Breakdown In Civil Order

[Emily Lake]

I am pretty sure that almost everyone can run. And that given the motivation and training, that pretty much everyone could run very fast.

Of course, most couldn't run as fast as Mr Bolt; But then, most murderers couldn't complete with the people who have killed millions. That doesn't make them incapable of murder.

So you're telling me that if practice a lot and put a bunch of effort into it, I could become a rapist! Woo hoo!

Based on your own statements, and using your "logic" of what your words imply, you think everyone on the planet is a closeted rapist and murderer.

 

[bilby]

Stop telling me what you *think* I believe, based on your own fucked up beliefs! You are wrong. I know my brain better than you do, and you are simply wrong.

You can't even go a whole post without contradicting yourself, which rather suggests that you really don't know your brain very well at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

I also think that the vast majority of people who are rapists and murderers would be highly likely to be rapists and murderers NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. At the very best, I think that some people who are rapists and murderers might not have committed those crimes if they had been DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY.

And that right there is EXACTLY what I have been saying that you believe, and what you have been denying you believe.

But you DO believe it.

And you are wrong. Very, very wrong.

Not a single thing in what I said implies in any way that I think rapists and murderers are subhuman. You are, quite simply, full of complete shit.

 

[Emily Lake]

Stop telling me what you *think* I believe, based on your own fucked up beliefs! You are wrong. I know my brain better than you do, and you are simply wrong.

You can't even go a whole post without contradicting yourself, which rather suggests that you really don't know your brain very well at all.

You are wrong, and arrogant to boot.

 

[bilby]

I am pretty sure that almost everyone can run. And that given the motivation and training, that pretty much everyone could run very fast.

Of course, most couldn't run as fast as Mr Bolt; But then, most murderers couldn't complete with the people who have killed millions. That doesn't make them incapable of murder.

So you're telling me that if practice a lot and put a bunch of effort into it, I could become a rapist! Woo hoo!

Yes!

Based on your own statements, and using your "logic" of what your words imply, you think everyone on the planet is a closeted rapist and murderer.

Yes. And you don't. You think that rapists and murderers are a different kind of person, and that if we could just identify and imprison them all, crime would cease to exist.

 

[bilby]

Stop telling me what you *think* I believe, based on your own fucked up beliefs! You are wrong. I know my brain better than you do, and you are simply wrong.

You can't even go a whole post without contradicting yourself, which rather suggests that you really don't know your brain very well at all.

You are wrong, and arrogant to boot.

I am not wrong; And you are giving me a lot to be arrogant about.

Perhaps you could stop worrying about what I think about you for long enough to examine your own thoughts.

Perhaps.

 

[Trausti]

Still perplexed that we’ve got a Jeff Dahmer wannabe in this thread trying to get the rest of us to join him.

 

[Enigma]

Good law disincentivises bad behaviour; But bad law never provides an incentive for it. That comes from individual circumstances.

Obviously and demonstrably false.

Example:
Lets say Society X has a law against driving into pedestrians.
Being an enlightened society, the punishment for breaking said law is not designed to punish the perpetrator per se, but rather to provide restorative justice to the victim and their family in as far as possible.
Thus, if someone drives into a pedestrian and the pedestrian is injured, the driver must pay all associated medical bills of that injury for the rest of that person's life.
If they drive into a pedestrian and the pedestrian is killed, then the driver must pay all funeral costs for the dead pedestrian, because no amount of money is going to bring the dead back to life.
Also, like most societies, the cost of lifetime medical bills significantly exceeds funeral costs in Society X.

Given the above law and punishments, the law as specified incentivizes people to make sure that they kill any pedestrians they hit (whether by accident or deliberately), which is obviously bad behavior which is being incentivized by this obviously bad law.

Now, not all people subject to this law will inevitably make sure to double-tap and kill any pedestrians they hit:
Some may value the lives of strangers more than any potential additional cost to themselves and will stop and try to get help for any pedestrians they (accidentally) hit.

Some may be willing to risk just doing a hit and run and hoping that they can't ever be identified.

Some may be perfectly respectable people who would be perfectly willing to take an injured pedestrian to the hospital, but frankly couldn't afford being saddled with an extra lifetime's medical bills without their family becoming destitute. They struggle with the notion for a few minutes before killing the pedestrian, driving home, getting wasted drunk, and beginning a years long spiral of depression trying to cope with the idea that their failings turned them into a murderer.

Some may be rich callous bastards who now see the law as providing a license to kill people who annoy them so long as it is less annoying to pay their funeral costs.

etc.

Even though different people with different values and different tolerances for risk can plausibly react to this situation in different ways, the law has a net effect in incentivizing drivers to behave in a manner that results in at least as many and likely more dead pedestrians than if this law were not in effect.
Resulting in more dead pedestrians overall.
Which is bad.

 

[bilby]

Good law disincentivises bad behaviour; But bad law never provides an incentive for it. That comes from individual circumstances.

Obviously and demonstrably false.

Example:
Lets say Society X has a law against driving into pedestrians.
Being an enlightened society, the punishment for breaking said law is not designed to punish the perpetrator per se, but rather to provide restorative justice to the victim and their family in as far as possible.
Thus, if someone drives into a pedestrian and the pedestrian is injured, the driver must pay all associated medical bills of that injury for the rest of that person's life.
If they drive into a pedestrian and the pedestrian is killed, then the driver must pay all funeral costs for the dead pedestrian, because no amount of money is going to bring the dead back to life.
Also, like most societies, the cost of lifetime medical bills significantly exceeds funeral costs in Society X.

Given the above law and punishments, the law as specified incentivizes people to make sure that they kill any pedestrians they hit (whether by accident or deliberately), which is obviously bad behavior which is being incentivized by this obviously bad law.

Now, not all people subject to this law will inevitably make sure to double-tap and kill any pedestrians they hit:
Some may value the lives of strangers more than any potential additional cost to themselves and will stop and try to get help for any pedestrians they (accidentally) hit.

Some may be willing to risk just doing a hit and run and hoping that they can't ever be identified.

Some may be perfectly respectable people who would be perfectly willing to take an injured pedestrian to the hospital, but frankly couldn't afford being saddled with an extra lifetime's medical bills without their family becoming destitute. They struggle with the notion for a few minutes before killing the pedestrian, drive home, get wasted drunk, and beginning a years long spiral of depression trying to cope with the idea that their failings turning them into a murderer.

Some may be rich callous bastards who now see the law as providing a license to kill people who annoy them so long as it is less annoying to pay their funeral costs.

etc.

Even though different people with different values and different tolerances for risk can plausibly react to this situation in different ways, the law has a net effect in incentivizing drivers to behave in a manner that results in at least as many and likely more dead pedestrians than if this law were not in effect.
Resulting in more dead pedestrians overall.
Which is bad.

OK, so in what jurisdiction has this law been passed?

Didn't think so.

 

[Enigma]

OK, so in what jurisdiction has this law been passed?

Didn't think so.

You don't believe China exists?

Well, I think that about says it all, really.

 

[laughing dog]

OK, so in what jurisdiction has this law been passed?

Didn't think so.

You don't believe China exists?

Well, I think that about says it all, really.

While you believe you gave an example of a good law, you gave an example of a bad law because no prison time for vehicular murder is stupid.

 

[Trausti]

OK, so in what jurisdiction has this law been passed?

Didn't think so.

You don't believe China exists?

Well, I think that about says it all, really.

While you believe you gave an example of a good law, you gave an example of a bad law because no prison time for vehicular murder is stupid.

But the stupid law incentivized bad behavior. (And explains all those crazy Chinese driver videos of the last decade.)

 

[Enigma]

While you believe you gave an example of a good law, you gave an example of a bad law because no prison time for vehicular murder is stupid.

At no point did I believe nor claim to believe that such a law would be a good law. The point I was responding to was:

Good law disincentivises bad behaviour; But bad law never provides an incentive for it. That comes from individual circumstances.

Since you are a rational person discussing issues on these forums in good faith, I can only assume that you are currently having some technical difficulties reading and/or processing quoted text. Let me see if I can assist on this matter:

Good law disincentivises bad behaviour; But bad law never provides an incentive for it. That comes from individual circumstances.

My response is an example of a bad law providing incentive for bad behavior. I even say so in my response.

Given the above law and punishments, the law as specified incentivizes people to make sure that they kill any pedestrians they hit (whether by accident or deliberately), which is obviously bad behavior which is being incentivized by this obviously bad law.

Please let me know if you could use similar text reading and/or processing assistance in the future. Preferably without making false assertions about my motives.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm sure then, if you think it invalidates anything, you can support that declaration of such with reasoning as to why.

Reasoning: Wizards are fictitious entities that do magic, which is also fictitious. They do not exist. Believing that you are something that does not exist, and insisting that other people should accept you as actually being a thing that does not exist is evidence of a need for psychotherapy.

magic, as has been discussed of the only form I ever claim has any real effect in various threads, is purely described in terms of observed material effect through mechanisms extant and widely observed in nature!

You seem to think magic is in some ways much more than it is; and in some ways you think it much less.

I have defined various usages of the term "magic" well, and so have you: to summon the creation of pure imagination into reality.

I think we all remember how that turned out: I imagined a reality where you embarrassed yourself badly with your own definition and your own blowout of anger or else your understanding, and by gosh we summoned at least one of those into reality together.

Do you need me to link to it?

Now, there is also the matter of the following, which you keep claiming I don't exist, as a red herring so as to avoid it.

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

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.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am pretty sure that almost everyone can run. And that given the motivation and training, that pretty much everyone could run very fast.

Of course, most couldn't run as fast as Mr Bolt; But then, most murderers couldn't complete with the people who have killed millions. That doesn't make them incapable of murder.

So you're telling me that if practice a lot and put a bunch of effort into it, I could become a rapist! Woo hoo!

Yes!

Based on your own statements, and using your "logic" of what your words imply, you think everyone on the planet is a closeted rapist and murderer.

Yes. And you don't. You think that rapists and murderers are a different kind of person, and that if we could just identify and imprison them all, crime would cease to exist.

You know, I don't think I've ever run across anyone proclaiming that they're just one opportunity away from becoming the rapist they've always wanted to be.

 

[Emily Lake]

Still perplexed that we’ve got a Jeff Dahmer wannabe in this thread trying to get the rest of us to join him.

I know. I have never had anyone so determined to make sure everyone knows they desire to be a rapist and a murderer.

This is one of the more bizarre discussions I've ever taken part in.

 

[bilby]

I am pretty sure that almost everyone can run. And that given the motivation and training, that pretty much everyone could run very fast.

Of course, most couldn't run as fast as Mr Bolt; But then, most murderers couldn't complete with the people who have killed millions. That doesn't make them incapable of murder.

So you're telling me that if practice a lot and put a bunch of effort into it, I could become a rapist! Woo hoo!

Yes!

Based on your own statements, and using your "logic" of what your words imply, you think everyone on the planet is a closeted rapist and murderer.

Yes. And you don't. You think that rapists and murderers are a different kind of person, and that if we could just identify and imprison them all, crime would cease to exist.

You know, I don't think I've ever run across anyone proclaiming that they're just one opportunity away from becoming the rapist they've always wanted to be.

Let us know if that ever happens

 

[Emily Lake]

I have defined various usages of the term "magic" well

You've humpty-dumptied your way into trying to force a word to mean something you want it to. Nobody thinks you're an actual real literal wizard. At best, some people might be awed by your technical skills and consider you a "wizard" in a euphemistic sense. But you are not, in actuality, a literal wizard.

You can't argue with this. Reality exists independent of your fantasies.

 

[laughing dog]

While you believe you gave an example of a good law, you gave an example of a bad law because no prison time for vehicular murder is stupid.

At no point did I believe nor claim to believe that such a law would be a good law. The point I was responding to was:

Good law disincentivises bad behaviour; But bad law never provides an incentive for it. That comes from individual circumstances.

Since you are a rational person discussing issues on these forums in good faith, I can only assume that you are currently having some technical difficulties reading and/or processing quoted text. Let me see if I can assist on this matter:

Good law disincentivises bad behaviour; But bad law never provides an incentive for it. That comes from individual circumstances.

My response is an example of a bad law providing incentive for bad behavior. I even say so in my response.

Given the above law and punishments, the law as specified incentivizes people to make sure that they kill any pedestrians they hit (whether by accident or deliberately), which is obviously bad behavior which is being incentivized by this obviously bad law.

Please let me know if you could use similar text reading and/or processing assistance in the future. Preferably without making false assertions about my motives.

Thank you for the correction. I did misinterpret your response.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am pretty sure that almost everyone can run. And that given the motivation and training, that pretty much everyone could run very fast.

Of course, most couldn't run as fast as Mr Bolt; But then, most murderers couldn't complete with the people who have killed millions. That doesn't make them incapable of murder.

So you're telling me that if practice a lot and put a bunch of effort into it, I could become a rapist! Woo hoo!

Yes!

Based on your own statements, and using your "logic" of what your words imply, you think everyone on the planet is a closeted rapist and murderer.

Yes. And you don't. You think that rapists and murderers are a different kind of person, and that if we could just identify and imprison them all, crime would cease to exist.

You know, I don't think I've ever run across anyone proclaiming that they're just one opportunity away from becoming the rapist they've always wanted to be.

Let us know if that ever happens

Your entire argument in this thread is that you believe everyone is a rapist at heart, and just hasn't had the right circumstances presented to them. You just agreed that you are a closeted rapist and murder.

I'm not about to question your perspective of your own predilections toward violence. I will, however, insist that I am not even remotely a closeted rapist, and I can absolutely guarantee that there are no circumstance that will turn me into one.