Re: Teens suspended for wearing crucifixes

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 10:58:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by snex <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Mar 14, 10:14 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:13:11 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<s...@xxxxxxxxxxx>:



On Mar 13, 6:30 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:57:52 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<s...@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Mar 12, 4:53 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<s...@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Mar 11, 5:03 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:04:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted bysnex<s...@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

On Mar 10, 7:34 pm, Shane <remarcsdNOS...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:35:08 -0800 (PST),snexwrote:

<snip>

yeah, and if a woman wears a short skirt and walks down a dark alley,
she was askin for it!
Probably not, but if she wears a short skirt down a dark
alley in which over the last two weeks seven other similarly
clad women had bee raped, she may wish someone had told her,
or stopped her.
so lets pass a law stating that women arent allowed to walk down
alleys in which rapes have occurred in the past unless they are
accompanied by a related male. brilliant!

Since you're so adamantly opposed to any attempt on the part
of society to avoid violence by forbidding the symbols which
have historically led to violence (and before you start
foaming, note that I make no claim that eliminating the
wearing of such symbols will reduce violence, only that the
wearing of such symbols *has in the past* led to violence,
which it has), perhaps you'd care to enlighten everyone on
*your* solution to this problem.

do more than give these criminals a slap on the wrist. impose stricter
sentences without parole. build prisons that function as prisons,
rather than criminal training schools. thats a start.

So you'd avoid any effort to prevent or reduce violence, in
favor of punishment? OK, but I'd prefer a somewhat more
proactive approach. "When seconds count in a life or death
situation, the police are only minutes away."

in what way do my suggestions not prevent or reduce violence?

I see; you don't know the difference between "prevent
violence" and "prevent recidivism". OK.

apparently in your world, people are mindless automata that cannot
weigh possible consequences of their actions.

Perhaps you'd care to post a cite to the data showing that
the threat of prison is a measurable deterrent?

just look at times and places where prisons didnt or dont exist, and
compare the levels of violence.

Apples and oranges, assuming you can even come up with such
a time and place, which I doubt.

california, 1840s.

Any place in particular? Was there no jail in El Pueblo de
Los Angeles or in San Francisco? Or maybe you're thinking of
the boom towns of the Gold Rush (which could hardly be
considered organized social groups)? Is *that* it, Sparky?
Is *that* your "times and places where prisons didnt or
dont exist"?

are you *seriously* proposing that enforcing laws against violence has
NO measurable effect on violence? how stupid can you be?

Goalpost shift noted. No one said anything about enforcing
laws against violence; the subject was the efficacy of
prisons (specifically, prisons in the US) as a deterrent to
crime. Since you apparently have nothing but incredulity as
data I believe my question is answered.

what goalpost shifting?

Changing "threat of prison" to "enforcing the laws",
perhaps? You *do* realize these are separate, and are the
responsibility of different organizations, right? Or do you?

you are claiming that bad consequences do not
serve as a deterrent to behavior. thus, you are either stupid or lying.

I'm not claiming anything; you are. You claim that potential
prison terms serve as a deterrent, and I requested the data
supporting that claim. Apparently you have none, just a
"feeling" that "it *must* be a deterrent!". Well, here's a
hint, Sparky: Your feelings don't mean jack ***; we went
around on this in the "emotions" thread and you got handed
your ass there too. And while the best defense may indeed be
a strong attack, yours above is pathetically weak.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

.

Loading