Generally, most societies hold that if one commits a crime like murder they ought to be kept away from the rest of society and punished and/or rehabilitated. Leaving it up to the families of the deceased to seek justice is problematic; preying on the destitute or socially isolated would become quite easy to get away with for those so inclined. I would not wish to live in such a society.
Obama: "If You've Got A Business - You Didn't Build That."
- Thread starter ly2 from WF
- Start date
Generally, most societies hold that if one commits a crime like murder they ought to be kept away from the rest of society and punished and/or rehabilitated. Leaving it up to the families of the deceased to seek justice is problematic; preying on the destitute or socially isolated would become quite easy to get away with for those so inclined. I would not wish to live in such a society.
Honestly, if you kill someone (intentional and without just cause) and found with ample evidence to support the verdict, you should be killed promptly after the trial in the manner similar to which you killed the victim. Society shouldn't support you.
The real reason that murderers, and most "criminals" for that matter, are kept around is because prisons are major businesses. Keeping them full is in their interests, and thus the politicians that support them.
Some children need a good spanking to get off their self-centered and untouchable view of the world, just like some dregs of society need a good killing to be an example to others.
As if I'd trust the courts to make a right decision. Ample proof is subjective. I'm sure the courts thought they had ample proof for the numerous people put on death row and later released due to DNA evidence. The state shouldn't kill its prisoners because it isn't omnipotent. The system has proven its self to be unreliable - I shudder to think of the amount of innocents murdered by our courts.
No, some children need better parents. The only thing spanking does is create immediate compliance, but yields negative long term consequences as proven over and over again. And this is all ignoring the whole fault in logic by teaching children not to hit, by hitting them if they do something we don't like. Whatever happened to leading by example? Violence is something that's taught to us by example from an early age, it's a cycle that'll continue until people wake up.
Now of course parents hit their children for many different reasons, not just because they hit someone else. So they're loud in a shopping mall, or in a restaurant, or they're running around acting like a... toddler? Yeah, kids will be kids. Parents have unrealistic expectations of children and how they "should" behave. Children need guidance, not physical punishment.
We live in a country where you're presumed innocent until proven otherwise. It's not the state's job to prove it, it's their job to prove your guilt. Thus, if your defense is found wanting, then it's your own fault for going to the gallows.
The jury is going to decide based on evidence at hand. It's rather backwards and inefficient to keep someone in jail so that they could maybe get evidence in the future to get out if and when it's found or a method is invented to find it.
In an ideal world, the system would be perfect and no innocent would get thrown in. In the real world, the majority being actual murderers has to be enough. Why waste money on them when 2/3's+ will just get out and murder again anyway? Cut the losses and use the saved money on projects to be proactive in preventing people from becoming criminals in the first place.
No, some children need better parents. The only thing spanking does is create immediate compliance, but yields negative long term consequences as proven over and over again. And this is all ignoring the whole fault in logic by teaching children not to hit, by hitting them if they do something we don't like. Whatever happened to leading by example? Violence is something that's taught to us by example from an early age, it's a cycle that'll continue until people wake up.
No, spanking is a tool. All tools can be misused and over utilized.
Yes, the majority of behavioral problems in our society stems from parents who are crap. This is no doubt passed down from generations of bad parenting. However, the sheer volume of kids with behavioral issues is on the rise exponentially since the 90's when this fad of "positive reinforcement" and other crap hit the MSM.
And no, I'm not one of those crazy idiots that beat children for every little thing or would encourage others to.
I have lots of friends who are teachers, social workers, etc. and you would be astounded by the crap they have to deal with because of the idea of "spanking" a child is the most ghastly thing you could ever do. The children in question run the house, not the parents, because the parents have read multiple books on "proper parenting" instead of using their common sense. This also leads to those types of parents instituting school and government policies of similar ideals that further allow kids of said parents to be reinforced in their ideas of "controlling adults" and getting away with whatever because said "adults" must reach them on an equal level and try to "reason" with them that their behavior is wrong and then talk about "their feelings", further ingraining the example into every kid around them that said behavior doesn't result into a big deal - making everyone's job even harder.
So yes, like I said, spanking is a tool. If no other means will reach a kid and popping them on the rear will wake them up to the fact that they aren't in control of the situation, then it's better for society as a whole.
Can you prove it's on the rise? If so, can you prove that the absence of spanking is the cause of this?
First of all, teachers have a lot of shit to deal with because you're cramming a bunch of children into a classroom against their own will. Children are just as much human as adults are. Would you ever condone another person telling you you must sit in a classroom for 8 hours a day, and if you don't like it, you get punished? No, you wouldn't.
Secondly, do you *really* know that's why these children in question run the house? Because their parents are reading books about parenting? Maybe it's because the parents neglect their children? Maybe they just don't give a shit about what they do. I have a daughter going on 3, and where most parents would end up spanking her for bad behavior, we simply tell her to stop or and tell her what she's doing is wrong, along with why it's wrong, and then redirect her into another situation; and guess what, she stops. Physically assaulting (spanking) would cause for a cry fest, and then resentment and fear. Sure they'll behave if you want them to fear you, but like I said before, is that the best method? Parents give in too quickly and just resort to spanking instead of dealing with the situation at hand.
The other day our kid was with us at Sam's Club (shopping center), they had a huge play-set with swings on display and she wanted to climb up the display center and swing on them. We told her it's a display and it's too high up to reach, but she wouldn't listen. So she starts screaming at the top of her lungs. Where many parents would start spanking them, we left the store with her. She quit crying in the car, and that was that. Children go through natural phases where they can't comprehend certain things and that's just natural child behavior, physically assaulting them does more harm than good.
Good watch:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvCZ0hSHxCM]Why Does Everyone Pretend There's A 'Spanking Debate'? - YouTube[/ame]
People who speak in generalities have trouble forming arguments. Coincidence?
Enforcing values on people who don't hold them is called tyranny.
Society is created by individuals, it does not exist independent of individuals.
And?
I sound delusional that the US has the largest prison population in the world, mostly composed of people who have committed non-violent crimes?
It's not a shared value. It's a principle. Do you understand the difference?
People can believe anything they want. What they believe is irrelevant to the truth.
I didn't ignore it. I don't have a ton of time to waste debating with you in circles.
Every value is subjective, which is why "the common good" is a nonsensical notion. Property applies when two parties agree voluntarily on what constitutes property rights. When one party exercises violence against the other, it's no longer a situation involving property. It is a system based on conflict.
I know it was a rhetorical question but i'll chime in anyway.
This stems back the the fact the people were once property of the king and therefor killing some one was theft of the kings property.
The government has just continued this tradition. We are in their eyes, their property.
What's really sad is how Socialists like yourself and Pseudo Nym are able to think for a millisecond that Obomba's words don't undermine business owners and promote the state at the same time.
His viewpoint is clear that he feels that we couldn't have built a business without his government propping it up and for that we owe the government something... But that's what the government is there for! Our rights as supposed to SUPERCEDE the government, they aren't granted by the government! Our Taxes paid for all of those things he'd calling our foundations too... Tax money out of my pocket funded darpa and that created the internet for me to use today... No government necessary! Some other enterprise could have taken darpa's place in that scenario.
There is NO other way to interpret this heinous speech. He is flat-out telling business owners across the nation: "You only exist as an extension of government. All your bases belong to us."
This is the very foundation of Communism. He's proving Hellblazer right more and more every day.
The business owners that can do so are making plans to GTFO because of the clear, communistic tyrannical direction this country has been taking for a while now. This is the most publicized evidence yet but there is plenty more.
If your GF wasn't so butt-ugly, I'd be attempting to steal her away for myself right now.
If your GF wasn't so butt-ugly, I'd be attempting to steal her away for myself right now.
My wife is an ugly old bag.
My girlfriend is a hot, young nurse.
Please don't confuse the two.
The important difference, is that people believe they are free now. In the past, people understood their relationship relative to power.
I mean, it's the most farcical thing that someone believes their individual political vote matters in a nation of millions. But they believe it nonetheless.
Oh good! That makes it easier than ever before... Assuming your wife doesn't already know about the GF.
I disagree, so long as checks and balances exist and are effective in preventing oppressive conditions.
I agree. Did you have a point?
The existance of laws does not imply what you originally stated (beaten, robbed, raped). The fact that those things happen more often in the US is telling of the culture, not the existance of the state per se. Private police forces could easily commit the same offenses.
It's not axiomatic, if that's what you mean.
Your truth or my truth? Truth is as subject to debate as anything.
The "common good" is always going to be somewhat subjective, obviously. But there are data that can be collected and analyzed that can give a rough estimate of the health and wellbeing of a population. Data like infant mortality rate, life expectancy, economic mobility, homicide rates, so on. It turns out, perhaps unsurprisingly, that greater income inequality within a society correlates to worse overall measures of wellbeing. See: Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies | Video on TED.com
But it affects everyone else, and they didn't agree to it.
Which party initiates violence depends on which theory of property you accept.
Life expectancy and infant mortality rates don't really mean anything.
Those metrics are based on the subjective idea that those lives are fulfilling to the people who are living them.
Would you rather live to the age of 6 and starve to death, or die of cholera as an infant?
Which one of those outcomes is preferable to you?
I think I'd rather die at a young age, than grow up and suffer endlessly.
So, perhaps in some situations, a higher infant mortality rate is actually better for the people it affects.
Who are you to say otherwise?
luckily those checks and balances would kick in long before wed have drones roaming the sky above our cities or dystopian shit like that