This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - πΊπππππ
πͺππππ
Pages: 1 ... 421422423 424425 ... 1001
12661
« on: April 19, 2016, 07:32:31 PM »
15
15?
How the FUCK are you younger than me?
I was 14 but I grew up 
Where the fuck is the picture thread where you posted. I swore you were 16-17 at the time.
The fuck?
yeah I get that a lot I look way old for my age
12662
« on: April 19, 2016, 06:17:49 PM »
LMAO Please link posts of mine where I GO OUT OF MY WAY to be an EXTREME ASSHOLEπ€π€π€
Here you go
Exactly
You're just mad you look exactly like Armen.
Lol, you're the one who's getting all defensive itt
12663
« on: April 19, 2016, 06:15:22 PM »
LMAO Please link posts of mine where I GO OUT OF MY WAY to be an EXTREME ASSHOLEπ€π€π€
Here you go
12664
« on: April 19, 2016, 06:07:58 PM »
Let's be real here though, most if not everyone is guilty to contributing to some degree. Some more than others but that's besides the point. The main source of entertainment here is berating other people, and that's not really a good indicator of the status of things overall.
No way, I'm perfect
12665
« on: April 19, 2016, 05:52:09 PM »
there's no toxic members here. They've all been permabanned.
the fact I was able to read these words proves this is wrong
"WAAAAAAH STOP DISAGREEING WITH ME AND MAKING FUN OF ME"
The day I make alts and harass you through PM's is the day you can call me toxic. Until then, I'm somebody you dislike for your own bullshit reasons.
If anything, you're toxic by your retarded standards. You have shitty opinions that you shove down everybody's throats and call people all sorts of names for disagreeing with your shitty meme opinions and you're a huge fucking whiner. You're like a gayer, retarded Verbatim with a shitty taste in music and pretty much everything else.
HANG YOURSELF
Toxic =/= harasser Toxic just means you're an extreme asshole. I may have contraversial opinions that I'm passionate about, but I don't go out of my way to be a douche to people.
12666
« on: April 19, 2016, 05:50:19 PM »
15
15?
How the FUCK are you younger than me?
I was 14 but I grew up
12667
« on: April 19, 2016, 05:38:00 PM »
there's no toxic members here. They've all been permabanned.
the fact I was able to read these words proves this is wrong
12668
« on: April 19, 2016, 05:13:55 PM »
I nominate secondclass as tribute
I volunteer
12669
« on: April 19, 2016, 04:49:33 PM »
15
12670
« on: April 19, 2016, 04:29:25 PM »
I'd rather not have an over saturation to begin with.
It's inevitable that popular things get oversaturated, that's just supply and demand.
12671
« on: April 19, 2016, 04:05:45 PM »
Fallout, The 100 (where my avatar comes from), Chappie, Portal, etc. It seems like AI plotlines and stories are becoming a lot more overused in fiction these days.
Not that this is a bad thing, though. I'd much rather have AIs oversaturate the market than zombies or superheroes.
12672
« on: April 19, 2016, 03:22:22 PM »
its not hard to be likable on an online forum.
I disagree
It's not that hard when you aren't a sensitive cunt or overly opinionated.
I agree with that revision
12673
« on: April 19, 2016, 02:42:22 PM »
who legit likes a little george michael here and there
only Careless Whisper
12674
« on: April 19, 2016, 02:40:18 PM »
I'm 100% sure that most who plead their innocence in jail are guilty of the crime they're in there for.
Yeah, that's the problem. And yeah, it's obviously an understandable mistake that the jury ruined someone's life if evidence points to them, but that doesn't make the jury's crime any less impactful. And just like when anyone makes a mistake, it's still their fault and they still have to take responsibility. If I accidentally kill someone, I go to jail. A jury accidentally destroys someone's whole life and "lol man thats just the system". People are so apathetic about wrongful incarcerations, even though those and inequality legislation are some of the biggest miscarriages of justice in general.
No one on the jury chose to be there, it's the law. Usually when you accidentally kill someone there's been gross misconduct. Serving on a jury that wrongly accuses someone is not similar at all to killing another person.
And like I said previously that's why our justice system allows for appeals, if they find you guilty ten times in a row chances are you're guilty.
Which is why jury duty in the first place should be optional. So many people I know really want to be in a pool but never get the chance. And please, the appeal rate for violent criminals is remarkably low. Once you get the "criminal" label, that's what people see you as.
12675
« on: April 19, 2016, 02:26:00 PM »
I'm 100% sure that most who plead their innocence in jail are guilty of the crime they're in there for.
Yeah, that's the problem. And yeah, it's obviously an understandable mistake that the jury ruined someone's life if evidence points to them, but that doesn't make the jury's crime any less impactful. And just like when anyone makes a mistake, it's still their fault and they still have to take responsibility. If I accidentally kill someone, I go to jail. A jury accidentally destroys someone's whole life and "lol man thats just the system". People are so apathetic about wrongful incarcerations, even though those and inequality legislation are some of the biggest miscarriages of justice in general.
12676
« on: April 19, 2016, 02:20:56 PM »
its not hard to be likable on an online forum.
I disagree
12677
« on: April 19, 2016, 02:11:28 PM »
Why have a justice system at all? You can't prove 100% that a man is guilty of a crime. There will always be a question of guilt, and in your scenario that allows criminals to be set free.
You can definitely prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a man is guilty of a crime. If there's any uncertainty, no sane juror should push for commitment.
It's a much larger failing of the justice system to wrongfully give a guilty verdict than an innocent one.
What constitutes reasonable doubt?
And for that matter reasonable doubt does not equal certainty.
We're guessing 100% of the time, you're bound to guess wrong eventually.
Idealistically no one would ever be locked up regardless of the evidence mounted against them.
In reality, yes. Juries aren't perfect, and even if we advocate a "you have to make a mistake, make the mistake of setting a guilty man free" paradigm, there will eventually be a slip in that crack. But the problem is that we don't have that mindset. We don't see wrongfully convicted citizens as the abhorrent travesty that it is. Look at Meta's reponse if you want an example. We have this mindset of "oh hey, we know we convinced the world you're a monster, forced you to throw away three fourths of your life, made you lose your job, family, friends, and perhaps even sanity as you were punished for decades with only the knowledge you were innocent to grasp to, but don't worry. We have this nice "wrongfully incarcerated" package for you. Have some money. There you go. Now go happily spend whatever life you have left in you, champ! The fact we admitted we were wrong and gave you some cash is solace enough, after all."
There are numerous documentaries and newspaper articles that disagree with you.
People have lost jobs, jury members suffer shame and humiliation, individuals have sued for damages and mostly succeed.
We all know it's a terrible thing, but you can't give them their lives back, you can't change the damaging things said. All you can do is apologize and offer what little recompense you can.
As they should. They destroyed someone's life. And no, we shouldn't offer what little recompense we can. We should make it a big deal. It turns out someone was wrongfully convicted, it should be a scandal. There should be riots, national coverage, public shame for the judge who presided. Instead people just shrug and say "meh". "Shit happens", right? That's so disgusting, that people actually think this way. Like it's no big deal. And you know that for every innocent man in jail who's exonerated later, there's dozens more who live and die pleading their innocence.
12678
« on: April 19, 2016, 01:54:45 PM »
Because you're advocating jailing an innocent so the 1000 criminals stay in jail.
Because, funnily enough, keeping dangerous people out of society is a first-rate consideration for any criminal justice system; that's pretty much it's entire point. In fact, I'd say it's probably more important.
We haven't managed to improve our justice system over the years by making sure nobody who is innocent goes to gaol. Keeping dangerous people out of society is always the first concern, and then we work on improving our abilities at not locking up people who haven't done anything.
Not only do we have a moral obligation to try our hardest not to send innocent people to prison, you better believe we also have one to deliver a safe and stable society as best we can. Releasing hundreds of dangerous criminals is not particularly conducive to that.
We have the moral obligation to not do evil shit. This whole "muh needs of muh society trumps human rights lol!!" attitude around here is so goddamn tiring.
12679
« on: April 19, 2016, 01:53:38 PM »
Why have a justice system at all? You can't prove 100% that a man is guilty of a crime. There will always be a question of guilt, and in your scenario that allows criminals to be set free.
You can definitely prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a man is guilty of a crime. If there's any uncertainty, no sane juror should push for commitment.
It's a much larger failing of the justice system to wrongfully give a guilty verdict than an innocent one.
What constitutes reasonable doubt?
And for that matter reasonable doubt does not equal certainty.
We're guessing 100% of the time, you're bound to guess wrong eventually.
Idealistically no one would ever be locked up regardless of the evidence mounted against them.
In reality, yes. Juries aren't perfect, and even if we advocate a "you have to make a mistake, make the mistake of setting a guilty man free" paradigm, there will eventually be a slip in that crack. But the problem is that we don't have that mindset. We don't see wrongfully convicted citizens as the abhorrent travesty that it is. Look at Meta's reponse if you want an example. We have this mindset of "oh hey, we know we convinced the world you're a monster, forced you to throw away three fourths of your life, made you lose your job, family, friends, and perhaps even sanity as you were punished for decades with only the knowledge you were innocent to grasp to, but don't worry. We have this nice "wrongfully incarcerated" package for you. Have some money. There you go. Now go happily spend whatever life you have left in you, champ! The fact we admitted we were wrong and gave you some cash is solace enough, after all."
12680
« on: April 19, 2016, 01:40:08 PM »
I like Cruz' future. Very spooky.
12681
« on: April 19, 2016, 01:38:29 PM »
Why have a justice system at all? You can't prove 100% that a man is guilty of a crime. There will always be a question of guilt, and in your scenario that allows criminals to be set free.
You can definitely prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a man is guilty of a crime. If there's any uncertainty, no sane juror should push for commitment. It's a much larger failing of the justice system to wrongfully give a guilty verdict than an innocent one.
12682
« on: April 19, 2016, 01:35:39 PM »
Whatever steps need to be taken to acheive not letting a single innocent man step foot in a prison cell, should be taken.
Well, sure, but agreeing with this statement doesn't necessarily put you on one side or the other in your OP's dichotomy. You can think a 1-to-1,000 trade-off is not equitable or just, and still believe that the presumption of innocence should be heavily defended.
If you disagree with the morality of a 1 to 1000 tradeoff, then you can't agree with that statement. Because you're advocating jailing an innocent so the 1000 criminals stay in jail.
12683
« on: April 19, 2016, 01:26:34 PM »
No justice system is perfect, and we have systems of compensation for people who we later discover were wrongfully imprisoned. Imprisoning one innocent man is nowhere near as immoral as letting hundreds or thousands of violent criminals out.
People keep bringing up this "no justice system is perfect, there will always be mistakes" point. And, yeah. Duh. But the mistake should always be letting the guilty man go. Whatever steps need to be taken to acheive not letting a single innocent man step foot in a prison cell, should be taken. No, letting hundreds or thousands of criminals free is still less immoral than making a man serve a sentence for something he didn't do.
12684
« on: April 19, 2016, 01:22:37 PM »
Being idealistic accomplishes nothing. Quality of a culture is based on their ideas and morals, not accomplishments. That's why even a culture of Tibetan monks is better than one like Greece.
We aren't morally bankrupt because we prefer to not have criminals roaming the streets.
No, you're morally bankrupt because you'd prefer to have innocents locked up.
If there's no such thing as a perfect system, and mistakes have to be made, then it's better to make the mistake of letting a guilty man go free than to make the mistake of forcing an innocent go to jail. That's the whole idea of this thread.
No the whole idea of the thread is one person being wrongly locked up or letting 100s out.
It's pretty clear mathematically what should be done. A one to one ratio is an easier sell.
There's nothing mathematical about it. An innocent man going to jail is far, far more immoral and fucked up than a guilty man being pardoned. A 1:1 ratio is undisputable, you let the guilty man go. A 1:100 ratio is obvious. A 1:100,000 ratio is at least debatable in the sense of pragmatism.
12685
« on: April 19, 2016, 01:09:24 PM »
Being idealistic accomplishes nothing. Quality of a culture is based on their ideas and morals, not accomplishments. That's why even a culture of Tibetan monks is better than one like Greece.
We aren't morally bankrupt because we prefer to not have criminals roaming the streets.
No, you're morally bankrupt because you'd prefer to have innocents locked up. If there's no such thing as a perfect system, and mistakes have to be made, then it's better to make the mistake of letting a guilty man go free than to make the mistake of forcing an innocent go to jail. That's the whole idea of this thread.
12686
« on: April 19, 2016, 12:52:12 PM »
12687
« on: April 19, 2016, 12:51:32 PM »
Being idealistic accomplishes nothing. Quality of a culture is based on their ideas and morals, not accomplishments. That's why even a culture of Tibetan monks is better than one like Greece.
12688
« on: April 19, 2016, 12:25:36 PM »
Congrats, now those 100 or 100,000 scumbags go on to kill and rape and rob thousands of others! You just contaminated the world with filth, all becuz "HURRR MUH MORALS LOL!"
It is far better to send one innocent to prison than to let free the whole fucking prison block. Shit happens boo hoo. If sending one innocent prison away every now and then ensures a safe society, then I will celebrate that man's sacrifice for the greater good of us all.
Criminals being allowed to commit more crimes before eventually rounded up and caught isn't nearly as bad as putting one person in prison for no reason. "Shit happens." Go to hell if that's really your goddamn mindset. A safe, immoral society is worse than an unsafe, moral society.
12689
« on: April 19, 2016, 11:40:44 AM »
Pain is bad, but sometimes useful. Like if somebody runs up behind me and stabs me, the pain warns me that something is fucking wrong and I need help fast. It wouldn't be pleasant by any means but I would certainly bleed out and die if I didn't feel it and never noticed.
But in most cases, yeah, it's just bad.
It's not even designed in a sensible way. If I break one of my bones or two, I'm going to be writhing on the ground in severe pain for quite awhile before I'm ready to pick myself up. Ideally, you would be able to tell your brain, "Okay, I get it, my leg is broken. I need help. Got it."
Then you wouldn't be in pain anymore, and you'd be able to carry yourself to a hospital or something.
That's generally my problem with the whole "pain is useful" argument. It can be useful all it wants--but why does it have to SUCK so much?
Pain discourages movement that would make injuries worse.
Only in very specific situations...if you get your hand cut off, you need to move and get to someplace where you can stop the bleeding. Moving only hurts certain kinds of injuries, and it doesn't make sense for pain to be as intense and long lasting as it is - it's counterproductive. It's important to note that life in earth hasn't been around for all that long in terms of evolution, and humans ourselves are a very young species. We have countless flaws in our biology, and the magnitude of pain we feel is one of them.
12690
« on: April 19, 2016, 11:31:21 AM »
Sanders has the New York Jews on his side, though. Hillary just has the New York connections.
Pages: 1 ... 421422423 424425 ... 1001
|
Show Posts
