American society

Diuretic said:
Funny you'd use Burke, the bloke who told his electors he would vote on how he saw things, not on how they wanted him to vote.
Click to expand...
Yes. Well. Pure democracy is 4 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. SO maybe he ain't all that bad. I prefer a dictatorship where everyone is commanded to be cool.
How are people going to be informed of their real situation? There are people who watch Fox and think they're getting objective journalism.
Click to expand...

Sites like this one. You could be telling the truth instead of making arguments that people should be denied truth out of spite, because you feel superior to them. Fuck you and your elitism. Sincerely.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yes. Well. Pure democracy is 4 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. SO maybe he ain't all that bad. I prefer a dictatorship where everyone is commanded to be cool.


Sites like this one. You could be telling the truth instead of making arguments that people should be denied truth out of spite, because you feel superior to them. Fuck you and your elitism. Sincerely.
Click to expand...

What makes you feel the need to be so spiteful? Are you just immature?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Oh I thought you were implying that punishment is some sort of retrograde concept that should be abandoned, and was in that sense "backward looking". I didn't realize you were stating the obvious like a moron. Of course people are punished for crimes in the past. No doubt. Punishment as a concept will be with us throughout time, however. Crimes in the past must be punished so citizens can see for themselves that crimes WILL be punished; thus, punishment prevents future crimes. Can you understand that?

Another important feature of imprisonment is protecting the populace from the miscreant in the present time.
Click to expand...

You bother me.
 
Diuretic said:
That's your opinion and fair enough. But there are a lot of opinions that disagree with you, that retribution has its place in sentencing.
Click to expand...

Argument ad numerum.

I don't believe in doing hurtful things for no other reasons that to indulge our more barbaric natures. I'm a humanist and an individualist and a liberal.
 
Diuretic said:
No bleeding here, not even a touch of bruised ego, just some amusement at your antics. If you worked on your logic as hard as you work on your insults you might be worth reading.
Click to expand...

My arguments are fine. You prefer not to address them, because you can't, so you play victim.
 
Watermark said:
Argument ad numerum.

I don't believe in doing hurtful things for no other reasons that to indulge our more barbaric natures. I'm a humanist and an individualist and a liberal.
Click to expand...

I always find it amusing to have an assertion of fallacy put forward as a substitute for a substantive response. Are you grading my paper? I didn't realise this was a formal logic class. But let me give you a tip - treat a rhetorical point for what it is and don't get confused into thinking it's a claim with warrant.

You may claim to be a humanist, an individualist and a liberal but I'm not interested in how you label yourself. I could claim the same and it wouldn't matter a whit. What I am interested in is your thoughts. On retribution, I'm arguing that it is a valid part of sentencing policy. If you think it has no place in sentencing policy then you are wrong, simple as that. I don't care what your personal philosophies are, they're subjective. The objective fact is that retribution is a valid component of sentencing policy.

Your reference to "our barbaric natures" is revealing. If I used the term "condemnation" instead of "retribution" would that be less confronting?
 
Diuretic said:
I always find it amusing to have an assertion of fallacy put forward as a substitute for a substantive response. Are you grading my paper? I didn't realise this was a formal logic class. But let me give you a tip - treat a rhetorical point for what it is and don't get confused into thinking it's a claim with warrant.

You may claim to be a humanist, an individualist and a liberal but I'm not interested in how you label yourself. I could claim the same and it wouldn't matter a whit. What I am interested in is your thoughts. On retribution, I'm arguing that it is a valid part of sentencing policy. If you think it has no place in sentencing policy then you are wrong, simple as that. I don't care what your personal philosophies are, they're subjective. The objective fact is that retribution is a valid component of sentencing policy.

Your reference to "our barbaric natures" is revealing. If I used the term "condemnation" instead of "retribution" would that be less confronting?
Click to expand...

If you think it has a place in sentencing policy then you are wrong, simple as that.
 
AssHatZombie said:
My arguments are fine. You prefer not to address them, because you can't, so you play victim.
Click to expand...

I'l say it again because you missed it - I haven't put my argument yet. I'm working on it. It has something to do with monotheism but I haven't finished thinking about it.
 
Watermark said:
If you think it has a place in sentencing policy then you are wrong, simple as that.
Click to expand...

If I can dig up references that prove retribution has a valid place in sentencing policy, will you accept them - at least for the sake of continuing the discussion?
 
Watermark said:
As a negative and a negative multiplied together make a positive, two wrongs make a right.
Click to expand...

In what context? Since I haven't put forward retribution as being a negative I think you're making a hasty assumption. Be patient. Wait for me to try and find some proofs of my claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top