Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,769 1,661 33
See, now you completely changed your argument. The original question was "How many people does one have to kill before it becomes unquestioningly necessary to eliminate any possibility of parole?" And my answer was "It depends on more than just a number."

Now you want to start using different terms. And then you throw in questions such as, "So you believe that there is no point at which a person's crime becomes irredeembable simply by virtue of the heinousness of the crime alone?" That wasn't the original question that you put forth. The concept of "heinousness" is completely different from picking a number as the threshold for indefinite incarceration. But apparently that won't stop you from twisting up what I said and running with it.
I had to rephrase because obviously I did a bad job communicating my question. I realize that for murder, there are many factors involved in sentencing, one of which naturally is the number of people killed. My question was always meant to be, how many people have to be killed before the number of people killed makes all other considerations moot? For me, that number would be less than 77 (though I'm not sure exactly where it would be. Probably somewhere between 5 and 10). But it's an opinion question, not a question about procedure.[DOUBLEPOST=1345839942][/DOUBLEPOST]
I think Gas may have just Godwin'ed this one, since his response to Tress boils down to "So you'd let Hitler out on parole then?"
Actually I was thinking more about Milosevic when I wrote that, but I left out names because I was trying to distill the question to just being about the number, not about other factors.
 
Reactions
299 37 13
To me it's a forced catch-22. To let them out, they need to know the seriousness and the heinousness of their crimes, and admit they were wrong. And to do that to my satisfaction, they need to admit that they deserve punishment for the rest of their lives, and thus should never be let out, and volunteer to stay in because they don't deserve freedom because their victims will never have such. This transcends mental illness too, in that if they were insane at the time of the crime, now that they're sane, they should acknowledge that they don't deserve what their victims don't have.

Somewhat extreme I know, but hey, that's what I think should happen for murderers. If you're unrepentant, you stay in, but to truly repent, you have to want to stay in, and we let them stay in.
 

North_Ranger

Staff member
Reactions
47 2 0
I find it highly unlikely that Breivik will leave prison except in a casket. The way I understood it that he will serve 21 years, minimum, after which his sentence can be prolonged in five-year increments if he is deemed a threat to the society.

I don't know enough Norwegians to say if keeping him behind bars is for his own protection, though... The whole vigilante thing really isn't something that typical of Nordic countries, you know?

I am glad, however, that they ruled him sane. To say he was just a nutcase would be a cop-out, considering how much time and energy he put into his heinous act.
 
Reactions
2,888 827 25
I doubt the quantity of people killed is really a reliable determining factor. Look at Dexter. Instead I really believe it should be a measure of how much of a threat they are to society in general, though I freely admit that I have no good way of adequately quantifying this. One could easily kill hundreds of people by flooding a theater (movie or otherwise) with carbon monoxide (which can be easily made in quantity on-site), but the chance of parole should be based on the likelihood that it might happen again, not how many people died originally. After all, a scenario like this could happen accidentally as well as maliciously (faulty HVAC maintenance, e.g.), and if so would probably not warrant 200 consecutive life sentences just because 200 people died.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
299 37 13
I disagree PatrThom. Punishment (denial of freedom) should always be at the forefront of any judicial sentence. Rehabilitation too (for those that it's possible), but punishment first. "You did this wrong, you suffer X amount of time." For murderers, I'd need a good explanation about how it's good to ever let them go free. The sentence is not merely for "after this time, we think they won't re-offend," in my opinion, but also for what I said above about suffering for doing wrong.
 
Reactions
2,888 827 25
Right. I'm just saying that I don't think sentencing guidelines should be arithmetically (nor algebraically) fixed to the number of deaths.

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,769 1,661 33
I don't get it. Some of the hyperbole I get, but obviously not the thing as a whole.

meh
Neither got his name right. Neither considered this anything other than an opportunity to Smacktalk the opposition and advance their own agendas.
 

North_Ranger

Staff member
Reactions
47 2 0
That's just wrong.

It's metric crapton, you ignorant jerks! Sheesh, you people and your old-as-fuck measurements...


[/jk]
 
Reactions
229 10 0
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/li...ratings-republican-national-convention-367022

Again, to back up my point of why there aren't enough smart people in America to realize there's more than two political parties.

What were you saying before Norris? I can't hear you over the sound of the stupidity of America.
Wrong thread

Also RNC coverage was on 2 broadcast networks and 3 cable channels, splitting ratings 5 ways. All that article managed to show was that it did better than any networks coverage, and the broadcast coverage combined. Stupidity in America indeed.
 
Reactions
24 0 0
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/li...ratings-republican-national-convention-367022

Again, to back up my point of why there aren't enough smart people in America to realize there's more than two political parties.

What were you saying before Norris? I can't hear you over the sound of the stupidity of America.
Seriously Gilgamesh ? I addressed this in my rebuttal of your post in the other thread. And from the VERY SAME ARTICLE YOU JUST LINKED TO:
Aggregate coverage of the RNC across networks obviously eclipsed Honey Boo Boo considerably.
So, when you count up EVERY SINGLE PERSON who watched "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" ast Wednesday, you get 2.992 Million. When you count up every single person who watched the RNC coverage on just the big three networks last Wednesday, you get 9.4 million. 9.4 million > 2.992 million, three times as many and change.

Now, Honey Boo Boo did do better in terms of the "most wanted" audience (adults 18-49) ratings wise than any one channel, scoring 1.3. However, ratings are a percentage (if I recall correctly) of one pie, number watching divided by total number possible viewers. Meaning you can just add that shit together - so combined, amongst viewers 18-49, RNC coverage on the big three broadcast networks combined scored a 2.2.

By any metric, more people watched RNC coverage than "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo". They just didn't watch it on any one particular channel, and a lot of them were 50+. And, I find myself forced to reiterate, cable has a tiny fraction of the viewers that broadcast has. Being the most watched show on cable is like being the thinnest kid at fat camp.
 
Reactions
24 0 0
Gilgamesh, what exactly are you disagreeing with? I'm throwing numbers at you. I've linked to my source. I gave the same information, only with number, as a post you rated "Informative". Do...do you disagree that 9.4 is a bigger number than 2.992? That 2.2 is bigger than 1.3? That the bar for a "hit" on cable is insanely low compared to broadcast? What?
 
Reactions
968 73 2
I think he's just being obtuse because the idea of people watching this inane show instead of something that has an actual, tangible effect on their lives is something that propagates his personal views of his fellow man.

That being said, WHY is this a show? Why aren't they helping these people out of their self-inflicted poverty?
 
Reactions
24 0 0
I haven't watched it but I've heard that the family is fairly well off.
I'd imagine that you kind of have to be in order to be in the beauty pageant set, right? Costumes, make-up, hair supplies, travel, lodging, entree fees, etc...that shit adds up. Then again, there are always people who will drive themselves into poorhouse seeking fortune and glory, so I don't know.
 
Reactions
1,423 629 32
I'd imagine that you kind of have to be in order to be in the beauty pageant set, right? Costumes, make-up, hair supplies, travel, lodging, entree fees, etc...that shit adds up. Then again, there are always people who will drive themselves into poorhouse seeking fortune and glory, so I don't know.
Not to mention I'm sure they're paid for the show
 
Reactions
3 0 0
Without government assistance there wouldn't be a country. Yes we contribute and create government through voting and taxes but it's they who distribute it in the way the common man cannot. I think it goes both ways, not just -we own them and they should do what we say-.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,769 1,661 33
Without government assistance there wouldn't be a country. Yes we contribute and create government through voting and taxes but it's they who distribute it in the way the common man cannot. I think it goes both ways, not just -we own them and they should do what we say-.
There's a subtle difference. Yes, we should be beholden to government, but it should not own us, nor should we want to claim it as the most important unifying force in our society. The government should not be confused for, or used in place of, the nation. Government is a tool, and a dangerous one if used improperly. But the assertion that "government is the only thing we all belong to" is implying that government is the goal, the benefit itself, rather than the means by which we ensure the benefits of society and endeavor. It champions collectivism and dependence rather than individualism and independence. And, of course, it's only a slight shift of emphasis and thought to then "belong" to government in a property sense.
 
Reactions
3 0 0
I missed the part where it was said that government was the ONLY thing we all belong to. Which speaker said that?
 
Reactions
3 0 0
Yeah you misunderstood that. He meant that the people of America are all part of government not that we all belong to it like property. It's the only thing that ALL American's are a part of, despite color, race, or any other separating factors. It's a constant that is part of us all.

It's very clear in the context.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,769 1,661 33
Yeah you misunderstood that. He meant that the people of America are all part of government not that we all belong to it like property. It's the only thing that ALL American's are a part of, despite color, race, or any other separating factors. It's a constant that is part of us all.

It's very clear in the context.
And I was addressing that context. It's collectivist nonsense. All americans aren't part of the government. America is not its government. Government is what americans have to put up with in the name of civil order and the rule of law... both of which government seems less and less inclined to enforce lately. The government was never supposed to be an engine of economic redistribution. Saying that all americans belong to government is like saying all carpenters belong to the screwdriver, all artists belong to the handheld palette, or all people with ikea furniture belong to the allen wrench.

We don't belong to the government, the government is supposed to belong to us. But now it's just become a self-perpetuating bureaucracy whose only purpose is to consolidate its own power and become ever more invasive in the day-to-day lives of Americans.
 
Top