PDA

View Full Version : The Prisons



Leo_ARG
01-14-2005, 11:46 PM
Do you believe a prison can re-habilitate someone?Or it can make him/her better?
If you don't, do you support it anyway, to protect you from the criminals?

Moose
01-15-2005, 12:24 AM
it depends on the crime really...a kid going to jail for stupid shit like selling weed or vandalism (if i spell that correctly, im not sure) can be helped out, but i find it more difficult to believe a guy who went to prison for molesting and murding little children can be rehabilitated.

SicN Twisted
01-15-2005, 12:50 AM
I don't think prisons can make someone a "better person," because that's an archaic idea. This is the 21st century, there are no good or bad people. I do however believe prisons could, if drasitically reformed, teach someone to conform to society's definition of good, which means to obey society's rules and prevent them from breaking the law again.

Prisons in their current form are regressive and horrible - all they do is punish people in a group, they don't analyse the psychologies of criminals and try to understand the point behind a crime like they should.

RXP
01-15-2005, 02:38 AM
Yep and the rest of society are so fucking stupid that they are fine with the idea of punishment.

Punishment is stupid.

ANd yes good is an interpretive concept, it's what society deems it. In Hitler's Germany a good German would have been one who reported their husband for saying "Hitler is a swine" (has happend) but in our society this would be deemed 'bad'.

wheelchairman
01-15-2005, 05:12 AM
I completely agree with Sic and RXP. That seems to happen rather rarely.

pOpe
01-15-2005, 06:25 AM
But many governments don't want that a person will be re-habilitated, because if they want, the death sentence and the life inprisonment will be abolish
________
Ferrari F355 Specifications (http://www.ferrari-wiki.com/wiki/Ferrari_F355)

Leo_ARG
01-15-2005, 10:42 AM
Would you guys eliminate all prisons with this system?

I wouldn't do it until private property is abolished.

It's a shame but those who post here are the minority, most of the people find prisons useful, especially those who consider themselves "liberals".

wheelchairman
01-15-2005, 11:07 AM
I believe that eventually prisons will become unnecessary, but not immediately and certainly not in the current system.

pOpe
01-15-2005, 11:38 AM
I believe that eventually prisons will become unnecessary

yeah I hope that, but now that is impossible...When prisons will become unnecessary, all people will be good people, and all people will live in peace, without laws... and when that day arrives, people will be ready to live in anarchy.. it is a wonderfull utopia, and I hope one day it'll be possible

Now prisons are necessary, but I belive that prissons should have to change. A prison should be a way to re-habilitate people, but now prisons only find the punishment and the people's suffering
________
132 (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_132)

NOAMR
01-15-2005, 02:35 PM
Indeed. I don't even think only when they are good people, they don't need prisons anymore. I think a prison don't help a person that much to get away of crime, it only make it worse. They are away from society, they won't have a job when they get free, they are often angry cuz some1 put them into prison... U don't solve the problem from the source. I think u should help him where it's need, give 'm faith in society, and get 'm out of poor. Well, they should prolly still be some punish in the beginning in that system, cuz otherwise, everyone want to be a criminal. But people are not just good are bad, it's also cuz of the conditions, the situation, the system that they get into crime, it's not for no reason. So if u can change th system...

SicN Twisted
01-15-2005, 10:36 PM
I'd be up for entirely eliminating prisons. I'd replace them with rehabilitation centers, which work like mental health homes in which patients are closely monitered and psychoanalysed on a personal level. With truly heinous crimes, exile would be a better idea.

pOpe
01-16-2005, 05:29 AM
I'd be up for entirely eliminating prisons. I'd replace them with rehabilitation centers, which work like mental health homes in which patients are closely monitered and psychoanalysed on a personal level. With truly heinous crimes, exile would be a better idea.
Yeah, I think the same... but there is a problem, what about terrorist? do you think that Osama can be rehabilitated? I don't think that he is a mentally unbalanced person, he only thinks different like us.. he doesn't need to be rehabilitated
________
Nick scheele (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Nick_Scheele)

Kitten
01-16-2005, 08:58 AM
I don't agree with them at all. It's just a method of the government hiding these people away for years, saying they are doing something for them, and then letting them out with out adequete counselling and so forth, and being surprised when they reoffend.

RXP
01-16-2005, 09:04 AM
Yeah, I think the same... but there is a problem, what about terrorist? do you think that Osama can be rehabilitated? I don't think that he is a mentally unbalanced person, he only thinks different like us.. he doesn't need to be rehabilitated

No some people should be shot becuase they are so far gone.

pOpe
01-16-2005, 09:15 AM
No some people should be shot becuase they are so far gone.
.......... ?what?
________
Csi: miami forum (http://www.tv-gossip.com/csi-miami/)

RXP
01-16-2005, 09:52 AM
Some people won't be rehabbed. Shoot them.

Moose
01-16-2005, 10:39 AM
you people live in a dream world. sometimes it's sad. no prison system? then what shall we do with the criminals who rob and rape your mother? you believe that if we get rid of private property and have a system of communism that it would abolish crime? that is ridiculous. ya sometimes money is a reason to commit crimes, but some people do it because it is what they do and there is no giving a reason why behind it.

you abolish the prison system and do what with the mansons and such? you want to open a rehab center? like that will work? come on thats ridiculous.

but i actually do agree with pope on one point. he said if this country (america) was actually for rehabilitation and truly behind it, then they would abolish the death sentence and maybe even life sentence, but the rehab thing is a front and is really only for younger criminals...i dont see someone like manson or these bombers going to rehab and seeing the light.

its a bunch of shit really. you need prison systems to keep out the people who will destroy the order...meaning any order, even the one's such as wcm desire. it just wont happen and is extremely unrealistic...as long as we are human we will always fuck up and never be perfect and under your systems, you are asking humans to be perfect.

RXP
01-16-2005, 10:48 AM
Totally agree with the above. We need it but they gotta CHANGE the system from punishment to rehab. The law is a means of social control. Prison is its end.

wheelchairman
01-16-2005, 10:52 AM
So you are saying it's part of the human genetic code to commit crimes?

Humans don't commit crimes because of the mystified 'it's in their nature' logic. Humans commit crimes because it's a part of their environment that formed them. We are all basically products of our environment and our upbringing.

Crime happens because people are products of their environment. Let's face it, today's society isn't happy peaches for people.

But logic that, 'humans commit crimes because they aren't perfect' is like saying 'human's make laws because they expect everyone to be perfect.' Today's laws are a form of oppression designed to assure the security of today's ruling class. If we focused more on rehabilitation and equality, the majority of today's crimes would disappear. Perhaps not all, but the majority.

And the worst crimes, such as pedophilia, well oddly enough it's often the victims who become the predators, things like this you know? It's about ending the cycle.

RXP
01-16-2005, 11:04 AM
So you are saying it's part of the human genetic code to commit crimes?

Today's laws are a form of oppression designed to assure the security of today's ruling class.

Marxists jurists where onto something about 200 years ago, but today, they are fucking idoits.


So you are saying it's part of the human genetic code to commit crimes?

Why yes. There are plenty of documented examples of dangerous severe persoality disorder. There is plenty of examples where crime is explained genetically. Sure if the environment changes then the likelihood to commit crime is reduced. But yes some humans are genetically progammed to have a higher perpensity to commit crime.

And pedophiles, yes victims become predators, but it's genetic. They are attracted to kids. It's not their fault. I'm attracted to big breasts they are attracted to kids. It's in your genetics. Of course upbrining has to do with it but you place far too much emphasis on it.

sKratch
01-16-2005, 11:39 AM
Killing/war is actually in our genes. Apperently, it's to further survival of the fittest; we can kill our weaker adversaries to ensure that the best gene is passed on.

Moose
01-16-2005, 11:57 AM
So you are saying it's part of the human genetic code to commit crimes?

Humans don't commit crimes because of the mystified 'it's in their nature' logic. Humans commit crimes because it's a part of their environment that formed them. We are all basically products of our environment and our upbringing.

Crime happens because people are products of their environment. Let's face it, today's society isn't happy peaches for people.

But logic that, 'humans commit crimes because they aren't perfect' is like saying 'human's make laws because they expect everyone to be perfect.' Today's laws are a form of oppression designed to assure the security of today's ruling class. If we focused more on rehabilitation and equality, the majority of today's crimes would disappear. Perhaps not all, but the majority.

And the worst crimes, such as pedophilia, well oddly enough it's often the victims who become the predators, things like this you know? It's about ending the cycle.


We are products of our environment, well we create that environment. Some laws are a form of oppression, and some are there to show that we believe this is wrong and you will be punished for doing it, such as murder. Laws are there to show what we believe is right and what is wrong. Stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, but some other laws are a form of oppression, even if it is as small as you have to wear a seatbelt in the car...you are being forced to do something or else you will be punished for it. These kinds of laws are simply bullshit.

You believe a certain form of system will create a utopia and with this i disagree. Once again we are human and humans fail in every form. Sure rehab will help some and focusing on fixing our environment will eliminate some crime, but you can not eliminate the environment of the mind, and if that killer thinks that dog is speaking to him and telling him to kill someone, well his reality is shot and it is something you cannot change. Cleaning up schools and streets is far different from cleaning the mind...sure some people commit crimes and murders because of what is around them, i cant deny that gangs do certain things because that is where they are at, but at the same time their minds are weak and unable to overcome what heads in front of them.

Also some people just cannot control themselves, whether it is their desires (pedophilia or money or just simple lusts) or their inability to understand life (drug use to escape, suicide.) Some things are just out of our control and sometimes it is just left up to the person, if the person can even help themselves.

wheelchairman
01-16-2005, 12:26 PM
Wow alright, tell me if I missed anything I've just been dusting and now my head is in a haze (dust allergies, so dusting is almost like getting high, just without the good side effects.)


Marxists jurists where onto something about 200 years ago, but today, they are fucking idoits.
An amusing typo. I would say Marxist jurists are for more progressive than most jurists today. For every law written today that is for the benefit of society as a whole, you will find ten that in some way protects the rights of the rich.


Why yes. There are plenty of documented examples of dangerous severe persoality disorder. There is plenty of examples where crime is explained genetically. Sure if the environment changes then the likelihood to commit crime is reduced. But yes some humans are genetically progammed to have a higher perpensity to commit crime.
You know as well as I do that the link between psychological disorders and genetic code is tenuous at best. Take Schizophrenia, the high of getting it is increased if a parent has it, but it's also increased if you marry a person with schizophrenia as well. There are several theories as to why people get psychological disorders, genetics is a good guess, but documented examples of the reason being purely genetic, do not exist. Perhaps the foundation of the hypothesis yes, but we both know it's tenuous at best.


And pedophiles, yes victims become predators, but it's genetic. They are attracted to kids. It's not their fault. I'm attracted to big breasts they are attracted to kids. It's in your genetics. Of course upbrining has to do with it but you place far too much emphasis on it.
Hmm this sounds like an argument from NAFTA.com. I do not believe it's genetic. It's a mental disorder brought on by early sexual trauma as a child, and other things. Or if for example, a kid's father was a pedophile, and the kid becomes a pedophile, that also fits in with the trauma theory.


We are products of our environment, well we create that environment. Some laws are a form of oppression, and some are there to show that we believe this is wrong and you will be punished for doing it, such as murder. Laws are there to show what we believe is right and what is wrong. Stealing is wrong, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, but some other laws are a form of oppression, even if it is as small as you have to wear a seatbelt in the car...you are being forced to do something or else you will be punished for it. These kinds of laws are simply bullshit.
I would say classifying things as right and wrong is a form of oppression as well. This is one of the reasons why I love Nietzche so much. Right and wrong are defined today by the rulers of the current system, that is why the emphasis on not hurting property is so important, when it only really hurts the rich people who have property, or why stealing is looked down upon.

Everyone has the potential to kill at a situation of high stress, you, me, everyone. If your wife, was violated sexually or physically by another man, wouldn't you kill him?

I'm saying we should all question the judeo-christian morals of right and wrong, because I hate the Moses law, (as did Jesus actually, who thought that modern-day preachers were taking it to the letter and not to the spirit, Jesus rocked, He's been perversed unfortunately).


You believe a certain form of system will create a utopia and with this i disagree. Once again we are human and humans fail in every form. Sure rehab will help some and focusing on fixing our environment will eliminate some crime, but you can not eliminate the environment of the mind, and if that killer thinks that dog is speaking to him and telling him to kill someone, well his reality is shot and it is something you cannot change. Cleaning up schools and streets is far different from cleaning the mind...sure some people commit crimes and murders because of what is around them, i cant deny that gangs do certain things because that is where they are at, but at the same time their minds are weak and unable to overcome what heads in front of them.
I never said it would be instantaneous. It would take generations if not more to get the 'crime-free' society. And it will never be perfectly crime-free, no. But I believe it will be better. For example the fact that a man who believes he could hear the dogs ordering him to kill, or the taxi-driver who's voices tell him where to find customers, in a smaller more communal society these disturbances would most certainly be more noticeable. Without a doubt.



Also some people just cannot control themselves, whether it is their desires (pedophilia or money or just simple lusts) or their inability to understand life (drug use to escape, suicide.) Some things are just out of our control and sometimes it is just left up to the person, if the person can even help themselves.
This is done to cope with the modern society. If that is changed perhaps people will be able to control themselves. Also I think we need a better definition of self-control in this instance. Because for example, I believe in a sexually open society between mature consenting folks, and if people fuck like bunnies, I wouldn't consider that a lack of self-control, I'd approve of that.

wheelchairman
01-16-2005, 12:27 PM
Killing/war is actually in our genes. Apperently, it's to further survival of the fittest; we can kill our weaker adversaries to ensure that the best gene is passed on.
Then why isn't there even more war and murder? Why does it only happen for the most part in certain societies and not in others?

sKratch
01-16-2005, 01:02 PM
Because I have a girlfriend.

wheelchairman
01-16-2005, 01:05 PM
ack sKratch u r zoooooo annoying *teehee*

RXP
01-16-2005, 01:25 PM
An amusing typo. I would say Marxist jurists are for more progressive than most jurists today. For every law written today that is for the benefit of society as a whole, you will find ten that in some way protects the rights of the rich.



Hahahaha wtf. Every law written today protects the rights of the rich. Every?! Are you telling me the various statues passed to create inheritance tax and the countless other minor instraments both statutory and under the common law are for the benefit of the rich? This is where Marxists are just deluded. Granted 200 years ago statutes were clearly passed to protect the rich's property. For example, the infamous Waltham Black Act. But now days. No. At least in the UK. Just think how a statute is passed in England. The Lords is can be ignored by invoking the Parliament Act. Best example of this is the recent fox hunting ban. Those who aim to protect the rich, i.e. those who sit on the lords which has been hugely reformed have little power now days but to delay legislation.

C'mon you seriously can't believe that?

And we'll agree to disagree with the link about genes and upbringing. Are you trying to say sexual prefereance is to do with upbringing? Gays, bis, people attracted to fat chicks, old chicks, he she men etc. it's all in the genes. Environment has something to do with it, yes. But to say a society will hardly have any crime if they adopt your proposals is extremely myopic.

You need to study criminlogy a great deal more and you need to take a look at jurisprudential theories of the concept of law before you believe the Marxist bull shit.

RXP
01-16-2005, 01:32 PM
Right and wrong are defined today by the rulers of the current system, that is why the emphasis on not hurting property is so important, when it only really hurts the rich people who have property, or why stealing is looked down upon.

No! Seriously dude you show your lack of knowledge in this field. Google up positivism. Right and wrong are NOT defined by the current system it works the other way round. At least not in all aspects. You'd love jurisprudence man. Read up on Marxist jurists you'll cum.

wheelchairman
01-16-2005, 01:54 PM
I have a small 30 page some text on Positivism, I'm gonna read that, then I will come back and write a reply.

And I'll give you that I do not know much of jurisprudence, but my views on good and evil and whatnot, were not originally from a marxist perspective, more of a nihilist perspective, I just twinged it with marxism later on. Actually I think you would really enjoy Nietzche, with your views on Social Darwinism and a necessity for social programs (at least at some points I think you believe in social programs, I'm not always sure on this.) You've probably read Nietzche already though.

wheelchairman
01-16-2005, 02:06 PM
ah turns out the text is 76 pages, and while that's alright, it's also in Danish (certainly not my mother tongue, a language I've only been speaking for 3 years). So tonight I will not be able to finish it seeing as it's heavy in philosophical terms (while these are easily translated since it's all from Latin, not all of them make sense.)

Anyways, up above you misunderstood me, I didn't say every law was passed to the advantage of the rich, I just said most laws were this. And that's perfectly natural of every system in my opinion, to preserve ones system one must be conservative (classical sense of the term). (If this is really wrong, please correct me)

Can you recommend some good jurisprudential texts? (both marxist and non-marxist) I'll see if the library has it, or I'll buy them when I'm in the states this summer.

RXP
01-16-2005, 02:10 PM
Basically it's law and morality are seperate. And while law influences morality and morality influences law they are two seprate things. So law (as the hippies say the 'system') can influence what is right or wrong it can't to any great deal.

The law is only one tool for shaping morality other things are of importance. And to say the current system of law is what decides is morally right is wrong IMHO. An action can be lawful without being moral and unlawful while being moral. They are both seperate.

What is right or wrong is an interpretive thing from society. Obviously they can't exisist in some metaphysical objective proovable point X is right, Y is wrong. But it is there nonetheless because by it's very definition socities morality is the objective defintion. That's why the argument that nothing is every right or wrong it's what society says it is, is easily defeated by this argument. And the argument is attempted to be disproved by use of extreme examples like in Nazi germany etc.

I just really don't get your idea that theft is bad because it's the ruling classes property rights that are hurt. It's not, it's everyone. We all own property. The ENTIRE economy is hurt by theft. While, granted in ancient times laws where passed to protect the Kings fedualistic system of land holding and keep the stautus quo. To propose that they are still done for the same reason is fuckin crazy.

I can't understand, and never will understand the Marxist perspective. While I agree some laws are passed or 'interpreted' from the precedents or stautes to protect the rich the majority, now days, are not but for socities benefit. Not for the rich elite.

I think I went on a slight tangent cause I love jurisprudence.

And btw, I ain't heard of that guy let alone read any of him. Dispite this sounding arogant most of what I think doesn't come from theories it's from my own brain and usually there's someone who also thinks alike. Unlike most here I am not real read outside my course (heck even in my course!) but just have the knack of blagging so people think I read alot. I'll look into him tho.

RXP
01-16-2005, 02:19 PM
Can you recommend some good jurisprudential texts? (both marxist and non-marxist) I'll see if the library has it, or I'll buy them when I'm in the states this summer.

If you really wanna go heavy into it and love the orignal texts there's none better than "Lloyds introduction to jurisprudence". It has extracts from all the major thinkers in the field and *goes and checks for Marxists*. There's 78 pages on Marxists theories. But it's huge. Like 1200+ pages and it cost me 35. It ain't really for casual reading but for students.

But if you just want a general reading of theories of law JG Riddall has an excellent secondary source book which is just called "Jurisprudence". It has an orange and blue cover and pubished by ButterWorths. That's really fun to read and gets you thinking. Then you can just do net searches.

There's plenty on the net about it.

But I don't really know your interest in the field, I suspect it would be from the more political aspect so not the abstract concepts of "what is law". If you are interested in 'what is law' H.L.A Hart's "The Concept of Law" is like the bible of Jurisprudence. But it's a tough read if your a lay person.

And an interesting take of policy v law and how it shapes and who it's for is any book on American Legal Realism.

wheelchairman
01-16-2005, 02:23 PM
He's very good, pick up Thus Spoke Zarathustra by him, it's slow reading in the beginning, but picks up rather fast, and as far as philosophy goes, it's rather interesting. I'll admit reading Marx is very slow, and will be mostly boring.

While it makes sense, some of what you said. I find morality to be a purely religious phenomenon that seeps it's ways into other parts. Religion in my mind, has been abused when it becomes part of the state apparatus. (Constantin's abomination of Christianity is a great example of this.) And since then, Christianity's morals that were beneficial to the property owners, have always been numero uno (although it's ironic since I find Jesus to be practically a revolutionary socialist.) I mean, this mindset comes into that of the law-makers (who I consider for the most-part to be members of the bourgeois, and who will try and protect their interests.) Laws, I would actually say, most laws are harmful to the lower classes, because they commit the most crimes, and are the ones who end up in prison.

Basically, in your analysis law and morality are separate. But how I understand it is, law and morality make up part of the foundation of the pyramid, on top of which, sits the ruling class.

On theft, it's not that I find theft as in I punch you and take your wallet, no I mean more in the idea of theft in itself. Our own personal objects seem almost holy. And this is because the people who own like 70% of all property are the ones who need it to be holy so that people won't think "what the fuck? why can't I have a house too?" you know? I mean I always grew up thinking stealing was wrong, but who cares if I steal from someone who has too much? My heart doesn't cry when a rich store loses money, or when a rich man loses a whole lot.

These are my thoughts just concerning what you wrote, it is possible I misunderstood something.

wheelchairman
01-16-2005, 02:25 PM
If you really wanna go heavy into it and love the orignal texts there's none better than "Lloyds introduction to jurisprudence". It has extracts from all the major thinkers in the field and *goes and checks for Marxists*. There's 78 pages on Marxists theories. But it's huge. Like 1200+ pages and it cost me 35. It ain't really for casual reading but for students.

But if you just want a general reading of theories of law JG Riddall has an excellent secondary source book which is just called "Jurisprudence". It has an orange and blue cover and pubished by ButterWorths. That's really fun to read and gets you thinking. Then you can just do net searches.

There's plenty on the net about it.

But I don't really know your interest in the field, I suspect it would be from the more political aspect so not the abstract concepts of "what is law". If you are interested in 'what is law' H.L.A Hart's "The Concept of Law" is like the bible of Jurisprudence. But it's a tough read if your a lay person.

And an interesting take of policy v law and how it shapes and who it's for is any book on American Legal Realism.

Alright I'm definitely going to check out the JG Riddall book and add it to my list of books I need to read. If I like it, I'll try and delve into the more hardcore stuff.

RXP
01-16-2005, 02:34 PM
Yeah true, I might come over as a conservative but I'm far from it. I believe in 70-80% tax bands on incomes over 100k. I went to a private school so you can imagine how popular that view was! And even now I'm surrounded by middle classes who I hate. They're spoilt cunts. I work my ass off to pay my own way thru uni and they let dady do it.

When a rich person loses his money I don't care. But the idea of personal property is needed. As you know I believe that there has to be a rulling class because without them we'd be lost. And now at least in England the old system is going out with huge constitutional reform (I explained the Lords reform) so the commons is responsbile for the law. So these are the common people so to sepak. Obviously they are middle class themselves but they are closer to our level than in decades past so it's fairer.

The only problem with teh system in the UK is the judiciary. They are still white, middle class, oxbrdige. So the way they interpret the statues and precedents means that, yes the rich benefit in most cases.

But the Marxists for me just go to far. From what I've seen of the law I just can't see it. It was EXACTLY like the Marxists described hundereds of years ago in Britan. The law was purely there to protect land holdings e.g. capital punishment for property damage under the Waltham Black Act. But now days, I really can't see it.

And I really don't think morality has little to do with religon. While things like monogmy and things may the 'big' moral concepts like treat others etc. is just human nature to get on well. Morality is like a method of non governmental public order. Unwritten law. Something so we all get along. While religon did influence it, i woudln't say it's for the worst that it did. Right and wrong do not exsist in an objective way, but that's silly they don't need to for something to be deemed right. Cause for somethig to be right it has to be for society to say so otherwise it looses all it's value.

This is where people like Sic (heck even me) are wrong when they say "it's just what society says" of course it is! That's the whole point.

Leo_ARG
01-16-2005, 02:35 PM
But yes some humans are genetically progammed to have a higher perpensity to commit crime.



And that's exactly why we should keep an aye on those who are weak mentally and can't contain their instincts.If you take care of them and show them the way you have more chances to avoid such crimes.

Note that a prison doesen't offer that help.

Leo_ARG
01-16-2005, 02:48 PM
Nietzche is great, I would recommend "Besides the good and the bad" , that's how it translates from spanish so the "official" name should be alike.
I've been told that the Zaraturtsa book is worthless because Nietzche ends up creating a man with godlike's power, and he reaches that trying to prove that a God doesen't exists.
And beware because not all Nietzche books are writed by him, I've been told his sister finished some in his place.The one I reccomend was entirely writed by him.
I may change my opinion some day, but right now "The Prisons" by Kropotkin is the best I could find.

Sh!t I really wanna improve my english, I have a hard time to find the words, I am glad I have time to write ;) . But doing this frecuently could help me improve, doesen't it?

RXP
01-16-2005, 02:52 PM
Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Ha yes that's on edonkey, downloading it now.

wheelchairman
01-16-2005, 03:05 PM
LEO_ARG- You mean "Beyond Good And Evil" which was written after Thus Spoke Zarathustra (meaning Thus Spoke also was left alone by his sister).

You'll enjoy it, but I hate reading books on computer screens so I don't know how you can. Just remember what I said about a slow beginning.

RXP
01-16-2005, 03:15 PM
Yeah I ain't gonna read it on computer, print it out. My ink is like 99p a cart and paper is cheap.

wheelchairman
01-16-2005, 03:19 PM
what? you got connections in the Ink cart industry?

RXP
01-16-2005, 03:27 PM
hahaha no Canon ink is so cheap. Imatation that is. Even fuckin original is only 4.50

Moose
01-16-2005, 06:02 PM
why do you all hate the rich?

envy envy envy...

i suppose because you feel they control everything...well in some cases they may, but even for the littlest things, you just seem to hate rich people in general...who cares if they are rich, you cant say every rich person is a thief or evil, some actually worked hard to get where they are, and some might actually live good decent lives...hell some contribute more than any of us ever will.

money isnt life.

Betty
01-16-2005, 06:37 PM
It's true, you can't generalize at all.

Basically I feel a certain amount of bitterness towards those who totally get free rides in life (e.g. daddy paid my way through college, and gives me $500/week so I can buy ridiculously expensive purses/shoes/etc.) Certainly not hatred though.

And then sometimes I wonder whether it really IS envy. Cause why do I even care so much? I should just ignore those people. But then I think that not being rich has built so much more character in me, and being the type of person I am, I wouldn't accept money from my parents for school even if they were super rich. So I don't know if my feelings of bitterness are fair at all.

Leo_ARG
01-16-2005, 07:05 PM
Heredatory wealth...it's just isn't allright.It isn't fair...
But nobady hates someone for that.The son doesen't have the fault of what his dad might have done, so he deserverves to be treated well.But again, does he deserve all he is got without doing any effort?

RXP
01-16-2005, 09:35 PM
It's the free ride thing. I know one friend of mine. I'm pretty sure he's a millionaire but he has his own businesses and does his own thing. Sure his parents pay his rent, buy his car etc. but they he still did get a job and stuff.

One of my dick house mates. Well he puts his entire student loan into a savings account and his dad pays his rent and gives him money to live on. He is so spoilt, never has had a job and acts like a cunt.

Heck even one of my close mates is a spoilt middle class bitch.

It's not envy for rich people it's the free ride thing.

Betty
01-16-2005, 11:46 PM
But being appreciative of what one has is at least a step in the right direction, regardless of whether one has worked to contribute financially towards his or her life. For example, a friend of mine has well-off parents who have always paid for his schooling, etc. However, during summers he either continues school, or volunteers instead. And he does not waste money.

I still find it hard to believe that somebody can be entirely appreciative though, unless they have experienced not having what they do.

wheelchairman
01-17-2005, 02:28 AM
Dislike of the rich is far from envy, my Grandpa was a banker for example, while my other Grandpa was a blacksmith. Back in the states I could see the obvious well-to-do-ness of my mother's parents, and in Denmark I could see the bare-to-the-goddamn-bone existence of my father's parents.

When I use the term rich, I use it under the marxist-definition of bourgeois. I don't use bourgeois because it's really only a marxist buzz-word anymore and I don't expect anyone here to have a comprehensive understanding of what it means. I don't mean all rich people, I have nothing against people who win the lottery, or doctor's, or *certain* lawyers. I mostly have a problem with business owners who have made money by exploiting the poor.

And I don't think the majority of rich people deserve the ratio of money they have earned in accordance with the ratio of work. Perhaps a small minority have, but the majority of rich haven't. The majority of rich have earned their money through hard work, it's just the hard work of others.

RXP
01-17-2005, 04:02 AM
Just doing some reading on Kelson and


the notion of a social order requiring no sanctions either looks back to a Golden Age or foward (as with Marxism) to a Utopian society. It is in fact the 'negation of society,' based on the illustion of the natural goodness of man"

This is exactly what I think. Why we need sanction and prisons. The natural goodness of man is an illusion.

Leo_ARG
01-17-2005, 09:02 AM
I don't believe in goodness, I believe in education.
Someone who's educated well and doesen't have mental problems won't kill.
We all have feelings and we can all make mistakes, but hurting someone just because "it's on my gens" doesen't happen.

pOpe
01-17-2005, 12:15 PM
Yeah, but a "good education" is so subjective... it depends on the different cultures, for example, in many arabian countries people think that women have to be submissive (or unresisting? sorry, I don't know the right word). Why do you think that our culture is better than others?
________
Jaguar Xjr-9 Specifications (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Jaguar_XJR-9)

SicN Twisted
01-17-2005, 05:56 PM
I missed alot, so I'll have to take it bit by bit. First off I'll reply to this Osama nonsence - Osama Bin Laden is not a criminal, he's a leader of war, and he's engaged in a war with his enemies. He's no different then any other military leader or statesman. His attacks are also reletively benign, although this is because he lacks resources to attack as viciously as his enemies., but objectively, he's made commendable progress.

Now onto crimes. I don't think crimes are human nature, but I also don't think they mean anything aside from the fact that they're violations of laws. Laws, just like crimes, are created by men and exist only through the eyes of men, and since there are just as many lawmakers as criminals, laws are no more legitimate then crimes. Crimes will only stop existing in a society when laws stop existing, because there cannot be one without the other. No tyrant can be absolute, and tyranny can go without opposition, this applies to the tyranny of laws. For every heinous crime, there is a heinous law, and for every crime that can be justified, there is a law that can be justified. Since countries have different laws, countries have different crimes. Education cannot get rid of crime, because the most widespread form of crime is corperate crime in capitalist society. In a communist society, state crime replaces corperate crime. Crimes are not just alleyway robberies, they have various natures. I think by ending prisons and seeing crimes as psychological occurences, their motivations can be explained. Also, if a certain crime is committed constantly, maybe that means the law against it should be changed.

Generally, I'm against laws. I think they perpetuate top down tyranny, and the only way to end crime is to build a society where laws are not neccesary either.

Moose
01-17-2005, 08:14 PM
I missed alot, so I'll have to take it bit by bit. First off I'll reply to this Osama nonsence - Osama Bin Laden is not a criminal, he's a leader of war, and he's engaged in a war with his enemies. He's no different then any other military leader or statesman. His attacks are also reletively benign, although this is because he lacks resources to attack as viciously as his enemies., but objectively, he's made commendable progress.

Now onto crimes. I don't think crimes are human nature, but I also don't think they mean anything aside from the fact that they're violations of laws. Laws, just like crimes, are created by men and exist only through the eyes of men, and since there are just as many lawmakers as criminals, laws are no more legitimate then crimes. Crimes will only stop existing in a society when laws stop existing, because there cannot be one without the other. No tyrant can be absolute, and tyranny can go without opposition, this applies to the tyranny of laws. For every heinous crime, there is a heinous law, and for every crime that can be justified, there is a law that can be justified. Since countries have different laws, countries have different crimes. Education cannot get rid of crime, because the most widespread form of crime is corperate crime in capitalist society. In a communist society, state crime replaces corperate crime. Crimes are not just alleyway robberies, they have various natures. I think by ending prisons and seeing crimes as psychological occurences, their motivations can be explained. Also, if a certain crime is committed constantly, maybe that means the law against it should be changed.

Generally, I'm against laws. I think they perpetuate top down tyranny, and the only way to end crime is to build a society where laws are not neccesary either.

i would try to reply to this statement, but my head might explode...its quite ridiclous really...osama isnt a criminal, his crimes were minor, and you basically said laws induce crimes...maybe im the one who is wrong here, maybe you can clear this up.

Leo_ARG
01-17-2005, 08:38 PM
Yeah, but a "good education" is so subjective... it depends on the different cultures, for example, in many arabian countries people think that women have to be submissive (or unresisting? sorry, I don't know the right word). Why do you think that our culture is better than others?


I don't see the problem, it is subjective and...what?
To do something you don't need the 100% aprovall from the rest of society.If I tell my son that to lie is never right, because sooner or later it will show, I'll do it and I don't care what the other say, I've got all the liberty to do it.
If I say to my child that to kill someone isn't wrong, the rest of the people will.It's subjective, but most of the people will think that, and I don't see a problem with it.

One more thing: about the good education thing, to tell the one who's being educated what's right and wrong isn't as effective and convinient than teaching and educating every person to understand what freedom is, and how to use it.That he can't mess with other people freedom's, because if he does he loses his own freedom to.If you understand the concept of freedom you can decide by yourself if something is wrong or right.It's a matter of responsability.

RXP
01-17-2005, 11:33 PM
Osama Bin Laden is not a criminal

Incorrect. A criminal is a person who has broken the law. Bin Laden has broken many laws. The logical conclusion is that he is a criminal in because of some statute passed in the US he can be convicted even though he is not aprehended. Under United States law he is a criminal.

You can't just say he's fighting a war. He is a criminal in the laws eyes and that's the only eyes you need to be concerned with. Not your own morality or what you think defines a criminal it's how the law does.

SicN Twisted
01-18-2005, 12:25 AM
According to US law, he's a criminal, but he's not a US citizen and not applicable to US juristication. According to Saudi Law, the country of his citizenship, he's not a criminal. Morally, H consider him the lesser of two evils compared to Bush and other American leaders. I don't like him or agree with him, but I do respect him because while his methods are no more noble then ours, he has more integrity because he doesn't lie to his own people and is quite clear about his motives, something I can't say about our own president.

A criminal means a hundred different things in a hundred different languages. In his own country he's not a criminal, he's a soldier, so I don't think of him as a criminal.

Moose, as usual, I won't take anything you say seriously until you back it up with some sort of intelligent reasoning.

pOpe
01-18-2005, 07:04 AM
and the question now is, what to do with these kind of people (like Osama, or Bush)?? there aren't criminals, but they kill people... so what? Is the solution kill Osama for example? I don't think that, this is stupid
________
CUSTOM 500 (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Custom_500)

intothevalleyofdeath
01-18-2005, 07:05 AM
i think the death penalty in general is unfair...so what if he killed people, we would only be sinking to his level if we killed him

pOpe
01-18-2005, 07:23 AM
yeah, but what can we do? let them kill more people?? prisons the solution? On the one hand I don't belive that prisons can rehabilitate a person, on the other hand I don't think that these kind of people have to be rehabilitated
________
BUY EXTREME Q VAPORIZER (http://www.vaporshop.com/extreme-q-vaporizer.html)

intothevalleyofdeath
01-18-2005, 07:24 AM
i say lock em up forever

pOpe
01-18-2005, 07:27 AM
So you think that prisons are the solution... why?? you belive that a prison can rehabilitate people?
________
Forester (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Subaru_Forester)

intothevalleyofdeath
01-18-2005, 07:27 AM
even if it cant...lock up killers for life so they can live with what they have done

pOpe
01-18-2005, 07:34 AM
Do you think that the punishment is better than the rehabilitation? do you think that the suffering is better than a person can some day recover his life? do you think that a person who has killed and be free in 20 years is not going to return to kill because they have mistreated to him in one prison?
________
IPOD GAMES (http://macgame.org)

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 07:34 AM
So now we're doing some kind of medieval grounding (go to your room and think about what you done!).

No, the thing with people like Osama is, he's not insane, he's a rebel (whether you agree with him or not). He can't be rehabilitated because his actions are partially justified. Whether we like it or not, the WTC is a legitimate target of war. (Ecnomic center of a nation, I think so.)

pOpe
01-18-2005, 07:51 AM
yes, another example... what about 11 M terrorist?? a train is not an economic center... have they to be rehabilitated?? have they go to prison?? it was an ideologic attack
________
SV650 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Suzuki_SV650)

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 07:58 AM
Hey man, I'm fairly certain Steven Seagal kicked their ass while trying to save his niece. Weren't you paying attention?

pOpe
01-18-2005, 08:08 AM
....................................... :confused:
________
Bmw M5 (E28) (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_M5_(E28))

Moose
01-18-2005, 06:58 PM
According to US law, he's a criminal, but he's not a US citizen and not applicable to US juristication. According to Saudi Law, the country of his citizenship, he's not a criminal. Morally, H consider him the lesser of two evils compared to Bush and other American leaders. I don't like him or agree with him, but I do respect him because while his methods are no more noble then ours, he has more integrity because he doesn't lie to his own people and is quite clear about his motives, something I can't say about our own president.

A criminal means a hundred different things in a hundred different languages. In his own country he's not a criminal, he's a soldier, so I don't think of him as a criminal.

Moose, as usual, I won't take anything you say seriously until you back it up with some sort of intelligent reasoning.


If his methods are no more noble then ours, and you dont respect us (such as bush or possibly the entire u.s.,) then how do you respect osama...

and of course he lies, the guy is wearing a fucking digital watch, but hates all u.s. culture. come on.

it really just seems everyday you people follow this cool trend of hating bush and hating america and throw out any sort of rational thinking...of course osama is a criminal and he deserves no respect.

plus do we all just ignore any sort of law here? I mean sort of like moral law, such as the reasoning that killing is wrong, even if the person isnt part of the united states, I think any rational person would believe that murder is wrong.

SicN Twisted
01-18-2005, 09:39 PM
I mentioned how I respect Osama lready diship, he's honest about his convictions, unlike the US.

fuckin sweet
01-18-2005, 10:42 PM
when you're in prison, don't turn the other way
keep your back against the wall
when you're in prison, don't turn the other way
do not bend at all

oh don't pick up the soap, pick up the soap
it's bad for you

oh don't pick up the soap, pick up the soap
someone will be waiting there for you

when you're in prison be sure to stay awake
always lie upon your back

when you're in prison be sure to stay awake
keep you from attack

oh don't be no one's bitch, be no one's bitch
it's bad for you

oh don't be no one's bitch, be no one's bitch
they won't help you make it through.

when you're in prison, don't turn the other way
follow what i say to do.

when you're in prison, don't turn the other way
you can make it through
you can make it through
you can make it through

wheelchairman
01-18-2005, 11:29 PM
If his methods are no more noble then ours, and you dont respect us (such as bush or possibly the entire u.s.,) then how do you respect osama...

and of course he lies, the guy is wearing a fucking digital watch, but hates all u.s. culture. come on.

it really just seems everyday you people follow this cool trend of hating bush and hating america and throw out any sort of rational thinking...of course osama is a criminal and he deserves no respect.

plus do we all just ignore any sort of law here? I mean sort of like moral law, such as the reasoning that killing is wrong, even if the person isnt part of the united states, I think any rational person would believe that murder is wrong.
I thought watches were a swiss thing?

Mota Boy
01-18-2005, 11:36 PM
I mentioned how I respect Osama lready diship...
I was looking at that for a good fifteen seconds, trying to think who the fuck "Osama Iready Dinship" was.

I've jumped into this thread far to late to make any sort of insightful contribution.

intothevalleyofdeath
01-19-2005, 08:55 AM
Do you think that the punishment is better than the rehabilitation? do you think that the suffering is better than a person can some day recover his life? do you think that a person who has killed and be free in 20 years is not going to return to kill because they have mistreated to him in one prison?
people that are in prisons rehabilitate themselves if they want to...you cant force anybody to change...i personally know a man who teaches in a prison and each day he prays for the people who have found God and Jesus and i think it is a good thing that people who have committed horrific acts can find the good in themselves and ask for forgiveness and be forgiven

pOpe
01-19-2005, 02:24 PM
people that are in prisons rehabilitate themselves if they want to...you cant force anybody to change...i personally know a man who teaches in a prison and each day he prays for the people who have found God and Jesus and i think it is a good thing that people who have committed horrific acts can find the good in themselves and ask for forgiveness and be forgiven


I don't belive in God so this is an stupid argument... and I think that if that people is helped by other people it'll be more easy for they to find the right way, don't you? It's like that people help another person to leave drugs, for example... it's better that form
________
New Mexico Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (http://newmexico.dispensaries.org/)

Moose
01-19-2005, 02:32 PM
I thought watches were a swiss thing?

what can i say?, osama has good taste.