Recidivism in the US prison system is roughly 50 plus %.
If a neighborhood is infiltrated by gangs and the criminal element, and no one cares enough to go to the police, the crime is tolerated and not reported much.
Crime is a product of our environment, which is steadily regressing; what do you expect? I have alot of respect for the Bobbies that try to fight crime without a sidearm, how many of you would risk your life to fight crime?
Originally posted by steve645That comes down to the crux of the matter, would people be willing to fight crime themselves - thus becoming the vigilanty as mentioned in the title of the thread?
Recidivism in the US prison system is roughly 50 plus %.
If a neighborhood is infiltrated by gangs and the criminal element, and no one cares enough to go to the police, the crime is tolerated and not reported much.
Crime is a product of our environment, which is steadily regressing; what do you expect? I have alot of respect for the Bobbies that try to fight crime without a sidearm, how many of you would risk your life to fight crime?
Who's ethics wins through? Should a driver be shot for speeding as they are more likely to terminally injure a pedestrian? Should anybody who drinks and drives be beaten severally for attempted murder (just without a specific victim identified)? Murder needs a guilty act and a guilty mind - driving the car whilst drunk is the act, drinking and then driving is the guilty mind!
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWe're getting into something.
[b]An economic system, depending how it is structured, determines certain outcomes.
I suppose it heavily influences certain outcomes, yes. For example, capitalism encourages wealth generation and inspired hard work.
People overbreeding is also a matter of th system, based on education, promoted values, and the example given by leaders[/b ...[text shortened]... er to give a boost to churches.
I am amazed you have such faith in politicians.
Indeed, capitalism promotes exactly the values you mention, though also has some backlashes, some "anti-values" which are potentialized if no balance is enforced and promoted.
No, promoting does not mean manipulating, it means priming soft values which cannot be measured in a bank account. As for enforcing, indeed it is necessary, e.g. honest and efficient courts, transparency in decision making at Washington, etc.
3 edits
Originally posted by SeitseNo, capitalism does not promote any values that I mentioned. I did not mention any values with respect to capitalism. It tends to encourage certain outcomes.
We're getting into something.
Indeed, capitalism promotes exactly the values you mention, though also has some backlashes, some "anti-values" which are potentialized if no balance is enforced and promoted.
No, promoting does not mean manipulating, it means priming soft values which cannot be measured in a bank account. As for enforcing, indeed it is necessary, e.g. honest and efficient courts, transparency in decision making at Washington, etc.
No, promoting does not mean manipulating, it means priming soft values which cannot be measured in a bank account.
That's manipulating. It's not the government's job to "prime soft values" in the populace. Why should the government attempt to change the citizens' values? That's ridiculous. Has your government changed your values? If so, why are you letting the government call the shots in your life? It's YOUR life. They're YOUR values.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOh, so you would not like your government to promote honesty and social responsibility, for example?
No, capitalism does not promote any values that I mentioned. I did not mention any values with respect to capitalism. It tends to encourage certain outcomes.
[b]No, promoting does not mean manipulating, it means priming soft values which cannot be measured in a bank account.
That's manipulating. It's not the government's job ...[text shortened]... ting the government call the shots in your life? It's YOUR life. They're YOUR values.[/b]
I would, and they would achieve it by
(1) practicing it themselves,
(2) enforcing laws that
(a) reward positive conducts
(b) punish negative conducts
🙂
Originally posted by steve645Our environment is regressing? I'd say that it is our will to combat criminality that is regressing.
Recidivism in the US prison system is roughly 50 plus %.
If a neighborhood is infiltrated by gangs and the criminal element, and no one cares enough to go to the police, the crime is tolerated and not reported much.
Crime is a product of our environment, which is steadily regressing; what do you expect? I have alot of respect for the Bobbies that try to fight crime without a sidearm, how many of you would risk your life to fight crime?
2 edits
Originally posted by SeitseI'd like them to practice honesty and personal responsibility. I don't know what "social responsibility" is. I don't particularly want them to put any resources into promoting these things.
Oh, so you would not like your government to promote honesty and social responsibility, for example?
I would, and they would achieve it by
(1) practicing it themselves,
(2) enforcing laws that
(a) reward positive conducts
(b) punish negative conducts
🙂
I don't want other people deciding for me what "positive" and "negative conducts" are and then punishing me and rewarding me (with someone else's money) for obeying their judgement about what's best. I'll live my own life, thanks.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI think our overwhelmed justice system is having problems because the People have become too authoritarian and have passed too many laws they should not have passed.
Our environment is regressing? I'd say that it is our will to combat criminality that is regressing.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo why you decide 'thugs' dealing drugs and using AK-47s in your streets is a "negative" thing?!?!
I don't want other people deciding for me what "positive" and "negative conducts" are and then punishing me and rewarding me (with someone else's money) for obeying their judgement about what's best. I'll live my own life, thanks.
Why complaining, then?!?!?!?!
They certainly are thinking the same as you!
Dude, you slipped a big frog there. I think you would like to re-think this.
4 edits
Originally posted by SeitseWhat?
So why you decide 'thugs' dealing drugs and using AK-47s in your streets is a "negative" thing?!?!
Why complaining, then?!?!?!?!
They certainly are thinking the same as you!
Dude, you slipped a big frog there. I think you would like to re-think this.
First of all, I don't care about the drugs. Drug prohibition should be abolished.
Secondly, my problem with thugs using ak47s is not simply because I'm judging them to be exhibiting negative conduct.
My problem is that I don't want to be shot! I don't want my friends shot and I don't want my parents shot. I also don't want the men I hired to protect me to get shot (LAPD). There's no abstract judgement of some action as 'negative conduct' that fuels my rage.
I do not decide for others what's best for them. I decide what's best for me, and that includes keeping gangsters from using assault rifles on the police a few miles from where I live.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo government and society should promote positive conducts, which slowly diminish negative conducts. These negative conducts, also, should be punished but also made less attractive by offering alternatives.
What?
First of all, I don't care about the drugs. Drug prohibition should be abolished.
Secondly, my problem with thugs using ak47s is not simply because I'm judging them to be exhibiting negative conduct.
My problem is that I don't want to be shot! I don't want my friends shot and I don't want my parents shot. I also don't want the men I h ...[text shortened]... ping gangsters from using assault rifles on the police a few miles from where I live.
Here being the negative conduct carrying AND using an AK-47.
Here being the positive conduct to struggle for one's benefit without damaging the others' right to pursue happiness.
I think we agree completely.
Originally posted by SeitseWould you go into a gang headquarters and tell them that!? Probably not because you would get your ass blown off.. so if you control them through other childish means then they will blow someone else's ass off. You would be responsible.
So government and society should promote positive conducts, which slowly diminish negative conducts. These negative conducts, also, should be punished but also made less attractive by offering alternatives.
Here being the negative conduct carrying AND using an AK-47.
Here being the positive conduct to struggle for one's benefit without damaging the others' right to pursue happiness.
I think we agree completely.
You need people who are closer to them and understand what they go through to help them into a better quality of life. Most of those types of people have been brought up to be like that and it is all they know like pesky Christians who know no difference in God.
Education and help without targeting individuals is a far better way to go, where people do not die because someone who knows very little about a situation makes a mistake.
Originally posted by WWindmillYeah, you gotta love Seitse lecturing us from Norway 🙄
Would you go into a gang headquarters and tell them that!? Probably not because you would get your ass blown off.. so if you control them through other childish means then they will blow someone else's ass off. You would be responsible.
You need people who are closer to them and understand what they go through to help them into a better quality of life ...[text shortened]... here people do not die because someone who knows very little about a situation makes a mistake.
3 edits
Originally posted by surtismTo the best of my judgement, virtually outlawing guns (by putting heavy restrictions on ownership of guns) has already ‘worked’ in the UK.
Im talking about the UK, they are virtually outlawed already.
Outlawing things has not worked for drugs, alcohol (prohibition), prostitution etc. So it would be unlikely to work for guns.
...
To the best of my judgement, in the UK, the vast majority of us do not have guns -certainly a lower proportion of us own a gun than in the US (which is where I once lived for a few months) and gun-related crime in the UK is nothing like as a big as a problem as in the US (to the best of my judgement).
So I see no reason why virtually outlawing guns wouldn't 'work' in the US.