Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43
  1. #21  
    WARNING:This post may be perceived as some to be offensive. It is not the authors intent to insult anyone. Sarcasm, however, will likely be present.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    It's a mystery to me why the US has more, per capita, prisoners while crime is so rampaged. The US is a complex-melting-pot. There are so many cultures blending together, so many languages spoken (67 in my school alone!), so much diversity that (could) breed misunderstanding and miscommunication. I'd be the last person to look for excuses for the US to boast such 'accomplishment' as bloating prisons, but perhaps the US is unique. Switzerland is not a typical melting pot. Sweden or Denmark are hardly-as-such also. Although Europe is changing, I would argue that the US is one of the most diverse "Western" societies on earth.
    Having said that, I would argue that capital punishment won't deter crime. Education might. In the classroom, punishing students often yield resistance and escalating behaviors. Discussions relevant to their "crimes" seem more successful and rewarding. To both.
    Regarding the comment made about Saddam Hussein's Iraq and low crime, I politely disagree with that comment. There were thousands of unconfirmed reports of female and ethnic-minorities abuses. You wouldn't expect Saddam to report them, would you?

    So Chick, with respect to your comment on education and discussion, how many career criminals do you really suppose will change their ways if you gave them a good talking to?

    Students in the classroom are a considerably different animal than say, a serial ****** and murderer.

    Thats kinda like saying since you were able to swim in the koi pond with no ill effects, you should be able to swim in sharkinfested waters too. I mean they are both fish, right?
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Regarding the comment made about Saddam Hussein's Iraq and low crime, I politely disagree with that comment. There were thousands of unconfirmed reports of female and ethnic-minorities abuses. You wouldn't expect Saddam to report them, would you?
    Well, true. I wasn't counting those. The same happened during certain times in the USSR (Stalin's purges come to mind).

    I have spent time in another place which doesn't fit into any of the models discussed here - the Choco region of Colombia (Pacific coast area). It is a very lawless place - over 95-percent of murders go unprosecuted, and there are a lot of them. Paramilitary groups go unchallenged up and down the jungle rivers in power boats without interference from the government. In that area, there is small population, few police, and lots of fanaticals running around. Very small governmenal or official influence. As an American, I was lucky to get out safely, even with the military bodyguards helping us.

    There, crime is huge because there is no sufficient police presence to surpress it. Death penalties and drug laws mean nothing to the bad guys there because they know they won't get punished.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Perhaps you missed my point. I used the example of students for highlighting education as a preventive measure in the face of crimes (schools are only one of many places to do that!). Kids need to trust adults to exemplify proper behaviors, reasoned-communications, rational statements and honesty. I would never suggest that a serial-murderer needs a good pep-talk to cure him/her from the crimes he/she did!
    My apologies, but you didnt say that. From what your post said it looked like you were making an anology. In fact you said that "In the classroom, punishing students often yield resistance and escalating behaviors. Discussions relevant to their "crimes" seem more successful and rewarding." I read this as punishing them does work so we talk to them instead. I didnt see anything relating to prevention. My mistake?

    Education is fine, but it speaks volumes about the lack of discipline excercised by parents that you even have to make it a big topic in class. Kids should know how to behave by the time they get to school. School should be for learning the subjects not available at home and social interaction. Basic polite behaviour should be mastered by then.

    Problem is parents are shackled by inane laws like the antispanking law under discussion in this thread.

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=53433
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    That link could be a romance novel for all I know. As for your conclusion, that is incredibly presumptive as you no doubt know. You have to assume a whole lot. Of course, absent random, controlled experiments you cannot do real research, but according to your logic, speaking English also causes people to kill one another.
    Ok, ok, I admit it, regarding the conclusions drawn from the statistics I was walking on thin ice - but still thicker than that of most ! I am planning to read an article on the econometrics of death penalty, maybe there is more interesting data there.
  5. KKenna's Avatar
    Posts
    418 Posts
    Global Posts
    419 Global Posts
    #25  
    I think you need to look at the institutionalized social mechanisms in these other countries to help explain why violent crimes and gun deaths are so high per capita in the US .vs other countries. Things like health care and unemployment benefits are handled very differently in most other countries. Think about this; what do you think society's opinion of you becomes if you loose your job and can't find another in a short time frame ? I can tell you in the US you rapidly become dead weight. No one wants to give you a leg up and most would rather turn their back on you than help. This is capitalism carried out to the individual. The most poignant interview in the whole movie (IMHO) was the interview with Marilyn Manson. Fear and consumption. Keep us all scared of each other and what happens ? We don’t talk to one another (Can anyone name more than 1 or 2 of their neighbors these days), so how can we unite as a people and really control our own destiny. If I’m afraid of being robbed while at the same time, afraid of losing my job, how panicked will I be ? Plus, if you get desperate enough, you’ll do just about anything to stay alive or provide for those you love. I’ve just watched “City of God” (Which I highly recommend). We have a similar attitude towards the poor in this country. Just corral them up and let them kill each other. This is not a model for success as far as I’m concerned. We just keep locking up these people instead of actually fixing the problem, which is the distribution of wealth and prosperity. Now, don’t get me wrong; I work hard for the money I earn and don’t feel everyone’s entitled to have whatever they want, but who really needs $50,000,000,000.00 !?!?! Fans of Ayn Rand (“Atlas Shrugged”) will disagree completely with me, but the problem is that there’s soon to be no notion of moderation in this country. There will only be really rich and really poor, and you’d better hope you fall on the right side of the fence. If more of these really rich people behaved like Oprah Winfrey (Extremely philanthropic), we’d soon see a huge downturn in violent crimes. This is the crux of the problem. If we don’t have a government (Think of the definition of the word “govern” for a second), who will keep things fair in this country. You think the few in charge of the big business in America are gonna look out for the little guy ? Not !

    My point is that for a country to be truly prosperous, shouldn’t everyone prosper ? Certainly some contribute more than others and should be rewarded in greater turn, but there is no longer any balance in the US. We’re out of control and the Bush administration is just spinning us faster and faster while cleaning out our wallets, bank accounts and retirement funds (Or at least, allowing the people who paid to have him elected do). I’m assuming that most that post to this board are less than retirement age. What will you be doing when you’re 60, 70 or 80 ? Can’t put some coin in the rich guys pocket ? See ya.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    You are right, I was, to some extend at least, making an analogy. Sorry for being confusing. The analogy goes something like this: The mightier the consequence for a certain behavior, the mightier the resistance to it becomes. And it was in regards to capital punishment.
    Are you saying that the resisitance to the consequence or the behavior?
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by KKenna

    My point is that for a country to be truly prosperous, shouldn’t everyone prosper ? Certainly some contribute more than others and should be rewarded in greater turn, but there is no longer any balance in the US. We’re out of control and the Bush administration is just spinning us faster and faster while cleaning out our wallets, bank accounts and retirement funds (Or at least, allowing the people who paid to have him elected do). I’m assuming that most that post to this board are less than retirement age. What will you be doing when you’re 60, 70 or 80 ? Can’t put some coin in the rich guys pocket ? See ya.

    I knew when I started reading this that this was going to have political bent.

    MkKenna as I have said to others before, send me your paycheck, I'll return to you what I think you need and give the rest to those who need it. Get some first hand experience with your idea. That ok?

    If everyone is going to prosper then everyone is going to have to play by the same rules when it comes to redistribution of wealth. Are you willing to play that way or is your idea just for the guy who makes $50,000,000,000 and doesnt really need it, according to you?
  8. KKenna's Avatar
    Posts
    418 Posts
    Global Posts
    419 Global Posts
    #28  
    I don't pretend to have the answer and I'm not a socialist, so, no, you can't have my paycheck and I'm not suggesting that you do this either. This is exactly the problem. Do you consider your response a moderate one ? I think that it is extremist. I was merely pointing out that the people with all the money, left to their own devices, will not look out for the small guy. They will simply take advantage.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by KKenna
    I don't pretend to have the answer and I'm not a socialist, so, no, you can't have my paycheck and I'm not suggesting that you do this either. This is exactly the problem. Do you consider your response a moderate one ? I think that it is extremist. I was merely pointing out that the people with all the money, left to their own devices, will not look out for the small guy. They will simply take advantage.

    Why do you say this? Is it because that's what YOU would do if you had all the money? How can you possibly know what anyone besides yourself would do with their money unless you know that person? You can't!! And wasn't it you that cited Oprah as an example. Are you saying she isnt left to her own devices? Who then is holding the gun to her head and encouraging her philanthropy? Just because YOU dont have personal knowledge of philanthropy, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. And yes it is rather socialistic to assume that because you think rich people are not generous enough their money should be taken away and redistributed. What else would you call it?

    Let's also point out that more money will have a profound effect on violent crimes is silly. Sorry if you find that insulting, it's not meant as such. Did Scott Peterson allegedly kill his wife cause of money. Doesn't look that way. Did OJ kill Nicole and Ron because he didnt have enough money. Hardly. How about the Menendez brothers? Or Son of Sam or the Wournos woman? Or Ted Bundy? Do I need to keep listing them or can I just say that evil people will do whatever they do regardless of how much money they have. Let's try the other side. Are you saying then that Bill Gates would start killing people if we took all of his money? And what about all the poor people that aren't violent criminals now? I'm sorry but I cant see how your theory holds water.

    I suppose you think your initial statement is moderate? Saying all the people with money are bad and should be punished is a tad extreme too. If you don't want to be the small guy, don't. In this country it is possible to change your position in life. I did it and I have no more advantage than anyone else, unless you call a willingness to work hard for what I want and not whine about what I dont have an advantage.
  10. #30  
    Woof: You've got some of the most firmly held principles I've ever come across, however I don't think your principles have been informed by history. People don't behave philanthropically enough in general, that's a historical fact. If it wasn't then no-one would starve to death.

    I would also argue that just as an insurance company spreads the risk and keeps cost down by having more members society must spread the risk and cost of having to provide social care by getting everyone who can to contribute.
    Animo et Fide
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Let's also point out that more money will have a profound effect on violent crimes is silly. Sorry if you find that insulting, it's not meant as such. Did Scott Peterson allegedly kill his wife cause of money. Doesn't look that way. Did OJ kill Nicole and Ron because he didnt have enough money. Hardly. How about the Menendez brothers? Or Son of Sam or the Wournos woman? Or Ted Bundy? Do I need to keep listing them or can I just say that evil people will do whatever they do regardless of how much money they have. Let's try the other side. Are you saying then that Bill Gates would start killing people if we took all of his money? And what about all the poor people that aren't violent criminals now? I'm sorry but I cant see how your theory holds water.
    You are oversimpling things now.. there is more than 1 reason for crime.
    Distribution of wealth is surely one of them. Lets take 2 examples:
    A)2 groups in society, 1 group has all the money the other has none and is starving.
    B)1 group in society, everybody has the same amount of money.

    In group B there probably still will be crime (crimes of passion, sick minds etc etc)
    However in group A there sure will be crime by the poor group in order to survive.

    Both systems are not ideal (crime wise B would be better, however people need a drive to produce, personal gain is a great driver. While in case A crime will be rampand)
    I agree with KKenna that bush leads us more to case A...

    The sollution is to find a ballance between the 2 extremes where wealth is fairly evenly devided, but there is difference and people can make a difference..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  12. #32  
    Well fellas, peter and TK, I have bad news.

    There will always be poor people and always be rich people. Throuighout history this is so. Some poeple want more and will strive to get it. Some want more and hope someone will give it to them. There has not been a society in recorded history where the redistribution of wealth has worked like you hope it will, at least not to my knowledge. If you know of an instance where this has worked, please share it with me.

    As far as philanthropy goes, you cant force people to give. Forcing someone to give is robbing them and using different terminology. You also cannot force people to work. They call that slavery. So were stuck somehwere in the middle, hoping the rich will be more generous and the poor will get off their asses and try to change their lives. A large portion of the poor are perfectly capable of working and there are jobs.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Well fellas, peter and TK, I have bad news.

    There will always be poor people and always be rich people. Throuighout history this is so. Some poeple want more and will strive to get it. Some want more and hope someone will give it to them. There has not been a society in recorded history where the redistribution of wealth has worked like you hope it will, at least not to my knowledge. If you know of an instance where this has worked, please share it with me.

    As far as philanthropy goes, you cant force people to give. Forcing someone to give is robbing them and using different terminology. You also cannot force people to work. They call that slavery. So were stuck somehwere in the middle, hoping the rich will be more generous and the poor will get off their asses and try to change their lives. A large portion of the poor are perfectly capable of working and there are jobs.
    Don't mix what I and TK have said, no offence TK. I don't think I've ever argued for wealth redistribution, unless you class Welfare as wealth redistribution? In which case I'd argue that it works pretty well in every Western democracy. Forcing someone to give is called taxation, you may think it's robbery but you can take that argument to your government.
    Animo et Fide
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Don't mix what I and TK have said, no offence TK. I don't think I've ever argued for wealth redistribution, unless you class Welfare as wealth redistribution? In which case I'd argue that it works pretty well in every Western democracy. Forcing someone to give is called taxation, you may think it's robbery but you can take that argument to your government.
    If you think I am promoting wealth redistribution in the form of de-owning you are wrong.
    I just want to prevent polarization of the society by (moderate) taxing and social security..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  15. #35  
    I think I can see the argument that though little to no taxes is good for an individual, it is bad for the country, that individual included (he is worse off that we was before). It can further be argued that such a situation permits governmental action (indeed, it is the only type of situation).

    Whoah, did I just go liberal?
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I think I can see the argument that though little to no taxes is good for an individual, it is bad for the country, that individual included (he is worse off that we was before). It can further be argued that such a situation permits governmental action (indeed, it is the only type of situation).

    Whoah, did I just go liberal?
    No, just reasonable . I agree with you that it is good to keep in mind that there is common interest in taxes, because who would want to live in a country without a government, apart from Woof maybe (kidding, Woof)?

    A few months ago, there was a vote on whether the Swiss wanted to have lower taxes (based on a suggestion by the parliament and the government), and guess what, 2/3 were against it .
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    If you think I am promoting wealth redistribution in the form of de-owning you are wrong.
    I just want to prevent polarization of the society by (moderate) taxing and social security..
    Fair enough. I think when Woof hears phrases like 'Wealth Redistribution' 'Social Reform' etc. a red mist descends...
    Animo et Fide
  18. #38  
    I have never said anything about no government or no taxes. Please let's not twist what I have said.
    Government certainly has its place as do taxes. I dont think however that govt's place is to take care of us. Protect us from outside attack yes, from ourselves no.
    I'd also like to point out that until recently I didnt make much money and yet I never took advantage of any social tax-funded govt programs. Why? Because I didnt qualify (so how do they help everyone?) and two because I wanted to make my own way. Maybe I am more ambitious than most. I doubt it though. Why should I expect YOU to pay for my existence when I am perfectly capable of doing it myself if I just put forth the effort? Answer: I shouldnt. I dont think anyone else should either. There are plenty of generous people in the world in all tax brackets that are willing to help others without being forced to by taxation. If govt is involved much of what is collected goes to pay for jobs for bureaucrats anyway.

    A local example of govt stepping over its intended role. In my community they just passed a bicycle helmet law. If you are human and you are on a bike, you must wear a helmet. Not just kids, but adults too. If I dont want to because they give me a headache, so what. The govt knows best and I should be protected. I'd rather take MY chances. That is intrusion into my private life and wrong, but thats just my opinion.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Government certainly has its place as do taxes. I dont think however that govt's place is to take care of us. Protect us from outside attack yes, from ourselves no.
    Army yes, police no? Doesn't sound reasonable, does it?
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    I'd also like to point out that until recently I didnt make much money and yet I never took advantage of any social tax-funded govt programs. Why? Because I didnt qualify (so how do they help everyone?)
    That is because social security in the US is a joke.. it was better named 'false sense of social security'

    Maybe if you were elligible you would have changed your mind. I applaud your self suffiency. But there are times in peoples lives where they need a helping hand. And with a little boost they can be more productive and selfsufficient afterwards..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions