rehmwa

Al Capone is a chewy mint that explodes in a bottle of Coke? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I believe this clearly proven to be is a standing REQUIREMENT today for nationally elected officials. Why not extend that to state level then? the feds can't have all the fun. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

The actual procedure is trivial. Seriously. People get way too worked up about it. However, the prep . . . fuck that. what's the point of giving advice to these people, it just goes in one end and out the other ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I figure you could have used the phrase "out of pocket" with this thread in a more "Friday post humor" fashion. On the other (rubber gloved) hand, for some, comedy isn't just something you find in a dark hole. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

No but think of the politicians and celebrities. At least they'll get to carry their property. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

you posted that on purpose right? just to get the obvious response so.....what you're saying here - is that you're thrilled for the ACA because now you are more than happy to bend over and grab your ankles ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I'm still even more worried about "loyal followers" abusing our trust than the public figures. the more fanatical the following, the worse it gets. Our leaders need to look at the their best advocates and decide which of them will cross the line because of unreasoning political bias. Fortunately, the worst of them don't seem to take government positions, they just post on internets sites. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

one can argue the closure for the victims is a means of keeping the victims from becoming predators seeking revenge - I can make an argument for all of them, some convincing, some thin.... nothing you posted is really in conflict, IMO, I'm just highlighting my opinion of the top priority. If, as you say, pursue those secondary effects with the goal of supporting the primary, it's not a contradiction. Start treating those 2ndary items as pure, independent goals, then I believe we are losing sight of the real responsibility. another way to say it.. yes, prison IS punishment (no kidding), but that's not the purpose, it's the consequence of protecting us from predators ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

take that back - no Democrat in the history of the country has ever shut down, or threatened to shut down public services as a political tool. Schools and police service are never held hostage. Certainly public parks, veterans memorials, tourist sites and tours in DC, etc aren't used as leverage or punishment or as PR props. (I think this should be a wake up call for all politicians - especially high visibility ones - both parties. The story reads like he had at least one follower that was so fanatical about his boss that he abused his authority to do something petty he perceived would hurt an opposer. These leaders need to make sure that their "loyal followers" are still able to put their moral and professional philosophies ABOVE their political philosophies. I'm skeptical about that - clearly they'd rather have blind followers than thinking people) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Thanks for the clarification. Confusing justice with vengeance is pretty common. We've had a lot of threads on just that. Look at what justice used to be. Look at religious texts (really a rehash of old style justice) Look at how movie "heros" get "justice" (that's NOT justice) Justice is more about being the protector and guardian of humanity. Vengeance is really about just making the individual feel better. it's about perspective and how that drives us. Even if they results the same in so many cases, it's still different and important but the overlap can get pretty fuzzy. but the rationalization can get pretty fuzzy. but arguments can get confused by emotion ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

still putting out there in a belittling way. Let me ask a question to get more inside your intent. I might be misreading you. Does your opinion differentiate between people that: 1 - consider DP to be a viable means of justice and protecting society from killers and psychopaths vs 2 - those that want the killers and psychopaths to "pay" for what they've done or do you just think everyone that is for the DP deep down actual falls into category #2 (despite what they state directly) (BTW, I do "understand" them, I suspect you do too. It's a pretty simple concept and you are smart. I just don't agree with it) Edit/Tangent: I'd like to think that the people in #2 don't realize that, if they want to buy into the whole "balance" thing, they have two options. One, is that if someone commits a horrible act, they should have a horrible act committed on them. The other option (overlooked) is that is someone commits a horrible act on a family, then another balance is for that family to have a wonderful act committed on them. I think both are bullshit. But if someone is that simple minded, I'd prefer they live with the idea you balance a negative with a positive. rather than a negative act with a negative consequence. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I think it's a GREAT answer and very true. The stereotype that people here are using that the system is corrupted is just that. A stereotype - and not justified in a general discussion. Only when proved on individual cases - and that's a different crime altogether and should not be part of a DP discussion. Simply speaking, if a case is forged from falsehoods that leads to the DP of an innocent, it's simply murder, and those responsible need to go on trial also for that crime. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

1 - calling out people as wanting Vengeance is belittling. society has trained people in that from the beginning. "Scales" indeed. I don't find it productive at all. 2 - then saying it's a crueler punishment to have them rot forever is a completely vengeful statement of itself. Isn't that just feeding the problem inherent in the discussion? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

this is a bogus argument - and hurts the validity of people arguing that the DP should be a viable option. I don't care if they live or not as long as they aren't allowed to do it again. The purpose of justice is not "punishment of the criminal" (that's put there for the simple minded to embrace and is vaguely associated with deterrence, and possibly an unhealthy misread of what some consider 'closure for the victims'). Justice is to ensure that the crime is not repeated - i.e., it's to protect the rest of society from a known threat. we protect the innocent, that's the goal - (IMHO - there is no such thing as 'justice' for a crime already committed - justice would be the crime is never committed in the first place. There is only responding to injustice to try and make sure it never happens again. Injustice happens, you can't reverse it, you can only respond after the fact. The "Scales" of justice is absolute PR bullshit - you don't balance, you protect) If you get rid of the social manipulation crap (I call these 2ndary efforts at best, counterproductive in many cases): punish/getting even, solace/closure for the victims, rehabilitation, making an example, etc etc etc - the question distills down very simply... So how do we best protect the rest of the people from this type of act? (or similar acts) The balancing act these guys are trying to argue is all about protecting the innocent. - DP for the known criminal would certainly 'protect the innocent' from repeating the crime. (most cases) - But DP for an innocent, accidentally? that's not protecting the innocent either..... it all comes down to the level of certainty of guilt before using DP....(or, in some cases argued here - an "absolute" certainty only, which may be unobtainable) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

++ in addition - "If they feel they cannot provide, only a government can, it pushes the spiral further downward. IMHO of course" different religions, but dependency = dependency ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

"what we can" - that's the real problem as an individual, I can live in an efficient way and try not to muck up my environment. Even take the time to learn about some things that are bad that aren't obvious (for some, it's battery disposal, mercury handling, light bulb disposal and use, etc) and act accordingly too - I think most people feel that way regardless of their position on GW. no problems with this, and it's self motivating as it's 'most of the time' also the most effective in terms of self interest too on the other hand - some people think "what we can" is to invoke extremely harsh and expensive laws on the rest of the population (while living extravagent lifestyles themselves disregarding the very thing they are preaching) some people think 'what we can' is to establish a governing body that penalizes entire countries and transfers power to power hungry groups that don't do anything other than gather power some people think we should demonize entire cultures that do a good job, and ignore other countries that are devastating the very air we breath some people think we should use it to leverage crazy political agendas that aren't related to better environment at all some people think we should use it as an excuse to subsidize dead end technologies so that their buddies can score quick riches etc etc ad nauseum it's not that simple - once you get beyond each individual voluntarily doing what they can, it gets out of control and intrusive and exploitative ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Three Words: Edible Bubble Wrap PATENT PENDING COPYRIGHT PENDING ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's the question isn't it? I don't see why you guys have to phrase everything as an insult. What's the point of that? (MY entire point here was exactly that people have decided it's zero. Most don't seem to have any rationale though beyond the shallow input (ditto on the other side), but I'm hoping those that actually have been thoughtful about it want to flesh it out beyond more than just some 'bumper' sticker level concepts. It's a bit much to ask on such a visceral issue, but I'm always surprised at who sometimes comes forth with good discussions that are not just the same thing we always get.) As I said - dead end. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

what fallacy - I've not drawn a conclusion. you guys have. no - Mine is a discussion. Even if it's a "beg the question". that's fine, maybe the result is essentially zero. But you are supposed to 'arrive' at zero, you don't 'start' at zero and create the argument. you guys are starting at zero, that's a dead end. either way though, result is the same, stifled discussion this was one of our better exchanges though, seriously. I'm out of here before it degrades to the normal stuff. Don't expect to solve the world's problems here. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

conclusion before analysis - interesting thanks for a good discussion, we've hit a dead end here ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

not the point, it's about the calculated risk of choosing wrong. but I'll play we need a safe society We don't have to kill someone - we don't have to drive/skydive/ride motorbikes it's a personal decision for us - it's a personal decision to commit crimes - I'd also accept "no, driving and skydiving, etc can kill others too" Justice can be tampered with - construction projects can cut corners on safety and materials (it's crappy exercise in disregarding my point - otherwise, I just keep extending the list until it contains a few items that you won't just blithely throw out - I thought motorcycles was the likely one) We decide the safety factor to build into a bridge - you can extrapolate the cost in lives to have that bridge vs other options. Did you know mines and large scale construction projects will have a budget for potentially losing lives during construction? (the large collider project for example) - why shouldn't we quantify the acceptable beta risk for the DP? Now - I'm just saying we need to decide the Beta risk, and it's not rational to just say it's zero. That's all. I'd like it to be a LOT smaller than, say, the beta risk for life in prison - which you acknowledge as practical, but not philosophically palatable (as I also do). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

You are more correct than you realize. A prosecutor's responsibility is not, in fact, to get convictions. It is to "seek justice." The ethics statement is admirable and exactly what I'd hope for... yet the primary metric in assessing a successful career is "percent convictions" it's a nice statement of intent, but is it true in real life practice? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I get that and sympathize. But, life and death decisions (that whole alpha vs beta error balance) is made all the time - what safety factor do we build into this bridge/balcony - do we install airbags in this car - what kind of materials in the side panels - the existence of motorcycles - skydiving these are life/death decisions made for assumably totally innocent users - and those 'acceptable' risk calculations are very well defined. And, Frankly, I suspect much more intentionally/negligently abused than those in the legal system. I'd think those would be much more cut and dried than DP for heinous crimes these aren't to compare, but just to demonstrate that the logic can be applied in what is the risk we take for the safety of those other 5 billion people tangent - I'm gratified that there aren't any of the previously rather uncomprehending (i have other words for it) comments about incarceration being 'de facto' death penalties if society just looks away and lets the other inmates do it. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I think the converse, though, can be used by the other side. We're not sure enough to kill you......but we're happy enough to lock you up forever. (IMO - both presentations acknowledge that this cannot be a perfect system - so it's not an absolutist discussion that people try to make from oversimplification, it's about what is acceptable for both types of errors for the good of the species) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

nope - your first part addressed this. as did Kelpd I just mean that people that focus on #2 alone are just taking the easy argument and letting cynicism drive the obvious facet. if you go to #1, that's where the tricky parts are. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants