because leaving them out there isnt going to help a lot, theyll keep committing crimes. the ones who already commit crimes may in fact fear prison, but they dont get in because of our piece of shit judicial system, pardon my french. and yanny, just what exactly is your “moral code” mr. lets legalize marijuana?
Yanny - This is your first and only warning, watch the language
that it may, CC. but dont get me wrong, i dont mean “good” and “evil” as in god and satan, or anything like that.
Yanny, im sorry, but i have to play devil’s advocate here. i have to agree with cc and guest, i would say the majority of the population does not commit crime because of reasons other than fear of prison. not necessarily because they are moral people (because i think we share the view that people are inherently evil) but i dont think its fear of prison. im not afraid of prison, i dont commit crimes
well nobody is asking you to push the button cc, im not sure whether i could either.
I just picked this RTS up today, and I must say, Im very impressed. The game is similar to Empire Earth, and Age of Empires. It blends the RTS and other Strategic elements quite well, and the level of micromanagement, and volume of settings and options is impressive. The gameplay is smooth and polished, and can be tailored to your own personal preferences for how fast and intense the game is. The graphics and sounds contribute well to the game, and the music is very appropriate. A couple of features that particularly struck me (I dont know whether they are in any other games) are the Conquer The World Campaign, and the city function. The Conquer the World campaign is an interesting feature that I haven’t seen anywhere else. You play a campaign on a map of the world, complete with diplomacy, trade, international borders, and domestic development. The best part is, whenever you invade enemy territory, or your own is invaded, you go into a battle that plays out as a regular scenario, that is, one that you might play in a Quick Battle. This allows for a strategic element, that plays out with a larger level of realism, as well as an RTS element that lets you get right into the battle. Your actions in the battle effect the campaign in more ways than control of territories as well. If you use a nuclear weapon, you may find yourself with trade embargoes levied on you by other nations. And the use of a nuclear weapon starts and armageddon countdown. if any other nuclear weapons are used during the countdown, it speeds it up. if the counter reaches zero, the game ends for all players. The city function is also very interesting. The RTS element plays out like many others, but building is done in cities. again, I do not know if this has been used in any other games, but it still intrigues me. You need cities to expand your national borders, and provide resources and troops. A particular quality of these is that each city is limited in the number of a particular building you can place there (i.e. you can only build one university per city, only 5 farms per city, etc.) so you are forced to build multiple cities if you want to expand your nation. All in all, I am thoroughly impressed and pleased with this game, and I am interested in hearing anyone else’s thoughts, opinions, or questions on the game.
well falk, once again, you make some valid points. but think about this, mind you, this is something i got somewhere, i do not know from where, and im not sure of the original wording, but it went something like this
“for a society to succeed, the needs of the one must be subordinate to the needs of the many” or something like that. basically, one innocent person sitting in jail is, in my mind at least, a small price to pay for keeping criminals off the streets. and Falk, i have thought of most (probably not all) consequences, good and bad, that would come of this, and i think the good far outweigh the bad
you what i like about those canadians, they dont make generalizations about people. they are too busy playing hockey, or putting maple syrup on their bacon
getting a little personal deviant:scripter?
You know jack crap!
perhaps my statement seemed a bit arrogant, if so, then i apologize. by “i know it to be so” i mean in a way like when you know somebody is lying to you in some way, but cant prove it, or you know someone has done something wrong, but cannot prove it. that is how i know that god does not exist. feel free to challenge it, as i certainly challenge your belief in the existence of god, but i will know for myself that god is not real.
but it’s safer to side with believing in a God than not.
this is one of the things that annoy me the most about people who believe in god. by this statement, it is implied that many of these people believe in god only to be safe in the unlikely event that god exists. that is pathetic. if your going to believe in god, i will challenge your belief, but if you truly believe in him, i will at least respect your stance (though i know it to be erroneous). but i cant respect someone who believes in god, just to cover their ass. a belief one way or the other should be something you truly hold to be so, not something to make sure your safe
well cc, i wouldnt bring up the marijuana, because im for arresting people for smoking marijuana, not because i think its such a serious crime, but because i am so against marijuana. but i see your point. id like to add however, that while obviously there would be more room for abuse of power by the police, i think that on a whole, the police are not corrupt, or overzealous, but dedicated and diligent. naturally some may abuse the power, but clearly with the plethora of cases against police for many various things, there is no lack of that now.
cc,you made some valid points about the death penalty. but your points are specifically tailored to the current criminal justice system, which i think should be changed.
well bossk, try though i might, i have been unable to come up with any counterpoint to your post that doesnt sound like childish name calling. so, far be it from me to continue an argument when i know ive lost, i concede defeat.
im not that arrogant difrenT, if you show me proof god exists, ill gladly renounce everything ive ever said against it. since i know you cant however, i will continue to say he does not exist, as i know it to be so.
bossk, you really make things too easy for me. im going to go out of order and start with the juries. “jury of your peers” is a term thrown around a lot, and that is the theoretical application of juries. however, this rarely happens. not only that, you are misinterpreting the intention. you are looking at peers as “people of similar circumstance”. this is not the legal intention of it, instead it is to provide a jury of everyday people. basically people not involved with the law. i dont know if it is a rule, but i dont believe judges or attorneys can serve on juries. that is all that is meant by peers. by your definition bossk, then for example a drug dealer on trial would have a jury of drug dealers, those would be his “peers”. instead, hell probably end up with a jury of soccer moms, school teachers, paper pushers, and clerks at the 7-11. most of them are probably very annoyed that they have to be there, as they see it as a waste of a day. i would bet you that most of them would take one look at the accused, see what he/she is on trial for, and immediately assume guilt. sounds real fair. also, like i said, they are giving up their day to be there, and probably arent happy about it. ever see the movie 12 Angry Men? thats how many juries are, the part where almost all of them dont want to be there, and are ready to assume guilt. judges are paid to be there, it is their job, and many therefor, would at least not try to pass a quick verdict just to get out of there. also, judges have experience. many have probably seen people they would have called guilty or innocent proved the other way. i would say they would be inclined to be impartial, as they have seen that appearances are not always what they seem.
bossk, do you even know how the warrant system works? they dont just go out and get a warrant, they have to apply for one from a judge, giving meticulous evidence supporting the validity of a search. often, by the time this occurs, the suspect has had plenty of time to escape or get rid of the evidence. im not talking about “some dumb schmuck whos growing pot in his closet” im talking about, there are much more heinous crimes out there (though i am for prosecuting pot smokers, different issue however)
Your right bossk, I havent spent time behind bars awaiting a trial, and i probably wouldnt like it. in fact, im almost sure i would be pissed off. but thats irrelevant. just because the advocate of a policy would turn against it if brought against him does not mean the policy is wrong or flawed, it means the person is. similarly, because i would be pissed at being falsely arrested doesnt mean the policy is bad, just that im not selfless enough to think of the social good the policy is brining during my own experience. thats my flaw, not the ideas. and dont be ridiculous, it would be extremely naiive or idealistic to think we could catch every wrong doer with the system, but more guilty would be caught then are now.
now ive had a good humor about these things, but i will not sit here taking your unfounded allegations. your saying that i want to “go around killing people for just any crime” that is ridiculous and false. i dont support the death penalty for any crime, the punishment should fit the crime. and yes, human life is a precious thing. therefor, if you take a life, you no longer deserve your own. reread my post and get your facts straight bossk, dont make accusations that are unfounded.
and dont give me some bull about “nazi germany” and the like, you sound like so many anti-goverment stereotypes, immediately dismissing any augmentation of the governments power as a move towards authoritarianism.
thats part of the thrill yanny, that means 16 people in one place, in one game. do you have any idea of the level of intensity created by that? of the atmosphere in the room? it is obscenely high. again, yanny, a 16 player game is a pipe dream for most, yes, but with even as many as four people (i.e. one xbox, one tv) you can have an awesome gaming experience. i would also like to bring into this that unless this has changed very recently, you have never played Halo with another human being. until you do, your opinion on the matter is irrelevent, you have to see the beauty of Halo multiplayer before you can respond.
oh, and i forgot to mention, it seems that the poll has slipped in favor of belief in god, and i must say, NOOOOO!!!
ok jazz, first, get it right. i am not arguing that there is no religion, that is absurd, there clearly is religion, look around. i am arguing against the existence of god, something related, but distinct.
second, my opening line was called a joke, maybe you didnt find it funny, but dont get bent out of shape about it.
third, if you find my thread annoying, dont read it. nobody forced you to read it, so dont.
finally, i am not looking for proof on the existence of god, one way or the other. like many other posters on this thread have said, proof is all but impossible to provide. i am simply challenging the existence of a diving being, in a forum for open discussion.
Ok Yanny, ill break it down for you, the exclusionary rule basically means that if any evidence is obtained unlawfully (i.e. an illegal search or seizure), it is inadmissable in court. Along with habeus corpus, this is theoretically a good idea, protecting civilians from undue police agression. the problem is that this often works against justice rather than for it. for instance, if a confession is obtained from a defendent, without them having been read their miranda rights, then it is inadmissable, and the defendent may summarily be found innocent. this is unacceptable.
also, i am against the 4th amendment (prohibiting unlawful searches and seizures). it is a good idea in theory, but the same problems arise. i would rather people be subject to ridiculous searches and seizures than not, because evidence found could make the difference in court. and lets face it, police are not the bad guys people make them out to be. those bad ones are few and far between in the scheme of things.
habeus corpus has a similar problem. say the police are fully aware of a drugdealer, or murderer, or any other major criminal, but they dont have sufficient evidence to arrest them, even though they fully know of their criminal status, they should be allowed to arrest them. i would rather see innocent people sit in jail, than guilty roam free.
The problem with trial by jury is incompetence, and is not necessarily the best way to ensure a fair trial. i would suggest to you that a panel of judges would be more effective at coming up with an accurate and appropriate verdict. much like the supreme court, which works quite well. i think there is less of a chance of unfair trials than the current system under juries. juries are frequently incompetent, the people making them up have a vastly insufficient understanding of the intricacies of the law, they dont understand the finer points of the laws. they are more prone to their personal feelings affecting the case, as even with the voire dire, there are often still people who are not impartial jurors. they are more prone to letting an impression about a defendent affect their judgement as well. judges are more experienced, and fully understand the law. in addition, the juries are prone to giving ridiculous verdicts (briefly tapping into civil cases, millions of dollars for a burn, or emotional distress) many times, judges must use their own judgement to reduce the verdict to reasonable terms. why not bypass the jury altogether? with a panel of judges, you get a similar splash of viewpoints as a jury, but with people who understand better the duty they have, and what to do.
The death penalty would be a very significant deterrent if allowed to operate at its full potential. think about being a criminal, considering a crime. would you be more or less willing to commit that crime if you knew that if you were caught, youd be killed? i think it would deter many people if the death penalty was national, more easily obtained, and actually carried out (very rarely are executions carried out, even though there are many people on death row). locking people up for life poses a number of problems. to name a few, it costs money to house these people, taxpayers money. they need to pay for this criminal’s life now. there is always the possibilty of him getting out, whether by pardon or escape. and facilities are required to house these people. that is a vast waste of land, simply to hold criminals?
what i have just written is also in response to your post, bossk.
Unfortunately Bossk, you are relying on the popular misconception that Marx created communism. communism is actually a bastardized form of Marxism, which is what Marx actually wrote about. Communism does not have to be the authoratarian form i.e. Mao, Stalin) as you said, but it is different from Marx’s treatise.
Communism and Socialism actually refer to both economic systems and political systems, Yanny. I will cede imperialism, Im somewhat hazy as to the specifics of it, but communism and socialism are not out of place.
As i suspected, what i described about the executive was not conveyed how i wanted it to be. for that i apologize. for lack of a better example, think of the position something like the movie Bruce Almighty. ignore everything else about the movie, and just take the “god for a week” principle. Basically, the executive would have unlimited power while in office, except the ability to extend his term of service, or influence elections in his favor through any underhanded means (extortion, coercion, blackmail, threat of force, etc) the same would be true as the congress, except it would still be subordinate to the executive. while this is similar to what you described ZimZaxZeo, i think the differences lie primarily in the idea that these absolute rulers are elected. the voters choose their ruler, then he rules them how he sees fit. if he isnt popular in his policies/methods, then he will not be reelected. i agree the likelihood of anything like this arising anytime soon is highly unlikely. this is simply my ideal form of government.
oh, and please dont compare this to the UN, this government would have authority, not only backed by whatever constitution created it, but by a global army, the UN is the biggest waste of space and time on the planet, give it an army, or shutup