OT | We are a clear and present danger

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:41:00 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I do find it curious that those who are most distrustful of government
are the most eager to endow it with the right to kill its own
citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 2:02:49 PM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:

Add to that the fact that only the simple-minded believe that
punishment is a deterrent to crime,

Ah, here we are. I was wondering where I saw this.

In general, this is true.

After all, criminals tend to be impulsive individuals, and they tend to think
they're not going to be caught.

However, I think the simple-minded _are_ right that the fact that we have laws,
and people go to jail for crime, does deter a lot of crime. Because the
ordinary humble people of the nation make up its common working class, who lead
frustrating lives - working hard at insecure jobs for poor pay - and who have
to resist lots of temptation on a daily basis.

And, of course, current news events illustrate that deterrence does work.

Cologne.

Those young punks thought they were clever. Groping a young woman would give
her more important things to worry about than watching her purse or her cell
phone, so it made it easier to steal them.

But of course, oh boo hoo hoo, things like this happen because Europe is
excluding young men of North African descent; they're finding it hard to get
decent jobs!

Now then...

Isn't it true that young black men in the United States around, say, 1920, were
excluded from society, and found it hard to get decent jobs?

Why didn't they come up with this clever idea?

Supposing that what happened in Cologne had happened in some American city in
1920 or thereabouts involving gangs of young black men. What would have
happened next?

One *very distinct possibility* is that shortly thereafter a mob of angry white
men would have descended on the black neighborhoods of the city involved...

and burned them to the ground along with everyone living there, including the
old men, the women, and the children who had no culpability in that.

So don't claim that deterrence doesn't influence human behavior.

It's because of deterrence that black people didn't behave like North Africans
did in Cologne then.

And it's because of deterrence that a mob of angry Germans isn't going to take
that kind of revenge now in Cologne.

Deterrence reduces some kinds of crimes, and other kinds of crimes are
relatively inelastic to deterrence.

John Savard

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 06:31:14 -0800 (PST), wrote:

If you had a decent constitution you would hardly notice the religious.

If we had a decent constitution, neither would we.

With one million "refugees" now settling comfortably into the ghettos of Europe our freedom of speech has just been further reduced by a factor of one million.

If a million Methodists or Lutherans settled in Europe you would hardly notice. Very likely there would be a substantial improvement in your society.

They must think that being provided with homes, food, warmth, free health
care and an unearned income for life, for themselves and their extended families, is a Merkel!

chris peterson thinks that such things are natural rights.

Human rights granted by free, successful societies. Not natural.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 06:44:28 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:41:00 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I do find it curious that those who are most distrustful of government
are the most eager to endow it with the right to kill its own
citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

What about him? I certainly don't think such people should be executed
by the state. That's not a power I believe states should have. (And if
you want to start making lists, how about the list of innocent people
who have been legally executed?)

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 10:29:08 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 06:44:28 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:41:00 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I do find it curious that those who are most distrustful of government
are the most eager to endow it with the right to kill its own
citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

What about him? I certainly don't think such people should be executed
by the state.

I don't think they should be supported by state.

That's not a power I believe states should have.

The execution of such animals is EXACTLY the power that states should have.

(And if
you want to start making lists, how about the list of innocent people
who have been legally executed?)

I haven't made any lists, but here is one that someone else made:

http://serialkillers.briancombs.net/...-of-ted-bundy/

The possibility of innocent people being executed is a separate issue from the iron clad evidence against serial killers such as Bundy.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 07:40:55 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 10:28:00 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 06:31:14 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

If you had a decent constitution you would hardly notice the religious.

If we had a decent constitution, neither would we.

We DO have have a decent constitution and we hardly notice the religious.

Decent, but in serious need if repair. We need to eliminate all
reference to religion, we need to eliminate all reference to guns, we
need to add the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, we need to
eliminate states as governing entities. Many changes are required to
bring it up to modern standards.


With one million "refugees" now settling comfortably into the ghettos of Europe our freedom of speech has just been further reduced by a factor of one million.

If a million Methodists or Lutherans settled in Europe you would hardly notice. Very likely there would be a substantial improvement in your society.

They must think that being provided with homes, food, warmth, free health
care and an unearned income for life, for themselves and their extended families, is a Merkel!

chris peterson thinks that such things are natural rights.

Human rights granted by free, successful societies. Not natural.

You called those things natural rights in an earlier thread.

I don't know what a natural right is. Rights are human inventions.

So you think an unearned income for life is a "human right" ????

No. But that's not the same as a right to minimum human requirements.

So you think "free" health care is a "human right" ????

Yes.

So you think free food is a "human right" ????

I think the access to food as an alternative to starving is a human
right, yes.

So you think a free place to live is a "human right" ????

I think access to shelter is a human right, yes.

Warmth is "human right" ????

I think access to shelter is a human right, yes.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 07:56:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 10:29:08 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 06:44:28 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:41:00 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I do find it curious that those who are most distrustful of government
are the most eager to endow it with the right to kill its own
citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

What about him? I certainly don't think such people should be executed
by the state.

I don't think they should be supported by state.

I don't know of an ethical alternative.

That's not a power I believe states should have.

The execution of such animals is EXACTLY the power that states should have.

Certainly, it's a power claimed by all the most despotic nations on
Earth. And the U.S. And almost no others.

(And if
you want to start making lists, how about the list of innocent people
who have been legally executed?)

I haven't made any lists, but here is one that someone else made:

http://serialkillers.briancombs.net/...-of-ted-bundy/

Non sequitur.

The possibility of innocent people being executed is a separate issue from the iron clad evidence against serial killers such as Bundy.

No, I think the possibility of innocent people being executed is
extremely relevant to any discussion of capital punishment.

On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 07:26:07 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

However, I think the simple-minded _are_ right that the fact that we have laws,
and people go to jail for crime, does deter a lot of crime.

There are laws which simply codify commonly held moral strictures,
such as not killing. Those laws probably don't act as significant
deterrents, since this is behavior that normal people don't engage in
(and abnormal people don't usually care about laws).

There are also laws that seek to regulate human behavior in ways where
morality doesn't play a strong role. Those laws almost certainly act
as deterrents.

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 11:29:38 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 07:40:55 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 10:28:00 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 06:31:14 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

If you had a decent constitution you would hardly notice the religious.

If we had a decent constitution, neither would we.

We DO have have a decent constitution and we hardly notice the religious.

Decent, but in serious need if repair. We need to eliminate all
reference to religion,

After which, a theocracy could take power, religious persecution could occur, etc.

we need to eliminate all reference to guns,

After which, the country could become a dictatorship.

we
need to add the right to privacy and bodily autonomy,

We have the right to privacy, and except for aborted babies, the right to life.

we need to
eliminate states as governing entities.

After which, those in the big cities will dictate to those in small cities, majorities will dictate to minorities, etc.

Many changes are required to
bring it up to modern standards.

There are no "modern standards" better than what we have.


With one million "refugees" now settling comfortably into the ghettos of Europe our freedom of speech has just been further reduced by a factor of one million.

If a million Methodists or Lutherans settled in Europe you would hardly notice. Very likely there would be a substantial improvement in your society.

They must think that being provided with homes, food, warmth, free health
care and an unearned income for life, for themselves and their extended families, is a Merkel!

chris peterson thinks that such things are natural rights.

Human rights granted by free, successful societies. Not natural.

You called those things natural rights in an earlier thread.

I don't know what a natural right is. Rights are human inventions.

Then you have an underdeveloped mind.

So you think an unearned income for life is a "human right" ????

No. But that's not the same as a right to minimum human requirements.

"Minimum human requirements" = word salad.



So you think "free" health care is a "human right" ????

Yes.

Incorrect. You are imposing an unjust responsibility on others.

So you think free food is a "human right" ????

I think the access to food as an alternative to starving is a human
right, yes.

You evaded this question: So you think free food is a "human right" ????


So you think a free place to live is a "human right" ????

I think access to shelter is a human right, yes.

Incorrect. You are imposing an unjust responsibility on others.


Warmth is "human right" ????

I think access to shelter is a human right, yes.

Incorrect. You are imposing an unjust responsibility on others.

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 07:56:05 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 10:29:08 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 06:44:28 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:41:00 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I do find it curious that those who are most distrustful of government
are the most eager to endow it with the right to kill its own
citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

What about him? I certainly don't think such people should be executed
by the state.

I don't think they should be supported by state.

I don't know of an ethical alternative.

It is unethical for innocent taxpayers to have to feed and house Bundy. Getting rid of him was a more just and ethical alternative even if it cost more to do so.

That's not a power I believe states should have.

The execution of such animals is EXACTLY the power that states should have.

Certainly, it's a power claimed by all the most despotic nations on
Earth. And the U.S. And almost no others.

And your point is?

(And if
you want to start making lists, how about the list of innocent people
who have been legally executed?)

I haven't made any lists, but here is one that someone else made:

http://serialkillers.briancombs.net/...-of-ted-bundy/

Non sequitur.

Incorrect. As a respected user of this newsgroup I can post any link that I wish, anywhere that I wish. GFY.

The possibility of innocent people being executed is a separate issue from the iron clad evidence against serial killers such as Bundy.

No, I think the possibility of innocent people being executed is
extremely relevant to any discussion of capital punishment.

Anything might be possible, but having people such as Bundy around when they can be eliminated relatively easily is ridiculous.

Bundy's victims were probably defenseless (and you want to take away their right to guns, shame on you, peterson) but had one of his early victims been able to shoot him, Bundy would have been a mere footnote in the annals of crime. The State of Florida was merely picking up where his victims had failed. That is reasonable.