Slap Happy
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
misogynistic
BTW, look up big words before you use them. You look more like a fool when you use them wrong. Jeremy Falcon
You're right. I did not intend to imply that you hate women, but rather that you're condescending, patronizing, and have no respect for them. I stand corrected.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You did.
I didn't. And act like an adult.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I happen to believe that gun ownership is a deterrent.
It is, but that's not the point. The point is harsher penalities do more to stop crime than saying "naughty naughty".
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'd say any advantage Texas has in decreased violent crime is most likely due to a bunch of reasonably well trained gun owners.
Care to support that assertion?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I believe that would be extreme, and would not serve as a deterrent.
And beating the snot out of someone isn't extreme? After all, what if you break something that takes more than 4 years to recover?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So it would be a spanking, then 120 years? (That "whoosh" you heard was the point going right over your head.)
Stop acting like an ass. Also, realistically, he wouldn't serve 120 years. Also, if you must know 120 years is a bit over the top, but 4 isn't.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You seem to think four years imprisonment is appropriate punishment for an ass-slap, and nothing less would suffice.
Odd thing about dumb people is they love to assume a lot with no real basis.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I beg to differ, and, in fact, think you're a misogynistic, reactionary idiot.
If you think I value your opinion of me when you obviously did a piss poor job to even hold an intellectual conversation you're dead wrong. Go sniff some more paint.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Well still, since it's not a big deal, I guess your wife's ass is open ground. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
act like an adult.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stop acting like an ass.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Go sniff some more paint.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Odd thing about dumb people
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
your wife's ass is open ground.
I bow to your power of reason and your aptitude for intellectual discourse. You may continue ranting to yourself.
-
You're right. I did not intend to imply that you hate women, but rather that you're condescending, patronizing, and have no respect for them. I stand corrected.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You're right. I did not intend to imply that you hate women, but rather that you're condescending, patronizing, and have no respect for them. I stand corrected.
And how the hell do you get this? Because I think 4 years of house arrest is acceptable punishment? Are you on drugs? Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
act like an adult.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Stop acting like an ass.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Go sniff some more paint.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Odd thing about dumb people
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
your wife's ass is open ground.
I bow to your power of reason and your aptitude for intellectual discourse. You may continue ranting to yourself.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I bow to your power of reason and your aptitude for intellectual discourse.
Yeah go ahead and reverse roles now. :| Jeremy Falcon
-
All I was trying to get across to Jeremy is that no one has presented convincing evidence for a causal relationship between extreme punishment and deterrent. I've seen more reputable studies, compiled by people without an agenda, that show negative or weak correlations, but I'm not entirely convinced either way. In that light, any argument made for harsh punishment comes down to a personal sense of justice. (Incidentally, I think if you looked at churches per capita, you'd be back to zero correlation. Utah is, in pretty much every way, an anomaly.)
espeir wrote:
I disagree with this. Justice is the giving to each what is his own, and if you take a life, I believe that you owe yours. Just curious. What would you want to happen to a guy that raped your wife and daughter, then violently killed them...then started peeing on their bodies just as you walked in, catching him in the act? Would you be satisifed with giving him life in prison?
Right, so we've established that you believe in an eye for an eye. Asking me what I'd want to happen is not at all the same as asking me what I think society should do (Do I look like Dukakis?). If someone stole your car, would you want to cut off his hands?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
All I was trying to get across to Jeremy
First you do so in an attacking, insulting, and demeaning manor. That's not a very smart tactic to get people to listen.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
no one has presented convincing evidence for a causal relationship between extreme punishment and deterrent. I've seen more reputable studies, compiled by people without an agenda, that show negative or weak correlations, but I'm not entirely convinced either way.
Go stand on the street corner holding up a sign that says "I won't press charges if you rob my house" and provide your address. You'll have all the evidence you need. Jeremy Falcon
-
It's been a while since I did the research, and I'm not going to retrace my steps for this thread, so I would suggest a quick Google search. My results list a bunch of academic studies showing weak correlation to inverse correlation, and a metric buttload of religious(?!) sites extolling the biblical virtues of killing convicted criminals. Statistics lie, of course, so it's your choice which side to believe. I'd suggest deathpenaltyinfo.org. Ignore the obvious bias, look at the data and its sources. (BTW, if you'd like to start a death penalty thread, I'd be happy to debate that issue, but this thread isn't the place.) That point aside, would you care to refute the fact that stiffer penalties have had little to no deterrent effect on drug use? Do higher fines reduce speeding? Can you point me to any two areas where harsher punishment has served as an effective deterrent?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
That point aside, would you care to refute the fact that stiffer penalties have had little to no deterrent effect on drug use? Do higher fines reduce speeding? Can you point me to any two areas where harsher punishment has served as an effective deterrent?
My comment is this: correlation does not equal causation. To set up such a "study" would require seting up control groups with the requisite parameters. You are confusing the creation of laws/increase of fines/punishments due to behaviour that came BEFORE the laws/fines with the fact that people who ALREADY disgregarded proper commonsense behaviour or existing law continue to do so afterwards. The law/fine was created/improved/increased due to the increase in unlawful behaviour. The people that were violating the law/commonsense before that point merely continue to do so until caught. Many such individuals, once caught, refuse to modify their behaviour due to rebeliousness, pride or ignorance. However, I think we can agree that laws probably will not modify behaviour in either direction until the violator is caught. Laws are created primarily to be able to inflict punishment which threat of punishment in many cases DOES cause the potential violator to modify their behavior. For instance, I got a few speeding tickets and now I don't speed so much because I do not wish to pay the fines. I've also matured somewhat and out of consideration of others as well as my own life, I don't speed nearly as much as I used to.
-
That list doesn't indicate any sort of causality betweent the death penalty and murder rates, and I doubt that a causal relationship could actually be made. Why would New Hampshire have the lowest murder rate in the country while also having the death penalty if it actually did not (or did) play a role as a deterrent. It could also reasonably be said that states with higher murder rates have the death penalty BECAUSE they have the higher rate to begin with. There is a higher correlation with temperature. 17 of the 20 lowest murder rate states are "cold", compared to only 9 of the lowest rate states having no death penalty (also note that more states at the lower murder rate end DO have the death penalty). Also, 14 of the top 20 states are "warm" states. There are also a lot of other factors, like Utah is very religious, so it's not surprising that they're near the bottom.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If you kill someone, society's interest should be in not allowing you to do so again.
I disagree with this. Justice is the giving to each what is his own, and if you take a life, I believe that you owe yours. Just curious. What would you want to happen to a guy that raped your wife and daughter, then violently killed them...then started peeing on their bodies just as you walked in, catching him in the act? Would you be satisifed with giving him life in prison?
espeir wrote:
BECAUSE they have the higher rate to begin with.
exactly
-
ahz wrote:
MOST (99%) men don't.
That's an assumption.
ahz wrote:
Should we ALL be ostrasized and stigmatized because of few bad apples?
And like you've never tried to talk (pick up or wish you could in reality) to a chick when she didn't want to be bothered. It gets annoying from her point ya know. I've had friend that wore wedding rings, not becuase she was married, but because the guys wouldn't stop trying to pick up on her. And guess what, the ring didn't stop it. So maybe you don't understand their point of view as much as you'd like to think. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
So maybe you don't understand their point of view as much as you'd like to think.
i never claimed that i did. i'm pretty sure i don't.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
That point aside, would you care to refute the fact that stiffer penalties have had little to no deterrent effect on drug use? Do higher fines reduce speeding? Can you point me to any two areas where harsher punishment has served as an effective deterrent?
My comment is this: correlation does not equal causation. To set up such a "study" would require seting up control groups with the requisite parameters. You are confusing the creation of laws/increase of fines/punishments due to behaviour that came BEFORE the laws/fines with the fact that people who ALREADY disgregarded proper commonsense behaviour or existing law continue to do so afterwards. The law/fine was created/improved/increased due to the increase in unlawful behaviour. The people that were violating the law/commonsense before that point merely continue to do so until caught. Many such individuals, once caught, refuse to modify their behaviour due to rebeliousness, pride or ignorance. However, I think we can agree that laws probably will not modify behaviour in either direction until the violator is caught. Laws are created primarily to be able to inflict punishment which threat of punishment in many cases DOES cause the potential violator to modify their behavior. For instance, I got a few speeding tickets and now I don't speed so much because I do not wish to pay the fines. I've also matured somewhat and out of consideration of others as well as my own life, I don't speed nearly as much as I used to.
Sure, but if you build up enough data, with enough correlating factors, you can maybe start to form some at least scientific wild-ass guesses. I wouldn't claim that such studies are conclusive; just that, in this case, they would be interesting.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
All I was trying to get across to Jeremy
First you do so in an attacking, insulting, and demeaning manor. That's not a very smart tactic to get people to listen.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
no one has presented convincing evidence for a causal relationship between extreme punishment and deterrent. I've seen more reputable studies, compiled by people without an agenda, that show negative or weak correlations, but I'm not entirely convinced either way.
Go stand on the street corner holding up a sign that says "I won't press charges if you rob my house" and provide your address. You'll have all the evidence you need. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
First you do so in an attacking, insulting, and demeaning manor. That's not a very smart tactic to get people to listen.
Oh, *this* is fucking rich, coming from you. Most of the time when you argue, you sound like a 13 year old. I am being serious when I say that, and I am not trying to be a dick. Almost every single sentence you use either accuses someone of assuming something (without actually backing that up), or uses an ad-hominem attack. When you are debating something, calling someone "retarded", "gay", or "dumb", or saying talking to them is "like talking to a brick wall" is a sure-fire way to make everyone else reading the argument think your arguments are worthless. Why don't you grow the hell up and stop arguing like you're in 8th grade...maybe some people will actually start listening to you. Or you could simply leave, since it seems that arguing on these boards is not good for you. For reference, here you go:
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And if I came to your house with a gun and threaten to kill you're family if you say that again, I doubt you'll be back here saying that on CP. Good, I'll come slap your wife on the ass a couple times when I visit to shoot you. I mean, seeing that it's no big deal and all. Now you're being retarded.
http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=1386804&forumid=2605#xx1386804xx[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Care to support that assertion? [where he was countering an assertion you initially made that you did not back up. Wow!] Stop acting like an ass. Odd thing about dumb people is they love to assume a lot with no real basis If you think I value your opinion of me when you obviously did a piss poor job to even hold an intellectual conversation you're dead wrong. Go sniff some more paint. Well still, since it's not a big deal, I guess your wife's ass is open ground. BTW, look up big words before you use them. You look more like a fool when you use them wrong.