Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I don't think we have to venture into "cruel and unusual" territory to make prison less enjoyable. I'm not saying we should be running German dungeons managed by the Marquis de Sade.

Like I said, it would be better if our prisons were reformatories, but they aren't. There's a lot of problems that keep us from heading in that direction, like overcrowding (which is in turn caused by other problems, like the idiotic "war on drugs" that neither party seems inclined to part with because, you know, it's "for the kids") and the fact that we private industry deeply invested in lobbying to keep prisons full (one of the few times you'll here me argue against privatizing government functions). If we separated violent and non-violent offenders, made the non-violent offenders do work release to pay back whatever they had damaged/taken, and actually worked on reforming the violent offenders, I'd be all for making convicts cozy...if for no other reason than it would be an incentive: these are the kind of nice things you could have if you weren't beating/stabbing/shooting/raping people.

That sadly, is not the system we have. The one we have is, "you screwed up, this is how we fuck you." Ostensibly, that's supposed to "make an example" of the convicted. We're half-assing the "make an example" part of the equation. I agree it's a stupid system, but it's the one we're using, and if we're going to do it, we should do it "right." If you're going to do something stupid, you don't do it halfway.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Drug use, like violent crime, is a social problem, but the fact that both are symptoms of other underlying problems with society isn't a basis to legalize one any more than the other.

That said, there does seem to be a general consensus that some sort of outdoor penal colony type solution seems more preferable than the status quo, which everyone agrees isn't working. I remain convinced that the only way to fight crime effectively is massive community investment. Which will cost money and take time, and require a sea change in how Americans perceive social responsibility.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The perception change is the biggest barrier, imo.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

What distinction? How does one distinguish what is productive? Who's a gangster?



That bums me out.



I realized what you were saying, you didn't lose me that way.

I disagree with conscription.



Quite the opposite. You can also take what you're implying and choke yourself with it.



I was asking if the word "panhandle" was offensive. Panhandle was the best word I could come up with, and it still feels not right. Why would I find the act offensive? They aren't harming anybody.



I already do (spend towards the common good of my own initiative). Kindly fornicate your own asshole.

There's a difference between what people should do, and what people should be compelled to do. Don't for one second try and skew my refusal to take coercion to incredible lengths into some kind of misanthropy, greed or apathy.



5 cents that is refundable.

How do you not know how to spell 'Government'?

Prison violence isn't restricted to gangs, although they are an aggravating factor. You conflated several different labels - gangster, gangbanger, prison rapist, prison pugilist, etc. In this case I am referring to the latter two. But really the question is all the same, especially since prison gangs typically form along racial lines (CA prisons segregated blacks and Latinos for a long time for this reason).

So - going back to your question - on what rational and objective basis does one sort out those inclined to cause trouble in jail?



Why?



The reason is that humans naturally sort themselves into leaders and followers. People feel the instinctive urge to give to those they perceive as socially superior because they equate that social superiority with the interests of the group. This is a natural group survival adaptation. Unfortunately, it transposes in weird ways into modern society, and conflicts badly with the "selfish gene".



Because you implied that he had better than he deserved and suggested a patronizing and denigrating approach to his situation.



Elaborate.



You're 100% wrong and even you know it for exact reasons you took the initiative to dismiss.

The point of law is to make "what people should do" mandatory, and make "what people shouldn't do" forbidden. If people did the right things on their own, we wouldn't need laws, and hell the world would be a lot better than it is.

If someone is complaining about being forced to do something, then it's because they never had any intention of doing it in the first place. Anything to the contrary is an excuse.



The fact that bums can get by on that five cents proves that it is not refundable - at least not to you.

Money is coming out of your pocket, because the guvmint says so, and like it or not it is making at least one problem go away, that simply refused to go away until a law was passed and people were forced to do things they didn't want to do willingly.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Good question. It probably involves a pretty complicated answer involving psychology, observation, analysis and discretion.



I find it morally objectionable to force someone to be a soldier or a cop.



Oh, I see. I didn't mean it like that. I gave that extra bit of information because it seemed odd to me. We don't get nearly as many homeless in MN as I saw in Philadelphia or LA. Any homeless I have seen look at least somewhat indigent. This fellow did not. Though maybe I was surrounded by homeless while in these cities, and just didn't know it because they didn't approach me.

It seemed weird.



But it makes a lot more sense now.



I go to my old job a couple times a month. It's a grocery store. Bullshit with my old boss for a little bit and drop off food donations. They have a program where they match donations up to... I don't remember what it is. I'll ask next time.

I do work sometimes for one of the churches in town. From clearing driveways for old people in the winter to sorting clothing donations. Usually little things like that.

I do a variety of things for friends and family too, planting flowers on Meowth's family farm, driving a neighbor to the VA.



The purpose of law is to protect from illegitimate force and fraud. To protect persons and property from harm.

Just because a law makes people, or one that ostensibly makes people, do what they should do, doesn't mean it's a good law.



And people who advocate the force have every intention of getting everybody else to do what they have no intention of doing.

I can spew drivel too.



...what?

Also, g-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t.

Why so lame broseph

Druid: Meowth
« Steam »« Xfire »
Glorious Death Metal Music

But soldiers and cops are necessary in great abundance for our way of life to endure.
What makes you think people are entitled to the benefits of something they won't do?



Tax deductible and they can give them total trash. Food banks do not need more food. It's a scam.



The problem is, all of that is cheap and easy, and doesn't really change anything.

Planting flowers or shoveling snow or handing out rags is infinitely easier and less necessary than spending years patrolling a route somewhere or parting with cash to fund programs for the less fortunate.

Alms for the poor is an old racket and always more about vanity than getting real results. No amount of alms will correct the conditions resulting in poverty; that is more difficult.

People will willingly do that which is easy. They will not willingly do that which is hard. Doing hard things is necessary for life to get better. And making those hard things voluntary means that those who succeed will be those who do them the least.

The purpose of law is to bring self-interest and collective interest into sync by making people do things they don't like doing. The only argument to the contrary - libertarianism - is the "free lunch" argument, that difficult things that no one wants to do will somehow get done because someone will do them.



How do you decide what is and is not legitimate? Or who fairly owns what? Can I blow your head off or infect your PC because you're a software pirate? Or because the land you live on was stolen from Native Americans and homesteaded to someone by executive fiat?



Absolutely does. How not? Good is as good does.



Provably untrue. The entire point of taxation and conscription is that they are universal burdens, and the people who are benefiting from what I propose, at least directly - better communities for blacks and poor - are not me nor anything like me.



Cans are being picked up and bums are being kept busy, but only because the guvmint made it so.

As to what Meowth linked, the image is right on point, but I'm not sure if he grasps the irony or not.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Off the digression the point is made. People need to accept that we are all in this together and fixing the problem will involve some sort of sacrifice or compulsory behavior by basically everyone.

Americans don't easily accept that.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.