Poll

7 votes (35%)
6 votes (30%)
6 votes (30%)
10 votes (50%)
5 votes (25%)

20 members have voted

mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
February 2nd, 2011 at 8:27:24 PM permalink
I made the mistake of watching one of those shows called "Lockup" or some such. The subject was the "Segregation Unit" of a maximum-security prison. The prisoners there spent 23 out of every 24 hours in their tiny cells, including eating in them, and the 24th hour was when they were allowed to "exercise" in a walled-in yard about as big as a walk-in closet.

These prisoners were obviously considered the worst of the worst of the worst. My question is, is this level of complete and total isolation cruel and unusual punishment? Is it humane (a different question)? I don't care about what these prisoners "deserve", other than, does ANYONE deserve this? And also, would any reasonable prison administrator expect any outcome other than a hopelessly insane prisoner? Can anyone be isolated for that length of time and not eventually lose it completely (obviously, some would tolerate it for longer than others)?

My next question is related: should a prisoner be allowed to commit suicide? The "yes" argument might seem to be, well, it would save the state money; the "no" argument, a prisoner who does so is actually escaping his punishment. But if the latter premise is true, doesn't that seem to imply that a life sentence is worse than a death sentence?
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
Doc
Doc
  • Threads: 46
  • Posts: 7287
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
February 2nd, 2011 at 8:47:38 PM permalink
I guess I don't understand how this poll is designed. At the time I first looked, it said just one member had voted, but "humane", "inhumane", "allow suicide", and "forbid suicide" all had votes. Schizophrenia, anyone?
boymimbo
boymimbo
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
February 2nd, 2011 at 8:56:54 PM permalink
As we discussed in another thread, one has the right to end their own life. So, if the prisoner happens to gather up the materials or come up with a way to die while in solitary and gets away with it, so be it. He's serving a life sentence anyway.

What I think about a permanent life sentence (no parole) is that the inmate should have the choice to end their life and elect a death penalty for themselves.

As for the inhumane treatment, they've taken at least one life and probably more. They will not rehabilitate and if they did, they would not be released anyway. Screw him.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7237
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
February 2nd, 2011 at 8:58:38 PM permalink
I went for inhumane and forbid suicide, though I'm not sure how the punishment for committing suicide would be administered.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
Croupier
Croupier
  • Threads: 58
  • Posts: 1258
Joined: Nov 15, 2009
February 2nd, 2011 at 11:03:42 PM permalink
There is a lot of talk in Britain (mainly thanks to the European Court of Human Rights) about prisoner's Human Rights. As far as I am concerned, by commiting a crime, you have infringed upon the human rights of someone else, therefore you obviously do not value human rights, so yours are forfeit.

We dont really have such harsh prisons as MKL mentions, which I personally think is a shame.
[This space is intentionally left blank]
Wavy70
Wavy70
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 907
Joined: Nov 3, 2009
February 2nd, 2011 at 11:21:06 PM permalink
Quote: Croupier

There is a lot of talk in Britain (mainly thanks to the European Court of Human Rights) about prisoner's Human Rights. As far as I am concerned, by commiting a crime, you have infringed upon the human rights of someone else, therefore you obviously do not value human rights, so yours are forfeit.

We dont really have such harsh prisons as MKL mentions, which I personally think is a shame.



Keep in mind the majority of prisoners in the USA are there for non violent drug related charges. So usually the only human they have infringed upon is themselves. The US prisons system is drastically flawed. Example 1oz of pure cocaine will get you less time than 1/8oz of crack. Reason? Rich lawyers like coke. Poor like crack.

Studies show that the USA prison system is a wonderful grad school for small time offenders to bigger crimes.

I think a cultured society should not sink to the level of it criminals. If as a society we say since criminal X did this we can do it to him. In that situation we have either legitimized the criminals actions or become no better than the criminal.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
Croupier
Croupier
  • Threads: 58
  • Posts: 1258
Joined: Nov 15, 2009
February 2nd, 2011 at 11:28:00 PM permalink
Quote: Wavy70

Keep in mind the majority of prisoners in the USA are there for non violent drug related charges. So usually the only human they have infringed upon is themselves. The US prisons system is drastically flawed. Example 1oz of pure cocaine will get you less time than 1/8oz of crack. Reason? Rich lawyers like coke. Poor like crack.



I will admit I do not know why the majority of people are in British prisons, but I will look into it.

Quote: Wavy70

Studies show that the USA prison system is a wonderful grad school for small time offenders to bigger crimes.



I think that should be amended to "any prison system"

Quote: Wavy70

I think a cultured society should not sink to the level of it criminals. If as a society we say since criminal X did this we can do it to him. In that situation we have either legitimized the criminals actions or become no better than the criminal.



I am not talking eye for an eye type justice, although that does bring up some interesting conversations, but more that British prisons are generally considered soft in comparison to those in the US.
[This space is intentionally left blank]
Wavy70
Wavy70
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 907
Joined: Nov 3, 2009
February 2nd, 2011 at 11:52:22 PM permalink
Quote: Croupier




I am not talking eye for an eye type justice, although that does bring up some interesting conversations, but more that British prisons are generally considered soft in comparison to those in the US.



I can only speak for the USA but the problem is we make no attempt at rehabilitation. A small petty thief does a year with hard core criminals and gets no lessons on how to hold a job and be a member of society. On release there is no after attention. So in essence nothing has been accomplished aside from allowing the petty thief to learn from the masters.

If we know we will be releasing this person in a year why would we not want to make then a contributing member of society?
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:23:53 AM permalink
Quote: Doc

I guess I don't understand how this poll is designed. At the time I first looked, it said just one member had voted, but "humane", "inhumane", "allow suicide", and "forbid suicide" all had votes. Schizophrenia, anyone?



Ideally, a person would realize that it only makes sense to, respectively, choose one of the first three, then one of the last two alternatives, but somebody apparently didn't figure that out.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:26:31 AM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

I went for inhumane and forbid suicide, though I'm not sure how the punishment for committing suicide would be administered.



As in the outside world, the punishment would obviously be only for ATTEMPTING suicide, and one can easily imagine how that might be administered in a prison environment, from depriving the inmate of ALL possessions, to physically restraining him 24 hours a day.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:31:02 AM permalink
Quote: Croupier

There is a lot of talk in Britain (mainly thanks to the European Court of Human Rights) about prisoner's Human Rights. As far as I am concerned, by commiting a crime, you have infringed upon the human rights of someone else, therefore you obviously do not value human rights, so yours are forfeit.

We dont really have such harsh prisons as MKL mentions, which I personally think is a shame.



But that kind of thinking is obviously flawed, in that it assumes that human rights are granted by the state and can therefore be taken away for cause. If it is wrong for the individual to take away someone's rights, then it is wrong for the state to do so, even as punishment. And by "taking away rights" I specifically mean not freedom per se, but the right to be treated as a human being.

And if a prisoner should not have human rights, as you suggest, does that mean his jailers have free rein to beat, torture, rape, or kill him?
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
February 3rd, 2011 at 3:33:20 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

But that kind of thinking is obviously flawed, in that it assumes that human rights are granted by the state and can therefore be taken away for cause.


From the state's point of view, this is exactly the case.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
RonC
RonC
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 4:12:55 AM permalink
I don't necessarily "like" the way some of these prisoners are treated but I don't have an alternative to present, so I don't feel like I should complain. I am not in the situation--I am neither the prisoner or the guard--but the prisoners are being held in "my" name because I am a part of the state and nation.

The prisoners shown on these shows have usually "earned" their way to the strictest confinement by failing to conform to the rules of the institution. Not only are they criminals, but they take it to the next level by being the most violent of the already violent group they share the prison with. They try to kill prisoners and guards, start fights, throw feces on guards, threaten people, etc. Their behavior is so far from the norm that I am not sure many of us in the noncriminal population can even understand it.

They are not all on life sentences. Some of the shows show them being released back in to society. That is scary in itself... Many of them end up right back in the prison system.

If you feel they way they are treated is unfair, how would you change it?
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
February 3rd, 2011 at 4:24:33 AM permalink
Quote: RonC

They try to kill prisoners and guards, start fights, throw feces on guards, threaten people, etc. Their behavior is so far from the norm that I am not sure many of us in the noncriminal population can even understand it.


Why, I can certainly understand it. If I were put in a cell, I'd have a hard time containing myself from doing that. Killing someone would at least be something I could do to get closer to even. And it's not like they offer a wider range of alternatives there anyway.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 4:48:16 AM permalink
I can't begin to imagine what you guys call "inhumane" about solitary confinement. It sounds like, if things continue going at this rate, a few years from now, people will be debating the humanity of internet deprivation, or whether a prisoner has a right to choose the make and model of his state provided car, or how many megabytes his mobile data plan should provide. Come on!

The argument that human rights are not provided by the state, and therefore should not be taken, is a good one in theory, but completely idealistic. What is the alternative? Close prisons, dismiss courts, and just let everybody do whatever they want?

As the solitude goes, I don't even see it as a punishment (not any more than internet deprivation anyway), if the guy is violent, and a threat to other inmates, he needs to be isolated. If he doesn't like it ... tough luck. If I were inside, I think, I'd pay to get that kind of treatment.

Regarding suicide, as somebody pointed out earlier, you can't forbid it, because it can't be punished. Even punishing attempted suicide is questionable - how do you punish somebody who is already serving a life sentence? Pretty much the only thing he's left is his life, and he doesn't value it anyway. A rule, that cannot be enforced, does not make sense, thus suicide should not be forbidden.
I think, it would be a good idea for the state to offer an option to substitute life sentence with the death penalty. Of course, it will never happen, because some would say, this is "inhumane" too.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
February 3rd, 2011 at 6:12:50 AM permalink
AdSeg (Administrative Segregation) is the only reasonable alternative to the General Population. Snitches, Targets, Cops, etc. all get AdSeg because an assignment to the General Population is a death sentence. General Population usually eat in the Mess Hall but those with money in their accounts get a "spread" from the Commissary because the violence in the mess hall is so great a risk.

Scandinavian countries have almost pleasant prisons and people usually make appointments to report for their sentences. Most punishments are fines and fines are based on income, so a traffic infraction can cost thousands of dollars for wealthy drivers.
SFB
SFB
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 203
Joined: Dec 20, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 6:53:37 AM permalink
Have ANY of us ever been in an actual prison?

Inmate or otherwise?

The "Lock-up" show is the extreme end of the prison population. Prisoners in that end of the spectrum, probably NEED to be in that type of confinement. They are that far outside of the "normal" prison population.

I have been to a prison. The infamous DC Governments Lorton Reformatory in 1987. (Now Closed) Not for a crime. But for a business transaction. I was supposed to meet some administrator, and walked up to the gate. I was buzzed in, my briefcase was searched, and I was told to go over to *that* building, the guard pointed across the lawn. There were plenty of people standing around.

I walk over towards that building, and the folks walking around walk over and start talking to me. "How you doing? What ya doing? Nice suit!" Whatever. I say "Thanks, nice day!" I get to the building, and the administrator walks out to greet me. I ask him who those folks out there are. He told me, "The prisoners, why?".

The vast majority of prisoners are in minimum confinement, and have many freedoms. Unlike the rest of us, they only can go to thier four walls of the prison, not where ever they want, be it LV, or Detroit, for that matter.

You can learn from the prison masters how to become a better thief, dealer, whatever, nothing new about that. And the majority of prisoners are in for drug crimes. And they should be diverted into treatment. Nothing much different about US prisons and overseas prisons, in many respects. THere are many attempts at reform of the prisoners. It is probably easier for a prisoner to get a college degree than someone the same age on the outside working and making $20k a year.

So, letting "lifers" commit suicide is fine by me. They won't. And that quality of life that they are being deprived of, can be improved by thier OWN choices. By following the rules, and then they move back into the general population.

JMVHO

SFB
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:08:08 AM permalink
Quote: RonC

If you feel they way they are treated is unfair, how would you change it?



I didn't say "unfair", I said "inhumane". We neither have the stomach nor the practical ability to administer "fair" punishment to a violent criminal (for instance, raping him repeatedly then stabbing him to death, if that was his crime). There are obvious limits that we have imposed on the punishments we will administer.

How would I change it? I would not confine the inmate to such a small space for so long a period of time. I've seen "exercise cages" that are at least open to the outside and allow enough room for the prisoner to jog back and forth. I would allow the inmates more access to those facilities than one hour a day. I would also let them eat outside their cells--they could be shackled to the tables in the mess hall if potential violence is a problem.

I think that one of the major concerns--"humane", aside--is that you don't want to have to deal with an enraged, crazy inmate. But if a given inmate wasn't that way before, he sure as hell will be after you stick him in a box and deny him any communication with even the immediate outside world.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 10:16:40 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

I can't begin to imagine what you guys call "inhumane" about solitary confinement. It sounds like, if things continue going at this rate, a few years from now, people will be debating the humanity of internet deprivation, or whether a prisoner has a right to choose the make and model of his state provided car, or how many megabytes his mobile data plan should provide. Come on!

The argument that human rights are not provided by the state, and therefore should not be taken, is a good one in theory, but completely idealistic. What is the alternative? Close prisons, dismiss courts, and just let everybody do whatever they want?



Those are two fairly silly "reductio ad absurdum" arguments. We have obviously evolved as a society, and we consider many practices to be "cruel and unusual punishment" that were happily done in previous centuries. English prisons in the 19th century regularly starved and tortured inmates; they were forbidden to speak, to have visitors, to have or read books, to get medical attention, etc. etc. And good upstanding Victorians though that this was fair, just, and good--after all, they were "only" criminals. They would have viewed feeding prisoners edible food, or giving them a pillow and a blanket, as being ridiculously soft on them.

The argument that we can't impose law and punishment because those things violate human rights is ludicrous. We can acknowledge that a convicted criminal retains all those human rights that the courts do not specifically take away. A prisoner no longer has a right to freedom, but does he have a right to life and the pursuit of happiness, to name the other two "fundamental" human rights? I would think so, since the court didn't take those rights away.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
dm
dm
  • Threads: 14
  • Posts: 699
Joined: Apr 29, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:21:20 PM permalink
I voted for "allow" but I would have been happier with "demand."
P90
P90
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
February 3rd, 2011 at 12:22:59 PM permalink
In fact, why don't we just put everyone through a government commission at 18 and each 3 years after to prove they have the right to live.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 2:48:37 PM permalink
Quote: P90

In fact, why don't we just put everyone through a government commission at 18 and each 3 years after to prove they have the right to live.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Obsolete_Man
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 3:51:48 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Those are two fairly silly "reductio ad absurdum" arguments.


Now, did you have to say this? Frankly, I think that your own position in this topic is just as silly as it gets. I mean, my five-year-old has more practical views than what you have expressed here.
But do we really have to get into the war of epithets? Can we not talk about the content of the arguments, not the characteristics you like to assign to them?


Quote:

We have obviously evolved as a society, and we consider many practices to be "cruel and unusual punishment" that were happily done in previous centuries.


Well, yes, we have, and they are. But what's your point?


Quote:

The argument that we can't impose law and punishment because those things violate human rights is ludicrous.


Who made such an argument?

Quote:

We can acknowledge that a convicted criminal retains all those human rights that the courts do not specifically take away.



I was responding to your suggestion that, since state is not what provides a person with human rights, it is not supposed to be taking them away. If that is so, courts should take away any human rights, specifically or otherwise.

Quote:

A prisoner no longer has a right to freedom, but does he have a right to life and the pursuit of happiness, to name the other two "fundamental" human rights? I would think so, since the court didn't take those rights away.


You say, one can pursue happiness in prison, I say you can pursue it in a solitary confinement just as well. Both suggestions are equally laughable and hypocritical, and obviously have nothing to do with the original meaning of that phrase. The difference is, I am being sarcastic, and you seem to mean it for real.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 4:01:17 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

Now, did you have to say this? Frankly, I think that your own position in this topic is just as silly as it gets. I mean, my five-year-old has more practical views than what you have expressed here.
But do we really have to get into the war of epithets? Can we not talk about the content of the arguments, not the characteristics you like to assign to them?



This is what you said:

It sounds like, if things continue going at this rate, a few years from now, people will be debating the humanity of internet deprivation, or whether a prisoner has a right to choose the make and model of his state provided car, or how many megabytes his mobile data plan should provide.

If this isn't silly, I don't know what is. If this isn't a reductio ad absurdum argument, I don't know what is. You could have made your point in some other way.

And you don't strengthen your own argument by saying my position is "silly" in some kind of retaliation for my calling your chosen argumentative method "silly". Obviously, I get your point, the silly way you chose to express it notwithstanding. And that point is valid, as is my point that perpetual solitary confinement may violate both ethical and legal standards.

What you seem to have missed is that the courts impose deprivation of freedom, and not any additional punishment beyond that. In other words, prisons have to feed the prisoner, attend to his medical needs, etc. I would think that that should include not subjecting him to conditions that would drive any normal person insane.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 4:23:43 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321


If this isn't silly, I don't know what is. If this isn't a reductio ad absurdum argument, I don't know what is. You could have made your point in some other way.



It wasn't an argument at all, it was a joke. Yes, I could have made the point some other way. I could have just said that solitude is no more a "torture" than internet deprivation is, it may be an inconvenience, may even be a sever inconvenience for some, yes, but there is nothing "cruel" or "inhumane" about it, and there is no human right that guarantees everybody a companionship or means to use a cell phone.
I could have said all that, but I did not want to insult your intelligence by stating in so many words something so obvious and self-evident, so I decided to make a joke about it, expecting you to understand the point without this long lecture.
I still don't see what is your problem with it.

Quote:

And you don't strengthen your own argument by saying my position is "silly"


Of course not. That's 'the whole point.

Quote:

in some kind of retaliation for my calling your chosen argumentative method "silly".


Retaliation? Please ...


Quote:

What you seem to have missed is that the courts impose deprivation of freedom, and not any additional punishment beyond that.



First, this is not true (the sentence dictates not only in general, that the criminal's freedom will be limited, but also how exactly that will be achieved ), and second, once again, did you not argue earlier, that it's not the court's place to take away somebody's human rights?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 4:34:49 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman



First, this is not true (the sentence dictates not only in general, that the criminal's freedom will be limited, but also how exactly that will be achieved ), and second, once again, did you not argue earlier, that it's not the court's place to take away somebody's human rights?



Read my entire post that you are referring to. I said that the court may take away a specific right, but the individual so punished retains his status as a human being, including retaining all those rights that were not specifically taken away.

And the sentence absolutely does NOT dictate the method of confinement, and usually does not even dictate the place, other than that it is usually in the same state where the court has jurisdiction. Whether a person is put in solitary/segregation is the decision of prison administration, not the court.

And I apologize for taking your "joke" as something other than that, but your opinion on whether solitary confinement is or is not cruel or inhumane was not manifestly obvious to anyone but you, so it wouldn't have been "insulting my intelligence" for you to have simply stated that opinion, rather than wrapping it up in a joke that could easily have been the actual expressed opinion of quite a few regular posters on this board.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
February 3rd, 2011 at 5:07:31 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Read my entire post that you are referring to.



I did:

Quote: MKL (highlighting is mine)


But that kind of thinking is obviously flawed, in that it assumes that human rights are granted by the state and can therefore be taken away for cause. If it is wrong for the individual to take away someone's rights, then it is wrong for the state to do so, even as punishment. And by "taking away rights" I specifically mean not freedom per se, but the right to be treated as a human being.



So, first you make a statement (in bold), and then immediately negate it (in italics). For some unknown reason, without any basis or explanation, you choose to exclude the right to freedom from your, otherwise completely universal statement, because it better serves your purpose at this particular moment. What in your view is so special about freedom, compared to all other rights that it is right for the state to take the former away, but not any one of the latter?



Quote:

And the sentence absolutely does NOT dictate the method of confinement



Umm ... Yes, it does.

Quote:

your opinion on whether solitary confinement is or is not cruel or inhumane was not manifestly obvious to anyone but you



How do you know? 7 people voted for it, so ... Maybe, at least some of them found it obvious as well?
Anyhow, I happen to regard your intelligence quite highly, so "everyone else" is not really indicative.

But seriously, are you really saying it is not obvious to you that companionship is not a "human right"?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
mkl654321
mkl654321
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
February 4th, 2011 at 2:13:14 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

I did:

So, first you make a statement (in bold), and then immediately negate it (in italics). For some unknown reason, without any basis or explanation, you choose to exclude the right to freedom from your, otherwise completely universal statement, because it better serves your purpose at this particular moment. What in your view is so special about freedom, compared to all other rights that it is right for the state to take the former away, but not any one of the latter?

Umm ... Yes, it does.

How do you know? 7 people voted for it, so ... Maybe, at least some of them found it obvious as well?
Anyhow, I happen to regard your intelligence quite highly, so "everyone else" is not really indicative.

But seriously, are you really saying it is not obvious to you that companionship is not a "human right"?



Sigh. You keep using silly, silly semantic devices and silly, silly rhetorical tricks. I didn't "immediately negate" my statement; I QUALIFIED it. Surely you don't expect me to believe that you don't comprehend the difference? Note the word "specifically" in the second sentence. Are you deliberately being obtuse?

What is so "special" about freedom? Is it a right that the state has given itself the ability to take away. I don't think it's an ideal punishment system by any means, but it's what exists in this society. So my focus was not on freedom itself, but on respecting human rights even though the state has taken away that freedom. Are you satisfied? Do you wish to stop picking nits now? Are you going to drop the silly argumentation? I thought not. Oh well.

If you think the courts hand down sentences that specify the exact methods by which a prisoner will be confined, then you are shockingly ignorant of the law.

And those seven people didn't vote to agree with your specific opinion as expressed--remember the silly little reductio ad absurdum joke you used in your initial response? Remember how you said that it should have been "obvious" to me that you were joking? THAT, as you should be aware, was what I was referring to when I said that your opinion was not manifestly obvious to anyone but you. So, as you are probably well aware, the poll votes have nothing to do with what I said--I was answering your sarcastic remark that I should have understood that you were joking. But perhaps you aren't deliberately being obtuse, but you really CAN'T understand that? Or you're not even reading the posts you react to? I'm struggling to understand why someone like you, who seems to be an otherwise intelligent person, would construct such lame, ridiculous straw man arguments. You embarrass yourself by doing so.

In any event, we obviously disagree on this topic, which is something you can't tolerate, so the discussion between us is best ended.

Frankly, I'm getting kind of sick of talking with you. You use cheap little shots and cheap little arguments and use cheap little nitpicks. You are apparently incapable of disagreeing with me without also being a jerk about it.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
weaselman
weaselman
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
February 4th, 2011 at 5:31:25 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

Sigh. You keep using silly, silly semantic devices and silly, silly rhetorical tricks.



This is just becoming ridiculous. Do you really believe these remarks help your point (or anything else)? You just can't control yourself, can you?


Quote:

I didn't "immediately negate" my statement; I QUALIFIED it. Surely you don't expect me to believe that you don't comprehend the difference? Note the word "specifically" in the second sentence. Are you deliberately being obtuse?



Yes, of course you have negated it. You said that the state should not take away something that it did not provide (which is quite a silly belief, if you ask me, but so far so good). You used that point as a basis for your conclusion that state should not take away human rights, because it does not provide them. And then, you said that you are ok with the state being able to take away freedom. This is the direct contradiction to your original statement, because freedom is not provided by state.
You did qualify the "human rights" statement, by arbitrarily excluding freedom, but you qualification was also a contradiction.

Quote:


Are you going to drop the silly argumentation? I thought not. Oh well.


I'd love to drop the silly argumentation. But you can't argue against silly points with mature arguments. It just doesn't work like this.
It would be like bringing my five-year-old to a physics seminar. You see, the only arguments she can ever understand are silly.

Quote:


If you think the courts hand down sentences that specify the exact methods by which a prisoner will be confined, then you are shockingly ignorant of the law.



You keep making these unfounded, unjustified, unsupported statements, and expect me to agree with them why? Because I should be afraid that otherwise you'll deem me ignorant of the law? Well ... talk about silly ...

So, you believe that prisons and jails exist in violation of the law? Well ... This is about as "mature" as arguing that casinos routinely rig the dice or roulette wheels, but I'll humor you. In this country anyone can sue anybody else for whatever they want. If you think the state (or federal) prisons are not lawful, you can sue the state (or federal government) in court. If you don't like the decision, you can appeal. You can eventually get all they way up to the Supreme Court (in an unlikely event they agree to hear a discussion as silly as this one), and get your five minutes there.
If the courts agree with you, they will order the prisons to be closed and reformed, just like you wanted to. If they don't, then they will have mandated their existence and approved their conditions.
Now, I have two questions for you. 1. Do you really believe this has never been tried before? And 2. If not, which decision do you think is more likely if you tried it now? How much more likely is it?


See, this is exactly the kind of conversation I have with my daughter, when she does not realize or want to accept some part of the adult life reality. Of course this is silly. All the non-silly things about this have normally been said and heard by the time a person is out of kindergarten.

Quote:

And those seven people didn't vote to agree with your specific opinion as expressed


Well, you don't know what they voted for, do you?

Quote:

Remember how you said that it should have been "obvious" to me that you were joking?



I did not say that, what I said was that it should have been obvious to you that companionship is no more of a human right than internet. That I was joking, should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain. I have no grain of a doubt that it was obvious to you, but you decided to pretend that it wasn't to lunch your "silly" campaign in a hope to .... I dunno ... upset me? elicit an emotional response? start a fight?

I noticed you do this before. You start a discussion, making one or two more or less legitimate points, that are worth discussing. So far so good. But then you amazingly quickly run out of arguments (I mean, it's just way too quickly. I could switch to your side and continue arguing it, and it's not even my point I'd be defending), get all emotional and go into attack mode. Instead of your original point, the discussion turns to the question of who is more silly and who embarrasses himself more. And if that doesn't work, you turn to personal insults.

So, I am a silly jerk, not even reading the posts I am reacting to, but still unable to tolerate disagreeing with you, and embarrassing myself by using cheap nitpicks, and lame, ridiculous straw man arguments. And you are a knight in shiny armor, standing on your high ground, and nobly pointing out my downfalls in hopes of making Earth a better place (by having one less jerk to put up with, I suppose, after you have embarrassed me to death).

How does it make you feel? Do you believe you have adequately defended your point? In your opinion, am I more likely or less likely to accept your opinion after our discussion? Do you expect me (and others reading this) to respect your views more or less as a result of this topic. Did you just make a friend or (yet another) enemy?

I guess, what I am asking you can be easier formulated in just three words: "what's the point?"
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
RonC
RonC
  • Threads: 40
  • Posts: 4874
Joined: Jan 18, 2010
February 4th, 2011 at 5:42:52 AM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

I didn't say "unfair", I said "inhumane".



The question I posed was a general one and was not directed at you.

It is easy to say something is "inhumane" or "unfair" (or whatever)...solutions are what are harder to come up with.

Shackling them to the tables would not work-their enemies would be able to attack them and they would be unable to defend themselves.

A larger cell area with outside access but just as isolated might work if it could be properly monitored. These guys are typically very good at making weapons out of anything, so the guards need to able to observe them at all times.

I'm really not sure what else you can do with people like this...it is an interesting question.
  • Jump to: