UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Crysuko]

Why?

It makes more sense to me to enslave persistent criminals than to constantly punish them for crimes that they cannot really help committing. It makes more sense to remove financial independence from people who can't help being stony broke all the time.

or we could address the root problem, or take the american doctor root and treat the symptom

[HMS Barham]

It makes more sense to me to enslave persistent criminals than to constantly punish them for crimes that they cannot really help committing. It makes more sense to remove financial independence from people who can't help being stony broke all the time.

or we could address the root problem, or take the american doctor root and treat the symptom

My solution does address the root, whereas imprisoning persistent criminals for each individual crime is addressing each symptom as it comes up and missng the point.

[Philjia]

Tim going HAM

If the students knew their history they would have been aware that Gladstone started his political career as a Tory and became more radically liberal as he got older. By the end of his career, he was advocating for home rule, votes for women, and state pensions (And the abolition of income tax, because he really hated large governments.)

[Crysuko]

or we could address the root problem, or take the american doctor root and treat the symptom

My solution does address the root, whereas imprisoning persistent criminals for each individual crime is addressing each symptom as it comes up and missng the point.

No, it really doesn't. The root problem as I described it is exactly why these people commit crimes. the material and mental conditions. so how about instead of writing them off us "doh well, criminals gonna crime" we understand where it comes from, and lance the boil to it's source. putting them in chains as you describe is thinly veiled modern slavery, and would never be sanctioned.

[HMS Barham]

My solution does address the root, whereas imprisoning persistent criminals for each individual crime is addressing each symptom as it comes up and missng the point.

No, it really doesn't. The root problem as I described it is exactly why these people commit crimes. the material and mental conditions. so how about instead of writing them off us "doh well, criminals gonna crime" we understand where it comes from, and lance the boil to it's source. putting them in chains as you describe is thinly veiled modern slavery, and would never be sanctioned.

People don't commit crimes to achieve some absolute material standard of living. Pretty much everyone has a higher standard of living than the average 50 year old with no convictions of 1870. Criminality really is a mindset. People who are inclined to commit lots of crimes should be an environment where they can be stopped in the act and not face terrible consequences, rather than an environment where they can terrorise the neighbourhood until they get three strikes and you're out.

[Eastfield Lodge]

No, it really doesn't. The root problem as I described it is exactly why these people commit crimes. the material and mental conditions. so how about instead of writing them off us "doh well, criminals gonna crime" we understand where it comes from, and lance the boil to it's source. putting them in chains as you describe is thinly veiled modern slavery, and would never be sanctioned.

People don't commit crimes to achieve some absolute material standard of living. Pretty much everyone has a higher standard of living than the average 50 year old with no convictions of 1870. Criminality really is a mindset. People who are inclined to commit lots of crimes should be an environment where they can be stopped in the act and not face terrible consequences, rather than an environment where they can terrorise the neighbourhood until they get three strikes and you're out.

Why not just straight up execute all criminals?

[Crysuko]

No, it really doesn't. The root problem as I described it is exactly why these people commit crimes. the material and mental conditions. so how about instead of writing them off us "doh well, criminals gonna crime" we understand where it comes from, and lance the boil to it's source. putting them in chains as you describe is thinly veiled modern slavery, and would never be sanctioned.

People don't commit crimes to achieve some absolute material standard of living. Pretty much everyone has a higher standard of living than the average 50 year old with no convictions of 1870. Criminality really is a mindset. People who are inclined to commit lots of crimes should be an environment where they can be stopped in the act and not face terrible consequences, rather than an environment where they can terrorise the neighbourhood until they get three strikes and you're out.

This is just sounding like you not trying to understand where the mindset comes from, and just tarring every last criminal with the same brush. If they are indeed a repeat offender then it's clear the problem lies with their mind. they need help, not to be stripped of their humanity.

[HMS Barham]

People don't commit crimes to achieve some absolute material standard of living. Pretty much everyone has a higher standard of living than the average 50 year old with no convictions of 1870. Criminality really is a mindset. People who are inclined to commit lots of crimes should be an environment where they can be stopped in the act and not face terrible consequences, rather than an environment where they can terrorise the neighbourhood until they get three strikes and you're out.

Why not just straight up execute all criminals?

It's obvious why not execute "all" criminals.

Why not execute persistent criminals? It's not a terrible idea, a plausible alternative.

[HMS Barham]

People don't commit crimes to achieve some absolute material standard of living. Pretty much everyone has a higher standard of living than the average 50 year old with no convictions of 1870. Criminality really is a mindset. People who are inclined to commit lots of crimes should be an environment where they can be stopped in the act and not face terrible consequences, rather than an environment where they can terrorise the neighbourhood until they get three strikes and you're out.

This is just sounding like you not trying to understand where the mindset comes from, and just tarring every last criminal with the same brush. If they are indeed a repeat offender then it's clear the problem lies with their mind. they need help, not to be stripped of their humanity.

What I am proposing is help - create an environment that results in less bad outcomes for them given their mind.

You probably want to reprogram their mind or something. What evidence is there that that is possible? It's just wishful thinking.

[Crysuko]

Why not just straight up execute all criminals?

It's obvious why not execute "all" criminals.

Why not execute persistent criminals? It's not a terrible idea, a plausible alternative.

because it's hypocritical. It's basically legitimising "an eye for an eye" and that's a really godawful sentiment to build a society on

[HMS Barham]

It's obvious why not execute "all" criminals.

Why not execute persistent criminals? It's not a terrible idea, a plausible alternative.

because it's hypocritical. It's basically legitimising "an eye for an eye" and that's a really godawful sentiment to build a society on

You are making moral statements. I am proposing a system that is functional.

[Crysuko]

because it's hypocritical. It's basically legitimising "an eye for an eye" and that's a really godawful sentiment to build a society on

You are making moral statements. I am proposing a system that is functional.

a virus on your computer is functional, but it's inherently malevolent unless the creator has a moral compass. That's a way of saying that taking the humanity and morality out of governance goes to extreme unpleasent places.

[HMS Barham]

You are making moral statements. I am proposing a system that is functional.

a virus on your computer is functional, but it's inherently malevolent unless the creator has a moral compass. That's a way of saying that taking the humanity and morality out of governance goes to extreme unpleasent places.

A virus on my computer makes society as a whole less functional.

Morality is meant to be functional. When it becomes theology - moral claims totally divorced from reality based on some written tradition or set of arbitrary axioms - it becomes non-functional.

[Fartsniffage]

a virus on your computer is functional, but it's inherently malevolent unless the creator has a moral compass. That's a way of saying that taking the humanity and morality out of governance goes to extreme unpleasent places.

A virus on my computer makes society as a whole less functional.

Morality is meant to be functional. When it becomes theology - moral claims totally divorced from reality based on some written tradition or set of arbitrary axioms - it becomes non-functional.

Would the virus prevent you from posting your opinions in public spheres? Because if so I'd be tempted to make the opposite argument...

[Questers]

BRING
BACK
'ANGIN

[Crysuko]

a virus on your computer is functional, but it's inherently malevolent unless the creator has a moral compass. That's a way of saying that taking the humanity and morality out of governance goes to extreme unpleasent places.

A virus on my computer makes society as a whole less functional.

Morality is meant to be functional. When it becomes theology - moral claims totally divorced from reality based on some written tradition or set of arbitrary axioms - it becomes non-functional.

and the analogy goes entirely over your head. the point I am making is that "functionality" is governed by morality. if you take the humanity out, things get unpleasent.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Why not just straight up execute all criminals?

It's obvious why not execute "all" criminals.

Why not execute persistent criminals? It's not a terrible idea, a plausible alternative.

Is it though? If criminality is purely a genetic phenomenon, then surely removing any and all criminality from the genepool would be beneficial to society, right?

[Vassenor]

If criminality is purely a genetic phenomenon

*twitch*

[Crysuko]

It's obvious why not execute "all" criminals.

Why not execute persistent criminals? It's not a terrible idea, a plausible alternative.

Is it though? If criminality is purely a genetic phenomenon, then surely removing any and all criminality from the genepool would be beneficial to society, right?

[Questers]

Criminality is obviously not hereditary in the sense that sometimes breaking the speed limit is inherited from your parents, but very violent, antisocial conduct is probably highly heritable.

[Philjia]

Criminality is obviously not hereditary in the sense that sometimes breaking the speed limit is inherited from your parents, but very violent, antisocial conduct is probably highly heritable.

But not an insurmountable obstacle.

[Crysuko]

Criminality is obviously not hereditary in the sense that sometimes breaking the speed limit is inherited from your parents, but very violent, antisocial conduct is probably highly heritable.

i'm willing to bet if you took that same psychopath and raised them in a loving and supportive home that installed a respectable moral compass, they wouldn't be a criminal

[Questers]

Criminality is obviously not hereditary in the sense that sometimes breaking the speed limit is inherited from your parents, but very violent, antisocial conduct is probably highly heritable.

i'm willing to bet if you took that same psychopath and raised them in a loving and supportive home that installed a respectable moral compass, they wouldn't be a criminal

They might not be terrorising old ladies.

They'd just become a speculator who crashes enterprises for fun instead.

[Crysuko]

i'm willing to bet if you took that same psychopath and raised them in a loving and supportive home that installed a respectable moral compass, they wouldn't be a criminal

They might not be terrorising old ladies.

They'd just become a speculator who crashes enterprises for fun instead.

>implying this is a bad thing

[Liriena]

A better argument: abolishing slavery was a bad idea.

Counterpoint: John Brown did nothing wrong.