Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: Insane Steve on March 26, 2011, 04:01:32 PM
-
So, you're a judge who is about to sentence a man who has raped over 40 young (not of age) girls, keeping many as sex slaves. What's your sentence? Death? Life without parole?
Ah, but wait -- he's a billionaire hedge fund owner! So I guess the right answer is 13 months (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-25/jeffrey-epstein-how-the-billionaire-pedophile-got-off-easy). Yep. It should be exceedingly trivial to find someone who got more than that for prostitution -- in other words, it's more ok to be a kiddie diddler than to have consensual sex for money, so long as the pedophile is rich.
My point is -- if you think America is anything but a plutocratic oligarchy, you're delusional. Normal people get the book thrown at them for having an ounce of pot. The rich can (possibly literally) get away with murder. And, just wait until the rich actually own the prisons. Sound crazy? It's already happening. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrections_Corporation_of_America)
Cliffs: "American Justice System" is an oxymoron. Discuss.
-
"Fair representation is representation according to the amount of influence effectively exerted."~John Rawls
I agree with you one hundred percent. Just look at Buckley v. Valeo. In America, money speaks.
-
"
In America Everywhere, money speaks."
But yeah. I don't forsee much arguing in this thread.
-
/me is not delusional.
-
But yeah. I don't forsee much arguing in this thread.
Turtlekid hasn't responded yet.
-
It's good to know that the Canadian judicial system is free of corporate corruption.
/whoamikidding
-
Turtlekid may be literally insane, but even he doesn't defend pedophilia...
...right?
-
I highly doubt it. But I wager that he'll defend billionaires like the Koch Brothers who are actively working to take away bargaining rights from firemen and teachers.
Double standard lol
-
I highly doubt Turtlekid would defend a point like those. Now you're just picking on him for no reason.
But I'm the mean-spirited one.
-
I highly doubt Turtlekid would defend a point like those.
...I just said that he wouldn't.
-
What's your sentence?
Death, in all likelihood.
Cliffs: "American Justice System" is an oxymoron. Discuss.
Just like pretty much any justice system ever. I'm not saying it's right, but is it really such a surprise? And is it really fair to say that the system always fails? Because it doesn't. People like to single out America as such a cesspool of greed and imperialism and selfishness and whatever else, but what they fail to realize is that it's still better here than pretty much anywhere else in the world.
I highly doubt it. But I wager that he'll defend billionaires like the Koch Brothers who are actively working to take away bargaining rights from firemen and teachers.
Double standard lol
Taking away rights isn't their motive. Stopping thugs who cheat, steal, and intimidate their way into power - all under the pretense of bargaining rights - is.
-
But I wager that he'll defend billionaires like the Koch Brothers who are actively working to take away bargaining rights from firemen and teachers.
Agreeing with FDR on the destabilizing effects of giving government workers the same collective bargaining rights as private sector workers = raping 40 children.
-
Stopping thugs who cheat, steal, and intimidate their way into power - all under the pretense of bargaining rights - is.
Then why did he lie about it being a fiscal issue?
-
...Because it is a fiscal issue?
-
If there is a budget crisis, why didn't he just cut tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires? Or something else? To me it seems like this is more about union busting than fixing a fiscal problem.
-
Because millionaires and billionaires create jobs and sign paychecks. Their ability to do that is inversely proportional to how heavily they're taxed.
-
No, demand creates jobs. Billionaires do whatever the **** they want with your job, which is why my uncle's got moved overseas.
-
But is that because billionaires are just big jerks who arbitrarily decide to outsource jobs, or because they don't have much of a choice thanks to excessive taxation and regulation?
-
Yeah, what is there to argue about here, really?
-
But is that because billionaires are just big jerks who arbitrarily decide to outsource jobs, or because they don't have much of a choice thanks to excessive taxation and regulation?
That's a false dichotomy. There are many other reasons for their outsourcing of jobs, man.
Also, I never accused billionaires of outsourcing jobs because they're "big jerks."
-
Fair enough. What do you think is the reason?
-
Some do it for tax breaks. Others do it to enhance innovation. And others do it because they feel they are excessively regulated. But there are reasons for that also.
-
Yeah, what is there to argue about here, really?
This thread wasn't so much intended to argue as it was to show exactly how ridiculously the rich can manipulate society.
But now that we're on the topic of unions...
[one moment please]
Also, I used to be a very strong supporter of the death penalty for rape cases -- except then I realised that if the penatly for rape and murder is the same, what's stopping people from killing their victims after they're done?
-
I'm against the death penalty entirely.
-
I still support it in murder cases where there is literally NO doubt the person did it. Like the Tuscon shooting, for instance. I used to be a lot more for it but then I took off the rose-colored glasses and saw just how ridiculously terribly the "justice" system is.
-
I'm against it on the grounds that it seems absurd to kill a person to show other people that killing is wrong.
-
It's more to show other people that murder is wrong.
-
What is murder anyway? I see no fundamental difference between a soldier "killing" an enemy overseas and a husband "murdering" his wife. They both result in the termination of the victim's biological functions, and in both cases the victim did not desire to have them ended.
-
What is murder anyway? I see no fundamental difference between a soldier "killing" an enemy overseas and a husband "murdering" his wife. They both result in the termination of the victim's biological functions, and in both cases the victim did not desire to have them ended.
And I actually agree with this -- there's no difference here. War (exception: WWII, and maybe the American Revolution) is bull[dukar]. Especially the two wars we have now, which are for all intents and purposes purely for profit nowadays. And, again, the rich profit off the blood of everyone else.
I'm referring to a person killing an innocent, and a person who killed said innocent being killed. I see a difference, I suppose you do not. Honestly the death penalty is like the only social issue I'm not obscenely left of center on so I feel weird being on the "right-wing" side of it.
And that's part of why I started this thread, also -- there's discussion on the death penalty, and unions (I'll get to this later, I have a fairly long-ish opinion which can be summarised to "I think in an ideal world union membership should be 100% voluntary, but in this world that's equivalent to unions just not existing altogether and I feel the needs of the people are more important than the needs of the very select elite.") -- so despite my OP not being particularly debatable there's debate nonetheless.
Isn't politics awesome? ... wait no it isn't :(
-
I just dislike killing in general. We're in the middle of a vast, cold, uncaring universe. The planet we inhabit is fairly small and could be swept away by a black hole as soon as tomorrow.
And yet some people want to spend their time killing others. This to me is the most disgusting aspect of humankind.
I'm referring to a person killing an innocent, and a person who killed said innocent being killed. I see a difference, I suppose you do not.
It's true that society has an interest in preventing a person from engaging in the harming of an innocent. But the mere fact that all of us, no matter how saintly, must surrender life in due time makes me hesitant to support such a measure.
-
I think the death penalty should only be used as an option presented to those who are going to serve a life sentence(s).
-
What is murder anyway? I see no fundamental difference between a soldier "killing" an enemy overseas and a husband "murdering" his wife. They both result in the termination of the victim's biological functions, and in both cases the victim did not desire to have them ended.
When a soldier kills another, he's fighting for other people as well. He's fighting for a cause. (Well, usually.) To murder your wife can pretty much only be out of selfishness purely, even if in both cases the murder probably didn't think of the suffering the victim's family would endure.
This is total BS, though.
-
He's fighting for a cause. (Well, usually.)
Yeah okay. So that makes it totally okay right?
-
Yeah okay. So that makes it totally okay right?
What about killing in self-defense? Or for an objectively good cause like freedom or liberation?
(In before someone argues against the existence of objective goodness, by the way.)
-
coolkid came closest to the mark. Killing is never pretty, and it often is done for evil reasons. But it is necessary when done to preserve or defend life or freedom.
-
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?"~Gandhi
-
That depends on who wins.
-
At the risk of inciting Godwin's Law, what if the Allies had taken Gandhi's stance during World War II?
-
What if Hitler had taken Gandhi's stance?
-
Then everythikng would have been fine and dandy. But when evil will stop at nothing short of death, war becomes necessary.
-
...What have I done?
-
No, I'm done. At this point it's analogous to two brick walls staring at each other.
Also, I apologize for arguing with people on this forum because quite frankly I'm terrible at it.
-
No you're not.
-
Yes he is
-
You're both equally absurd to assert that you know.
lol
-
A professional soldier understands that war means killing people, war means maiming people, war means families left without fathers and mothers. All you have to do is hold your first dying soldier in your arms, and have that terribly futile feeling that his life is flowing out and you can't do anything about it. Then you understand the horror of war. Any soldier worth his salt should be antiwar. And still, there are things worth fighting for.
-
If Hitler had been a pacifist, I imagine he'd be a very frustrated individual. He'd want to kill people, but he wouldn't allow himself to. Tons of internal conflict.
That could actually be an interesting novel, maybe. Or not.