Prison population crisis

[DaveShack]

Moderator Action: skadistic & mrt144 warned. Everyone keep it civil
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Sims2789]

Those stupid racist southerners. Is execution all you could come up with? Thats not exactly anti freedom unless you think they should just be let out.

No all you have are trolls and flames. Its real easy to toss that racist label around isn't it. Typical of a losing argument. Can't actually prove you previous troll that southerners hate freedom so you switch to the tired old racist bit.

Freedom is the right of individuals to do what they want, and their right to be secure from other individuals reasonably harming them in doing what they want. It is not the right of state legislatures to oppress its people with immunity from the federal government defending those people, and it is not the right of the federal government to impose the will of these states onto anybody, much less citizens of other states.

He doesn't need to invoke racism since I'm about to show you how the South hates freedom, and I won't use race once:

You're more than happy to whine and whine and whine about your states' right to not let consenting adults f*ck each other because you have some Bible passage that says that two cities got destroyed when that happened.

But when we want to legalize pot, and not have our phones tapped by Uncle Sam, and even when those people you used states' rights to not let f*ck wanna marry, you want to get tough on crime, increase national security, and save our souls, and you create federal legislation to do this. But legislation is not always enough. A few years ago, you wanted to amend Constitution of the United States of America to say that marriage must be between one man and one woman.

Sometimes, under the guise of states' rights, you try to prevent people from doing what they want when it doesn't hurt other people. Other times you use federal legislation to do this.

Oppression can come from any level of government, and you pick and choose whichever one suits you to force others to do what you want them to. However, which level of government one uses to oppress or not oppress others has nothing to do with whether one hates freedom, and it is not the South's hypocritical stance on states' rights that makes them hate it. What matters is what people use those governments for. We're not perfect, but we don't tend to use any level of government to restrict what people can and cannot do when it doesn't hurt other people.

You do, and that's why you hate freedom.

 

[Homie]

So you let someone else decide your morality for you

When that someone else is God, then yes, I don't have a probably admitting that. Funny question, hehe.

fter all, what god (via whichever religion) says is moral now is different to what god said was moral a few thousand years ago, isn't it?

Well, that part is kinda complicated. But basically, first God only deals with Jews and has a covenant with them, then after Jesus he deals with everyone. So it doesn't really change, as the first covenants were with the Jews in particular. Also, if God were to change what is moral throughout time He is free to do so, we are not.

 

[mrt144]

For longer terms for less crack compared to what? Affecting one race doesn't make it racist. Maybe blacks should stop smoking crack in large numbers.

longer terms for less crack than shorter terms for more coke. try to follow.

 

[sanabas]

When that someone else is God, then yes, I don't have a probably admitting that. Funny question, hehe.


Well, that part is kinda complicated. But basically, first God only deals with Jews and has a covenant with them, then after Jesus he deals with everyone. So it doesn't really change, as the first covenants were with the Jews in particular.

So if god started off dealing only with jews, what was moral for non-jews? Post-jesus, apparently god decides morals for everyone. Does everyone mean all christians, all people who believe in some sort of monotheistic god, or all people? How do you account for different monotheistic gods handing out different sets of morals? Are all those other gods false, and the followers therefore immoral?

Also, if God were to change what is moral throughout time He is free to do so, we are not.

So if morals can change, is morality objective and absolute, or subjective and not-absolute?

When that someone else is God, then yes, I don't have a probably admitting that. Funny question, hehe.

Does that mean you don't think you're capable of deciding your own morality?

 

[Homie]

Okay, when you said that God changes morals I assumed you meant the rules and regulations for Jews as laid out in the books of Moses (Genesis-Deuteronomy), as they no longer have to be kept. I went with this without going into much detail, but that is causing confusion. It is my views on whether morals change over time and wheter morals are absolute that is being intermingled, but they shouldn't be because they are different subjects. I will now fully explain myself.
This is my views on the matter:
I believe that Morals are absolute, meaning that what is wrong for me to do is wrong for you to do. As opposed to subjective morals, meaning what is wrong for you might not be wrong for me - it's all relative, blah blah. I disagree that morals are subjective, I believe that God gives us a set of morals that applies always, no matter who you are and what you personally think, morals are ordained by God.

Now, whether God changes morals from time to time doesn't factor into whether they are absolute or subjective, that is a different matter alltogether. God may change morals, but they are still absolute, and should be followed by all, regardless of your subjective opinion. See the differense?

But, as we are on the topic of God changing morals, this is what I believe:
God does not change morals over time (I know this sounds contradictory to what I said earlier, but bear with me). The rules and regulations laid out in the books of Moses, which were required of the Jews have "changed" in that they are no longer required to be followed. But those rules were not moral codes, they were specifically addressed to a people, during a specific time, namely the Jews during ancient Israel. They dealt with everything from guidelines on agriculture to sanitation and management of cities, the judicial system, specific laws and so on. They were like the laws, management and political setup needed to run a country, just that they were given directly by God Himself. The moral code is the ten commandments, which clearly deals with morals, eternal morals. The ten commandments were given to Moses on a seperate occasion from the rules and regulations in Leviticus, Exodus, and the others. Also God specifies that the rules and regulations apply to Israel and to those that dwell in Israel (like any nation's laws and management), but He does not specify this when He brings Moses the Ten commandments.
Also the stories of the Bible and the writings of apostles and prophets help us to guide our actions. So no, God does not change morals, and morals are not subjective; but those two things are different matters anyway.

There has been some confusing wording going on, fully on my part. For that I apologize. But now I think I have made myself clear.

 

[Homie]

And yeah, God decides morals for everyone.
To reiterate, the rules and regulations were for the ancient nation of Israel only, but the morals are eternal and for everyone.

 

[Homie]

Does that mean you don't think you're capable of deciding your own morality?

Yep, you got it. To some extent I am, but not fully. E.g. without God's laws I would probably have sex before marriage, I wouldn't realize that I had to respect my parents.

 

[sanabas]

Ok, so god decides morals for everyone, and those morals are unchanging. But I still have some questions: What about other monotheistic gods that hand out different morals? Are all those other gods false, and their followers therefore immoral?

God's morals are unchanging. Is the use of contraception moral or immoral? Are we able to decide which sect of christianity is most correct by comparing their views to god's views, or do we find out god's views by extrapolating from the views of our preferred sect? If a sect has changed its views over time, is this because they were wrong before, or because they are wrong now? If we know they've got things wrong at some point, how do we know their views on other things aren't wrong too?

 

[Homie]

What about other monotheistic gods that hand out different morals? Are all those other gods false

Yes.

and their followers therefore immoral?

Well, if their actions follow what is moral according to the Bible, then they are still leading good, moral lives. Muslims and Jews often fit into this category, as the morals laid out in their holy books are similar to ours. However, muslims would be commiting immoral acts five times a day, by praying to a false god, which is breaking one of the commandments of the Bible.

Also, the Bible says that no man is perfect, everybody has sinned, so everyone needs salvation by Jesus. Jews rejects Jesus, so they may live somewhat moral lives (if they follow the Torah - which contains the 10 commandments), but not perfectly moral and thus are left out in the cold on judgement day because they didn't accept Christ.

God's morals are unchanging. Is the use of contraception moral or immoral?

IMO it is moral, because I am not murdering anything because life has not yet been created. However, I have respect for Catholics who believe otherwise. But lets not get into abortion, abortion debates are boring and repetitive, I will leave if that happens.

Are we able to decide which sect of christianity is most correct by comparing their views to god's views, or do we find out god's views by extrapolating from the views of our preferred sect? If a sect has changed its views over time, is this because they were wrong before, or because they are wrong now? If we know they've got things wrong at some point, how do we know their views on other things aren't wrong too?

Sect is a negatively charged word, let's use denomination or church. Although technically you are using the word correctly.

I am not aware of a church that has changed what it believes to be moral. Usually what happens is that new churches are formed that believe differently from the incumbent church. But even these differences do not usually (if ever) deal with morals but with theological differences and differences on how a church service should look.

 

[mrt144]

http://www.cocaine.org/crack/index.html

smoking cocaine, whether in hydrochloride crystaline form or as "crack" is nearly the same exact thing: delivery of cocaine through smoke. tell me skadistic how is crack so much worse chemically that it causes worse problems? what do you know at all about crack? have you ever been present when crack was being made? BTW I was describing the method for extracting freebase where an ammonia solution is and ether are mixed with cocaine to free the base alkaloid from the rest of the cocaine compound. exactly what making and smoking crack does. it frees the active chemical in cocaine from the rest of the salt. the reason you need baking soda is because the hydrochloride vaporizes at the same temp as the base.



crack was a bigger problem not cause it was so much more addictive but because it was so cheap cut with fillers and to distribute, cut, and regulate to addicts. also factor in that because of the expense of coke many black americans hadn't used it habitually before. with crack you open up the floodgates to cheap 10 minute highs for 5 bucks. far different than buying coke, preparing it to either snort or smoke. with crack you had all the labor steps removed. its economics skadistic, it is all economics

 

[sanabas]

Yes.


Well, if their actions follow what is moral according to the Bible, then they are still leading good, moral lives. Muslims and Jews often fit into this category, as the morals laid out in their holy books are similar to ours. However, muslims would be commiting immoral acts five times a day, by praying to a false god, which is breaking one of the commandments of the Bible.

Also, the Bible says that no man is perfect, everybody has sinned, so everyone needs salvation by Jesus. Jews rejects Jesus, so they may live somewhat moral lives (if they follow the Torah - which contains the 10 commandments), but not perfectly moral and thus are left out in the cold on judgement day because they didn't accept Christ.

I find this truly weird. You are willing to base your morality entirely on the views of a being who excludes people that do everything right, other than how they worship him. To me, that is a petty, arbitrary reason to exclude someone, even moreso if it also extends to people who died without being given the chance to accept Jesus, whether due to dying too young, or living a life somewhere that had never heard of christianity. I don't understand how you can use a being prepared to be that petty as your moral compass.

IMO it is moral, because I am not murdering anything because life has not yet been created. However, I have respect for Catholics who believe otherwise. But lets not get into abortion, abortion debates are boring and repetitive, I will leave if that happens.

I didn't mention abortion, and wasn't planning to. So god says contraception is moral, but the catholics say it isn't. Therefore the catholics are wrong. They're not behaving immorally, because god doesn't say you must use contraception, but they are adding in extra morals, that god doesn't require. If they're wrong about what god thinks on this topic, does that mean they might be wrong on what god thinks on other topics? What about papal infallibility? It doesn't mean the pope can't make mistakes, but it does mean that the official papal announcements are the literal word of god, and can't be wrong. But since one of those announcements was about contraception, they can't be the literal word of god. If it's not the word of god coming from the pope, it must be the word of someone/something else. And yet the catholics are treating it, revering it, possinly even worshipping it as the word of god. Won't that get them into trouble, under one of the worshipping false idols laws?

Why do you think your particular views, or your particular church's views, are the correct ones, and all others have been wrong somewhere along the line? Isn't that sort of pride & ego a sin in itself?

Sect is a negatively charged word, let's use denomination or church. Although technically you are using the word correctly.

I'm not meaning it negatively. But I'll switch anyway.

I am not aware of a church that has changed what it believes to be moral. Usually what happens is that new churches are formed that believe differently from the incumbent church. But even these differences do not usually (if ever) deal with morals but with theological differences and differences on how a church service should look.

I'd have to go and do a fair bit more reading, but one off the top of my head was the 2nd vatican council, in the 1960s. That included a major change in how other religions should be treated, especially in places where catholicism was the official religion, such as Spain. Think there were quite a few other changes, some procedural, some to the actual dogma. In 1930 they altered their position on marital sex. Earlier, all sex was immoral, unless it was done to procreate. That changed to all marital sex was moral, provided there weren't steps taken to avoid procreation. Under the first ruling, sex while infertile or pregnant was immoral, because it couldn't lead to procreation. Under the second, they became moral, because they didn't involve the deliberate preventing of procreation. I reckon within the next 20 years or so we'll see them change their position on condoms, and other ways to prevent the transmission of STDs that have a side effect of being contraceptives, and homosexuality.

 

[illram]

It seems to me that something is badly wrong when so many people are in the slammer, especially veterans. It also seems wrong that the police use half-naked females to trap victims. And we can hardly call our countries free when so many of us are caged.


What does it all mean?

Treat drug use as a health problem, not a penal problem. Give judges more leeway in sentencing. Expand first offender and supervised release programs.

Improve community policing practice. Give more money to local police stations and improve police oversight. Funnel more money to education rather than defense.

The list goes on... there are a lot of factors behind our country's ridiculous incarceration rates. The criminal justice system is one of them, but there are many others.

 

[Berzerker]

Not necessarily. The majority might get to decide what is legal, but the only one who can decide what I view as moral is me. I can think of examples that the majority define as murder, but I see as moral. i.e. euthanasia. I can think of examples the majority define as moral, but someone else sees as murder. i.e. abortion. Or there's the death penalty, which I see as simply being state sanctioned murder, but others see as moral. Or a revenge killing, by someone who doesn't trust the state to hand out sufficient punishment. I think that's immoral, so does the state, but the person doing it thinks it's moral, even though being caught and punished themselves might be a consequence. Murder's just a definition, and killing someone is not automatically moral or immoral.

Jesus H Christ, all I did was ask a simple question: are murder and slavery moral if the majority says so? All I'm getting from you and JR is an argument over what is or is not murder. I dont care! Define it as you wish, just tell me if murder and slavery are moral if the majority says so.

Rubbish. I live in a society where morality is neither absolute nor objective, but it's not a society where might makes right.

Are murder and slavery moral in some places down under?
Or, are murder and slavery immoral and it dont matter what this or that society says? Oh yeah, majority rule is still might makes right...

 

[sanabas]

Jesus H Christ, all I did was ask a simple question: are murder and slavery moral if the majority says so? All I'm getting from you and JR is an argument over what is or is not murder. I dont care! Define it as you wish, just tell me if murder and slavery are moral if the majority says so.

The only one who can decide whether I think a killing is moral or immoral is me. If I think it's immoral, the majority can't make me think it's moral. If I think it's moral, the majority cant make me think it's immoral.

Are murder and slavery moral in some places down under?
Or, are murder and slavery immoral and it dont matter what this or that society says? Oh yeah, majority rule is still might makes right...

As above. Some killings are justifiable, some are not. What the majority has to say doesn't change that. What the majority consider murder doesn't change that. The majority can decide what's legal. By definition, murder's not legal. But what's moral, and what's legal, aren't the same thing.

 

[JerichoHill]

So you can't prove crack laws target blacks and are racist. Crack laws target crack heads. The laws are not racist at all are they.

According to the legal system I can. When two laws have unequal punishments and adversly affect one group over another, that is enough (to put it simply), for legal significance, and therefore, enough proof in a court of law.

You expect an unreasonable standard. Your defense is not unlike many defendants experts I have opposed. So far, the US court system has not sided with their claims or methods

 

[JerichoHill]

JH, why doesn't the law require causality?

Because of the high intercorrelation amongst many demographic variables and race, causality is incredibly difficult to prove in anything other than a single variable regression. It's due to a data problem called multi-correlation. Courts understand math and data problems, so what is legally signficant acknowledges these difficulties

 

[Homie]

I find this truly weird. You are willing to base your morality entirely on the views of a being who excludes people that do everything right, other than how they worship him

I don't see where you got this from what I said. I said that according to Christian doctrine no one does everything right, we all need salvation. And worshipping a false god is obviously wrong, btw.

To me, that is a petty, arbitrary reason to exclude someone, even moreso if it also extends to people who died without being given the chance to accept Jesus, whether due to dying too young, or living a life somewhere that had never heard of christianity. I don't understand how you can use a being prepared to be that petty as your moral compass.

First of all, even if He was petty I would still choose to do His will, after all, He decides my eternal destiny, no matter how petty He was I don't want to endure an eternity in pain. A lifetime, sure, but an eternity, never.
Secondly, He is not petty, and the questions regarding salvation for people who have not heard of Jesus are typical questions that I'm sure you have seen dozens of times on forum debates. If the answers you were given there didn't make sense to you, I will probably not be able to do any better. Those questions are just as typical as "If God is all-powerful, why is there evil in the world".

I didn't mention abortion, and wasn't planning to. So god says contraception is moral, but the catholics say it isn't. Therefore the catholics are wrong. They're not behaving immorally, because god doesn't say you must use contraception, but they are adding in extra morals, that god doesn't require. If they're wrong about what god thinks on this topic, does that mean they might be wrong on what god thinks on other topics? What about papal infallibility? It doesn't mean the pope can't make mistakes, but it does mean that the official papal announcements are the literal word of god, and can't be wrong. But since one of those announcements was about contraception, they can't be the literal word of god. If it's not the word of god coming from the pope, it must be the word of someone/something else. And yet the catholics are treating it, revering it, possinly even worshipping it as the word of god. Won't that get them into trouble, under one of the worshipping false idols laws?

Catholics do not worship the Pope, nor what he says. Just because they are wrong on a particular doctrinal or liturgical matter, doesn't mean they are wrong about everything. Catholics are still Christians, we agree on most things, and we agree on the important things.

Why do you think your particular views, or your particular church's views, are the correct ones, and all others have been wrong somewhere along the line? Isn't that sort of pride & ego a sin in itself?

I believe they are correct because they make sense to me. Somethings I am even undecided on because they are complicated, and they are not important to salvation nor to how we should live our lives, so it doesn't even matter. E.g. what revelation means, the rapture, predestination etc...

I'm not meaning it negatively. But I'll switch anyway.

I know, but most people have a negative association, and others are reading this thread. Thanks for switching.

sex while infertile or pregnant was immoral, because it couldn't lead to procreation.

Really, I find this a little hard to believe. Anyways, it doesn't deal with salvation, I would still count them Christians. It's strict, but that' their prerogative. I'm not Catholic.

 

[Pannonius]

How to solve a prison population crisis? Just invite all criminals to a formal necktie party.

 

[JollyRoger]

How to solve a prison population crisis? Just invite all criminals to a formal necktie party.

Even the ones currently incarerated for shooting at a junkie who invaded their home?