or particular groups, could be discovered across the nation with a variety of means which vary across the central planning v. spontaneous order dichotomy.

My biggest concern is the inefficiency of government monopolies, their continued failure in the US, and the high social costs which they impose on poor people--especially young black males. It's one of the most serious problems in this country which is constantly treated by the "experts" with their esteemed pretense of knowledge.

Knowledge is dispersed, and the means for finding the best solutions to particular circumstances of time and place would be through many trial-and-error processes which would be positioned on various spots on the scale of central planning v. spontaneous order. Call it a market for punishment involving the realms of economics, law, and crime.

Sorry for being a grouch, but your initial position was... terrible, man!

So in regard to your choice being too lenient. That may actually work, and it may not. New mechanisms would form to perhaps cover those errors, or maybe the errors would be beneficial in the long-run--depending the circumstances of time and place. The point is that you may not know, but neither do the central planners know what's best. And since the monopoly extends across the nation, top-down, we're denied the numerous possibilities of finding better solutions, thus denied the ability to tap into an entire nation's dispersed knowledge on finding various means to solve problems.

In a nutshell, I'm looking to break up the State's monopoly with a more competitive environment that could more effectively cater to the demands of the customers, which the current system allegedly does--if you ignore bureaucratic and political private interests, cough cough.

(this response may partly explain your question in your OP about libertarianism).

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Can we agree that it's easy to take a position by providing no citations? What's great is that I could find something which supports or doesn't support your contention, and after providing a source, you're free to change your position at your convenience because currently your claims are completely groundless.

Why do you continue to choose to be intellectually slothful?

Is being intellectually slothful a great English tradition, or should I have you google that to confirm?

Troll much? I'd have to ask a mod if posting the link was ok. It's widely banned, although you can find it via google.

I have good reasons for describing you as being intellectually slothful. The past several pages of your lack of defense should be enough. The last question is tongue-in-cheek because you've been ridiculous for the past several pages.


Anyway, if his material was really your excuse, then why not post that to begin with? Because you're looking for CYA excuses. Besides, we can talk about racism and bigotry, as long as you aren't being bigoted or racist. You could even censor the bad words. I might concede that you don't even have to quote him, as long as you give a link and mention which paragraph(s) cover your assertion.

There, that's several great ways to get around your excuse, so why not defend your claim that he's a Christian terrorist?

I posted a simple way for you to find it- that was my way of avoiding posting it.

Oh, your evidence is next to the 9-11 termite kittens?

You're being intellectually slothful. Another good point of defense added! Thanks, Sym!


lol, even better, why not say, "they're facts!"? "Anders Breivik is a Christian terrorist because he's a Christian terrorist! They're facts!"

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh, your evidence is next to the 9-11 termite kittens?

You're being intellectually slothful. Another good point of defense added! Thanks, Sym!

I see a good reason not to post it. Kind of different.

Haha, I already covered that concern. Clearly, you're trolling here. Thanks for confirming it!


It's been fun, Sym. Can't wait to see what other weak sauce you'll spout off! Ole Sym Geyser, at it again! <blub blub blub>

Hhaha, oh wow, this was fun. Thanks again!

BigBallinStalin wrote:Haha, I already covered that concern. Clearly, you're trolling here. Thanks for confirming it!


It's been fun, Sym. Can't wait to see what other weak sauce you'll spout off! Ole Sym Geyser, at it again! <blub blub blub>

Hhaha, oh wow, this was fun. Thanks again!

You're still welcome to just google it and see for yourself. It would take less time than posting attacks.

BBS: Post thy evidence, sir, to support your claims.

SYM: <blub blub blub> weak sauce?

BBS: Nay, sir. The facts. Quote them if you dare defend your position.

SYM: <blub blub blub> weak sauce?

BBS: Aye, I'm talking to a geyser and expecting a rational debate. Amusingly, it appears human, but appearances can be deceiving.

BigBallinStalin wrote:BBS: Post thy evidence, sir, to support your claims.

SYM: <blub blub blub> weak sauce?

BBS: Nay, sir. The facts. Quote them if you dare defend your position.

SYM: <blub blub blub> weak sauce?

BBS: Aye, I'm talking to a geyser and expecting a rational debate. Amusingly, it appears human, but appearances can be deceiving.

Were you unable to find it? It's easy to find.

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:BBS: Post thy evidence, sir, to support your claims.

SYM: <blub blub blub> weak sauce?

BBS: Nay, sir. The facts. Quote them if you dare defend your position.

SYM: <blub blub blub> weak sauce?

BBS: Aye, I'm talking to a geyser and expecting a rational debate. Amusingly, it appears human, but appearances can be deceiving.

<blub blub blub> weak sauce?

FTFY

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:BBS: Post thy evidence, sir, to support your claims.

SYM: <blub blub blub> weak sauce?

BBS: Nay, sir. The facts. Quote them if you dare defend your position.

SYM: <blub blub blub> weak sauce?

BBS: Aye, I'm talking to a geyser and expecting a rational debate. Amusingly, it appears human, but appearances can be deceiving.

<blub blub blub> weak sauce?

FTFY

Do I really have to post the thing to stop you trolling?

BigBallinStalin wrote:It's a spontaneous order approach. Basically, people would be allowed to find multiple solutions to these kinds of problems--at the same time. So, the most effective forms of punishment, deterrence, containment, etc., which are most suitable for various "cultures," or particular groups, could be discovered across the nation with a variety of means which vary across the central planning v. spontaneous order dichotomy.

My biggest concern is the inefficiency of government monopolies, their continued failure in the US, and the high social costs which they impose on poor people--especially young black males. It's one of the most serious problems in this country which is constantly treated by the "experts" with their esteemed pretense of knowledge.

Knowledge is dispersed, and the means for finding the best solutions to particular circumstances of time and place would be through many trial-and-error processes which would be positioned on various spots on the scale of central planning v. spontaneous order. Call it a market for punishment involving the realms of economics, law, and crime.

Sorry for being a grouch, but your initial position was... terrible, man!

So in regard to your choice being too lenient. That may actually work, and it may not. New mechanisms would form to perhaps cover those errors, or maybe the errors would be beneficial in the long-run--depending the circumstances of time and place. The point is that you may not know, but neither do the central planners know what's best. And since the monopoly extends across the nation, top-down, we're denied the numerous possibilities of finding better solutions, thus denied the ability to tap into an entire nation's dispersed knowledge on finding various means to solve problems.

In a nutshell, I'm looking to break up the State's monopoly with a more competitive environment that could more effectively cater to the demands of the customers, which the current system allegedly does--if you ignore bureaucratic and political private interests, cough cough.

(this response may partly explain your question in your OP about libertarianism).

Ok so I agree with your concept but have a couple of issues:

- How different is a market forced (or milking the dispersed knowledge) outcome going to be from, say, a state funded [culturally/morally/ethically calibrated] research programme into crime and punishment?

I'd argue not at all. Unless there is a silver bullet "solution" sitting waaaay down the end of some probability distribution a balanced collection of researchers will produce the same result as the population. This is because they are essentially a sample of the population with the incentives amplified.

To me our outcomes are going to be similar enough so long as you design the experiment (for the researchers/analysts) properly and correctly gauge your populations cultral/moral/ethical positioning.

To me its a 99% right vs 100% right; but to get 100% you have terrible social consequences.

- My second point is the pragmatic interpretation of the above point: Politically/Optically you solution is a train wreck. Grind away on that axe my man, fight the good fight, but reality check: Your policy is extreme; collective opinion in 2012 isnt a big fan of extremes.

You honestly think you have any chance of a change that, while "optimal", bears short term social consequences? Especially when for every one of you theres a moderate left like me (though smarter/more informed, im weaker/lazy in comparison to yourself) arguing for a moderate solution along the lines of above...?

I think it's bordering on egotistical that you would advocate policies that are pretty [politically] extreme when your intelligence could be better spent fixing the existing political nightmare you find your country in (cheapshot - you had one, im just returning the favour).