Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: Travelinman <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 18:34:10 -0500
In article
<gmgraves-9F60DA.14280425092005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <znu-60A469.22450124092005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <gmgraves-DEB022.15412624092005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <znu-0DE759.17414724092005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > > You just showed why the Mayor is right about liberals not teaching
> > > > > kids
> > > > > the difference between right and wrong. You don't have too firm a
> > > > > grasp
> > > > > on it yourself, and you just proved it. "fascist 'zero tolerance' and
> > > > > 'tough on crime' policies"? The fact that you think that any measures
> > > > > to
> > > > > deter crime or punish miscreants are "fascist" shows that you are
> > > > > part
> > > > > of the permissive liberal establishment which teaches these kids not
> > > > > to
> > > > > respect the rule of law. Game over Znu.
> > > >
> > > > You're telling lies and babbling,
> > >
> > > Where did I lie? Where did I babble? I think my point was pretty
> > > succinct and I was using YOUR OWN attitudes to make my point.
> >
> > Are you really Edwin? I ask because a favorite tactic of his is to reply
> > to a sentence that's supported with further argument as if it's not,
> > ignoring the further argument. Which is what you just did.
> >
> > > > George. First off, criticizing
> > > > "fascist 'zero tolerance' and 'tough on crime' policies" is not
> > > > remotely
> > > > the same thing as arguing that any measures to deter crime or punish
> > > > miscreants are "fascist" -- which is something I don't believe, and I
> > > > suspect few people on the left do believe.
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, there's not even any sort of direct connection between
> > > > permissiveness and beliefs about how to prevent crime. Permissiveness
> > > > implies a sort of lack of judgement -- "Well, do whatever you want,
> > > > that's fine." Those on the left (or, for that matter, libertarians) are
> > > > more likely than conservatives to have that sort of attitude about many
> > > > things, but certainly not about things that hurt others.
> > >
> > > Sorry, znu. Your attitude is typical of the left, and you've proven that
> > > you are no supporter of law and order, especially when it means taking
> > > drastic action.
> >
> > You and Mayor keep falling into this trap, where you assume that if
> > people have different views about how to accomplish something from you
> > (say, how to build a moral society, or how to achieve social order),
> > they in fact do not want to accomplish that thing at all, or want to
> > actively oppose its accomplishment.
>
> Just observation Mr. Traitor, simply observation. You either want to
> eliminate crime or you don't. There is no middle ground. The way you
Actually, there is a middle ground.
For example, one could want to eliminate crime so badly that even petty
criminals are executed. That would be one extreme. The other extreme
would be to let all criminals go and not punish them at all. Everything
else is in between.
> eliminate crime is to make crime too expensive for most would-be
> criminals to contemplate and to remove from society permanently those
> unaffected by that argument. Anything else is not wanting to eliminate
> crime. It's really that simple. These ideas of rehabilitation and
> "punishment" are ridiculous, you cannot rehabilitate a criminal, and in
> fact, the institutions set up to do just that are really schools FOR
> criminals to teach the neophyte how to commit crimes more "effectively".
> As for punishment, that's ineffectual because it uses the notions of
> redemption and remorse as it's basis. Basically, as far as society goes,
> removal of the criminal element is all that's important. Anything else
> is just paying lip-service to squeamish, naive bleeding hearts who still
> think that there's good in everyone and that all we have to do is bring
> it out. Really all society needs to keep in mind is that a dead criminal
> does not break the law again.
>
> > > This attitude filters down to the young who haven't the judgement to
> > > make the distinctions that you say that you make. You are part of the
> > > problem.
> >
> > I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about here. I'm the product of
> > household that was about as liberal as they come. Somehow I seem to have
> > figured out that it's wrong to kill people. In fact, I get the
> > impression that I take my morality a lot more seriously than people who
> > had right and wrong beaten into them as kids -- despite the fact that I
> > was essentially never disciplined, as such.
>
> You are in the minority it seems.
.
- References:
- [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: Mayor of R'lyeh
- Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: George Graves
- Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: GreyCloud
- Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: George Graves
- Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: Timberwoof
- Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: ed
- Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: Walter Bushell
- Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: Mayor of R'lyeh
- Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: ZnU
- Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: ZnU
- Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: George Graves
- Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: ZnU
- Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: ZnU
- Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- From: George Graves
- [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- Prev by Date: Re: Excellent News - Bush Approval Drops
- Next by Date: Re: Something to think about...
- Previous by thread: Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- Next by thread: Re: [OT] Civil Rights End In Canada
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|