cybercoma Posted July 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Yeah, yeah. We know. Only the rich are criminals! Guilt or innocence is determined by the class you're in. This is usually where I insert a clip of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where Arthur is arguing politics with a bunch of leftwing peasants who are piling up mud but I'm just too tired at the moment. Nope. People that harm society are criminals, regardless of class. Except the prisons are filled with people that do the least harm, while those that cause the most deaths and steal the most money are allowed to roam free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Nope. People that harm society are criminals, regardless of class. What a totalitarian definition. Who decides what "harms society"? Perhaps right/left wing ideology is harmful to society and we should throw all the right/left wingers in jail? People are criminals if they commit a specific crime, that is, break a specific law, not otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) Laws are valid because they are written? In that case, Nazis should have never been tried for war crimes and the Nuremberg Defense ought to have been valid. The purpose of the Criminal Justice System should be to make society safer, except it doesn't go after those doing the most harm. The very fact that you can justify the damage done by a certain class of person just goes to prove that you're the one that's being classist. Edited July 29, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) Laws are valid because they are written? In that case, Nazis should have never been tried for war crimes and the Nuremberg Defense ought to have been valid. The purpose of the Criminal Justice System should be to make society safer, except it doesn't go after those doing the most harm. The very fact that you can justify the damage done by a certain class of person just goes to prove that you're the one that's being classist. Trotting out the Nazis as an example already? A sure sign of desperation in a debate... Anyway, laws are indeed "valid" merely by virtue of being "written", that is, part of our system of law. Whether the laws are "just" or "right" is of course another question. As for the justice system not going after those who do the most harm... who do you have in mind? "Greedy" CEOs and presidents who engage in military campaigns you disagree with? Sorry, those aren't crimes, and should not be. Edited July 29, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) Trotting out the Nazis as an example already? A sure sign of desperation in a debate... Anyway, laws are indeed "valid" merely by virtue of being "written", that is, part of our system of law. Whether the laws are "just" or "right" is of course another question. As for the justice system not going after those who do the most harm... who do you have in mind? "Greedy" CEOs and presidents who engage in military campaigns you disagree with? Sorry, those aren't crimes, and should not be. Uh, some of them are, quite decidedly, considered crimes, including by our own leadership (and presumably by our Business class). I think the argument you're trying to make is that when we get involved in a military campaign, it should never be considered a crime. And no worries; it never is. By some incredible, ahistorical coincidence, we and our allies do not commit international crimes. It's quite impossible. But ok, back to the point: I erroneously believed I was uttering a basic, uncontroversial opinion: that the majority of criminals are not, individually, a monumental problem to society; and that the majority of criminals (the vast majority) are normal human beings like everybody else. I was wrong to think obvious truths like this are "uncontroversial," obviously. I guess it upsets the cherished "black hats/white hats" self-serving myths--statist by definition (and therefore odd for self-described "libertarians" to adhere to)--plagiarized from children's tales and Manichean religious admonishments. Edited July 29, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Trotting out the Nazis as an example already? A sure sign of desperation in a debate... Anyway, laws are indeed "valid" merely by virtue of being "written", that is, part of our system of law. Whether the laws are "just" or "right" is of course another question. As for the justice system not going after those who do the most harm... who do you have in mind? "Greedy" CEOs and presidents who engage in military campaigns you disagree with? Sorry, those aren't crimes, and should not be. Our system is quite a bit more complex than that, consisting of primary and secondary rules, judicial discretion and moral validity. A law is not a law simply because it is written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 Nope. People that harm society are criminals, regardless of class. Except the prisons are filled with people that do the least harm, while those that cause the most deaths and steal the most money are allowed to roam free. The law in Canada is what this society has decided, over the years, should be banned. It doesn't matter if certain behaviour you dissaprove of does or doesn't harm society. If society allows it, then it's not criminal. And I might point out that while I detest Rogers and Telus and Bell, for example, as corporate entities, I'm not worried about one of them breaking into my house one dark and stormy night. There is a difference between their behaviour and the behaviour society has criminalized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 And I might point out that while I detest Rogers and Telus and Bell, for example, as corporate entities, I'm not worried about one of them breaking into my house one dark and stormy night. There is a difference between their behaviour and the behaviour society has criminalized. That is lousy argumentation. If you cannot find a company that could obviously have a bad effect on you, or if you cannot refer to the ways in which the companies you cite could have a bad effect on you, then do not bother trying to make an analogy at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 If the law was that cut and dry, there would be no need for judges to interpret the laws. You see, if you kill someone it's murder... except when it's not because it's self-defense or perhaps manslaughter. To be fair, those are still other laws. Even then, however, self-defense is defined as the amount of force that's reasonable, so you need to go about defining reasonable. How about the rule that no motorized vehicles are allowed in the park after dark. If someone drives a motorized wheelchair through the park are they not breaking the law? Would it be reasonable to fine them or confiscate their wheelchair? While you're not worried about Telus or Rogers breaking into your house at night, there are people with investments and retirement savings that ought to be worried about losing their shirts because of the criminal behaviour on Wall Street. There are people that work in mines, where their employers pencil-whip safety reports knowing that there is a serious risk to their labour. When the mine explodes or collapses and dozens of people are killed, that's not considered the same thing as someone walking onto a bus and shooting a few people. Believe me, just because you don't perceive what they are doing as harmful to society, it is. Many more people are killed and robbed from white collar crime than petty street crimes. Of course, it's better to keep people afraid of the poor than to have them looking up the ladder at who's really killing and stealing from us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Believe me, just because you don't perceive what they are doing as harmful to society, it is. Why don't you try and get it through your head that whether someone causes 'harm' to society is utterly irrelevant if society itself doesn't believe that harm, actual or imagined, should be illegal. Do pornographers cause harm to society? Some insist they do. Does the internal combustion engine pose harm to society? Probably. Does planned obsolescence harm society? Maybe. But society doesn't think they should be illegal, so they aren't. So you don't get to call them criminal. You don't get to call anything anyone does criminal unless it actually is illegal or you're simply not very interested in honesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tilter Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Why don't you try and get it through your head that whether someone causes 'harm' to society is utterly irrelevant if society itself doesn't believe that harm, actual or imagined, should be illegal. Do pornographers cause harm to society? Some insist they do. Does the internal combustion engine pose harm to society? Probably. Does planned obsolescence harm society? Maybe. But society doesn't think they should be illegal, so they aren't. So you don't get to call them criminal. You don't get to call anything anyone does criminal unless it actually is illegal or you're simply not very interested in honesty. See "real deal on crime" posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Why don't you try and get it through your head that whether someone causes 'harm' to society is utterly irrelevant if society itself doesn't believe that harm, actual or imagined, should be illegal. Do pornographers cause harm to society? Some insist they do. Does the internal combustion engine pose harm to society? Probably. Does planned obsolescence harm society? Maybe. But society doesn't think they should be illegal, so they aren't. So you don't get to call them criminal. You don't get to call anything anyone does criminal unless it actually is illegal or you're simply not very interested in honesty. Only a certain segment of society is reflected in the laws that are created and sure as shit isn't the poorest segment. Those with the power make the laws and they do not reflect what causes the most harm to society because it ignores the harms that those who have enough clout to influence the laws cause. And stop being a condescending prick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Laws are valid because they are written? Not always. Long gun registration was written, passed in Parliament, yet completely invalid right from the start. In that case, Nazis should have never been tried for war crimes and the Nuremberg Defense ought to have been valid. Yes, they should, because - as even you define it - they "harmed the society". The purpose of the Criminal Justice System should be to make society safer, except it doesn't go after those doing the most harm. The very fact that you can justify the damage done by a certain class of person just goes to prove that you're the one that's being classist. Law is SPECIFIC, you are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 Jack Weber: Sadly,conservative types really only want the retribution side of things to dominate...They seem to feel that retribution will make sure the other two,rehabilitation and deterrent,will be covered. While liberals want to punish those who never commit any crime. Only because of hobby liberals don't like. While protecting real criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 While liberals want to punish those who never commit any crime. Only because of hobby liberals don't like. While protecting real criminals. Guns don't kill people, only idiot gun owners do. And criminals. Same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 Guns don't kill people, only idiot gun owners do. And criminals. Same thing. Not at all. Most homicides don't involve any guns. So it's just CRIMINALS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 Canada us pretty good as far as a peaceful and safe place - But as we failed in Afghanistan to get rid of opium - we failed to take drugs of our own streets - Guns do not kill people - money and dope do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 13, 2011 Report Share Posted August 13, 2011 Guns do not kill people - money and dope do. Actually car & alcohol do. If money killed people Warren Buffet, Bill Gates or Donald Trump would long be dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 14, 2011 Report Share Posted August 14, 2011 Not at all. Most homicides don't involve any guns. So it's just CRIMINALS. No, I am referring to gun deaths. So my original premise stands: Idiot gun owners are the problem, not the solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 No, I am referring to gun deaths. I'm referring to all homicides. They are ALL dead. Idiot gun owners are the problem, not the solution. As are the idiot judges who let them out too early. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 I'm referring to all homicides. They are ALL dead. As are the idiot judges who let them out too early. I think we should get rid of idiot gun owners, or at least have a registry for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 As are the idiot judges who let them out too early. Judges dont let people out of jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 Judges dont let people out of jail. Can't let them out if you don't put them in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorn Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 Judges dont let people out of jail. I was reading this and confirming to myself that there are levels of stupidity to the system. For example, at the bottom fo the pack come human rights commission tribunals, and then slightly above them, immigration review boards. Anyway, in the case below it notes how a federal court threw out the order to release a criminal immigrant, but the part which made me shake my head is that this vermin has been in Canada for ten years, and only now are we moving to get rid of him. And of course, the following: Sako has already seen the generosity of Canada’s judicial system. Despite his repeated convictions while on probation, his escalation into violence and his failure to comply with court orders his sentences remained modest: 15 days for assault with a weapon; 30 days for his third conviction for credit card theft and three months for his latest assault causing bodily harm. Of course, the anal will say the judge doesn't let people out of jail, while the practical will point out that judges who routinely hand out slaps on the wrist might as well be doing so. Court blocks release of criminal immigrant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted August 18, 2011 Report Share Posted August 18, 2011 Of course, the anal will say the judge doesn't let people out of jail, while the practical will point out that judges who routinely hand out slaps on the wrist might as well be doing so. And the moronic will make sweeping generalizations about the utility of a system based on the exceptions to the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.