• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How much punishment is enough?

Joshua Korosi said:
So? That is the price the perpetrators of that particular crime pay, and they knew it before they committed their crime.
Click to expand...

That statement is demonstrably false. These measures are being applied to people who committed these crimes years before the laws were passed.
 
I'd also add, "They knew the price before they committed the crime, therefore the price is justifiable" is shaky ground. Taken to it's logical conclusion, any criminal punishment, no matter how harsh and no matter how small the crime, could be justified as a "price" that people "know about", henceforth it's okay.
 
Don't say that "we" are "all" right, unless you mean it... there's a very big difference between giving up on a discussion as you find it infuriating and difficult to pursue, and giving up on a discussion when you finally realize that you're "wrong" on an issue. Making us think that it's the latter instead of the former when it's the former gets none of us anywhere, as if there's reason to debate this issue, it should be debated.

Otherwise, good luck to ya, and no hard feelings, okay? :)
 
I think the thread's title really establishes the ethical question that we have to consider: "How much punishment is enough?"

Perhaps we should even re-arrangement:
"Is punishment enough?"

Is this really about punishment? What's more important: understanding the problem and the attacker as well as his background and what led him to that action, or simply taking revenge on him? Perhaps we tend to personalize the problems. When we see a person doing a bad thing, we focus too much on the person and not enough on the bad thing that he did. What did he really do, why did he do it? Is he a person doing a Bad Thing or is he a Bad Person? And again I gotta remind you that at some point of life we have all done bad things. And sometimes we have had to say "I'm sorry, I don't know what got into me. I didn't mean it". And no, for the last time, I'm not implying that that's what a child molester should say just to get off the hook.

Many times people have been enlightened about what they did and they usually collapse after they realized what they did. This to me is closer to solving the problem rather than just making the guy live 70 yards away from a school bus stop. In fact, as I was typing that last sentence, I could feel how ridiculous that is. Like School Bus Stops are the only places where children gather.
 
Dancing David said:
Uh, you can drink all you want.

But when you get in a car the rules change.
Click to expand...

In the USA now that isnt even remotely true except under some very specific circumstances, and even then it would be a judgement call as to the legality

I suppose that drunk drivers present no harm to others?
Click to expand...

There are already some 0.07 laws on the books and even 0.05 proposed. Are you going to tell me that statistically 0.05 drivers are more dangerous than cellphones, tiredness, friend in the car, new car, late for work or any of the other myriad things we dont limit?
 
pipelineaudio said:
In the USA now that isnt even remotely true except under some very specific circumstances, and even then it would be a judgement call as to the legality
Click to expand...
Wow, what is that an appeal to emotion?

Before I try to understand what the Fred you are talking baout, why don't you say what you mean?

I assume the fact that very few people are arrested for public drunkness or arrested in their living room for a blood lelevl of .245 means what?
There are already some 0.07 laws on the books and even 0.05 proposed. Are you going to tell me that statistically 0.05 drivers are more dangerous than cellphones, tiredness, friend in the car, new car, late for work or any of the other myriad things we dont limit?
Click to expand...

Did i say that they were, the drunk driving laws exist for a reason. But if you want to blame me for the lowering of the BAC, that is your problem.
 
Tokenconservative said:
Some nice rationalization, but does not change the fact that most Christians find the "X" derogatory, which is exactly the way it's intended here.

Anyone who knows that and uses it for that purpose would um, yeah...be a bigot.

Or are you of the bigoted, left-liberal secularist school that says one cannot be a bigot if one's bigotry is directed at white males, Christians or anyone else in "power"?

Tokie
Click to expand...
Actually, TC, since I am a non-Christian, that means that you are the "other"...an outsider, someone different. And as you argued oh-so-elegantly in another post, humans have an instinctive, primeval fear of the "other". It is -- and here I quote you directly -- "about as deep-seated and archetypal a fear as you can identify."

So I guess that any non-Christian's use of "X" to replace "Christ" must be put down to our unreasoning, instinctive, primeval fear of you, the "other"; and since you are not one of those raving lunatic "lefties" who shriek about unreasoning bigotry, obviously you will understand this, and approach us as the genetic brothers that we are.

After all, if it is so unreasonable for "lefties" to accuse "righties" of racism just because they happen to yield to their primeval fear of the "other" and react negatively to those who look different, or talk different (or whatever); certainly it must be all the more unreasonable to be whining and crying about bigotry simply because I find it a convenient short-hand to write X-mas instead of Christmas.
 
Dancing David said:
Wow, what is that an appeal to emotion?

Before I try to understand what the Fred you are talking baout, why don't you say what you mean?

I assume the fact that very few people are arrested for public drunkness or arrested in their living room for a blood lelevl of .245 means what?


Did i say that they were, the drunk driving laws exist for a reason. But if you want to blame me for the lowering of the BAC, that is your problem.
Click to expand...

Can you rephrase some of this till it makes sense, and perhaps look at the posts that were being responded to?
 
pipelineaudio said:
In the USA now that isnt even remotely true except under some very specific circumstances, and even then it would be a judgement call as to the legality



There are already some 0.07 laws on the books and even 0.05 proposed. Are you going to tell me that statistically 0.05 drivers are more dangerous than cellphones, tiredness, friend in the car, new car, late for work or any of the other myriad things we dont limit?
Click to expand...

I stated in the US you can drink all you want but when you get behind the wheel of a car the rules change.

your response
In the USA now that isnt even remotely true except under some very specific circumstances, and even then it would be a judgement call as to the legality
Click to expand...


So you can drink at home until you get toxic. How is that not even remotely true?

I stated

:I suppose that drunk drivers present no harm to others?

your response:
There are already some 0.07 laws on the books and even 0.05 proposed. Are you going to tell me that statistically 0.05 drivers are more dangerous than cellphones, tiredness, friend in the car, new car, late for work or any of the other myriad things we dont limit?
Click to expand...

to which i responded:
Did i say that they were, the drunk driving laws exist for a reason. But if you want to blame me for the lowering of the BAC, that is your problem.



This is the original post to which I responded by TC
Yep. It's exactly the sort of thing you see the nannyists doing with drinking, continually lowering the blood-alcohol level that will get you in trouble.

Here, they were trying to get it lowered to, in effect, a level that meant you could not have a glass of wine or a beer with a meal.

When is enough enough, PCers?

Tokie
Click to expand...

And i responded that it is ONLY the BAC behind the wheel of the car that will get you introuble.

Which you said wasn't even remotely true.



Perhaps you should reread your own posts and the ones they respond to?


I still respect you and find you to be a very funny poster who has caused me to clean the monitor.
 
Last edited:
Wolfman said:
Actually, TC, since I am a non-Christian, that means that you are the "other"...an outsider, someone different. And as you argued oh-so-elegantly in another post, humans have an instinctive, primeval fear of the "other". It is -- and here I quote you directly -- "about as deep-seated and archetypal a fear as you can identify."

So I guess that any non-Christian's use of "X" to replace "Christ" must be put down to our unreasoning, instinctive, primeval fear of you, the "other"; and since you are not one of those raving lunatic "lefties" who shriek about unreasoning bigotry, obviously you will understand this, and approach us as the genetic brothers that we are.

After all, if it is so unreasonable for "lefties" to accuse "righties" of racism just because they happen to yield to their primeval fear of the "other" and react negatively to those who look different, or talk different (or whatever); certainly it must be all the more unreasonable to be whining and crying about bigotry simply because I find it a convenient short-hand to write X-mas instead of Christmas.
Click to expand...

Wow. If this could be larded with any more false assumptions and logical inconsistencies...I think it'd sinke this forum like it had hit an iceberg at speed.

I have no fear of atheists. I think you are kidding yourself...the same place those primal fears come from have put a belief in some sort of god/God in us, too. You can run around shrieking as how you are an atheist, but in reality that's just (more) leftist nonsense.

And there's no remaining need to fear Christians in modern Western society, and Christianity has not been around long enough to be a part of our primal makeup, though belief in the supernatural has. So yes, it remains a put down, and to some degree a fearful one...you fear that we may be right, and like proselytizers of any stripe, you believe that if you can "convert" someone, that somehow justifies your belief(s).

As to these fears, in actual fact, it's lefties in modern Western culture who practice and demonstrate bigotry and hatred, not those on the right, regardless of how your proselytizing media claims otherwise. The fact of the matter is, the hate comes from the left, not the right...we respond to it (finally) but it comes from you.

Tokie
 
Dancing David said:
I stated in the

This is the original post to which I responded by TC

And i responded that it is ONLY the BAC behind the wheel of the car that will get you introuble.

Which you said wasn't even remotely true.

Perhaps you should reread your own posts and the ones they respond to?
I still respect you and find you to be a very funny poster who has caused me to clean the monitor.
Click to expand...

If nothing else, you have to love the way lefties parse things...it sorta goes without saying that ol TC was talking about BAC behind the wheel....that's sorta a cultural given. Yeah, folks get arrested and charged with "public drunkeness" after peeing on a statue of a Civil War general or deciding that they don't need to wear clothes at the mall or some such...but anyone not simply interested in nit-picking every tittle and jot as a means of avoiding the issue, would not jump in with this sort of thing.

Tokie
 
Tokenconservative said:
Wow. If this could be larded with any more false assumptions and logical inconsistencies...I think it'd sinke this forum like it had hit an iceberg at speed.

I have no fear of atheists. I think you are kidding yourself...the same place those primal fears come from have put a belief in some sort of god/God in us, too. You can run around shrieking as how you are an atheist, but in reality that's just (more) leftist nonsense.

And there's no remaining need to fear Christians in modern Western society, and Christianity has not been around long enough to be a part of our primal makeup, though belief in the supernatural has. So yes, it remains a put down, and to some degree a fearful one...you fear that we may be right, and like proselytizers of any stripe, you believe that if you can "convert" someone, that somehow justifies your belief(s).

As to these fears, in actual fact, it's lefties in modern Western culture who practice and demonstrate bigotry and hatred, not those on the right, regardless of how your proselytizing media claims otherwise. The fact of the matter is, the hate comes from the left, not the right...we respond to it (finally) but it comes from you.

Tokie
Click to expand...

This stuff is just pure gold. I really think Tokie is by far the funniest poster on these forums. I feel a bit let down that he's not managed to get anything about global warming in this post, but other than that it's great.
 
Tokenconservative said:
You can run around shrieking as how you are an atheist, but in reality that's just (more) leftist nonsense.
Click to expand...
Yeap, you're right. Atheism is just a lib'ral conspiracy, masterminded by MJ 12.
 
Tokenconservative; said:
I have no fear of atheists. I think you are kidding yourself...the same place those primal fears come from have put a belief in some sort of god/God in us, too. You can run around shrieking as how you are an atheist, but in reality that's just (more) leftist nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yes. I got my radio dispatched orders to disbelieve nonsense straight from the Kremlin.

As to these fears, in actual fact, it's lefties in modern Western culture who practice and demonstrate bigotry and hatred, not those on the right, regardless of how your proselytizing media claims otherwise. The fact of the matter is, the hate comes from the left, not the right...we respond to it (finally) but it comes from you.
Click to expand...

So, you're not hateful or bigoted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom