SeVeR

Lol, still no opinion from Simulacrum. Are you afraid of criticism, so you only criticise what other people have to say? Get some balls laddy. Dr B., I'll get to your post later.

Which translates as: companies will only charge what your wallet will take. They will charge you as much as is possible to maximise their profit, while allowing you to barely afford it. If you can barely afford taxes now, then think how much worse a profit-taking company will be. The prime example is health-care, about 20% of the American population couldn't even afford it (until new goverment schemes). So was this your version of what the market can take? If 80% are being charged more, then the health insurance company can afford to price themselves out of the range of 20% of the population, right? They make more profit by charging some people more than by losing the business of the few. So lets see, you'll "pay someone to take away your trash". Suppose you pick one these companies who "charge what the market will take". So what happens to the 20% who are priced out of being able to afford these companies? There will be trash-heaps stinking out every part of town... My previous example shows exactly why competition doesn't always work for the consumer. Not when public sanitation, education and health are at stake. The government tax-collections pay for that contracting out though. The postal service was always reliable when I was in America. Public schools are always dependent on the area, but how much more would a private school charge you? So all this payment on your part (for essential services that, if privatised, would charge some people out of the market entirely)... is this going to cost you less or more than what you pay in taxes?

And the award for loaded questions goes to!... On question 1. Yes, because without taxes we wouldn't have schools, free hospitals (UK), garbage-collection, postal-service, public-transport, immunisation programmes against diseases, and so on. Do you think someone will just collect your garbage, educate your children, and deliver your post for fun? No, we all put our money into the governments hands and TELL them what to do with it, and for the most part, they do it because it's their job to do it. Like it's our job to not be hauling our trash to the scrapheap, or delivering letters across the country to our relatives, or home-schooling our kids. If we privatise all this, is that better? The prices will increase because private companies will want to take maximum profit, you'll have even less money than what you pay on taxes! On question 2. You say that as if you get nothing out of it. Maybe if you refuse public services your children will thank you for being retarded, disease-ridden, and swimming in their own filth, unless of course you deal with this yourself, in which case: how will you earn any money?

The greenhouse effect is a natural part of the Earth's ecosystem. If we had no greenhouse effect we would all freeze to death instantly. That is the scale of how important the greenhouse effect is, so surely you can envisage how a small man-made increase in the greenhouse effect can add 2-5 degrees of temperature rise. The scale of the temperature increase is greater than the historical increases. We add on a man-made CO2 component. We are in a state of CO2 and temperature increase that is abnormal when looking at our natural history.

No. The evidence shows that it doesn't. What the hell? Have you heard of Venus? I do believe that its proximity to the sun has more to do with its temperature than its atmosphere does. In all likelihood, it's atmosphere actually keeps it from absorbing more solar radiation. Also, if you're comparing a 36% increase of C02 on Earth to the atmosphere of Venus, you've got something else coming. Where did you find this information?...because it's wrong. The night-time temperature of Venus stays close to it's peak day-time temperature because the greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. Other planets such as Mercury (closer to the sun) lose their heat at night and become far colder than their day-time temperature, and far colder than Venus. In fact Venus's day-time temperature is hotter than Mercury's due to the greenhouse effect, whilst being farther away from the Sun.

Simulacrum, rather than meandering your way into this topic to ask "Why, why, why?" to everyone's opinion like a small child might, why not gives us your own opinion - something you never seem to actually do.

Well you can't seem to tell the difference between what a criminal deems to be acceptable behaviour and what a judge deems to be a suitable punishment for that behaviour. You seem to be hung up on the idea that the criminal's opinion on his punishment is somehow important to my argument. I guess you're a lost cause as you failed to understand the most basic underlying principle of my whole argument. I toned my last post to ask you more questions and got the expected response, a non-response.

On your interpretations: You interpret every statement I make to mean something ridiculously implausible because you prefer to argue against something that is ridiculous, it is easier. If you misinterpret something (deliberately or not) I’ll just say no from now on. No, that is not my argument. When you interpret my words as saying something tantamount to “The Earth is flat”, stop, think, and try again. Anyway, Why is it pretty clearly not? Why is it deeply flawed? Oh, i agree, since you still haven't managed to prove wrong my statement that all punishment is a form of vengeance. Paying for your crimes means punishment, which means vengeance. You are also still quoting "payment" when that is not what I said. Is there any punishment geared to preventing future crime that isn't also vengeance? Give an example. What punishments do not inflict pain of one kind or another? What makes one punishment vengeance and another punishment not? To exceed eye-for-an-eye is to add severity to a punishment that exceeds what the criminal deems to be acceptable behaviour. The criminal's behaviour is wrong, therefore he needs to learn that for himself by experiencing how it is wrong. This is justification for eye-for-an-eye. He has to learn why his particular behaviour is wrong. Making the punishment exceed the criminals behaviour doesn't teach him a thing because the criminal will just think that what he did wasn't so bad. Alternately, a lesser punishment only reduces the deterrence for a repeat of the crime, or for other criminals to perform the crime knowing the punishment isn't equal to their crime. This is a deterrence in addition to prison-time. Prison serves the purpose of safe-guarding society and is a deterrent in itself. Eye-for-an-eye adds an extra deterrent, and is morally justifiable for the aforementioned reason that the criminal must learn why his crime was wrong. Therefore I recommend it because it increases the deterrent for the crime and is morally sound.

Double post.

You mean you actually believe your own misinterpretations? OK, well I'll reply for your benefit then. Look it's simple. Criminal commits crime. The severity of his crime dictates the severity of his punishment. This punishment is moral because the criminal thinks he can act that way towards other people. BUT THIS PUNISHMENT IS NOT THE PUNISHMENT THE CRIMINAL THINKS HE DESERVES. DO YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND YET? How the hell can you think I was saying the criminal should determine his own punishment? To think I am saying this is not only ridiculously stupid on your part, or annoying trollish, but it shows an immense lack of respect for me to think I would be saying that. And you wonder why I am annoyed with you? WTF............. this was never my argument, and I even said so in my last post! You are a troll. Get lost. -EDIT- Ok I looked back to where you got this from. You got it from this statement "Secondly, it's moral because criminals must pay for their crimes, otherwise there would be no deterrent for those crimes." So tell me, what does this say: (1) One reason for eye-for-an-eye punishment being moral is because criminals must be punished (pay for their crimes), otherwise there is no deterrent. (2) Criminals must be punished with eye-for-an-eye punishment, because without eye-for-an-eye punishment there is no deterrent. I don't see where (2) appears in the quote Simulacrum. Stop trolling, stop deliberately misinterpreting. To know that you are trolling, here is a quote of mine from the very same post "The eye-for-an-eye part is merely an added deterrent that goes further to prevent abuse." So, what, you didn't read this because it contradicted your ridiculous interpretation of what I was saying? I placed it specifically in that context, yet you somehow misunderstood it? Right. You are just being a troll. You quoted "payment" yet I actually said "pay for their crimes" which is a very common phrase meaning punishment. All punishment is a deterrence, and therefore if eye-for-an-eye gives added deterrence then this is some justification for the eye-for-an-eye principle. First, note that I did not say "necessary for deterrence", that is something you made up. Refer to the WTF statement above. Secondly, read it before instantly disagreeing with it. You need to give an example of a punishment that isn't a form of vengeance. Otherwise my argument stands. You need to contribute to this discussion. As far as I can tell, you haven't given a single alternate theory to anything I've said yet.

I think this will be my last post on this topic. You cannot argue without deliberately misinterpreting everything I say into implying something ridiculously improbable. This is absurd. People commit violent crimes not because they judge them to be ethical, but because they are considering practical rather than ethical interests. If you really want to take a convict's opinion on his punishment, just ask him. I suspect, however, that you won't find so much support for your position. I never said the criminal is the judge. I said the degree of the criminal's unethical behaviour is what you use to judge how unethical his punishment can be. It doesn't matter what the criminal thinks of his crime. The criminal's actions determine his punishment, not his opinions. The criminal has shown what he considers acceptable behaviour (ethical or not, he thinks he can act that way because he has acted that way), therefore an equal punishment is acceptable behaviour in his case. Once again, it wasn't so hard to understand what I was saying here, yet you still seek to misinterpret for purposes of reductio ad absurdum. So no, I don't think we should take the criminals opinion on what punishment they think they deserve, did you really think I was saying that? I can see why NBV was getting fed up with you now. I have said this multiple times and will have to say it again, eye-for-an-eye gives an added deterrence. Eye-for-an-eye is not necessary for deterrence. Any form of punishment is a deterrent! And look, once again you are doing the reductio ad absurdum routine... so no, I don't think states without the death penalty have no deterrent. Did you really think I was saying that? When I say "pay for their crimes" I obviously mean punishment, the words are synonyms and it is also a common phrase to mean punishment. Once again you are misinterpreting deliberately. I made no mention of payment for medical treatment. When is restitution punishment? Never. If I steal some money and a court orders me to give it back, have I been punished? No. Yes, punishment can be a deterrent, but it is a vengeful deterrent. You haven't proven anything. All punishment is a form of vengeance. You said I was reasoning from a statement, i.e. arguing. Anyway, why dedicate half your post to such an inane argument?

Look at it this way. Punishment is justified because criminals must be deterred from their crimes. It then becomes a matter of how much punishment. Severe crimes would deserve a more severe punishment. Would you execute someone for stealing an apple and confiscate the possessions of someone who killed? Of course not. So what is the limit for how much punishment you inflict? Any punishment up to and including the crime is morally acceptable because it is what the criminal believes is acceptable behaviour. He committed the crime, therefore he thinks it is acceptable to act in that way to an innocent person. It is the criminal who indicates the depth of his own immorality. Any punishment in excess of the crime could be morally acceptable, but it could also be immoral, because you have become the judge of what the criminal deserves, as opposed to the actions of the criminal. Your actions could be disproportionately violent. However, if you act too lightly, justice may not be served. So I could cut off the executioner's nose, then? More seriously: Why is it moral? And since you are trying to argue that eye-for-an-eye punishment is just, why are you reasoning from statements like "It is moral to cut off the nose of someone who cuts off people's noses"? Firstly no, the justice system is the dictate of society, and society condones retributive justice for a crime, not retributive justice for retributive justice. Secondly, it's moral because criminals must pay for their crimes, otherwise there would be no deterrent for those crimes. Perhaps you should explain why it is immoral first, although I doubt you will. The last question, I don't understand what you're saying, it was a statement, not an argument. This is not at all what I am saying. Punishment can be immoral, but vengeance is an immoral purpose for punishment. Punishment should be tailored to prevent abuse in the future, whether by the person who is punished or by others who are deterred by it. While this principle may indeed justify eye-for-an-eye punishment in some cases, using the eye-for-an-eye principle as an ends in itself means that the prevention of abuse falls by the wayside. And if preventing abuse is not a goal, why have the law in the first place? All punishment is a form of vengeance. If vengeance is immoral then so is punishment. I stand by what I said, you think all punishment is immoral. You admit that eye-for-an-eye punishment can prevent abuse. I will argue that it always prevents abuse if it is used in addition to prison sentences (as the protection of the public is another tenet of our justice system). The eye-for-an-eye part is merely an added deterrent that goes further to prevent abuse.

Uhh, what? If you kill someone and I send you to jail for 20 years, I'm encouraging you to kill more people? You're doing more to encourage the initial crime if the punishment is prison rather than eye-for-an-eye execution. And also, don't try to twist my words when you know full well what I am saying. No. You're already weighing moral considerations when you say "this far, but no more." Clearly we both agree that it's wrong to cut off someone's nose. What I'm asking is why it becomes un-wrong when your victim is also guilty. It is moral to cut off the nose of someone who cuts off people's noses. Are you trying to tell me that all punishment is immoral? If not, where is your line drawn? To ask this question you have to think retributive justice is wrong. Regardless of the severity of the punishment, your question implies that all punishment is wrong. If you want to rehabilitate criminals with no real punishment then how do you think criminals will react to your justice system?

An eye-for-an-eye is a punishment exactly equal in "wrong-doing" to the original crime. You are wronging the criminal as much as they wronged someone else. Thus, any lesser punishment is an encouragement to commit the crime. You have the maximum deterrent, beyond which is immoral. In my opinion, the moral considerations kick-in when you consider punishment greater in severity than the crime. As I said, you are adding punishment that no-one can judge to be deserved. I don't see how any punishment less severe than the original crime incurs moral considerations. In other words, a punishment equal in severity to the crime is no less moral in my opinion than a slap on the wrist. You say I have yet to address moral considerations, well then, ask me what you want me to address.

Crossing the eye-for-an-eye line requires you to punish the offender to an extent beyond the crime committed. In effect you are adding to the crime of the perpetrator and passing it off as extra punishment. Less abuse tends to be less deterrent. Define "strength of the punishment" as something independent of deterrent then. Otherwise, I am sure an eye for an eye is a better deterrent than any less severe punishment.

... A more violent punishment is a more effective deterrent. A more proportional punishment (eye for an eye) tends to be a more violent punishment. An unproportional punishment on the side of extreme violence is morally wrong, and an unproportional punishment on the side of not enough violence is a less effective deterrent.

A stronger deterrent would be to torture every criminal to death. Surely you agree that there are other considerations in judicial punishment than seeking the strongest deterrents. I said a good deterrent, which doesn't necessarily have to be the strongest one possible. A punishment deterrent proportional to the crime is what I would say is a good deterrent, thus an eye for an eye is a good deterrent and torturous execution for all crimes is not. Perhaps you misinterpreted my argument against Bak's idea of a stronger deterrent (making the crime harder to get away with), my argument being that only so much can be done in this regard, and beyond a certain point one's policing skills can deter no longer.

An eye for an eye is good justice, and a good deterrent. While I agree that making the crime harder to get away with is a better deterrent, that is obviously not always possible, and beyond a certain point, further deterrent is impossible.

Good luck disproving that, and good luck convincing anyone you've disproved it without descending into semantics.

I uninstalled Continuum this Christmas. I was in DSB for a couple of years, but quit a few weeks ago.

Conceptions will and always have changed to meet the needs of religious veracity. It's the God of the Gaps. The new conceptions can simply say that the old conceptions were wrong, and therefore you didn't prove anything.

You can't prove God doesn't exist.

Perhaps the only change you want is the change from a regime that changes things a lot to a regime that never changes a single thing other than reversing the previous regime's changes. In which case you want to reinstate the status quo, and your denial of that is simply word-play.

Ah, so Aileron has finally lost it. To proclaim in his post that he won't be replying suggests he has been on the losing end of too many arguments, and he wants a victory by process of not acknowledging counter-arguments. It's another sad example of a weak-minded individual resigning to failure, but corrupting their mind through denial of that failure. Nevertheless, like another poster said, I am positive he will read this. Why? Because there was no need to say he won't be reading replies. It is his proclamation of victory, and it's purpose is for us to ignore the majority of his post so that when he comes back to read it, there is little sign of opposition. Far from thinking "How dare he", I actually felt pity for Aileron and for the people who are subjected to the consequences of his epiphany. I have heard this "liberal" definition being used far too many times in America for all the people opposed to one's ideas (whether actually liberal or not). There is the radio host, Michael Savage, and that nasty piece of work, Anne Coulter, who spring to mind. I used to listen to Savage all the time when I was in America because he was funny, but it still shocked me how people could be so focussed in their hatred, and so eager to usher people into the focus of that hatred by labeling them liberal. Many people here have said "What is a liberal?" and I applaud that because it might help Aileron realise that he is doing the same thing Savage and Coulter have done, creating a focus for their hatred. This focus precipitates ignorance through the dismissal of possible truths. I for one have dismissed the ideas of Christians in the past because they formed that little black-spot in my head that made me hate them. Now I would give them a chance, I hope Aileron similarly isn't so quick to feed his ignorance. Talking about God and Satan just fits the conservative-Christian cliche that we've all come to recognise. Saying that Satan was a liberal borders on the clinically insane because it suggests such a large warping of thoughts in order to reconcile one's hatred, that I fear we have lost Aileron to any conceivable process of logic. The GFI of solar power on Aileron's list further suggests the same entrenched lack of logic. Aileron has actually justified calling the oil business a better choice than renewable energy. Look Aileron, I don't care half as much about global warming as I care about the progression of humanity, and we need energy to progress, capiche? To justify using oil in this way only shows one thing, that you are a tool for the ideas you support. You support the conservatives, and therefore you try to reconcile and justify, with any argument you can, that which they do. Anyone who disagrees with you has been exaggerated in your mind into this Satanic character, as doing so makes you even more right. Your arguments are weak for this reason, you need to create a great evil in opposition to yourself. Your disenfranchisement with the equality of opinion further suggests an ignorance of logical principle. Of course someone who thinks the world looks like a banana is more wrong than you or I. If you can't figure out why, beyond calling it a horrible liberal conspiracy, then I pity you further. Your opinion on this also suggests that you can't accept the scientific arguments in favour of global warming. Yes, there are idiot-liberals and many idiot-environMENTALISTS, but there are also real arguments that have not been disproven. You won't get anywhere by associating them with your giant liberal/satan/evil pit of hatred.

Wait, so Dr. Brain, you listen to this guy and don't think he's a nutter?