Breakdown In Civil Order

Jarhyn

Wizard
IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post
WTF? Not even a little bit. Analogies are not literal. Stop being intentionally dumb.
You are the one who posted with language likening humans to animals here.

I know I call some people "plague rats", but even that is in the immediate reality of their continuing shitty behavior.

You're branding people for life.
Unbunch your manties. I'm not branding anyone in any way. It was a fucking analogy. If you can't manage the cognitive wherewithal to understand it, I strongly suggest smoking a lot less pot.
I understand fully well that you called people who are not criminals sheep, and people who are criminals wolves.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C on their chest?

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post
WTF? Not even a little bit. Analogies are not literal. Stop being intentionally dumb.
You are the one who posted with language likening humans to animals here.

I know I call some people "plague rats", but even that is in the immediate reality of their continuing shitty behavior.

You're branding people for life.
Unbunch your manties. I'm not branding anyone in any way. It was a fucking analogy. If you can't manage the cognitive wherewithal to understand it, I strongly suggest smoking a lot less pot.
I understand fully well that you called people who are not criminals sheep, and people who are criminals wolves.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C on their chest?
Will it help your semi-broken brain if I revise the analogy and make it generically "prey" and "predators"? Or have you completely lost the ability to engage in abstract thought?

Also, to correct your failure to comprehend... I referred to "criminals" as being a combination of wolves and starving mutts, and even allowed that some "criminals" are sheepdogs. Are you capable of making the connections there? Or did you just stop engaging your neurons as soon as something triggered you?

Jarhyn

Wizard
IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post
WTF? Not even a little bit. Analogies are not literal. Stop being intentionally dumb.
You are the one who posted with language likening humans to animals here.

I know I call some people "plague rats", but even that is in the immediate reality of their continuing shitty behavior.

You're branding people for life.
Unbunch your manties. I'm not branding anyone in any way. It was a fucking analogy. If you can't manage the cognitive wherewithal to understand it, I strongly suggest smoking a lot less pot.
I understand fully well that you called people who are not criminals sheep, and people who are criminals wolves.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C on their chest?
Will it help your semi-broken brain if I revise the analogy and make it generically "prey" and "predators"? Or have you completely lost the ability to engage in abstract thought?
No. The fact you are making the analogy at all is the root of the problem. You are stating that people who have been criminals are tainted with a label.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C o their chest for all times? Maybe a sign around their neck that says "wolf"?

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post
WTF? Not even a little bit. Analogies are not literal. Stop being intentionally dumb.
You are the one who posted with language likening humans to animals here.

I know I call some people "plague rats", but even that is in the immediate reality of their continuing shitty behavior.

You're branding people for life.
Unbunch your manties. I'm not branding anyone in any way. It was a fucking analogy. If you can't manage the cognitive wherewithal to understand it, I strongly suggest smoking a lot less pot.
I understand fully well that you called people who are not criminals sheep, and people who are criminals wolves.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C on their chest?
Will it help your semi-broken brain if I revise the analogy and make it generically "prey" and "predators"? Or have you completely lost the ability to engage in abstract thought?
No. The fact you are making the analogy at all is the root of the problem. You are stating that people who have been criminals are tainted with a label.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C o their chest for all times? Maybe a sign around their neck that says "wolf"?

Also, to correct your failure to comprehend... I referred to "criminals" as being a combination of wolves and starving mutts, and even allowed that some "criminals" are sheepdogs. Are you capable of making the connections there? Or did you just stop engaging your neurons as soon as something triggered you?

Jarhyn

Wizard
IKR? Jesus... @Emily Lake went from "criminals are not unpersons" to "criminals are unpersons" in the span of a single post
WTF? Not even a little bit. Analogies are not literal. Stop being intentionally dumb.
You are the one who posted with language likening humans to animals here.

I know I call some people "plague rats", but even that is in the immediate reality of their continuing shitty behavior.

You're branding people for life.
Unbunch your manties. I'm not branding anyone in any way. It was a fucking analogy. If you can't manage the cognitive wherewithal to understand it, I strongly suggest smoking a lot less pot.
I understand fully well that you called people who are not criminals sheep, and people who are criminals wolves.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C on their chest?
Will it help your semi-broken brain if I revise the analogy and make it generically "prey" and "predators"? Or have you completely lost the ability to engage in abstract thought?
No. The fact you are making the analogy at all is the root of the problem. You are stating that people who have been criminals are tainted with a label.

Would you have them wear a scarlet C o their chest for all times? Maybe a sign around their neck that says "wolf"?

Also, to correct your failure to comprehend... I referred to "criminals" as being a combination of wolves and starving mutts, and even allowed that some "criminals" are sheepdogs. Are you capable of making the connections there? Or did you just stop engaging your neurons as soon as something triggered you?
And you called all of them something other than "sheep", and your analysis and analogy still manages to insult and differentiate "criminals".

You have some instinctive need to "other" "criminals", and you keep doing it.

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member

Just because this thread is titled "Breakdown in Civil Order" doesn't mean civil order should break down in here! Please quit making more work for us!

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
I do apologize for quoting a naughty post, Loren, I know that just extends the modding work. Annoyance got the better of me, and I will try to be more careful in the future.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
And you called all of them something other than "sheep", and your analysis and analogy still manages to insult and differentiate "criminals".

You have some instinctive need to "other" "criminals", and you keep doing it.

No more so than referring to them as criminals in the first place. Criminals are people who commit crimes. Some of those crimes are opportunistic and produce relatively little harm to other people, and should probably not be subject to incarceration. Some of those crimes are opportunistic and produce a great deal of harm to other people; those criminals should probably get a combination of incarceration and rehabilitation. Some of those crimes are malicious and intentional and those criminals should be incarcerated or executed in order to protect non-criminals from them.

If it really bothers you that I identify criminals as criminals, and recognize that criminals represent a danger to non-criminals... well, that's on you. I happen to care more for the victims and the potential victims than I do for the perpetrators. I don't want the perpetrators tortured by any means, but I still place the safety of victims and law abiding potential victims above the liberty of criminals.

Jarhyn

Wizard
Criminals are people who commit crimes
And see this right here shows your depersonalization.

See the active current tense, here.

It is not ""criminals" are people who have committed crimes", but rather "criminals are people who commit."

Compare again " who have committed" with "who commit".

This is down to your fundamental failure to observe what it is you are actually feeling and thinking as you feel, think, and ultimately put out statements.

Trausti

Deleted
Criminals are people who commit crimes
And see this right here shows your depersonalization.

See the active current tense, here.

It is not ""criminals" are people who have committed crimes", but rather "criminals are people who commit."

Compare again " who have committed" with "who commit".

This is down to your fundamental failure to observe what it is you are actually feeling and thinking as you feel, think, and ultimately put out statements.

A small percentage of people commit most of the crime. Emily isn’t wrong.

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Criminals are people who commit crimes
And see this right here shows your depersonalization.

See the active current tense, here.

It is not ""criminals" are people who have committed crimes", but rather "criminals are people who commit."

Compare again " who have committed" with "who commit".

This is down to your fundamental failure to observe what it is you are actually feeling and thinking as you feel, think, and ultimately put out statements.

A small percentage of people commit most of the crime. Emily isn’t wrong.
A small percentage of crime is detected, and a small percentage of that is ascribed to a person by the court system. A non-trivial fraction of those convictions are wrongful.

The data allow us to conclude that a small percentage of people are convicted of most of the crime; And even that a small percentage of people are accused of most of the crime. The very phrase "round up the usual suspects" suggests that there's a massive confirmation bias at work here, and a vicious circle. When a crime is committed, the police look first and hardest at 'the usual suspects'; So it's this group that are most likely to be convicted; So this group are over represented in the conviction figures; So it "makes sense" to look first and hardest at this group.

But the fact remains that there's probably almost nobody who reaches the age of thirty without having done something that could, if they were unfortunate enough, have resulted in their conviction for a criminal offence.

We have met the enemy, and it is us.

Many people resile from that - after all, "we" are good people (who make very occasional lapses of good judgment); While "they" are hardened criminals who are preying on our society (and are likely irredeemable).

But that's nonsense - the division, as Solzhenitsyn observed, is not between "us" and "them"; It runs through every person's heart.

As the massive scale of the US prison population suggests, if you attempt to lock up all the criminals, you can only succeed by locking up bloody everybody.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
This is down to your fundamental failure to observe what it is you are actually feeling and thinking as you feel, think, and ultimately put out statements.
Thank you for mansplaining to me what I think and what I mean. I'm sure that you, as a man of the species, know better than poor little me, I'm just a woman, I don't know anything.

Jarhyn

Wizard
This is down to your fundamental failure to observe what it is you are actually feeling and thinking as you feel, think, and ultimately put out statements.
Thank you for mansplaining to me what I think and what I mean. I'm sure that you, as a man of the species, know better than poor little me, I'm just a woman, I don't know anything.
Hey, you're the one making statements that you aren't taking the time to understand.

Hey @Toni maybe you can "woman-splain" it to her instead?

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
But the fact remains that there's probably almost nobody who reaches the age of thirty without having done something that could, if they were unfortunate enough, have resulted in their conviction for a criminal offence.
I've jaywalked, and I've sped. And I ran a red light once. And when I was a child, I accidentally shoplifted a candy bar which I went back and paid for. I've probably trespassed unintentionally a few times.

I have not ever beaten, attacked, murdered, robbed, or raped anyone. I've never sexually assaulted anyone. I've never burgled anyone. I've never sold drugs, nor have I engaged in sex trafficking, nor have I kidnapped anyone. I've never abused a child.

I cannot imagine a situation in which I would do ANY of those things, ever.

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
This is down to your fundamental failure to observe what it is you are actually feeling and thinking as you feel, think, and ultimately put out statements.
Thank you for mansplaining to me what I think and what I mean. I'm sure that you, as a man of the species, know better than poor little me, I'm just a woman, I don't know anything.
And what is Trausti's excuse?

You are both wrong. Neither of you are wrong because you ate a woman, so playing the victim of sexism card here is a bit pathetic.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
This is down to your fundamental failure to observe what it is you are actually feeling and thinking as you feel, think, and ultimately put out statements.
Thank you for mansplaining to me what I think and what I mean. I'm sure that you, as a man of the species, know better than poor little me, I'm just a woman, I don't know anything.
Hey, you're the one making statements that you aren't taking the time to understand.

Hey @Toni maybe you can "woman-splain" it to her instead?

The sheer arrogance of telling me what I think and what I believe, and what you have decide I actually mean is just flabbergasting. Who the hell do you think you are, and why the holy fuck do you think you know anything about my mind? I'm not even convinced you know your own mind - how about you sort that out before you armchair psychoanalyze other people?

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
But the fact remains that there's probably almost nobody who reaches the age of thirty without having done something that could, if they were unfortunate enough, have resulted in their conviction for a criminal offence.
I've jaywalked, and I've sped. And I ran a red light once. And when I was a child, I accidentally shoplifted a candy bar which I went back and paid for. I've probably trespassed unintentionally a few times.

I have not ever beaten, attacked, murdered, robbed, or raped anyone. I've never sexually assaulted anyone. I've never burgled anyone. I've never sold drugs, nor have I engaged in sex trafficking, nor have I kidnapped anyone. I've never abused a child.

I cannot imagine a situation in which I would do ANY of those things, ever.

In the wrong situation, you would be just as likely to do those things as anyone else.

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant

In the wrong situation, you would be just as likely to do those things as anyone else.
I absolutely 100% guarantee that I am NOT as likely to do those as certain other people are. With complete and utter confidence.

I'm a bit concerned that you think you're just as likely to rape someone as a convicted rapist is... that you're just as likely to molest a child as a child molester is... that you're just as likely to murder someone as a convicted murderer is.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Here in Seattle and Washington in general criminals are becoming more emboldened day by day coincident with the decline of police and new laws restricting enforcement. Complainants are comming from both the left and the right.

Restorative justice is meaningless and pointless without strong law enforcement.

Fear to a degree is a part of civil order. It is human nature. The idea that social and community programs coupled with weak law enforcement is going to bring back order is a progressive fantasy.

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum

In the wrong situation, you would be just as likely to do those things as anyone else.
I absolutely 100% guarantee that I am NOT as likely to do those as certain other people are. With complete and utter confidence.
Yeah, but that's because you believe that "violent criminal" is a class of unperson, rather than an action by a real human person.
I'm a bit concerned that you think you're just as likely to rape someone as a convicted rapist is... that you're just as likely to molest a child as a child molester is... that you're just as likely to murder someone as a convicted murderer is.
Just as likely? Given identical circumstances, yes.

Though obviously my actual circumstances, like yours, are very different from those of the people who actually perpetrated those crimes.

The question is how to modify their circumstances such that they too feel aghast at the very idea that they might do those things.

And jail, or the threat of jail, is demonstrably a shithouse way to achieve that.

Jarhyn

Wizard
This is down to your fundamental failure to observe what it is you are actually feeling and thinking as you feel, think, and ultimately put out statements.
Thank you for mansplaining to me what I think and what I mean. I'm sure that you, as a man of the species, know better than poor little me, I'm just a woman, I don't know anything.
Hey, you're the one making statements that you aren't taking the time to understand.

Hey @Toni maybe you can "woman-splain" it to her instead?

The sheer arrogance of telling me what I think and what I believe, and what you have decide I actually mean is just flabbergasting. Who the hell do you think you are, and why the holy fuck do you think you know anything about my mind? I'm not even convinced you know your own mind - how about you sort that out before you armchair psychoanalyze other people?
I think I am a wizard who has spent far more time watching people talk and figuring out how to parse things actively than most of the people I've met.

I know things about your mind exactly from the words that spill out of it and if you don't like people seeing into your mind through your words you can always simply stop speaking them.

As to my own mind, I regularly explore it with open eyes. Or mind's eyes as the case may be. I tend the garden in there and am generally unafraid to pull up anything I don't like there.

Complete and utter confidence, of the sort that is "100%", that YOU are better and YOU would never be bad to others is a sure enough indicator that you are not, but rather you are merely 100% blind to your own failings.

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Well, I've bought and sold pot. Bought and sold blotter acid. Bought and possessed methamphetamine. Bought and possessed opium. Drove drunk several times. I've never done a violent crime. Yeah, I was young and stupid. Now I haven't had a traffic ticket in thirty years (That could change since I've gotten the bimmer).

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
But the fact remains that there's probably almost nobody who reaches the age of thirty without having done something that could, if they were unfortunate enough, have resulted in their conviction for a criminal offence.
I've jaywalked, and I've sped. And I ran a red light once. And when I was a child, I accidentally shoplifted a candy bar which I went back and paid for. I've probably trespassed unintentionally a few times.

I have not ever beaten, attacked, murdered, robbed, or raped anyone. I've never sexually assaulted anyone. I've never burgled anyone. I've never sold drugs, nor have I engaged in sex trafficking, nor have I kidnapped anyone. I've never abused a child.

I cannot imagine a situation in which I would do ANY of those things, ever.

This. Everyone occasionally commits a minor crime. Most people never commit any serious crime.

Jarhyn

Wizard
But the fact remains that there's probably almost nobody who reaches the age of thirty without having done something that could, if they were unfortunate enough, have resulted in their conviction for a criminal offence.
I've jaywalked, and I've sped. And I ran a red light once. And when I was a child, I accidentally shoplifted a candy bar which I went back and paid for. I've probably trespassed unintentionally a few times.

I have not ever beaten, attacked, murdered, robbed, or raped anyone. I've never sexually assaulted anyone. I've never burgled anyone. I've never sold drugs, nor have I engaged in sex trafficking, nor have I kidnapped anyone. I've never abused a child.

I cannot imagine a situation in which I would do ANY of those things, ever.

This. Everyone occasionally commits a minor crime. Most people never commit any serious crime.
So, either of y'all pay any attention at all to Le Mis?

Thief! Parole Breaker! Church Robber! Employer! Saver of many lives! Honest man.

I wouldn't rob people. Steal, yeah, stole a bunch of "intellectual property", though never claimed work as my own, and never sold it. Not even most of my actual work, if I could get away with it.

I don't think that a lot of people see themselves selling drugs or selling their body until they are there selling drugs or selling their body because some shitty person has leverage. At that point it's all about the leverage and how much more you give.

Not being able to imagine a situation where the imaginer is a bastard is them living an extremely privileged life. It just means it is going to be all the worse when that day comes and they have failed to make plans on how to give up as little ground as possible if someone or circumstances design to make them.

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
you ate a woman

I absolutely 100% guarantee that I am NOT as likely to do those as certain other people are. With complete and utter confidence.
I have not ever beaten, attacked, murdered, robbed, or raped anyone. I've never sexually assaulted anyone. I've never burgled anyone. I've never sold drugs, nor have I engaged in sex trafficking, nor have I kidnapped anyone. I've never abused a child.

I cannot imagine a situation in which I would do ANY of those things, ever.
Your certainty is astonishing. What is it based on? Do you regard yourself as inherently qualitatively superior to someone of inherently criminal bend? Have you spent time wondering what causes people to commit crimes?

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits

In the wrong situation, you would be just as likely to do those things as anyone else.
I absolutely 100% guarantee that I am NOT as likely to do those as certain other people are. With complete and utter confidence.
Yeah, but that's because you believe that "violent criminal" is a class of unperson, rather than an action by a real human person.
I'm a bit concerned that you think you're just as likely to rape someone as a convicted rapist is... that you're just as likely to molest a child as a child molester is... that you're just as likely to murder someone as a convicted murderer is.
Just as likely? Given identical circumstances, yes.

Though obviously my actual circumstances, like yours, are very different from those of the people who actually perpetrated those crimes.

The question is how to modify their circumstances such that they too feel aghast at the very idea that they might do those things.

And jail, or the threat of jail, is demonstrably a shithouse way to achieve that.

Given the above, what objection would you have to a proposal to legalize, say, armed robbery, arson, rape, and murder?

After all, if whether or not any given person performs those actions is purely due to a matter of circumstances and the those circumstances are only minimally impacted by the punishments given criminal justice system, then how is punishing people for what essentially amounts to being unlucky enough to have those particular circumstances just?

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum

In the wrong situation, you would be just as likely to do those things as anyone else.
I absolutely 100% guarantee that I am NOT as likely to do those as certain other people are. With complete and utter confidence.
Yeah, but that's because you believe that "violent criminal" is a class of unperson, rather than an action by a real human person.
I'm a bit concerned that you think you're just as likely to rape someone as a convicted rapist is... that you're just as likely to molest a child as a child molester is... that you're just as likely to murder someone as a convicted murderer is.
Just as likely? Given identical circumstances, yes.

Though obviously my actual circumstances, like yours, are very different from those of the people who actually perpetrated those crimes.

The question is how to modify their circumstances such that they too feel aghast at the very idea that they might do those things.

And jail, or the threat of jail, is demonstrably a shithouse way to achieve that.

Given the above, what objection would you have to a proposal to legalize, say, armed robbery, arson, rape, and murder?

After all, if whether or not any given person performs those actions is purely due to a matter of circumstances and the those circumstances are only minimally impacted by the punishments given criminal justice system, then how is punishing people for what essentially amounts to being unlucky enough to have those particular circumstances just?
Punishing people isn't just; Retribution is pointless, vindictive and cruel.

Rehabilitation is a noble goal.

Deterrence can be just.

Incapacitation is a last resort.

That you apparently can't see any purpose to making crimes unlawful, other than punishment, is truly sad.

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits
Given the above, what objection would you have to a proposal to legalize, say, armed robbery, arson, rape, and murder?

After all, if whether or not any given person performs those actions is purely due to a matter of circumstances and the those circumstances are only minimally impacted by the punishments given criminal justice system, then how is punishing people for what essentially amounts to being unlucky enough to have those particular circumstances just?
Punishing people isn't just; Retribution is pointless, vindictive and cruel.

Rehabilitation is a noble goal.

Deterrence can be just.

Incapacitation is a last resort.

That you apparently can't see any purpose to making crimes unlawful, other than punishment, is truly sad.

Punishment may be done for many purposes including retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation.
Just having the punishment of crimes be handled by the state as opposed to by retributive action from the victim (and/or friends and family of the victim) has served as a limiter for retribution overall.

If you believe that it is meaningful to make crimes unlawful but not punished, then provide an example, real or hypothetical, of how such a law is in any way functionally different from not having that law at all.

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
The vast majority of us do not DUI and exceed the speed limit because we know it will affect cost of insurance. Most of us pay bills on time because we know it affects our credit score.

Recently a guy driving a stolen car crashed through police cars and escaped. Per the new state laws it did not meet the requirement for hot police pursuit and police let him get away.

Reduce consequences for crime and people will exploit it.

TSwizzle

Let's Go Brandon!
Near my neck of the woods;

A man who is now in custody was arrested three times within 16 hours Sunday in Glendale.
due to L.A. County’s emergency “Zero-Dollar” bail order, Langdon was released from custody within three hours of being booked with a notice to appear in court at a later date, the department said. A few hours after Langdon was released, just before 7 p.m., officers responded to an apartment building on the 600 block of Balboa Avenue regarding a burglary that had just occurred.
After further investigation, officers discovered Langdon caused an estimated $6,000 in property damage to the victim’s apartment and to the apartment complex, the news release states. Langdon was arrested and booked on suspicion of burglary and felony vandalism. He remained in custody on$150,000 bail as of Thursday morning.

KTLA News

This is part of the chronic "homeless" problem in Los Angeles. And by "homeless" what is really meant is a raging substance abuse addiction problem or crazy person.

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
If you believe that it is meaningful to make crimes unlawful but not punished, then provide an example...
I do not believe that, and I don't have a clue why you imagine that I might.

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
The vast majority of us do not DUI and exceed the speed limit because we know it will affect cost of insurance. Most of us pay bills on time because we know it affects our credit score.
Neither of these are motivators for anyone in my jurisdiction, because neither consequence is an issue here. Insurance costs are determined by at-fault crash history, not traffic offences; And despite a recent push by credit rating organisations to change it, credit ratings are really not a thing. I don't know what my credit rating is, nor have I ever knowingly been in a situation where it mattered.

The idiosyncrasies of your homeland are not universal truths.

Trausti

Deleted
I'm a bit concerned that you think you're just as likely to rape someone as a convicted rapist is... that you're just as likely to molest a child as a child molester is... that you're just as likely to murder someone as a convicted murderer is.
Just as likely? Given identical circumstances, yes.

Though obviously my actual circumstances, like yours, are very different from those of the people who actually perpetrated those crimes.

The question is how to modify their circumstances such that they too feel aghast at the very idea that they might do those things.
The blank slate is so bizarre. Absolutely bizarre.

Trausti

Deleted
Recently a guy driving a stolen car crashed through police cars and escaped. Per the new state laws it did not meet the requirement for hot police pursuit and police let him get away.

Reduce consequences for crime and people will exploit it.
When we incentivize crime, we get more crime. I'm shocked.

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Recently a guy driving a stolen car crashed through police cars and escaped. Per the new state laws it did not meet the requirement for hot police pursuit and police let him get away.

Reduce consequences for crime and people will exploit it.
When we incentivize crime, we get more crime. I'm shocked.
When we accept irrelevant anecdotes as though they were evidence of things we want to believe, our beliefs are reinforced and feel even more true. I'm shocked.

Trausti

Deleted
Recently a guy driving a stolen car crashed through police cars and escaped. Per the new state laws it did not meet the requirement for hot police pursuit and police let him get away.

Reduce consequences for crime and people will exploit it.
When we incentivize crime, we get more crime. I'm shocked.
When we accept irrelevant anecdotes as though they were evidence of things we want to believe, our beliefs are reinforced and feel even more true. I'm shocked.

You don’t think you get more of what you incentivize? Your world is peculiar.

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Recently a guy driving a stolen car crashed through police cars and escaped. Per the new state laws it did not meet the requirement for hot police pursuit and police let him get away.

Reduce consequences for crime and people will exploit it.
When we incentivize crime, we get more crime. I'm shocked.
When we accept irrelevant anecdotes as though they were evidence of things we want to believe, our beliefs are reinforced and feel even more true. I'm shocked.

You don’t think you get more of what you incentivize? Your world is peculiar.
I don't think that laws to eliminate police pursuits that do more harm than good incentivise crime.

And if you want truly peculiar beliefs, just imagine a person who believes that criminality is an inherent character trait (rather than a result of circumstances), while living in a world where criminals were sent to an isolated continent for a century, and yet that continent now has very low crime levels.

Or someone foolish enough to believe simultaneously that crime is a character trait and not circumstantial; And that crime can be incentivised (or de-incentivised) by the passing of laws.

That's a truly bizarre set of beliefs.

Trausti

Deleted
Recently a guy driving a stolen car crashed through police cars and escaped. Per the new state laws it did not meet the requirement for hot police pursuit and police let him get away.

Reduce consequences for crime and people will exploit it.
When we incentivize crime, we get more crime. I'm shocked.
When we accept irrelevant anecdotes as though they were evidence of things we want to believe, our beliefs are reinforced and feel even more true. I'm shocked.

You don’t think you get more of what you incentivize? Your world is peculiar.
I don't think that laws to eliminate police pursuits that do more harm than good incentivise crime.

And if you want truly peculiar beliefs, just imagine a person who believes that criminality is an inherent character trait (rather than a result of circumstances), while living in a world where criminals were sent to an isolated continent for a century, and yet that continent now has very low crime levels.

Or someone foolish enough to believe simultaneously that crime is a character trait and not circumstantial; And that crime can be incentivised (or de-incentivised) by the passing of laws.

That's a truly bizarre set of beliefs.

Dude, you wrote that the only reason you haven’t yet raped and killed a child is circumstance. If you really believe that, stay far away from my children (and all children).

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Recently a guy driving a stolen car crashed through police cars and escaped. Per the new state laws it did not meet the requirement for hot police pursuit and police let him get away.

Reduce consequences for crime and people will exploit it.
When we incentivize crime, we get more crime. I'm shocked.
When we accept irrelevant anecdotes as though they were evidence of things we want to believe, our beliefs are reinforced and feel even more true. I'm shocked.

You don’t think you get more of what you incentivize? Your world is peculiar.
I don't think that laws to eliminate police pursuits that do more harm than good incentivise crime.

And if you want truly peculiar beliefs, just imagine a person who believes that criminality is an inherent character trait (rather than a result of circumstances), while living in a world where criminals were sent to an isolated continent for a century, and yet that continent now has very low crime levels.

Or someone foolish enough to believe simultaneously that crime is a character trait and not circumstantial; And that crime can be incentivised (or de-incentivised) by the passing of laws.

That's a truly bizarre set of beliefs.

Dude, you wrote that the only reason you haven’t yet raped and killed a child is circumstance. If you really believe that, stay far away from my children (and all children).
Do you have a point, or are you now just randomly spewing emotional triggers to conceal the fact that you don't?

Perhaps you missed the point that not only do I believe that the only reason I haven't killed and raped a child yet is circumstance; I also believe that the only reason YOU haven't is also circumstance.

Perhaps you too should stay far away from your children.

Or maybe it would be better for you to think seriously about the circumstances that lead people to harm children, and seek to prevent those circumstances from arising. But that would require mental effort on your part, so I shalln't hold my breath.

Your argument is indistinguishable from the old religious saw that "without God, what is stopping me from killing and raping all I want?" Well, there is no God, and there is no inherent character trait of "criminality".

So perhaps it would be useful to step beyond the rhetorical, and seriously ask what is actually stopping me from wanting to kill or rape, and how we can make that lack of desire to do those things apply to everyone.

Or we could just pretend that crime is only committed by "evil" people, and that therefore we need do nothing to prevent crime other than identifying the "bad guys" and removing them from society. No real effort needed for that, other than to ignore the mountain of evidence that it's nonsense.

And deliberately ignoring evidence is easy - look, you're doing it right now!

Enigma

Shaman of the Machine Spirits
If you believe that it is meaningful to make crimes unlawful but not punished, then provide an example...
I do not believe that, and I don't have a clue why you imagine that I might.

I am trying to determine what exactly is the objection you have to legalizing armed robbery, arson, rape, and murder, given your previous statements.

If performing such actions is determined entirely by circumstances (which you have argued) and those circumstances are not significantly modified by the threat of punishment from the criminal justice system (which you have also argued), then what exactly do you believe making those things illegal accomplishes other than arbitrarily punishing people purely due to circumstances?

I know what I believe it does, and thus what my objection would be to legalizing those acts would be. However, given that I don't believe the first two premises that you have argued for in the above statement are correct, my answer to that question won't work for your stated position.

One possibility to answer the above question given the above premises is that things being illegal somehow modifies circumstances in a way that does not depend on punishment. Hence why I asked. Apparently it's not. 1 question down.

If you would like me to not resort to 20 questions to determine your position and nail down the logical implications thereof, then kindly answer my inquiries about your position instead of going on a tangent about how retribution is bad.

Trausti

Deleted
Recently a guy driving a stolen car crashed through police cars and escaped. Per the new state laws it did not meet the requirement for hot police pursuit and police let him get away.

Reduce consequences for crime and people will exploit it.
When we incentivize crime, we get more crime. I'm shocked.
When we accept irrelevant anecdotes as though they were evidence of things we want to believe, our beliefs are reinforced and feel even more true. I'm shocked.

You don’t think you get more of what you incentivize? Your world is peculiar.
I don't think that laws to eliminate police pursuits that do more harm than good incentivise crime.

And if you want truly peculiar beliefs, just imagine a person who believes that criminality is an inherent character trait (rather than a result of circumstances), while living in a world where criminals were sent to an isolated continent for a century, and yet that continent now has very low crime levels.

Or someone foolish enough to believe simultaneously that crime is a character trait and not circumstantial; And that crime can be incentivised (or de-incentivised) by the passing of laws.

That's a truly bizarre set of beliefs.

Dude, you wrote that the only reason you haven’t yet raped and killed a child is circumstance. If you really believe that, stay far away from my children (and all children).
Do you have a point, or are you now just randomly spewing emotional triggers to conceal the fact that you don't?

Perhaps you missed the point that not only do I believe that the only reason I haven't killed and raped a child yet is circumstance; I also believe that the only reason YOU haven't is also circumstance.

Perhaps you too should stay far away from your children.

Or maybe it would be better for you to think seriously about the circumstances that lead people to harm children, and seek to prevent those circumstances from arising. But that would require mental effort on your part, so I shalln't hold my breath.

Your argument is indistinguishable from the old religious saw that "without God, what is stopping me from killing and raping all I want?" Well, there is no God, and there is no inherent character trait of "criminality".

So perhaps it would be useful to step beyond the rhetorical, and seriously ask what is actually stopping me from wanting to kill or rape, and how we can make that lack of desire to do those things apply to everyone.

Or we could just pretend that crime is only committed by "evil" people, and that therefore we need do nothing to prevent crime other than identifying the "bad guys" and removing them from society. No real effort needed for that, other than to ignore the mountain of evidence that it's nonsense.

And deliberately ignoring evidence is easy - look, you're doing it right now!
Would be interested if any other member of this board feels that, but for circumstance, they'd be a child rapist. Suspect that you're the only one Bilby. That you openly admit to having this proclivity is kinda frightening.

Anyhoo, it's your fealty to blank slate which draws the criticism. For example,

Criminals, especially violent criminals, engage in crime because that's who they are. Humanity has know this since forever; The Scorpion and the Frog and all that. A psychopath is a psychopath. No denial of nature is gonna change that.

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Recently a guy driving a stolen car crashed through police cars and escaped. Per the new state laws it did not meet the requirement for hot police pursuit and police let him get away.

Reduce consequences for crime and people will exploit it.
When we incentivize crime, we get more crime. I'm shocked.
When we accept irrelevant anecdotes as though they were evidence of things we want to believe, our beliefs are reinforced and feel even more true. I'm shocked.

You don’t think you get more of what you incentivize? Your world is peculiar.
I don't think that laws to eliminate police pursuits that do more harm than good incentivise crime.

And if you want truly peculiar beliefs, just imagine a person who believes that criminality is an inherent character trait (rather than a result of circumstances), while living in a world where criminals were sent to an isolated continent for a century, and yet that continent now has very low crime levels.

Or someone foolish enough to believe simultaneously that crime is a character trait and not circumstantial; And that crime can be incentivised (or de-incentivised) by the passing of laws.

That's a truly bizarre set of beliefs.

Dude, you wrote that the only reason you haven’t yet raped and killed a child is circumstance. If you really believe that, stay far away from my children (and all children).
Do you have a point, or are you now just randomly spewing emotional triggers to conceal the fact that you don't?

Perhaps you missed the point that not only do I believe that the only reason I haven't killed and raped a child yet is circumstance; I also believe that the only reason YOU haven't is also circumstance.

Perhaps you too should stay far away from your children.

Or maybe it would be better for you to think seriously about the circumstances that lead people to harm children, and seek to prevent those circumstances from arising. But that would require mental effort on your part, so I shalln't hold my breath.

Your argument is indistinguishable from the old religious saw that "without God, what is stopping me from killing and raping all I want?" Well, there is no God, and there is no inherent character trait of "criminality".

So perhaps it would be useful to step beyond the rhetorical, and seriously ask what is actually stopping me from wanting to kill or rape, and how we can make that lack of desire to do those things apply to everyone.

Or we could just pretend that crime is only committed by "evil" people, and that therefore we need do nothing to prevent crime other than identifying the "bad guys" and removing them from society. No real effort needed for that, other than to ignore the mountain of evidence that it's nonsense.

And deliberately ignoring evidence is easy - look, you're doing it right now!
Would be interested if any other member of this board feels that, but for circumstance, they'd be a child rapist. Suspect that you're the only one Bilby. That you openly admit to having this proclivity is kinda frightening.

Anyhoo, it's your fealty to blank slate which draws the criticism. For example,

Criminals, especially violent criminals, engage in crime because that's who they are. Humanity has know this since forever; The Scorpion and the Frog and all that. A psychopath is a psychopath. No denial of nature is gonna change that.
If you were correct, then Australia would have a far higher crime rate than any other developed world nation.

It doesn't.

So you aren't.

And psychopathy is a mental illness. It needs treatment in a secure hospital, not punishment through the legal system. It's also very rare, in comparison to mere violent crime.

Conflating psychopathy with criminality isn't helpful, they're unrelated problems with a small similarity in symptoms.

You might as well say that brain tumours are not responsive to Tylenol, so headaches cannot be treated.

Psychopaths might be criminals, but criminals are rarely psychopaths.

Trausti

Deleted
Recently a guy driving a stolen car crashed through police cars and escaped. Per the new state laws it did not meet the requirement for hot police pursuit and police let him get away.

Reduce consequences for crime and people will exploit it.
When we incentivize crime, we get more crime. I'm shocked.
When we accept irrelevant anecdotes as though they were evidence of things we want to believe, our beliefs are reinforced and feel even more true. I'm shocked.

You don’t think you get more of what you incentivize? Your world is peculiar.
I don't think that laws to eliminate police pursuits that do more harm than good incentivise crime.

And if you want truly peculiar beliefs, just imagine a person who believes that criminality is an inherent character trait (rather than a result of circumstances), while living in a world where criminals were sent to an isolated continent for a century, and yet that continent now has very low crime levels.

Or someone foolish enough to believe simultaneously that crime is a character trait and not circumstantial; And that crime can be incentivised (or de-incentivised) by the passing of laws.

That's a truly bizarre set of beliefs.

Dude, you wrote that the only reason you haven’t yet raped and killed a child is circumstance. If you really believe that, stay far away from my children (and all children).
Do you have a point, or are you now just randomly spewing emotional triggers to conceal the fact that you don't?

Perhaps you missed the point that not only do I believe that the only reason I haven't killed and raped a child yet is circumstance; I also believe that the only reason YOU haven't is also circumstance.

Perhaps you too should stay far away from your children.

Or maybe it would be better for you to think seriously about the circumstances that lead people to harm children, and seek to prevent those circumstances from arising. But that would require mental effort on your part, so I shalln't hold my breath.

Your argument is indistinguishable from the old religious saw that "without God, what is stopping me from killing and raping all I want?" Well, there is no God, and there is no inherent character trait of "criminality".

So perhaps it would be useful to step beyond the rhetorical, and seriously ask what is actually stopping me from wanting to kill or rape, and how we can make that lack of desire to do those things apply to everyone.

Or we could just pretend that crime is only committed by "evil" people, and that therefore we need do nothing to prevent crime other than identifying the "bad guys" and removing them from society. No real effort needed for that, other than to ignore the mountain of evidence that it's nonsense.

And deliberately ignoring evidence is easy - look, you're doing it right now!
Would be interested if any other member of this board feels that, but for circumstance, they'd be a child rapist. Suspect that you're the only one Bilby. That you openly admit to having this proclivity is kinda frightening.

Anyhoo, it's your fealty to blank slate which draws the criticism. For example,

Criminals, especially violent criminals, engage in crime because that's who they are. Humanity has know this since forever; The Scorpion and the Frog and all that. A psychopath is a psychopath. No denial of nature is gonna change that.
If you were correct, then Australia would have a far higher crime rate than any other developed world nation.

It doesn't.

So you aren't.
Well, now you're being silly. You know that transportation to Australia was for petty crimes, not murders and rapes.

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Recently a guy driving a stolen car crashed through police cars and escaped. Per the new state laws it did not meet the requirement for hot police pursuit and police let him get away.

Reduce consequences for crime and people will exploit it.
When we incentivize crime, we get more crime. I'm shocked.
When we accept irrelevant anecdotes as though they were evidence of things we want to believe, our beliefs are reinforced and feel even more true. I'm shocked.

You don’t think you get more of what you incentivize? Your world is peculiar.
I don't think that laws to eliminate police pursuits that do more harm than good incentivise crime.

And if you want truly peculiar beliefs, just imagine a person who believes that criminality is an inherent character trait (rather than a result of circumstances), while living in a world where criminals were sent to an isolated continent for a century, and yet that continent now has very low crime levels.

Or someone foolish enough to believe simultaneously that crime is a character trait and not circumstantial; And that crime can be incentivised (or de-incentivised) by the passing of laws.

That's a truly bizarre set of beliefs.

Dude, you wrote that the only reason you haven’t yet raped and killed a child is circumstance. If you really believe that, stay far away from my children (and all children).
Do you have a point, or are you now just randomly spewing emotional triggers to conceal the fact that you don't?

Perhaps you missed the point that not only do I believe that the only reason I haven't killed and raped a child yet is circumstance; I also believe that the only reason YOU haven't is also circumstance.

Perhaps you too should stay far away from your children.

Or maybe it would be better for you to think seriously about the circumstances that lead people to harm children, and seek to prevent those circumstances from arising. But that would require mental effort on your part, so I shalln't hold my breath.

Your argument is indistinguishable from the old religious saw that "without God, what is stopping me from killing and raping all I want?" Well, there is no God, and there is no inherent character trait of "criminality".

So perhaps it would be useful to step beyond the rhetorical, and seriously ask what is actually stopping me from wanting to kill or rape, and how we can make that lack of desire to do those things apply to everyone.

Or we could just pretend that crime is only committed by "evil" people, and that therefore we need do nothing to prevent crime other than identifying the "bad guys" and removing them from society. No real effort needed for that, other than to ignore the mountain of evidence that it's nonsense.

And deliberately ignoring evidence is easy - look, you're doing it right now!
Would be interested if any other member of this board feels that, but for circumstance, they'd be a child rapist. Suspect that you're the only one Bilby. That you openly admit to having this proclivity is kinda frightening.

Anyhoo, it's your fealty to blank slate which draws the criticism. For example,

Criminals, especially violent criminals, engage in crime because that's who they are. Humanity has know this since forever; The Scorpion and the Frog and all that. A psychopath is a psychopath. No denial of nature is gonna change that.
If you were correct, then Australia would have a far higher crime rate than any other developed world nation.

It doesn't.

So you aren't.
Well, now you're being silly. You know that transportation to Australia was for petty crimes, not murders and rapes.
Nah, that's just modern revisionism. Most transportees weren't petty criminals.

Trausti

Deleted
Recently a guy driving a stolen car crashed through police cars and escaped. Per the new state laws it did not meet the requirement for hot police pursuit and police let him get away.

Reduce consequences for crime and people will exploit it.
When we incentivize crime, we get more crime. I'm shocked.
When we accept irrelevant anecdotes as though they were evidence of things we want to believe, our beliefs are reinforced and feel even more true. I'm shocked.

You don’t think you get more of what you incentivize? Your world is peculiar.
I don't think that laws to eliminate police pursuits that do more harm than good incentivise crime.

And if you want truly peculiar beliefs, just imagine a person who believes that criminality is an inherent character trait (rather than a result of circumstances), while living in a world where criminals were sent to an isolated continent for a century, and yet that continent now has very low crime levels.

Or someone foolish enough to believe simultaneously that crime is a character trait and not circumstantial; And that crime can be incentivised (or de-incentivised) by the passing of laws.

That's a truly bizarre set of beliefs.

Dude, you wrote that the only reason you haven’t yet raped and killed a child is circumstance. If you really believe that, stay far away from my children (and all children).
Do you have a point, or are you now just randomly spewing emotional triggers to conceal the fact that you don't?

Perhaps you missed the point that not only do I believe that the only reason I haven't killed and raped a child yet is circumstance; I also believe that the only reason YOU haven't is also circumstance.

Perhaps you too should stay far away from your children.

Or maybe it would be better for you to think seriously about the circumstances that lead people to harm children, and seek to prevent those circumstances from arising. But that would require mental effort on your part, so I shalln't hold my breath.

Your argument is indistinguishable from the old religious saw that "without God, what is stopping me from killing and raping all I want?" Well, there is no God, and there is no inherent character trait of "criminality".

So perhaps it would be useful to step beyond the rhetorical, and seriously ask what is actually stopping me from wanting to kill or rape, and how we can make that lack of desire to do those things apply to everyone.

Or we could just pretend that crime is only committed by "evil" people, and that therefore we need do nothing to prevent crime other than identifying the "bad guys" and removing them from society. No real effort needed for that, other than to ignore the mountain of evidence that it's nonsense.

And deliberately ignoring evidence is easy - look, you're doing it right now!
Would be interested if any other member of this board feels that, but for circumstance, they'd be a child rapist. Suspect that you're the only one Bilby. That you openly admit to having this proclivity is kinda frightening.

Anyhoo, it's your fealty to blank slate which draws the criticism. For example,

Criminals, especially violent criminals, engage in crime because that's who they are. Humanity has know this since forever; The Scorpion and the Frog and all that. A psychopath is a psychopath. No denial of nature is gonna change that.
If you were correct, then Australia would have a far higher crime rate than any other developed world nation.

It doesn't.

So you aren't.
Well, now you're being silly. You know that transportation to Australia was for petty crimes, not murders and rapes.
Nah, that's just modern revisionism. Most transportees weren't petty criminals.
They weren't murderers or rapists, either. Pre-modern Britain had no issue dispensing capital punishment.

Trausti

Deleted
Blank slate devotees, look away!

Trausti

Deleted
Blank slate acolytes are like Flat Earthers or creationists. Their denial of natural world - and that humans are part of the natural world - is bemusing.

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Would be interested if any other member of this board feels that, but for circumstance, they'd be a child rapist.
For the vast majority of cases I agree. Most people are not born criminals or psychopaths, though. Their upbringing made them so.

And now we are back to your assertion that
...incarcerating criminals protects the public. These last few years of lax on crime policies makes that abundantly clear.
This is arrant nonsense. Empirical data show it to be so. You have based your assertion on data covering eight years. Classic case of cherry picking because those eight years were preceded by 18 years where crime rates and incarceration rates rose simultaneously, and another 10 years where crime rates rose significantly while incarceration rates remained almost unchanging before that. Given your assertion of harsher punishment reducing crime neither should have happened. If you were right, the trends shown in the graph below would be mirror images of each other, at least approximately so. That is not even remotely the case.

Last edited:

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Yeah, but that's because you believe that "violent criminal" is a class of unperson, rather than an action by a real human person.
STOP TELLING ME WHAT I BELIEVE.

You are wrong, completely wrong, and you are not a mind-reader. So screw off with your arrogant condescending assumptions about what I believe.