Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

The problem with them recieving those things is that we have people, who have not broken the law, that do not recieve those things.

So, prison is hard. Boo-hoo..

If you don't want to go to prison, don't break the law.
It's worked for me for 25 years, I'd be crazy to think otherwise.
Granted, there are innocent people in prison, but, as I said, that is an indictment on the criminal justice system(which really needs work, but that is a whole other topic), not on prison itsself.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Oh. My. God. I just got this GREAT idea! Let's kill all the bad people in the world so that us good people can reign surpreme! [/Frotzer speak]



Sorry, couldn't resist.

(No, stop taking me serious! I didn't mean it! What are you doing? No! NO! GAHHH!!!! X_X)

_________________

Reading StrongRad's post made me think that maybe if they made prison tougher, then less people would do criminal acts. Such things as, TV in prisons, any kind of activities besides gym type stuff, hot water in the showers (if there is), horrible food, The works. If people keep improving living conditions in prisons then it kind of defeats the purpose (or atleast A purpose).

_________________

I don't know if I agree with that totally. As long as there are humans, I think there will always be criminals. Making prison tougher might reduce crime a little, but, most of the people who would be deterred by tougher prison probably aren't the people commiting crimes anyway.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

And you know what, you're completly right. That's why the death penalty hasn't been illegalized yet.

_________________

Yes. We seriously need to toughen up prisons. For goodness sakes, it is PUNISHMENT! Punishment does not include cable TV or anything like that. And Rosalie, sometimes people cannot change. Tookie is one of the few cases in which people change on death row. As for the death penalty, it is warented in some cases. Such as the Manson case, BTK, The Sniper, Scott Peterson, and cases like that.

_________________
GENGHIS KHAN!!!!!

Well, everyone can change, just some peoples opprotunity is larger then others.

_________________

I'd say don't make it comfortable, but avoid something that will induce aggression/insanity-make it an extremely mundane existence, lacking in pleasure for the most part. That way, they're not better off than the typical non-prisoner, like many prisoners are (ugh), but you're still not breeding extreme feelings of resent towards the world in general, thus making rehabilitation that much harder.

Don't get me wrong-I'm not suggesting that conditions will entirely make or break rehabilitation efforts. I'm only talking about the potential effects, and the extent of those effects, of the conditions themselves.

I have a question. Many people say that letting people sit in jail is a harsher punishment than killing them. If that is true, then why do people on death row make so many appeals?

I think epople who say that are just guessing. Until they sit on death row and stare death in the face then I see no reason how they would what's worse.

_________________

No, they're not just guessing. They're considering it in the long term, but when you're on death row... yes, your perspective changes, but that's mainly because you start looking at things in the short term, and because while jail may be a harsher punishment, you have hope of becoming free, which is why they make those appeals. They don't think it a better choice (not necessarily, at least), but you -do- have better prospects.

Those people are not making it up, so you can't say that they are, which you seem rudely confident about.

EDIT: Well, I was slightly offended, as I do hold that opinion and don't like an opinion I've come to hold as the result of logical deliberation referred to as 'just guessing'. But yes, the bad mood I mentioned over in OsD didn't help. Sorry.

Man, you need to calm down. I was just expressing my opinion, which you somehow interpreted as me being rude. If I offended you or anything Im sorry, but you really need to chill out when something doesn't agree with you.

_________________

That's a problem that needs to be dealth with on the side of the homeless, not the prisoners.

Going hard on the criminals will make more hardened criminals.



Boo-hoo? Well, it's "boo hoo" for you since you don't have to give a crap about the people who end up there. Thanks to your not quite binary but still very pimitive classing of human beings.



That's... incredibly stupid. I couldn't find which "single" logical fallacy that's based on so I'll have to explain to you myself why it's retarded.

First of all, it is a little similiar to the False Dilemna fallacy, as the apparent choice is between prison and not prison. That's what the False Dilemna is about; because the choice really isn't that simple.
People are not always aware of the direct outcomes of their actions. It is not that simple a choice, therefore, it is a false Dilemna.

But added on to that fallacy is the fact that the people setting the rules may not be just in their decisions. Arguing by authority is another logical fallacy as it presumes the authority in question is sound and reliable(authority used more in the sense of expert than prosectution system, but they overlap here).

Thirdly, another logical fallacy can be found in that it's making the false assumption that all or at least an overwhelming majority of people have actually done the crime, or the crime was one that is valid to jail someone for(which could be considered a crossover between two points, or even a whole new fourth one).

Combining 2 and 3, what if the person was doing something that was standing up for their rights and beliefs and was arrested? They certainly didn't want to do the time, but it was something they had to face. It doesn't make it fair, or make your statement any less inane.

Three logical fallacies in one line. Dude, you've set a record. And all these can be found on http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ and you'll see I'm essentially spot on.

I'm sure there's a specific fallacy that covers all that in one, but I've yet to find it. Plus, it's more amusing to do it this way.

Little tip, don't quote politicans or typical political phrases.



Which, as I said, makes your original statement sound dumb. And even if you were to remove that third point, the hypothetical fourth "crossover" point would take it's place.



Much like the death penalty itsself, you've still failed to provide a single reason why prison shouldn't be moderately comfortable. "The homeless don't" isn't an answer, as that just shows what a big joke capitalism is in the first place.



HOW is it warranted? The opposition has still failed to give a single reason why it's necessary to do it.

If there's even "a few" examples, that's more than enough argument against it.

The reason prison is hard is because it's supposed to be hard. If it was comfortable and nice, then some people would actually commit crimes to get into jail.

_________________

Then that shows how bad society is to allow things to get so horrible for people that they'd need to do that.

If you ask me, that's just capitalism biting itself in the butt and it kind of deserves it.

So it's capitalism's fault that people are breaking the law? Your argument here essentially boils down to this (this is not strawman, as I know you're going to call it, as the logical conclusion to your last sentence pretty much says that)
It may shock you to know that crime existed before capitalism, and it exists in non-capitalistic societies, too.

I still do not think prison should be easy on prisoners. You scream that we're not providing any evidence to you why it should, but you're failing, as always, to produce evidence that says why we should change our minds and agree with you.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

It's not a straw-man quite possibly, but a misinterpretation.

The prison being better than being homeless just shows how bad our society is, and that is becuase of capitalism as that allows homeless people to exist.

If there were no homeless people, then this would not be a problem.

It doesn't seem to bother you much that people can be born in to high society and live the high life at the expense of these people in the first place?

Anyway, prison is meant to be rehabilitation, not just "Punishment". You can't except someone to rehabilitate in a

I don't think we should baby prisoners. But basic things like televison and the sort; you need SOMETHING to pass the time. Should we not give them books either? Should we just keep them in the cells with absolutely nothing to do but sit around thinking?

That would drive people mad, is pretty barbaric and doesn't serve any productive purpose. But it appears to be what you're suggesting, as there isn't as much middle ground as you think.



You made the statement, and haven't backed it up.

The main problem isn't your opinion, but your sarcastic attitude of how ridiculous any alternative would be, while failing to provide any reason that would be so.

I don't have a real problem with someone being born into high society and living the high life, provided they have some appreciation it took someone to get them there. Paris Hilton disgusts me.

If someone has worked their way into high society, they deserve to be there.

With regards to "If you don't want to go to jail, don't break the law" being incredibly stupid: It may be stupid, but I'll bet it's worked for a majority of people on the planet.

As for my reasons for making prison tough/supporting the death penalty, I have provided them, and you seem to reject them.

I support the death penalty for some people because there are those that are beyond rehabilitation. (this ignores the whole "determining who is able to be rehabilitated" thing, because I don't know how of a good way to do that, but I'm quite sure there are people who do).

I support making prison tougher on inmates because I do think that, if prison is just short of hell, those who serve their terms (thus paying their debts to society) will not want to go back there and will try a lot harder not to fall into their old ways.

I can't spell it out any more plainly that.

I DO like the idea of prisoners getting an education. A chance to learn is a chance to break out of the lifestyle that got some of them into prison in the first place.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I don't get that. I read your fallicies, and you make a strong point, but it all does boil down to that. You can be standing up for your rights, and you know it's against the law, so you're still going to jail for breaking the law. And how do you prevent this? You don't break the law.


So you would let mass murderers who have killed more than enough people for a life sentence (and then some) sit in a jail. I can see that, because the legal system is basing that on what seems to be "an eye for an eye". Now, I don't support the death penalty, but I can see why other people see it as being necessary, even though it might not be.


Some people actually do that.

_________________

On my side of the [color=red size=24]DEATH PENALTY!!![/color] well I say that the Criminals who do this should die because we cant have theese
Psychos,Rapists,Robbers,Gang Bangers all around our community.We have to keep them out of here.
Even if its a Eye for a Eye
A Tooth for a Tooth
and a Nose for a Nose.

_________________
What idiot thought the idea of putting the hole on the BUTT of them?Take a look one day!Notice those holes on top?Well thats where the Salt come out right?Well if you put the opening on butt guess what!When you go to fill them it is is going to spill and make a freaking mess all over myfloor!-Didy

So, if you beated someone up, you'd be ok with getting the death penalty?

_________________

Ah, you're quite right on some counts, but it's a fallacy to use it as a point in an argument in the manner in which he did. It's ignoring the point that people are not always aware of the consequences of their actions.



But why do they deserve all that for doing nothing? Doesn't that go against your "hard work" philosophy?

This is where capitalism fails, as it fails to take into account class divisors.



Incorrect. This is based on the assumption that capitalism is perfect and works flawlessly, and everyone is born with the same set of skills.

Not everyone has the capability to work themselves into high society. For things like actors and musicians it's hit or miss. Even with businesses, it's very much hit or miss that you'll succeed in the argument.

And I don't think someone deserves to get hundreds times more than the average worked just because he worked hard and got lucky at some point point in his life.

Also, hard work does not a person make. Since the "american dream" idealogy has been burned into your mental retinas you might not be able to understand why not, but there are so many other ways in which a person can contribute rather than working their butt off with monotonous work.

If you ask me, a person deserves to do well if they have a good heart. I'm not suggesting we go around checking that and rewarding people accordingly, but just as long as we recognised that that, and not "hard workin'" is the ideal situation, we can get somewhere.

Obviously hard work comes into it a bit, but a lot of that's to do with someone's natural capability to tolerate "hard work". Some people are naturally more lazy than others, at least applied to the current set of skills the world requires. Regardless, everyone can do a bit of something.



But there is no way to know if someone will change in the future. Not to mention I think I found a wikipedia link which explains that particular death penalty argument is a logical fallacy.

Beyond rehabilitation doesn't equal "must be killed" regardless. I have no idea where that even comes into it.



That's not only inhumane, but also ignoring the fact that you can loose up to a year of your life over a robbery. If it was nothing short of hell, it would really Funk someone up over someone minor.

You're also ignoring that there are plenty of ways to be a destructive memeber of society without breaking the law, and that for many criminals it isn't a case of not doing it - it's a case at getting better at not getting caught.

Unless you change someone's way of thinking, it's not that simple.



It won't work if prison is "nothing short of hell". They'll only see this education as a time for mischief and entertainment. It will fail miserably.

Clemency was denied to Tookie Williams, courtesy of the Terminator himself.

Meanwhile, America's reputation in the rest of the world sinks even lower towards rock bottom.

It's unfortunate. VERY unfortunate.

Arnold needn't pardon Tookie, but the man has proven that he is an asset to society, not a liability, he shouldn't be put to death..

I didn't know Arnold denied clemency.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I still stand by the death penalty in general being wrong, because well, logic dictates it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs ... fallacy%29

I don't see how you can argue with that.

If there wasn't a death penalty, nobody would die here.

It's because I don't see a state sanctioned execution as prescrived by law as being a "wrong".

Therefore, I can agree that "two wrongs don't make a right", and still stand by the death penalty

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I have supported for most of my life thinking that we're getting rid of bad people who would otherwise take up room in our prisons and probabably don't even want to live. I would want the death penalty in most cases instead of life in prison. But recently I thought against it because it would be terrible if someone were put to death who was innocent (even though it probably never happens). I think we should have other measurements of guilty and not guilty. Our system lets too many people get off with crimes just because there wasn't enough evidence. They should only be sentenced to death if there is no doubt at all. I thought that that was how our system works, but it isn't (if it was a would never say anyone is guilty because there is always doubt).

No, read the links. It explains how the majority of arguments for the death penalty falls under this logical fallacy. Don't take the name too directly/seriously.

Two wrongs make a right is just one of the names of the fallacy.

The structure is defined as:

# It is claimed that person B would do X to person A.
# It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A's doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).

Therefore yes, it does fall under this fallacy.

From the same page "Jill is horrified by the way the state uses capital punishment. Bill says that capital punishment is fine, since those the state kill don't have any qualms about killing others."

From Wikipedia:

Two wrongs make a right is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that if one wrong is committed, another wrong will cancel it out. Like many fallacies, it typically appears as the hidden major premise in an enthymeme—an unstated assumption which must be true for the premises to lead to the conclusion.

It is often used as a red herring, or an attempt to change or distract from the issue. For example:

* Speaker A: President Williams lied in his testimony to Congress. He should not do that.
* Speaker B: But you're ignoring the fact that President Robertson lied in his Congressional testimony!

If President Robertson lied in his Congressional testimony, that does not make it acceptable or OK for President Williams to do so as well.

The ad hominem tu quoque fallacy is a specific type of "two wrongs make a right". Accusing another person of not practicing what they preach, while appropriate in some situations, does not in itself invalidate an action or statement that is perceived as contradictory.

This fallacy can be considered an appeal to emotion when it is used as an argument for revenge:

* They blew up our storehouses! So, we should burn down their village.

The wrongness of one action does not somehow make it either morally good or rationally prudent to perform another wrong act in retaliation. Cycles of violence like this may also be justified using causal oversimplification, wrong direction and various attributional biases.

This fallacy is often committed by children. An example:

* Parent: Jim, why did you pull your sister's hair; don't you know that's wrong?
* Jim: I know, but she pinched me first.

To this, the parent may respond, "two wrongs don't make a right". However, note that if the hair-pulling was in self defense, to prevent more pinching, then it is more justifiable than if it was done purely out of retaliation.
[edit]

See also

* Capital punishment(hint, hint)
* Positive discrimination
* Groupthink

Only if you think that executing a convicted criminal after due process, X is the same thing as mudering an innocent person Y..

The fallacy only applies if the "acts" are the same, and I don't think they are.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

The problem is, WHY do you not believe them to be the same?

And discriminating them still falls under the same fallacy. I'm sorry, but you really can't win with this one. Perhaps if you came up with a better reason, but that would just be looking for reasons to kill people, which er, wouldn't be nice/sane.