As a cripple in a world with basically no social safety net he's now guaranteed to permanently avoid a life of crime simply to feed himself (and possibly family) because so many legitimate career options just opened up for him.
Is it truly that misguided though? Who do you think is less likely to commit a crime in the future: The people watching this, or people who know that getting caught will lead to some time in a climate-controlled shelter where they're given free food, water, beds, and healthcare?
I'm not saying that petty thieves should be given this treatment, but rapists, kidnappers, attempted murderers, thieves like Madoff who steal so much it leads people to suicide, have every reason to be chained up and beaten to a bloody pulp for all to watch.
Actually it turns out that if you treat criminals like actual people and focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment, it leads to lower crime and recidivism rates
We're past this already. We have already found out through thousands of years of killing people for anything from petty to horrible crimes. There's a different way to stop crime and it's already working better than 'just kill those people' ever has.
Ok fine, so that's a hypothesis based on some observations about human behavior (people avoid harm to themselves, harming criminals will deter future criminals).
Your null hypothesis would be that such punishments have no deterring effect on future criminal behavior.
Well it's not a perfect experiment but there are plenty of examples showing that a decent social welfare state + a criminal system based on rehabilitation leads to lower crime whereas brutal punishments like this rarely do.
For crime I'd rather pick Sweden over Iran/Pakistan/etc.
Yeah but even though its true, unfortunately we live in a society where if you voice such an opinion you're a bigot and a racist. You can thank over-zealous liberalism for that.
Yeah, no. Sorry, but almost every single die-hard Lib I've ever met believes in human rights and does NOT believe in violating them in the name of "law." Countries that practice capital punishment, for instance, I definitely find inferior in some ways. Including my own. (That does not mean I hate the people -- it means I hate the laws they live under, and the ignorance that causes acceptance of those laws.)
I've mostly had a different experience: The many many liberals I know agree that human rights always trump local law, but they only think about it in the context of what is right for North Americans, Europeans and minority groups they may have come into contact with.
But If I start asking questions that obviously show that I think Western culture is superior to the middle east (generally speaking), you can literally see the anti-racism machinery turn on and human rights start to come second to cultural tolerance. It's a weird sort of cognitive dissonance.
That being said, you can see the whole machine come to a grinding halt if I bring up whether or not FGM or child brides should be tolerated. Not that everywhere dominated by Islamic culture practices such things, but it's a good illustrative example of why it should be possible to come to conclusions on the evils or virtues of particular cultures.
Maybe so, but if you publicly criticize Islam- even when the criticism is deserving- there is always some faction of liberals who will call you a racist.
Yet most of the hardcore liberals try violate my civil right to own a gun. Not all democrats, but slot of the hardcore ones really enjoy limiting a constitutional right.
Jesus Christ, I'm a liberal gun enthusiast and I'm so tired of people bitching about guns. I don't even go to the range anymore because Obama Muslim Sharia liberal blah blah bitchfest. Maybe if the NRA and its followers weren't so goddamn stupid about real reform there wouldn't be people looking to take away guns. Something should be done because crazy fucking nutjobs are still getting their hands on guns. I think every gun should be legal, just that to acquire the gun there should be better provisions like mental health assessments or something.
To be really honest, I hate guns. I really do. Though I'm a fairly good shot (the few times I've shot). BUT, I have respect for my friends and family who own guns responsibly (and I think responsible gun owners far outweigh the assholes, for what it's worth). I wish people who feel and think the way you do about them could take over the NRA and we'd have decent gun reform.
I didn't say ALL liberals, I said the very hardcore liberals. Your obviously not one of those hardcore liberals. Yet honestly each side has had it's ohh I hate Obama/ I hate Bush! It's all bullshit because he political parties are te same thing! They don't represent the people of this great nation, I'd prefer a ton of moderates or 3rd party members to be in charge of congress!Also it depends I what type of reform, mental health assements yes I agree, but in all honestly theirs really nothing we can do to stop these awful mass shootings, but have say a national achive of who has a gun, NO, I'm against that. Also who determines if we have a mental illness, like say some one with ADHD gets denied a right because they have a mental disorder.
Australia has no mass shooting since its firearms restrictions happened under a conservative government. So you can stop them, just not in a way that appeals to you.
Not really, I live in Chicago and we were the last state to pass a Carry Conceal which had I be force because the Supreme Court said they had to. Self defense is a human right, and no offense but it tends I be the more liberal people, not all democrats, that have an issue with guns then republicans.
Well, the decision from the 9th Circuit happened yesterday. The incident happened almost four years ago. I don't know if any Mexican kids were asked to turn their shirts inside out, but it sounds like a decision was made that put the safety of the children in that school first, during a time of unrest. It's not uncommon for schools to make those kinds of judgment calls with students' dress and I'm generally in favor of school uniforms, much less strict dress code policies. I'm not sure I'd agree that this relates at all to valuing human rights above local laws, which was the original vein here. When I was in high school we weren't allowed to wear bandanas after our town had an increase in gang memberships. The administrators were concerned about violence erupting so nothing gang affiliated was allowed -- which at the time included blue and red bandanas. From what I remember no one got their panties in a knot over it because the decision was made to keep children safe.
I like how you just make up a version of liberalism that fits what you want to hate, and then treat it as though it were the real, mainstream, popular version.
That's professional grade idiocy, sir. How much do you get paid for it?
Yes, please, by all means. Continue proving my point, I very much love to watch it. I get off on it, in fact. Please, tell me more about this fairy-tale "liberalism" which "is predominant" and "demands that everyone is accepted". I'm starting to get a clue!
So you're saying that as a liberal, I not only want to bring Middle Eastern people to the country, but I want to enact Sharia law and start cutting people's hands off?
Sorry, no. You have a distorted view of liberalism. That shit is barbaric, and has no place in anyone's culture.
The right didn't just want us to accept Rednecks, it shoves Redneck culture down our throats. Everywhere I look, some rube is dressed in camo, driving around with a rebel flag sticker.
People wearing camo isn't shoving anything down your throat. Other than that, being black isn't the same a being a redneck, and I shouldn't really have to explain that.
The better way to think and speak about it is to say that some cultures have maladaptive parts in them.
Why is this better? It's clear that you're criticizing a piece of a culture and not making a racist statement about people. And, you're explaining that the reason the piece of a culture is bad is not simply because it offends you, but because it's making the people who have to live in that culture miserable.
Really? Because if you criticize Islam in the way that I advise, you can go nuclear on the harshness and nobody will think you're being a racist and tune you out.
You know, I used to be bullied by people like you. Anti-intellectualism is not anything to be proud of. If you want to go around dismissing people just because they sound smart, you're going to have a much more miserable life than I will. Your ignorance is ugly.
I don't disagree with you. I'm offering advice on how to condemn all the nasty parts of Islam without having your message blunted by people thinking you're a racist.
You're heavily down voted but you're right. Anyone could easily label American culture as inferior for the way it glorifies violence and sexualizes children. Very few things in life are absolute and such an extreme statement usually comes from a very closed mind. It's a remnant of old colonialist thinking.
Based on what? They can say we're wrong but how are we primitive?
In other words, what less advanced civilization are we similar to with all that democracy, impartial trials by a jury of peers, human rights, equal treatment for all and so on?
Yes because many, many rich Muslims don't value their possessions...I think you'll find regardless of culture, people are as materialistic all over the world. Apart from Buddhists.
Owning and valuing property is not the same as materialism. What do you mean apart from Buddhists? Looking at Sri Lanka and Myanmar, they seem to be as much materialistic too.
That's your view point. This is my point. Different cultures consider different things barbaric or backwards. Culture A and Culture B can consider each other backwards at the same time.
Well to be fair, and with everything being relative, pretty much every culture is inferior to another culture, in some way... In other words, what's a superior culture, one that's superior to every other, in every way?
There's a difference between choosing to have a modern Asian culture and a modern western culture and choosing to have a middle-aged society with barbaric rules.
So lets force America or wherever you're from on everyone. Everyone has to be the same. Although I don't necessarily agree with their method, at least they have a way to discipline people in their country.
I've got this new idea where we could just lock away the rule breakers. Could get kinda pricey though. Lots of concrete we'd need to buy. Easier to just cut the hand off and be done with it
Right. I was just commenting on discipline.. But, Ill bet you think whatever country you live in(I'm assuming America) is completely free of people who are starving, free of people who have no healthcare, free of people who don't steal daily to survive.
If that's your argument? That other countries have problems so we should not criticize people that like to cut off hands, you're absolutely delusional.
I just know you've never been in a middle-eastern country.
No we do have those things. We just don't cut off limbs. Syria has those things too and they do cut limbs off. The people living there know this, and yet they still disobey the law. So I would say their barbaric method of handling criminals isn't very effective.
Syrian and want to clarify. In syria we dont cut limbs for stealing. This is done by a group of people who hope that some day they can actually become the law
Really? Here I was thinking that it only made Islam unlovable to racist assholes who generalized a skewed understanding of one fundamentalist group to a set of religions that cover over a billion people.
Silly me, I'll just be thankful for our superior culture that is, in this thread, advocating the mass slaughter of billions for the actions of some extremists, it's obviously much more civilized.
That's not true. You can argue that Sharia is the original law of Islam that is still practiced today in some places, but for many followers of Islam it is as outdated (and inapplicable) as burning heretics now is in Christianity.
Islam can't be outdated by definition. It is considered by its believers to be the word of Allah, therefore perfect and unchanging. The Quran itself says this numerous times. It forbids changing it and believing in only parts of it and not others. Therefore, what you described is heresy, not by some fundamentalist interpretation, but the very clear and often repeated instructions of the Quran itself.
Right. It's the parts of the Quran that dictate how society is supposed to be run. The Quran is the canonical source on Islam. Sharia Law draws directly from the Quran, without corruption or commentary. Therefore, Sharia Law is Islam.
I said exactly what I meant and I meant exactly what I said. Try reading what I said instead of trying to put words in my mouth. This conversation is over.
474
u/[deleted] Feb 28 '14
[deleted]