First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Why do people engage in self-destructive behavior?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/19/13 , edited 1/19/13

lordseth23 wrote:

How is it unlikely?


How very much like you to focus on a throw-away comment, rather than focusing on the actual body of the argument.

Would society be any happier that prejudice has replace any semblance of law and justice?





The evidence is in the fact that they committed a severe crime.


That is a claim that is still unproven.





Which is why we need to uphold some liberty, but not all liberty.


Of course, we need to get rid of all the liberties and freedoms of a single group, such as equal protection under the law, the same rights and the same limitation that applies to all citizen, etc., so that we may protect society against a phantom threat.


Methinks that Dr M.L. King, Jr.'s famous aphorism applies here- that 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'.





Then we need to make these programs effective.


Let's warp reality to suit the vision of that great moralist, Lordseth23.




That doesn't mean we should stop trying.


Of course, there isn't anyone arguing against raising awareness about the issue- it is the solution that you propose that disturbs sane people.





Only if that successfully prevents severe crimes.


How is this related to Recreational Drug Use?

32425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/19/13

CLarose wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


CLarose wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


CLarose wrote:




If you will not do anything to cure your depression, then someone else needs to cure it for you, regardless of whether you want the help or not.


So let me get this straight... You think people should have the right to kill themselves, but shouldn't have the right to be depressed? Don't some people kill themselves because they are depressed?




Then people should not have the right to kill themselves or be depressed.


Why do you want to control how people feel and act? That's hardly empathetic...


Because I want them to be happy.


You can't force people to be happy. You ask why are people unempathetic, yet here you are with your unempathetic belief system. You don't want to understand why people are the way they are, you just want them to be the way you want them to be. I think that's more for your happiness than anyone else's.


Why shouldn't they want to be happy?
32425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/19/13 , edited 1/19/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:

How is it unlikely?


How very much like you to focus on a throw-away comment, rather than focusing on the actual body of the argument.

Would society be any happier that prejudice has replace any semblance of law and justice?


They wouldn't, which is why we need to make them happier in order to do away with prejudice.







The evidence is in the fact that they committed a severe crime.


That is a claim that is still unproven.


How is it unproven?






Which is why we need to uphold some liberty, but not all liberty.


Of course, we need to get rid of all the liberties and freedoms of a single group, such as equal protection under the law, the same rights and the same limitation that applies to all citizen, etc., so that we may protect society against a phantom threat.


I never proposed this.





Methinks that Dr M.L. King, Jr.'s famous aphorism applies here- that 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'.


Which is why we need to get rid of injustice everywhere.







That doesn't mean we should stop trying.


Of course, there isn't anyone arguing against raising awareness about the issue- it is the solution that you propose that disturbs sane people.


Then what should be the solution?






Only if that successfully prevents severe crimes.


How is this related to Recreational Drug Use?



I don't know, you tell me.

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/19/13

lordseth23 wrote:

They wouldn't, which is why we need to make them happier in order to do away with prejudice.


So, do you volunteer to give up your prejudice against people with psychological disorder?





How is it unproven?


The same way most things remain unproven, for want of evidence.





I never proposed this.



Yes, yes you did. What was the last several pages on but your attempt to show that the segregation of people with psychological disorder and forcing into some brainwashing programme is the best method of getting rid of crime and is not at all unethical and immoral?




Which is why we need to get rid of injustice everywhere.


And you can start by abandoning your own quest to force your moral vision upon society along with your attempt to brainwash people with psychological disorder.




Then what should be the solution?


To not segregate and brainwash people based upon psychological disorder.





I don't know, you tell me.


So you admit to being irrelevant?

32425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/19/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:

They wouldn't, which is why we need to make them happier in order to do away with prejudice.


So, do you volunteer to give up your prejudice against people with psychological disorder?


Only if their wanting to rape, murder, and hate people has disappeared.






How is it unproven?


The same way most things remain unproven, for want of evidence.


How can you prove that it is this way?






I never proposed this.



Yes, yes you did. What was the last several pages on but your attempt to show that the segregation of people with psychological disorder and forcing into some brainwashing programme is the best method of getting rid of crime and is not at all unethical and immoral?


I never said it was the best method.






Which is why we need to get rid of injustice everywhere.


And you can start by abandoning your own quest to force your moral vision upon society along with your attempt to brainwash people with psychological disorder.


How would this help get rid of injustices?





Then what should be the solution?


To not segregate and brainwash people based upon psychological disorder.


How would this prevent severe crimes?






I don't know, you tell me.


So you admit to being irrelevant?



You were the one that brought it up, silly goose.

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/19/13 , edited 1/19/13

lordseth23 wrote:Only if their wanting to rape, murder, and hate people has disappeared.


Lordseth20 (great grandfather to Lordseth23)- I would stop hatin' the N*ggers if they stop wantin' to rape the White Women.




How can you prove that it is this way?


Easy, I proved that you have no evidence by showing that, heretofore, you have provided no evidence to back up your claim.





I never said it was the best method.


Own up to your own words, either admit that you are promoting fascism, or else admit that you were only trolling and there that is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.





How would this help get rid of injustices?


Start by removing your own prejudice, and maybe we may get somewhere.




How would this prevent severe crimes?


Easy, the government is not committing a severe crime in locking people up for no reason.





You were the one that brought it up, silly goose.


No, I brought up the war on drugs to illustrate a point, you then derailed it.

32425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/19/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:How can you prove that it is this way?


Easy, I proved that you have no evidence by showing that, heretofore, you have provided no evidence to back up your claim.


How does that prove that my claim is false?






I never said it was the best method.


Own up to your own words, either admit that you are promoting fascism, or else admit that you were only trolling and there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously.


I admit to wanting to prevent crime.






How would this help get rid of injustices?


Star by removing your own prejudice, and maybe we may get somewhere.


How can you prove that we will get somewhere by me doing this?






How would this prevent severe crimes?


Easy, the government is not committing a severe crime in locking people up for no reason.


That does nothing to prevent severe crime.






You were the one that brought it up, silly goose.


No, I brought up the war on drugs to illustrate a point, you then derailed it.



What point were you trying to illustrate?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/19/13

lordseth23 wrote:

How does that prove that my claim is false?


It shows that your claim is unfounded.





I admit to wanting to prevent crime.


So, you admit to being a fascist.





How can you prove that we will get somewhere by me doing this?


It's called democracy, you elect a representative who represents your interest- by removing your own prejudice, you may start to vote for someone who isn't completely insane, who will go on to introduce sane bills in either the Federal Legislature or the State Legislature, which will result in a saner, and less totalitarian society. This is, of course, basic civics.





That does nothing to prevent severe crime.


It actually does alot to prevent severe crime- it prevents the enforcer of the law from being too criminal itself.





What point were you trying to illustrate?


Go back to the original post where the War on Drugs was brought up.
32425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/20/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:

How does that prove that my claim is false?


It shows that your claim is unfounded.


unfounded =/= falsity






I admit to wanting to prevent crime.


So, you admit to being a fascist.


Why do you assume that everyone who wants to prevent crime is a fascist?






How can you prove that we will get somewhere by me doing this?


It's called democracy, you elect a representative who represents your interest- by removing your own prejudice, you may start to vote for someone who isn't completely insane, who will go on to introduce sane bills in either the Federal Legislature or the State Legislature, which will result in a saner, and less totalitarian society. This is, of course, basic civics.


How would that prevent severe crime?






That does nothing to prevent severe crime.


It actually does alot to prevent severe crime- it prevents the enforcer of the law from being too criminal itself.


How does that prevent severe crime?






What point were you trying to illustrate?


Go back to the original post where the War on Drugs was brought up.


No, it is your point, you go back to the original post where the War on Drugs was brought up and state the point you are trying to make.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/20/13

lordseth23 wrote:



unfounded =/= falsity


Lack of evidence for truth = lack of reason to believe it to be true = false.

Therefore, we say something is not true until it can be shown to be true, and thus, your claim is about as founded as the belief that the moon is, at its core, made of Green Cheese.





Why do you assume that everyone who wants to prevent crime is a fascist?


I don't, I just happen to know that your method is fascist.





How would that prevent severe crime?


It prevents the government from being criminal, and since the government is much more powerful than the individual, when the government behaves in a criminal way, its criminality is more severe than when a single person commits a crime.





How does that prevent severe crime?


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?





No, it is your point, you go back to the original post where the War on Drugs was brought up and state the point you are trying to make.


And it was clear what that point was within context, if you are too lazy to read it, then there is no point in arguing with you, seeing as

1. You don't want to figure out what point was being raised by referring back to the original post

2. It is clear that you aren't, and never have, taken this seriously, and are just 'trolling' to use internet lingo.
32425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/20/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


unfounded =/= falsity


Lack of evidence for truth = lack of reason to believe it to be true = false.


Lack of evidence for truth =/= lack of reason to believe it to be true




Therefore, we say something is not true until it can be shown to be true, and thus, your claim is about as founded as the belief that the moon is, at its core, made of Green Cheese.


Why would the moon have Green Cheese at its core?






Why do you assume that everyone who wants to prevent crime is a fascist?


I don't, I just happen to know that your method is fascist.


How is it fascist?






How would that prevent severe crime?


It prevents the government from being criminal, and since the government is much more powerful than the individual, when the government behaves in a criminal way, its criminality is more severe than when a single person commits a crime.


What does a criminal government have to do with preventing crime?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/20/13

lordseth23 wrote:
Lack of evidence for truth =/= lack of reason to believe it to be true


Yes, it does.




Why would the moon have Green Cheese at its core?


It's an analogy.





How is it fascist?


We've been over this.





What does a criminal government have to do with preventing crime?


Better, it prevents the government from being criminal, and legislation are passed to hinder the criminal activity of government.
32425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/21/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:
Lack of evidence for truth =/= lack of reason to believe it to be true


Yes, it does.


How?






Why would the moon have Green Cheese at its core?


It's an analogy.


How does it relate to this topic?






How is it fascist?


We've been over this.


No we haven't.







What does a criminal government have to do with preventing crime?


Better, it prevents the government from being criminal, and legislation are passed to hinder the criminal activity of government.


How is this better than preventing crime?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/21/13


Is there any reason to believe that the moon is made of green cheese? Well, I can say that the Moon is made of Green Cheese at its core, and that there is a fine layer of dust, a few meters deep, over it, and the only way of disproving that would be to scan every cubic inch of the moon's interior to make sure that there is no bit of it made of green cheese. So, does that mean we have reason to believe that the moon being made of Green Cheese is true?

You may argue that there is no reason to believe it true, because there is nothing by way of utility to be got out of it, like thinking all people with psychological problems have the potential to be criminals, and that only people with psychological problems will be criminal, and maybe there isn't. So, how about this: Every person has an immortal soul that lives on after death, and that there is a great judge, God, who metes out justice. Certainly, it is useful in that it allows people to believe that, ultimately, justice is served, and that it encourages believers to do well for the purpose of being rewarded by a just God.

Since, as you can see, utility or having reason to believe in something have no relation to its actually being true, we therefore must have no reason at all to believe anything unless there is sufficient evidence, by way of either hard facts or of logic, to believe it is true.

Therefore, your statement that only people who commit severe crimes are those that have psychological problems should be filed with 'the moon is made of Green Cheese', and 'There is a God and a soul', until you have actual, hard evidence otherwise. Which is especially laughable when you realise that you have never clearly defined what it means for something to be a 'severe crime'- would stealing millions be a severe crime?

In addition, each crime can be shown, within the case itself, to have other motives outside of 'being psychos', for example, as with an already cited case, for money, out of jealousy, or any other ends the criminal may want to pursue by committing a crime.



How does it relate to this topic?


Reading it a wonderful thing, isn't it?





No we haven't.


Check the last few pages- you know, the bits where I beat it into your head that it is outrageous for a government to pursue such thing, that it is immoral, and that no one should even consider it if they have any semblance of 'empathy'.






How is this better than preventing crime?


Because the government is not criminal, we can expect Justice more fairly meted out against potential criminals, and guard ourselves against such fascistic measures as the one you propose, where our natural autonomy is not violated in a way that we would find unacceptable, where each person, regardless of whatever arbitrary distinction he may have, is treated fairly under the law, where people are not forced into something against their own volition, and where the price of security does not compromise, too much, our liberty. Our government is far from this ideal (indeed, the greatest ideal would be to have no government, and, instead, men who shall respect each other's autonomy out of their own will, a Orderly Community of Equal without Laws or Government), but, at least, it is commendable in that it does not even remotely approach your illogical fascism.
32425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/21/13 , edited 1/21/13

longfenglim wrote:

Which is especially laughable when you realise that you have never clearly defined what it means for something to be a 'severe crime'- would stealing millions be a severe crime?


I refer to severe crime as sexual assault, homocide, and hate crimes in this discussion.





In addition, each crime can be shown, within the case itself, to have other motives outside of 'being psychos', for example, as with an already cited case, for money, out of jealousy, or any other ends the criminal may want to pursue by committing a crime.


How can you prove that these criminals did not have psychological problems?








No we haven't.


Check the last few pages- you know, the bits where I beat it into your head that it is outrageous for a government to pursue such thing, that it is immoral, and that no one should even consider it if they have any semblance of 'empathy'.


How is trying to prevent crime not empathetic?

Why shouldn't the government try to prevent crime?







How is this better than preventing crime?


Because the government is not criminal, we can expect Justice more fairly meted out against potential criminals, and guard ourselves against such fascistic measures as the one you propose, where our natural autonomy is not violated in a way that we would find unacceptable, where each person, regardless of whatever arbitrary distinction he may have, is treated fairly under the law, where people are not forced into something against their own volition, and where the price of security does not compromise, too much, our liberty. Our government is far from this ideal (indeed, the greatest ideal would be to have no government, and, instead, men who shall respect each other's autonomy out of their own will, a Orderly Community of Equal without Laws or Government), but, at least, it is commendable in that it does not even remotely approach your illogical fascism.


How does this prevent crime?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.