I realize that's what you meant but that still isn't what you said, sorry. I summarized your position as I understood it and gave you a chance to tell me I wasn't correctly understanding you, and you didn't. You told me I was right in assuming these contracts would render a woman unable to obtain an abortion. Either you admit that's not what you meant, and this ends with me saying that's a bad idea but that I can't currently think of a good reason to make it illegal, or you maintain that's what you meant and we're back to talking about whether or not people can sign away their bodies.
Also, you said yourself we're not operating on how contracts currently work; if we were, pretty sure yours would not be binding and nothing would happen to a violator.
Yes, clearly. You're being dishonest by trying to pretend you didn't say a woman would not be able to get an abortion in these cases. Not 'be allowed, without consequence' - 'be able.' I asked if it was the case that a woman would not be able to get an abortion and you yes, that was the case. If I asked if cars were legally allowed to speed, then asked if cars were actually able to speed, I'd get different answers.
If that's not actually what you meant, fine. But correct yourself instead of acting like it's your audience's problem for not guessing that you meant something different than what you said. There's a reason I made an effort to clarify your stance first.
Seriously? You're not able to formulate a distinction between a brain dead person being taken off life support, and rape? I hope this is a red herring that we can just ditch here and I won't actually have to explain this.
The very first question I asked was if these contracts would mean a woman would be prevented from getting a legal abortion. You did not say, 'No, she can get one but will have to pay damages.' You said, 'Yes.' That clearly states a procedure for legally ensuring that the terms of the contract are met, not just exacting punishment if they're not. The latter is weird to me but less objectionable, and if that's what you envisioned, then you did not communicate that.
Disagreeing with the terms of these contract being legally enforced has zero impact on the people who want to write a contract and follow it.
Conception requires two people and both parties should consent because they're both involved in the process.
Incubation only requires one person and the only party who's consent should matter is the one doing the incubating. I said this before and you didn't really answer; even if you have partial ownership of something, you don't own whatever is holding it.
Someone choosing death for themselves doesn't in any way violate that statement. This is not even comparable; we are talking about situations where Person A wants to usurp Person B's bodily autonomy, and Person B is against it when it comes time for it to actually happen; if we substitute the administration of death for the usurping of bodily autonomy, it would be called murder, not euthanasia.
As well, it is not about ownership.
'Livelihood of a fetus' - we're talking about contracts that could be drafted and signed years before a fetus even exists, aren't we? What about a man and a woman who sign a contract to get pregnant and have a kid x years, and the man is the one who changes his mind when the time's up? Couldn't he be subject to forced electroejaculation and made responsible for a child he didn't even consent to create? Wouldn't these contracts also obligate a woman to get an abortion if she signed a contract to do so, even if she decided she wanted the baby? There's much more involved in this than the livelihood of the fetus, not to mention the livelihood of a fetus depends on the mother's body and so changes hands depending on who is allowed to own the mother's body.
Removing someone's ability to consistently decide what happens to their own body, and giving it to someone else, is certainly an issue of ownership. You have a degree of control over the things you own, and less or no control over the things you don't own, at the discretion of the person who does own it. Transferring control of one person's body to another person, which is exactly what you're talking about, necessitates a shift in ownership, at least for awhile.
what would be the point in a contract?
I already said I think contracts concerning a person's reproductive future are ridiculous and pointless. People can draft them and sign them to their heart's content but legal ramifications for breaking the terms are a bad idea.
It is about changing your mind because in your scenario, that's exactly what would cause problems.
Yes, I am against contracts unless it's void for whatever reasons the owner of the body in question chooses, even if they aren't specifically outlined. I think signing a contract to farm out the future use of your body to someone else is ridiculous and pointless. No amount of legal obligation should transfer ownership of an autonomous adult's body to someone else.
Only idiots would change their minds about giving up control of their body?
I did some 'celebrity breach of contract' searches and didn't bring up anything relevant so I'd be interested to see what specific source you're using.
While that definitely falls within the realm of what I was asking for, it's a case if someone being punished for making a choice with their body, not literally being prevented from making a choice. Unless I'm mistaken, ThePyg's proposition involves a woman being prevented from an abortion because of a contract, not just punished for getting one...which is also problematic.
The way it was phrased made me think you were basing this off a current legal precedent.
If we're talking about the way things should be, then I don't think it should be illegal to change your mind about what you want to do with your body. Pregnancy is a huge investment and a person's life can quickly and unexpectedly change. People can't always predict how or if a pregnancy will fit into their lives when it happens, and things like illnesses, family deaths, loss of a job, depression, etc., etc., can sap a woman's emotional and financial resources beyond what's required to withstand a pregnancy.
In short, it just sounds like a nightmare to have your body legally co-opted against your will no matter what you thought or said at an earlier time.
In some states, men do have a say in whether the woman can have an abortion
Which states are these? I'm not sure this is correct.
If I signed a contract promising to get a tattoo in nine months, and then nine months I decide I don't want a tattoo, pretty sure it would be illegal to give me one anyway. You can draft all the contracts you want but I don't think that means you can legally force someone to do or not do certain things, abortion being one of them.
What if the couple signs a contract agreeing that she will get an abortion if she conceives, and she later changes her mind?
What about potential for suffering and damage in the future? I know that prosecuting based on future crimes is silly, but at the point someone is already facing life in the system for absolutely horrendous, inhuman crimes, why not?
If someone is this dangerous, then they should be in a situation where they don't have the opportunity to hurt anyone. Once they're in that situation, then I don't see the point of killing them except to solve the problems of cost and space, which aren't invalid, but are secondary to the principle of not allowing anyone to choose what deserves death as a punishment and what doesn't.
We could put them in solitary confinement for life, never let anyone close enough to get hurt, but that seems to me to be more a cruel and unusual punishment than death.
If a criminal were to be in this situation and decide they would rather be dead, that should be an option.
And I think for the families of the victims, knowing that some kind of substantial justice was dealt does bring peace of mind. At least, it's better than dragging the grieving families back to court every year to listen to the criminal appeal to the judge on why he should be let out early for good behavior.
As much as I can't even imagine how difficult it is to lose a loved on like this, I think it's dangerous to base a justice system on retribution instead of prevention. There are lots of terrible things we could do to criminals that would make their victims feel better.
In situations where a person is violating someone else's right to their body, I think they forfeit their own. People have to be able to defend themselves, and sometimes that means killing someone, even if the offender didn't intend to kill their victim.
Beyond that, I would answer no. Killing a person doesn't alleviate any of the suffering or damage they caused in the past.
Compared to other options, that's a relatively benign especially since, in theory, the kids won't be harmed by it. At least not in their most dependent years.
Honestly, though, any punishment just because someone makes an unpopular reproductive choice doesn't sit right with me.
For aesthetics we have zoos.
Maybe aesthetics was not the right word to use, I was having trouble summarizing it. I don't just mean giving people pretty things to look at. Protecting endangered species preserves the amazing diversity of the earth; an incredible variety of life lives here, it took billions of years to form and it will probably never be repeated again. When a species disappears, it's gone from the universe forever. A less diverse planet is a less interesting planet.
And it just might as well unbalance it. As you said its an unpredictable science, sometimes.
If the species is already present in an ecosystem, as they would be pre-extinction, it's safe to say they have a niche. I don't think any endangered species are also recent and invasive implants.
I think it's the notion that humans aren't animals that has colored your beliefs.
I disagree. I recognize that we are animals but I also recognize we have capabilities and awareness that are unique to us, and with that, comes a greater degree of both control and responsibility.
If beavers building a dam killed off the last few fish of some species, interfering to save the fish would be working to alter the "natural" course of the ecosystem.
It's interesting you say I have the notion that humans are not animals, and in the next breath deliberately separate our actions from 'natural' actions.
Beavers are not very smart. They don't know what they are doing. This is like an adult having a public temper tantrum and saying it's okay because they saw a toddler do the same thing.
Seeing as how we often can't predict the course of nature, I think it's better to plod along our natural course and let the chips fall wherever they were going to naturally.
What is 'naturally'? Again it seems like you're drawing distinctions between human actions and natural actions. Why do 'natural' actions seem to automatically mean doing nothing to preserve another species? Why isn't it a natural action for humans to use their intelligence and planning abilities to reinforce or protect an ecosystem that's in danger? If that's not a natural action, what kind of action is it?
If they're not contributing to our existence I don't see why we should contribute to theirs.
While I can't really argue against this because it's just the way you've organized your priorities, it seems pessimistic, short-sighed, and selfish. If you have ever been moved by the sight of animals in the wild, even on video, know that it this attitude will destroy any opportunity to create more of that.
Is this not a scary thought to you? It reduces the woman to an incubator for a kid someone else wants, regardless of her wishes or the consequences to her. How many women would be put through a pregnancy to carry a baby for a man with whom they'd broken up/divorced and no longer wanted anything to do with? How many domestic abuse victims would have to carry the baby of their abuser? It's not an uncommon tactic for abusers to use pregnancy and children to control their victims and it seems like a disproporionate amount of people who would disregard a mother's wants and make her carry a baby would be abusive.
Abortion is a solution to pregnancy, not parenting, and you're proposing a solution to parenting.
if there had been animal rights advocates around the save the dodo, do you think our world would be better off today?
If they had been successful, we would be a more diverse world. I see that a huge aesthetic benefit if not a practical one, and it might also be practical to preserve ecosystem stability. Not all effects of extinction are immediately discernible or even predictable.
Why should the worth of a species come from whether or not they are required by humans?
1. You can have monogamous sex outside marriage, and non-monogamous sex within a marriage.
2. People get remarried. Some STDs are spread from mother to child. Others are spread by dirty needles. A marital sex-only society would not cause STDs to die out.
3. STDs would be far more likely to die out if no one had sex with anyone, ever. Why should we not advocate this?
I should have been more specific. I was asking about a source for the claim that 80% of teenagers regret having sex. This is for my own curiosity, because it sounds unlikely. Even if it's true, my argument still holds: available condoms don't mean that teenagers have to have sex if they don't want to. It just means condoms are around for the ones who do want to. Again, this availability should be in conjunction with sex education that also addresses issues of readiness and consent.
Are you arguing against increased accessibility of condoms for teenagers? If so, citing high rates of pregnancies and STDs is counterintuitive, because condom use decreases these rates. No method is as effective as abstinence, but that doesn't mean it should be made more difficult for teenagers to get a hold of.
You understand that I made that post in the context of supporting easily accessible condoms, right? Which are designed to help prevent STDs and pregnancy?
Making condoms available to teenagers who don't regret sexual activity doesn't mean anything for the ones aren't sexually active. For teens who don't want to have sex, free condoms doesn't mean they have to. Accessible condoms just make it safer for the teenagers who do want to use them. That's all.
I support condom accessibility in conjunction with comprehensive sex education, which educates kids about consent and makes sure they know the effectiveness of all methods, including abstinence.
Also, maybe you'd like to cite a source for that stat.
What is a straight answer?
If you don't know what a straight answer is, I guess that explains a lot about why you tend not to give them. If someone gives you a straight answer, you probably shouldn't be left with the exact same question you had before you asked them.
A dictionary defines the generalities of a term, not the specifics.
So according to you, the generality of the term atheist means they lack a belief in god, while the specifics of the term mean they do believe in god and just don't like him. A dictionary doesn't agree with you, so you invoke another type of definition, which is incompatible with the dictionary's definition.
Maybe take a minute to think about that.
Find me a Trekkie that doesn't think it is real.
Okay. Me. And also, every other Trekkie I've ever met. Actually, can you find me a Trekkie that does think it's real? I guarantee that's going to be a hell of a lot harder.
Of course I enforce the belief in unicorns when I mentioned them.
Remember when I said 'How?' See how you didn't answer that question, and instead just skipped to the next one? Remember how I said you ignore questions or don't give straight answers? This is that thing. So, I'll ask again.
How do you enforce something's existence by professing your lack of belief in it?
Note that I'm asking about this quote: "Every time an atheist says God doesn't exist, it only reinforces the existence of God," and not your quote concerning unicorns, because you phrased that one differently so it doesn't mean the same thing.
Why would you be ignored by something that you don't believe in? Unless God matters to you.
Are you having a different conversation in your head? What did I say to make you bring this up?
First off, I only ignore those questions in which I have already answered or questions in which the asker already has a predetermined answer.
You've gone entire threads without giving a single straight answer. This doesn't have to be something we bicker about because I'm not going to go through histories and collect examples, but maybe just try not to do that.
Of course an atheist believes in God, they just choose not to follow him.
If someone believes in God but is upset with him, they are not an atheist. You love using the dictionary- why ignore it now? I think it would be very difficult to find a source that defines atheism not as a lack of belief, but as belief and anger.
These people just go through life without ever mentioning God, not making him the center of their life.
So you think atheists believe in God because they talk about religion frequently, right?
Can you not identify with an interest in discussing the implications of the existence of a god? Religion has such a long history, is central to so many peoples' lives, has complex literature, and makes some amazingly bold claims- imagine you thought it was complete fantasy, doesn't it still sound like an interesting topic? Some people spend their entire lives studying, discussing, and thinking about Star Wars or Lord of the Rings, but that doesn't automatically mean they all think those worlds are real in any place except their imaginations.
Every time an atheist says God doesn't exist, it only reinforces the existence of God.
How? Did you enforce the existence of unicorns earlier when you mentioned they weren't real?
Why else would God be so important?
Like I said, some people think it's just really interesting. Other people might be annoyed with organized religion for causing problems in their lives, especially people who live in highly religious areas where non-believers have a tough time. If I did, I imagine religion might be on my mind frequently, too.
I don't agree that the law was passed because anti-abortion people hate women.
What do you think the motivation is?
My point is that neither are real.
If you're trying to say the discrimination faced by men and women is of the same severity, you are ridiculous.
I'm not hijacking the topic...
Yes, you are. It's a comparison that shows a lack of understanding about sexism, and if we had it your way, we'd be off on a tangent about whether or not men are oppressed as much as women and I'm not at all interested in getting into that.
A war on women would require gender based legislation to remove women from work, politics, and family law.
So a war on women's rights doesn't exist unless a bunch of politicians basically stand up and say, "Hey, I hate women and I don't want to see them working or controlling their own bodies." Is that right?
Few politicians are going to go directly, specifically, and openly go after women, even if they do actually hate them. They would not last long. Instead, they might do something like...I don't know, slowly erode their choices and freedoms while disguising it as concern for them.
You are exactly correct that anti-abortion laws effect the men who will be fathers, brothers, grandfathers... ect. This isn't JUST against women.
There is literally nothing you could do to hurt women in this country that wouldn't also hurt men. Whatever you're imagining to be a 'real' war on women, if that happened, it would also hurt the men who depend on and care about the women. Saying 'it hurts guys, too' is in no way an argument against the existence of real, institutionalized efforts to make life harder for women.
Are you absolutely certain that you know when human life begins? I'm not.
I can guarantee it doesn't begin 2 weeks before its parents even have sex.
I spent a few minutes answering some specific points before I couldn't take this seriously at all. You've created such a monstrously inaccurate strawman of feminism that I have to wonder if it's intentional, because this level of delusion is impressive.
The feminist 'arguments' you picked are laughable. Do you really think there's only one justification for saying the media is sexist, and that is has to do with looking at the camera? Do you really think feminists want to see less diversity in female game characters, as long as they don't have big boobs? Or that the Barbie issue is the 'most important' thing to gender equality efforts?
The second part is a huge load of sexist bullshit based on you extrapolating a handful of narrow personal experiences to women and feminists in general. You're not fooling anybody by slipping in a few little platitudes about not discouraging girls from intellectual achievement, when you turn around and bash on women for being catty bitches because you don't think they act enough like men.
If you actually want to engage someone in a discussion about feminism, you might want to ditch your nauseatingly misogynistic tone. But if you're more interested in just jerking off about how much you hate this imaginary feminism, then keep it up.
A gay person isn't sterile by default. Nature didn't withold anything from them, they just generally don't sleep with people with whom they can make a kid.
Can you give some evidence for your assertion that having gay parents makes a kid uncomfortable?
I try to avoid guessing at what God would be thinking if he was real. But if I were to talk about the problem of evil just from an angle of 'what was he thinkng?', it doesn't even seem that farfetched. If you're a parent, you have to learn to let your child introduce bad things into their life, so they can learn to make choices and deal with consequences. Of course, a difference is that parents probably have the end goal of making a capable adult, which requires resilience and experience with pain, while God's end goal is to let everyone into heaven, which doesn't require those things.
I have seen people say before that something perfectly good couldn't possibly create evil. I haven't really explored that, and I haven't used it, but it seems a little diferent different than guessing at God's thoughts regarding evil.
I have a problem with people refusing to assign responsibility at all to God for bad thigs happening. It's one thing to suppose reasons why he might, and it's another to pretend he can be omniscient and omnipotent and somehow not be responsible for bad things.
Some jokes rely on absurdity, but many are funny because they operate on an assumption people can buy into or relate to, and racist jokes fall into that category. That's why racist jokes don't work if you substitute the target race for another demographic but change nothing else.
What is the other 99% of humor? Magic? Randomness? There is absolutely science to humor. We don't laugh at everything, and there are common elements to most 'funny' things.
But here's an example as to why a certain black joke is funny ONLY because we're talking about black people...
You were so quick to dismiss that link I gave earlier that I kind of hoped you didn't tell jokes that were exactly the same.
This is the kind of thing you think invites an open exchange of ideas that's supposed to eradicate racism? This is post-racial? You told a joke that refers to black infants as literal pieces of shit, and you think you're being progressive? How can you possibly refuse to take a bit of responsibility for any cultural malignance towards other races when you perpetuate jokes like this?
Use of fallacies can greatly contribute to humor. See "satire" or "trolling."
Of course I don't meant jokes have to be logically valid, I should have been more specific. Racist jokes create a false cause between genetics and a specific set of behaviors. When people grow up hearing the messages that a race acts a certain way because of genetics and not because of environment, they can't help but absorbing them to some extent. This isn't changed just because not everyone uses it to become deliberately racist.
With your joke, do you really think black girls act like that because they're black, or because they were raised in an environment that allows/encourages behavior like that? And it's just as likely that a white person raised in an identical environment would display that behavior, too?
Like, in an alternative universe where violence didn't exist but weapons did but didn't foster violence...
Yes, I have a problem with all of those things when they are used to hurt other people, and I have a problem with people who try to say that hurting people with any of those things is somehow progressive and will eventually lead to a world where no one gets hurt by them.
Here's some of the article, it goes further than enjoyment being connected with a likelihood of racism.
---
...it has been argued that ‘‘ethnic’’ humour often forms a conflict device in the United
States (Burma 1946), that racist humour can cause offence or psychological damage
(Fry 1977), and that it could affect group morale (La Fave 1977). Many have
suggested racist humour is of the Hobbesian kind, a laugh at sudden glory, a form of
ridicule, or some other derivative of the superiority theory. Ford and Ferguson argue
disparagement (sexist or racist) humour ‘‘is likely to increase tolerance of other
instances of discrimination against the targeted group . . . for people who are
relatively high in prejudice toward the disparaged group’’ (2004, 81).
The wider consequences of racist humour have been examined in relation to it
reinforcing racist ideology. In this vein, Berger argues ‘‘that groups tend to seek out
material . . . that reinforces their view of things and supports and validates their belief
system’’ (1995b, 21). Boskin suggests that the act of comic repetition is significant for
reinforcing beliefs and ‘‘leads to responses in which critical judgement can be
seriously impaired’’ (1987, 257), and, quoting Levine, that it leads to ‘‘momentarily
suspending ‘the rules of logic, time, place, reality, and proper conduct . . .’. That
momentary suspension can be extended through repetition so that the illusion
becomes ‘locked in’ and typed’’ (Boskin 1987, 260). Significantly, he omits that
humour has any effect above that achieved by serious racism without this repetition.
Billig (2009) argues for a consideration of context while asserting the harmfulness of
violent racist humour, and Husband argues ethnic humour in Britain is distinctly
culturally racist and that stereotypes in humour often appear as binary oppositions
(1988, 155). Again, he suggests that it reinforces and reinvigorates stereotypes but
does not describe why humour is an important vehicle in distinction to serious
communication.
---
I took the first IAt on the list and got this:
Your data suggest a moderate association of Female with Science and Male with Liberal Arts compared to Male with Science and Female with Liberal Arts.
I'm not sure what that's supposed to say, but I have no doubt that taking others would show some associations I wish I didn't have. I've never tried to say that they're not common, just that they're not good and they're nothing to condone, protect, or frame as something edgy, forward-thinking, or positive.
I want to know, though... after all of this, do you assume that I am racist? Or am I just an exception to the rule?
I can't say, but probably. The fact that you think it's funny to call babies pieces of shit because they're black doesn't help. I'm sure you don't think you're a racist, and maybe your interactions with other races aren't skewed by any preconceptions- I don't know. Whether you are or you aren't, I think you're deliberately ignoring the environment created by racist humor, so you can keep being edgy and not feel like a bad person.
It doesn't matter if you think a transvaginal ultrasound is not a big deal. In the cases with which the bill is concerned, it's not for the benefit of the woman. I think it's pretty clear that it's done to try to make the abortion process more difficult and uncomfortable, and try to guilt her out of it. But even if you don't agree with that, I'm sure you can agree that there's no reason to add meaningless extra shit to a medical procedure.
Paternity fraud is currently legal, men have no reproductive rights... ect. War on Men... right
Okay, I'm going to tell you something shocking so I hope you're sitting down. This debate is not about men. Crazy, right?! Hijacking the conversation to make it about men is annoying, inappropriate, and way too common when people are trying to talk about concerns facing women. Go make a topic called 'Is the "War on Men" real?' if you want to talk about that.
I'm not saying that the things you cited are not true. It just doesn't equal a war against women
What would equal a war on women as far as you're concerned? Be specific.
In my home state alone, there are bills in existence that would 1) declare a fetus to exist 2 weeks before it's even conceived, in order to push more pregnancies out of the legal abortion window, 2) allow an employer to ask a woman why she's taking birth control pills, and refuse to cover her pills if she's taking it for pregnancy prevention (or, presumably, if she refuses to answer), and 3) protect doctors who lie to a pregnant woman about problems with her fetus, even problems that could endanger her life or the life of the fetus. Some of them will never actually happen, but they've made it this far and they would make life more difficult for women,and by extension their partners and families.
1. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.
3. http://rt.com/usa/news/
If God designed how your body works, if he chose the environment into which you'd be born, and if he knew whether or not you'd have the will power or education to be healthy, it's on him if you get fat. You can't say God is an all-powerful and all-knowing creator without giving responsibility for everything.
Also, how do you even know ChuckHades is fat? Isn't it kind of egotistical to pretend you know what God's thinking when he looks at someone?
Why do you think republicans tend to hold onto a particular set of interpretations that specifically marginalizes women? Why aren't they trying to legislate another interpretation that focuses on another theme, like respecting elders? I think it's because it's an interpretation that conveniently falls in line with what they're comfortable with, which is the enforcement of traditional restrictions for women. I'm not understanding the distinction between trying to legislate 'family values' and attacking womens' reproductive options and sexual choices. The two accomplish much the same goals.
What would need to be happening in order for you to agree with the term 'war on women'?
You're probably never going to come in contact with someone who's going to try to convince you unicorns are real and you'll get in trouble if you don't believe in them. If unicorn believers were everywhere, and constantly trying to convince people that unicorns were real, then yes, plenty of people would go around saying they don't believe unicorns exist.
Past discussions have shown me that you tend to ignore questions unless they're specifically pointed out to you as real, so I'll preface this by saying these are real questions. For you to answer. With words.
~~REAL QUESTIONS COMING UP.~~
By your definition, atheists are not lacking a belief in god, but are just not happy with him, is this right? If so, does this mean you don't think there is anyone in existence who actually lacks a belief in god? If this is also true, then can you imagine a world in which people exist who genuinely lack a belief? How does this change your worldview? Does it make you uncomfortable/angry/apathetic/confused/
What do you think CD would be like if we implemented an upvote/downvote system for debates, too, meant to be based on quality instead of agreement/disagreement? Downvoted debates would drop out of sight more quickly but still be findable.
Part of me thinks it would work out fine, especially if people weren't penalized/rewarded for voting. But another part of me thinks too many people would use it stupidly and there might not be a large enough enough general audience to balance that out.
Because of our personality types, it's usually my fiance who finds another woman who's down with the idea and brings her home. We do something else for a few hours, watch a movie or make dinner. Then, more often than not, I'm the one who escalates it and that's the most awkward part. Once things get going, it's fine, everyone seems to be able to find something to do, but there's still a weird few minutes where everyone knows they'd like to do it, but no one wants to be the one to go beyond innuendo and light 'accidental' touching.
Repeat threesomes with the same woman don't have this problem, but most of mine have been the first time for the other woman.
I'd be really interested to see if any straight guys have had an MMF and hear what they thought of it.
It's sad that you still haven't learned your lesson on this.
Anyone who has read a few of your posts knows you're not yet capable of communicating this well. If someone wrote a response of similar quality, you wouldn't be able to offer a defense and you'd have wasted someone's time.
If you can't write your own responses, you don't really understand the issue.
Unless an experience was terrible, it's shitty not to tip.
If restaurants paid all their servers at least minimum wage or a lot more depending on the restaurant quality, restaurant owners wouldn't just shrug their shoulders and eat the extra cost. They would raise the price of the food.
In America, the fact that you're expected to tip should not be a surprise to anyone. If someone doesn't want to tip a server, they should probably stay out of restaurants explicitly set up to function with servers who are supposed to get tipped.
So I think about this kind of a lot.
Men obligatorily paying for things weirds me out, especially early in a relationship. Multiple potential subtexts have occurred to me and I don't really like any of them. To preface, I don't think most people are consciously reasoning this through when they buy something or let someone buy something for them. It's just a symptom of a general attitude that I don't think is great for anyone, regardless of role.
One implicit message is that the man is enjoying the woman's company but she isn't enjoying his to an equal degree and needs something to sweeten the deal so the time is worth it to her.
Another is that the man doesn't think he has anything of interest/value, personality-wise, and feels like he can only hold a woman's attention with money or displays of status.
A third is that the man thinks he can obligate a woman to spend some time with him by buying her something because she'll feel like she owes him, even if it's she's not having a good time.
Well, people shouldn't feel that they are entitled to not have their character assassinated.
I'm pretty sure people are entitled to not have their character assassinated. That's why defamation is illegal. Fortunately for you, racist jokes aren't character assassination because the term doesn't apply to attacks on an entire demographic.
I never said anything to support the idea that people should be legally protected from hearing racist jokes, or legally prevented from telling them. I just have a huge problem with you framing this like you're being progressive instead of chipping in to help racism, and people who speak up about thinking it's wrong are the ones who are actually the problem.
And it seems to be that YOU believe they are wildly inaccurate. You seem to be generalizing all racist jokes in general 8l
The thing about racist jokes is that people from the same race are different. Whatever you say about x race, you're probably wrong a lot of the time. Even if a social trend holds true for a high percentage of a certain race, it's ignorant and misleading to phrase it as though it's caused by genetics instead of environment.
So whenever I tell a black joke, I shouldn't point out that i'm talking about a black person? That isn't funny, though 8l
Why does a joke become unfunny if you omit race qualifiers? Why is a behavior funny if a race x does it, but unfunny if race y does it?
the act or practice of censoring according to dictionary.com.
Thanks for a helpful response to a real question. I'll rephrase: because I so frequently encounter this victimized attitude in people who defend their racist jokes in a fashion similar to you, I have a feeling you're doing exactly what I described. One step in testing this is to try to understand what situations make you feel like you're being censored.
So your issue isn't with actually eliminating racism. It's about people shutting up so that you can only hear things that you agree with.
Don't bother painting caricatures, I'm sure you don't actually think I don't care to see racism eliminated. Racists exist, of course, but if they never feel comfortable enough to perpetuate or act on their prejudice, that's the best we can hope for. What else do you think I can do except try to contribute to an culture that is not a safe place for racism? Thought policing?
Just how new memes are better than old ones. Old stuff gets boring after a while.
Okay, so not because they're less inaccurate or fallacious. Got it.
I don't expect anything from anyone.
So it's a coincidence you wrote a joke about a group of people acting in a way that falls in line with a common expectation about their behavior?
If you don't expect a particular type of behavior from a particular group, why is your joke funny to you? Why isn't it just as funny if you replace 'black people' with 'people who are 5'6" tall'? Or if you replaced the behavior of 'laughing very loudly out of nowhere and then just getting on the floor and freaking out' with 'sneezing 5 times in a row'? Do you think people would laugh? I'm going to guess no, and that's probably because they have no expectation that black people behavior includes sneezing 5 times in a row, or that behavior for people 5'6" includes falling on the ground and laughing really loud.
If you have no expectations about behavior, wouldn't one group engaging in a certain behavior be just as funny as another group doing it? If not, why not? I kind of asked the same question earlier but it's a major part of this and I'm really curious about it. The only answer I can think of is that the humor relies on different values and expectations assigned carte blanche to different races...which is the definition of racism and has been my point all along.
Also, it doesn't matter if your black friends like your jokes. It doesn't matter if I'm personally offended by Chapelle's Show or not. Racist jokes still contribute to culture that is more comfortable for a racist than a member of the targeted group, because you are validating the views of the former, and pushing the latter away as an Other. I hope you can see the problem with that.
Oh, so it's about actually doing racist things to people and not REALLY about the jokes that "led" up to them (even though the jokes existence is irrelevant to how others treat you).
If we lived in an alternate universe where racism didn't exist, and somehow racist jokes still existed but didn't at all foster racism, then I would have no problem with them.
PS: I have a PDF of a research article that begins by citing numerous studies on the negative social consequences of racist humor, but also spends a lot of time discussing the mechanisms of humor and psychology at work in racist jokes. If you're interested, I can email it to you.
The first part of your response is still framed like I'm trying to say racist joke = racist joke teller, and that still is not what I'm trying to say.
How, exactly, do jokes that operate on sweeping, insulting, and often wildly inaccurate generalizations serve to remind people of their common humanity? Separating people by race, and attributing a set of behaviors to that race, is divisive, not unifying.
How do you define censorship? I can't count how many times I've seen these same words used to defend someone's imaginary right to spew bigoted speech without consequence. If people refuse to associate with you or tolerate your racist jokes, they're not censoring you. They're just not putting up with your shit.
If someone's privately a racist but learns that people will give them shit if they voice it, and thus their racism never has a chance to hurt the target of their prejudice - fine with me. Next best thing to not being a racist at all.
Why are new stereotypes better than old stereotypes?
I'm not sure how you can justify using the term 'post-racial' to refer to humor that uses expectations of behavior based on race. Would your joke be just as funny if it was another race? If not, isn't it because it illustrates how you expect black people to behave? If so, why did you choose black people?
You spent a lot of time explaining why you think racist jokes are okay and how they don't bother you...but how much time do you spend considering how it feels to be a target of racist jokes? Don't you think it might, at the very least, be seriously fucking annoying to see/hear the same worn-out caricatures of yourself ubiquitously presented, have them defend as 'just a joke', and then have to put up with the people who apply those expectations to their interactions with you?
Note that I'm not trying to say someone must automatically be a racist if they recite a racist joke. But a racist joke is still racist, no matter who tells it.
The only distinction you seem to be drawing between 'racist' and 'not racist' is still humor. Someone can send identical racist messages with two methods of communication, but as long as one of them is ended with 'haha guys, totally kidding!', it's not racist? Not only is it not racist, it's actually progressive, and people who call out shitty jokes are actually the ones being racist?
Do racists openly admit to the world they hate certain races, or do they often mask their prejudice as 'just a joke', especially if they get called out on it? Don't you think there are plenty of racists who don't even admit their prejudice to themselves? Are they not racist because there's been no formal declaration?
People can create an unwelcoming environment for others without explicitly saying anything, and jokes contribute to that environment. They foster and normalize shitty attitudes in listeners and remind the joke's target that they are different in a bad way. I think it's disingenuous to ignore the effects of racist jokes, and not only pretend they don't contribute to any climate of prejudice, but that they are actually helpful.
This the first result for 'racist jokes' on google. How these jokes are not operating on stereotypes or desensitizing people to the sentiment that other races are not worth as much by turning the idea into something funny? How are they post-racial? Why is it a positive thing to refuse to consider how one's speech affects others?
Weaponry shouldn't be a primary concern for a vehicle, especially since the tank's will be almost impossible to replenish and it won't be as effective on zombies. Also I'm pretty sure the fuel would be a problem, too, even more so than for the monster truck.
A vehicle should move fast, be fuel-efficient, and not get stuck. I think even the monster truck would be too big, especially if you were trying to get around in a big city, but it has that advantage over the tank, too.
Okay, let me see if I understand you.
You don't want people to feel uncomfortable with themselves...but it's not okay for fat people to feel comfortable with themselves. You don't mean to offend fat people, but man are they just repulsive and lazy.
Right?
So something can't be racist as long as it's at least attempting to be funny? Racism is only expressed through 'formal statements'? And what are you imagining that to be, anyway, a written document or a prepared speech?
Racist humor plays to stereotypes and enforces ideas about the low worth of the target group compared to others. That's racist.
If sex is only for reproduction, why do you think humans exhibit concealed ovulation, and women are receptive to sex when they're not ovulating and even if they're menstruating? When one or both parties are too old to be fertile? Sex is energy expensive and the participants are vulnerable and distracted- if we want to engage in a relatively risky activity when it has 0% chance of making a baby, and we generally do want to do so, it only makes sense that it has another purpose.
People release chemicals during sex to help them bond to their partner. It doesn't matter that this probably evolved as a strategy to help keep couples together to raise a high-maintenance baby: it's not synonymous with fertilization and it happens in the absence of babies. So, sex is not just for reproduction, it also helps couples bond. There's also data suggesting that sex relieves stress, strengthens immune systems, helps you sleep better, etc., but I'm not sure how much of that is just because it's good cardio and how much of that is specifically because it's sex.
Do you see the effort to achieve equality as an effort to make sure everyone is treated identically, regardless of merit or circumstance? Your example seems to imply that.
In its current incarnation, it seems equality efforts are more concerned with making sure no one is unfairly denied rights, not making sure no one has to earn anything. It's not a 'right' to be able to talk to any audience you choose, or to be taken seriously by that audience. That's something you have to earn.
If they are not prepared for the consequences, then yes.
You seem to be using 'prepared for the consequences' in a way that implies the only way to be prepared for an unwanted pregnancy is to allow it to go to term. Abortion is a way of dealing with the consequence of pregnancy, and is in itself a consequence that someone might be prepared for.
Don't assume everyone operates like you. No one is perfectly free of bias but people spend their entire lives learning to work past it. Many people are not content to admit their bias and then do nothing beyond that.
I don't feel blissful in ignorance. I want to get rid of as much as I can. Maybe that's where we differ?
I don't believe in supernatural deities. I refuse to admit their existence because there is no evidence for them. Don't bother trotting out definitions 4-6 again because, as I've said 4 or 5 times, no one gives a shit about them. They're not relevant to conversations about belief in God.
Times you have ignored simple, direct questions so far in this thread: 3
Abortion is still occasionally performed like this and it's not always purely for reasons of the mother's physical health. This isn't always what it looks like but sometimes it is. That it's hard to look at doesn't make it any less wrong or right.
If I worship anything, it's the effort to find the truth. I don't care if you think this is right or not because I, not you, am the better judge of what I hold in high esteem.
Now that I've answered your direct request, maybe you'll return the courtesy for a few of mine. It doesn't hurt, I promise.
You know perfectly well that debates about the existence of God are not asking if super handsome guys are real, or if it's true that people sometimes idealize money. It is absolutely absurd to pretend you think discussions about God, religion, and disbelief are interested in anything but the existence of the first few definitions. Yes, atheists probably recognize the existence of powerful despots- so what? Why do you think that's meaningful?
Go back to my previous post and find the part where I said something to the effect of the following: "No woman has ever experienced any negative emotions after getting an abortion."
If you can do that, your response won't have been mostly a waste of time.
How do you know what women feel after abortions? You have no clue whatsoever and neither do the professionals.
You wouldn't have to ask this if you read the source I provided. How did researchers reach the conclusion that most women feel relieved after an abortion? They asked them. They administered surveys to women who underwent abortions and asked them to explain how they felt about the process. 76% said they felt relieved. The data doesn't agree with your stance, learn to deal with it.
http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/
I talk here from experience, one who knows who has gone through this.
You know people who have regretted abortions, so it's impossible that most abortion patients are okay with their procedure? This is blatantly biased. Your subject group is heavily skewed: women who are happy with their abortions obviously won't come looking for abortion healing so they're not nearly as visible to you. It's fallacious to assume your experience is representative of everyone's.
For the women who do feel guilt or depression: how much of that is owed to the prevalence of the idea that they should feel terrible for getting abortions? If family and/or society is unsupportive or hostile to women who choose abortion, or if they're even perceived that way, doesn't it make sense for at least some of them to be negatively impacted by that?
I really hope you don't bring your accusatory and condemning attitude to your interactions with women who are struggling with their abortions.
Didn't you learn anything the time you tried to make it seem like I was claiming miracles exist? Do you think you've made me sign some kind of contract so that I have to say I believe in God because you set some kind of silly trap? Even if you successfully twisted my words, it would mean nothing. You're not fooling anyone, least of all you and me, into thinking I believe in God.
You're deliberately pretending you don't understand how 'God' is commonly used, because if you were honest, you wouldn't be able to use your cute little trick with the definitions. You'd have to give relevant evidence, and apparently that would be too tough.
By the way, I'm honored to be part of a problem in your life :)
It's just a tad more deep seated than an opinion...
I don't want to spend a lot more on this because the I'd be getting tangled in semantics and it's not actually a sentiment I disagree with, but that something is disgusting to you only a fact if you specify that. Disgust is subjective no matter how widely it is shared.
Perhaps in the mind of someone considering one when there are better options.
What makes an option better than abortion? Who has the authority to place someone else's reproductive options in order of goodness?
Anything we deem to be necessary is representative of a decision we've already made...it's a specific conclusion we've come to in that other possible courses of events are excluded from consideration.
How do you know other options weren't given fair consideration and discarded?
The only reason abortions are performed is that we don't realize better alternatives...
First, I am willing to operate on whatever definition of necessary you are using. You used it once in one way, and once in another way. If we've established you're not using logical necessity, that's fine.
I don't think it's fair to claim people who seek abortions do so because they haven't been diligent in seeking other options. What are you using to support this claim? Why can't abortion simply be the best option, even if the mother is not a rape victim or in danger of dying?
Sorry, I left out "improving". I'm sure you wouldn't dispute that those type of surgeries have health benefits. I think you're straining at gnats here.
They have a neutral impact on physical health. So they do not maintain, restore, or improve health.
If you want to include mental health, I wouldn't argue these procedures have no impact, but I think this still excludes abortion. Using guilt or shame to influence a woman into keeping an unwanted pregnancy would be harmful to her mental health- do you think this is true?
I may not be able to convince you, but there are plenty of occasions where pregnancy and childbirth result in a stronger more healthy woman.
As it is a difficult experience, I don't doubt makes some women stronger. It could also break her or ruin her life if she can't deal with it, or if her life simply has no room for the resources pregnancy requires. There is probably a reason abortion correlates so heavily with poverty.
I don't think it's the job of society to shame someone who chooses not to take a more difficult path, mainly because they have a way better idea than anyone else if they can actually handle it or not. You and I are both in situations that we could undoubtedly complicate by taking on more responsibilities or demands, but we haven't because we're aware that we have our limits and everything will suffer if we overextend ourselves. Is that unacceptable?
If the burden of proof was on you, I suspect you would have trouble showing that abortion restores health to a pre-pregnancy level.
An abortion performed without complications will not damage a woman's health and abortion is one of the safest medical procedures. It's a faster way than pregnancy to return to a pre-pregnancy health level.
The most common emotions reported after abortion are relief and happiness. A negative impact on mental health is rare. It would be rarer still if abortion was not stigmatized and if no women were ever pressured into an abortion they didn't want.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090308.html
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/safety_of_abortion.html
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/
You showed that the word 'god' has some obscure and seldom-used meanings that refer to things that do exist. No one is trying to tell you definitions 4-6 don't exist, so what makes you think you're doing anything of substance by repeating that they do?
I don't think you're actually stupid enough to think definitions 4-6 are evidence for a supernatural deity, so the alternative is you think you're being clever. You're not.
That's only worth something if you're trying to claim definitions 4-6 exist. If you are, don't waste your time- nobody is actually arguing that they don't. You haven't done anything remotely useful or interesting with this childish equivocation.
What do atheist use to prove their belief?
A complete lack of evidence to the contrary is enough to justify a lack of belief.
Refusing to change this definition arbitrarily is not discrimination.
Yes, it is. There is no reason not to change the definition except to prevent gays from attaining equal civil rights.
A solution to the problem would be a whole other kind of legal union for gay couples to enter into.
Or we could just let gays get married. Why not?
As of now, marriage is a legal covenant designed to take into interest the future plans of a man and women and progeny.
These plans won't be in any danger if gays are also allowed to get married.
There are also plenty of men and women who never bring progeny into the equation so that's clearly not a prerequisite for marriage.
What could we show that you would find acceptable as the picture of abortion.
Pretending pro-life people care about scientific fact is bullshit. Not that it's impossible to be scientifically honest and still be pro-life, but so many outspoken pro-life people and groups who have no problem using misinformation, emotional blackmail, intimidation and deceit to manipulate people into doing what pro-life thinks is right. Pro-choice people don't have to lie, because they don't care if no one chooses an abortion as long as they aren't being lied to or bullied. In fact, I think you'd find most pro-choice people would agree that the fewer people need/want abortions, the better. But being dishonest or cruel is not the way to go about making that happen.
Why are D&E;illustrations so commonly used for pro-life propaganda when D&E;accounts for less than 5% of all procedures? Not because it's an honest representation of what most abortions look like, because it isn't. It's because it's supposed to be scarier and more guilt-inducing. If you show this picture to an average woman who is considering an abortion and tell her this is what her procedure will look like, you are probably lying to her.
(I'm not the one putting the semicolon after D&E;, the website is doing that.)
You want abortion legal…on demand period.
You got it.
The fact is abortion is the act of KILLING A LIVING HUMAN BEING. THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. The heart starts beating around 22 days…..THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Please show me where I denied that a fetus is a human. Oh wait, I didn't, because I'm not an idiot. Of course a fetus is a human- did you expect me to claim it's a different species? The argument for abortion is sometimes concerned with personhood, not the presence of homo sapien DNA and you're getting the two confused. But I think abortion would still be acceptable even if the government extended legal personhood to fetuses. One human should not use another human as a life support system unless the host is giving ongoing consent. This applies regardless of the age or legal status of either party or the relationship between the parties. If it's in your body and you don't want it there, you have a right to try to find someone who will take it out.
But tell me….what would you call killing a living human being without its permission.
Abortion if it's a fetus, murder if it's not. It's cool how there's two different names for that, isn't it? That's so we don't get them confused.
It does not matter what the procedure is…it outcome is the same thing. Death to the unborn.
Oh shit, really?! Well then call me pro-life! Or don't, because I already knew that. Maybe say some more obvious things.
Those who are pro-abortion of course would not like this pic
I'm fine with it. It's not pretty but it's a fairly realistic representation of an uncommon medical procedure. Medical procedures generally are not pretty. It's the use of it to scare women who won't even be getting this procedure that I have a problem with.
Most doctors try to save lives. And abortionists kill lives.
More obvious things! If there is someone here who didn't realize abortion exterminates a living thing, I'm sure they'll thank you.
You only showed that they aren't being reformed, not that they can't be...and yeah, that's kind of the problem I'm talking about. Don't you think it's possible the right methods aren't being used? Look at the criminon link I gave you earlier.
If you mean disgusting as in 'gross to watch,' then we're in agreement, but that doesn't turn an opinion into a fact.
How dare I speak as if what I think matters!?
More than the thoughts of people actually faced with getting abortions?
If it's necessary it's not really a choice, is it?
If by necessary, you mean something that logically follows and literally cannot be other way, then even your 'necessary' abortions are not necessary. No medical procedures are 'necessary.' After all, people can always 'choose' to let themselves die slow, painful deaths.
I can't decide what's necessary.
You already have. Unless you did actually mean necessary in the logical sense, you've decided 'necessary' means 'necessary to prevent the mother from suffering death or serious injury.' An abortion could be necessary to restore the mother's health a pre-pregnancy level, necessary to maintain a lifestyle that enables a mother to support her existing children, necessary to preserve the mother's mental health, necessary to allow the mother control of her own reproductive life, or necessary for any number of things you've decided are less important than not getting an abortion.
I'd like "doctors" who perform surgeries that don't play a role in maintaining or restoring health to be recategorized as hacks.
Things that would make doctors hacks according to you:
Correcting birth defects such as extra fingers, tails, or deviated septa
Cosmetic reconstructive surgery for accident victims
All exploratory surgeries
---
Things that wouldn't:
Abortion (unless you can show me that pregnancy does not reduce the mother's health from its pre-pregnancy level, thus making abortion a procedure that restores health)
So you'd burn down a house to get rid of termites. Okay. Were you hoping this would sound less crazy? Because it doesn't.
High recidivism rates have no effect on my points. We are both advocating changes, just changes in different directions. A problem with the current model is not an argument against the model I am proposing.
It seems like this is the way lots of people deal with things. Pro-death penalty, pro-life, anti-drug, anti-prostitution, etc.- they're all trying to stop 'bad' things, but not in a way that actually solves anything.
Maybe it's just the compartmentalizing format of debates, but it's incredibly rare to see someone who identifies with any of the above positions but is more concerned about dealing with the factors that create the problem than with putting a bandage on the cut.
Well, for the jargon barrier, there is the simple Wiki.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/
I love Wikipedia for recreational learning but if I was going to turn a free knowledge website into an educational system, it would be Khan Academy. It's convinced me that with only a little more progress, computer programs could easily beat out human teachers almost every time.
Abortion is a disgusting thing. That's a fact.
No, it isn't. That is an opinion.
I see nothing wrong with working to reduce public acceptance of abortion as a form of birth control.
A little public shaming never hurt anyone, right?
I know we've been over this before and the conversation got to be too much for me to keep straight as much as it was interesting, so I'll try to keep this focused. You speak as if your definition of the 'unnecessary' is the one that matters. I'm sure you understand that many people actually getting abortions consider it absolutely necessary...and without understanding their circumstances, you're advocating public hostility towards their choice. What qualifies you to decide what is necessary and unnecessary for strangers, and what social punishment they should receive if they don't obey your standards?
It's definitely dishonest to present this as a picture of abortion in general, and sadly it preys on people who have no better source of information. Most women will not have abortions using this procedure, and their fetuses will not look at all like that. They probably will not even be recognizably human. If a woman went to a clinic, she would at least be told the truth about what would happen to her if she wanted an abortion.
However, D&E;is still in use today although it counts for a small fraction of all procedures. Abortions aren't pretty, no matter how they're done. If you are pro-choice, you may have to accept the fact that they are just tough for laypeople to look at, even suction aspiration. It's not at all a point in favor of pro-life; childbirth and open-heart surgery can turn stomachs, too.
Let's pretend you're right and sexuality is a switch people can flip at will. Why are there scared straight camps? Why do so many right-wing politicians have to poorly hide their orientation? Why do people kill themselves from the shame of being gay? Why has anyone, ever, been attracted to someone they'd rather not be attracted to? Do they just lack your superhuman ability to control what arouses you?
Could you wake up tomorrow and decide to be aroused by old people? Ugly people? Animals?
I was thinking that for something to be logically considered a medicine it should necessarily aid in the healing from or prevention of an illness or at least be intended to.
There are disorders related to menstruation, like endometriosis, which can cause abnormally severe pain. Birth control is a method of treating endometriosis, and some women take the pill specifically for that reason. So birth control is a medicinal treatment for endometriosis.
http://womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/endometriosis.cfm#j
PMS and PMDD are hormone imbalances that can be corrected with birth control. There is some evidence that birth control may even alleviate depression. So birth control is a medicinal treatment for mood disorders.
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/
Birth control can also be taken to deal with acne, and some people take it specifically for that, too. So birth control is also a medicinal treatment for acne.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/
Not everybody takes birth control as a method of correcting disorders, but lots of people do. It has other effects besides suppressing menstruation and preventing pregnancy, and any deliberate use of those effects to correct medical conditions can be considered medicinal use by your own definition.
Watch how the affirmative side remains absent of thoughtful argument.
Being condescending is not a good way to kick off a debate.
I'm for killing everyone. It takes care of a lot of problems.
Hahaha this was so funny you are so edgy haha.
I have no use for a thief.
Do you think I do?
I have found that those that defend thieves are thieves.
So you're calling me a thief with no evidence except I don't think thieves should be put to death, right? Just making sure I understand you.
By the way, ad hominem. If you don't think I'm correct, you should be able to give reasons why, even if I am a thief.
Why else would their fate bother you so much?
You're asking why would I be bothered if a fellow human loses their life for a single bad decision? Maybe I'll give you a chance to puzzle this one out before I answer.
The primary concern should making sure there are as few thieves as possible to begin with, not just harshly punishing people after they've already stolen. The next thing is to make sure if someone steals once, they won't do it again. Wanton execution is like burning down a house to deal with an ant problem, and it's more likely to incite a rebellion than reduce crime. Prevention and rehabilitation are more reasonable and effective.
http://www.ncpc.org/topics/bullying/
http://aic.gov.au/documents/3/E/F/
PS: Also noticed you can't answer the simple, direct questions from my previous post. Surprise, surprise.
