Originally posted by PalynkaYou couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. You're a broken record of retardation. I felt like I'd been sucked into the Spirituality forum and set upon by one of Daniel58's toothless relatives.
What can I do? You refuse to argue.
I understand that my superior intellect can be intimidating. But I promise to go easy on you.
Your conclusion that banning capital punishment automatically reduces the murder rate is ridiculous. While you've put forth your best circular reasoning foot and remained committed to your conclusion, you have failed to demonstrate that there is any direct link between the two. How can you expect us to believe that banning the death penalty would make people any less likely to commit murders? What is their motivation? What driving force has suddenly made potential murders see the light in the absence of the death penalty?
The argument that you support wife beaters is an extension of your own flawed argument. Using your logic, if we ban harsh punishment for any crime (wife beating for example), the rate at which the crime is committed must surely go down. This is obviously a flawed argument and you got PWNED!
Originally posted by Hand of HecateYour conclusion that banning capital punishment automatically reduces the murder rate is ridiculous.
You couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag. You're a broken record of retardation. I felt like I'd been sucked into the Spirituality forum and set upon by one of Daniel58's toothless relatives.
Your conclusion that banning capital punishment automatically reduces the murder rate is ridiculous. While you've put forth your best circular re ...[text shortened]... e is committed must surely go down. This is obviously a flawed argument and you got PWNED!
Automatically is the weasel word here. My claim was that banning capital punishment will tend to reduce the murder rate. Not only it is not ridiculous, it can be seen in the data both across US states and across time in countries who have only recently banned it (like Canada) and for which there is data.
How can you expect us to believe that banning the death penalty would make people any less likely to commit murders?
I've provided a logical argument and the data to support it. I've yet to see anyone from the other side match either, beyond "My gut says so, so I must be right". Lazy, lazy arguments.
What is their motivation?
You take a static view of crime. You look at a person, in a given situation, deciding whether or not to commit a crime. That line of reasoning is wrong, because it presupposes that the probability someone will be in that situation is the same in both cases. I've provided a logical argument (dynamic deterrence) that shows that this might not be the case.
What driving force has suddenly made potential murders see the light in the absence of the death penalty?
Again, your static view. The reality is that to reduce murder rates, you don't need to make potential murderers see the light. You can simply reduce the number of potential murderers.
The argument that you support wife beaters is an extension of your own flawed argument. Using your logic, if we ban harsh punishment for any crime (wife beating for example), the rate at which the crime is committed must surely go down.
No, my claim has little to do with harshness of punishment but what types of punishment are admissible. For example, my logical argument would not predict an increase of dynamic deterrence on murderers if you decrease the maximum number of years because that has no predictable effect on how killing can be morally (and legally) justified.
Regarding the wife beating case, my argument implies that if you ban corporal punishments from the legal system, then wife-beating will decrease. Why? Again the dynamic deterrence. People brought up in such a system will view that corporal violence is sometimes justified and can even be seen as "justice". Some will then enact this type of punishments and view it as morally justified. The denial that it can ever be "justice" is what will be ingrained in those citizens and reduce the amount of wife-beaters.
Originally posted by PalynkaNow what wasn't so difficult about that? You answered the why question at last, but only after you were head butted, pinned to the mat and skull doinked. You could have lasted longer, but you don't even know the difference between a wrist lock and a wrist watch.
Damn, I'm smart. 😏
Now, if you only knew the etymology of "dynamic deterrence" you'd spit it out, cut your tongue off, and run for an AIDS test.
GRANNY.
OK, I have a solution everyone can live with. We need to dump these violent scumbags off in one of the following countries: Angola, Liberia, Sudan, Congo, Chad, Somalia, Zimbabwe, or the Ivory Coast.
In return we pay the local government 100% of the cost to housing one of these human skidmarks in one of our fine fedral country clubs for 10 years. Average cost to house an inmate in a major prison is $23K/year. The local government has no obligation to feed, cloth or house these miscreants. Just dump them in the back woods with a couple of bottles of water, a few energy bars and a spiritual book of their choice.
We'll save millions. Hell we should tape the carnage for a reality show and make millions. You never know, these pricks could even avoid getting shot up by the locals and build a productive society. It's not like they can make things worse in the countries we're talking about dropping them off in.
This is a good idea, but, I'm sure some of you will be opposed to it.