[SimeSublime]

Hmmm, well, I always knew that if I was put in power I'd be a tyrannical dictator, but I'd hope that I at least did some good for the world before being completly corrupted.

[Just your average movie goer]

You and I are very much alike, Sime. I've always been told on numerous occasions that if I were in power, I'd be a tyrannical dictator too. And people would have far less freedom under my rule.

That's true, I have no doubt about it. But I always thought such restrictions on personal freedoms wouldn't really change anything for people who already met the criteria for being a half-decent person.

[Laura]

I consider myself a decent person, but I still wouldn't want to live in a world where one person was deciding who lives and who dies based upon such a subjective concept-- even if I could be guaranteed that I would always meet their criteria for decency. Checks and balances ROCK!

[Just your average movie goer]

The criteria is really, really easy to meet. You don't have to be a great person, you don't even have to be a good person or even a decent person. All you have to do is not deliberately do things that make life difficult for other people -

ie. like smoking near other people, spitting on people's cars, destroying people's property for the fun of it, tormenting animals, attacking people you don't even know, being a wife-beating, racist, misogynist pig (or being in the majority of adult men from Alabama)....

It's not difficult. You'd be fine! But I can appreciate that you would not want to live in my dictatorship though - most people don't.

But it would be better for them if they did.

[barend]

Also, its important to consider the reprocussions of letting, say Barend, SimeSublime, and I kill whoever we please. First off, it would piss a lot of people off. How would you feel if you were a parent to a child that was killed because he stole a bike? thats all for now!

I'D FEEL LIKE I WAS GOING TO TELL MY NEXT KID NOT TO STEAL BIKES
(not in BARENDs town, anyway)

people need to take more responsibility for their childrens actions and stop looking for scapegaot for their years of neglect...

----------------------------------------------------------------

but I still wouldn't want to live in a world where one person was deciding who lives and who dies

even if it were me

the criteria is simple... human beings have emotions. scar them and they may hurt you...

don't hurt people... don't interfear with other peoples well being....

most importantly, don't mess with barend!!!

[Laura]

People need to take responsibility for their CHILDREN's actions? No, people need to take responsibility for their OWN actions. It's the boy's fault he roughed up another kid's bike, not his mother's. While a child's parental influence / upbringing generally influences his actions, it's not the ONLY thing. If it were, brothers and sisters would always act the same. If I had kids and saw them going out and doing bad stuff all the time I'd be upset enough without people going and killing them without a second thought.

See, while I'm a firm believer in taking responsibility for your own actions, I'm also a firm believer in giving people the benefit of the doubt until you know the whole story. (Which you rarely ever do...) And even if they are just jerks, so what? The punishment not only doesn't fit the crime, it's barbaric. If you can really put to death any thinking, feeling human being without remorse, I'm more worried about you than them.

Now comes the flurry of "We were just joking" posts...

[Slade]

Damn straight. I'm still trying to figure out how anyone can make right the death of one person with the death of another. "An exp​ression of moral outrage." Quoth the Supreme Court, back in the day. But since when do two wrongs make everything balance out? Since the 1970's I guess...

[barend]

I wouldn't KILL someone for stealing a bike...
but if I saw someone doing it I definatley do what was in my power to stop them...

If someone were to steal my bike, they wouldn't be killed, but they'd be leaving with some long term emotional and physical scars...

[barend]

Now comes the flurry of "We were just joking" posts...

no, if you're going to be that offended... I'd rather you think we WERE serious...

[SimeSublime]

I was. I belive in a punishement to fit the crime, and in certain circumstances, corpral and captial punishment are just whats needed. Smacking(or spanking, as some people call it)your children when they do something bad is a successful way to teach children wrong from right, assuming that the smack isn't too hard(it should hurt, but not debilitate)and positive reinforcement is also used when they do something right.

And you ask how I can put to death a thinking, breathing human being? I can't. But, I don't belive some people are human. We are born as Homo Sapiens, but we earn our Humanity.

[Heccubus]

Now comes the flurry of "We were just joking" posts...

I like those posts. They're often funnier than the initial "joke".

[SimeSublime]

Who was joking? I may have slightly exagerated a bit early on as I was in a bad mood at the time of posting, but the gist of it holds.

This post has been edited by SimeSublime: 07 August 2004 - 12:37 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Ok first of all I call the spot of leader of hte resistance against Sime's tyranical regime. I have a beret and a knowledge of guerilla warfare and I'm sure I can get a kalashnikov so I'm the most qualified.

Second of all, VIVA LA RESISTANCE! LUCHE HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE! SENOR SIME ES MUEY MALA!

Third I have to say that I'm thoroughly against the use of corporate or capitol punishment. Hitting a child only enforces the idea that they have to do what adults say because we're bigger than them. That eventually leads to "You're not bigger than me any more, screw you." The same with corporate punishment. Do you really think criminals could give a crap? I've comitted the occasional act of sedition without even worrying that it's a capitol offense. And what's all this lethal injection nonsense? If you're going to kill someone don't be such a pussy about it and do it by firing squad. Lethal injection is just a way of killing people that pretends to be nice about it, like punching someone in the nose and then giving them a band aid.

Fourth point is that every human being is worthy of life. Saddam is, from what I understand, a caring gardener and a poet. George Bush is ... I ... He... I guess... Likes to ride bikes and fall off of them? Why even John Kerry takes great joy in crawling around in space ships while looking like one of the blue man group from those old computer commercials. I think acceptance of the humanity of others is completely necessary if we are ever to live in a peaceful world. It's always the tactic of the war mongers to dehumanize their enemies and it goes both ways.

Fifth, I really don't think that violent video games have anything to do with a person's ability to commit violence. Let's look at some scenarios to demonstrate my point.

Let's say that Billy is being harassed by some of the other kids at school.

Now let's say Billy buys a violent video game such as quake. Ok, he has a violent video game now. Potential for violence is still pretty low.

Let's say Billy buys a Marilyn Manson CD. Ok, he now has a CD and a violent video game. I suppose if he was god damned desperate he might fashion the game and rock cds into some crude ninja stars, but out subject isnt so resourceful. Potential for violence remains low.

What if the school decides to put in security? Yes, there's a good idea, have a cop with a small fire arm in your school. Have metal detectors and barbed wire. I think we've all seen that even the most stringent security can easily be bypassed and if someone has the motivation and the means to kill people en masse than they're going to do it. The potential for violence does not decrease.

What if Billy buys a trench coat? Well other than the fact that the other students will constantly tease him about how he's going to shoot up the scholl because he owns a trench coat (which is counter productive when you think about it) this dosn't increase his potential for violence at all either. I guess he could strangle someone with it, but probably not.

Now let's say Billy can go to his local vending machine and pick up an ak47 assault rifle to begin building an arsenal. This does increase his potential to commit violent crime. A lot. A whole fucking lot.

Now what if Billy's parents tell him to eat shit and die while they go on vacation. Now Billy, by now might be trying to fashion his cds into crude ninja stars as outlined above. He might also be reading books such as "Peter and the big red pipe bomb" or "Hunting human beings for sport" Now normally parents would notice things like a large stash of cd throwing stars or blueprints for an atomic device but apparently Billy's parents didn't discover that he has an arsenal larger than that of the canadian armed forces. Thusly, his potential for violence rises to the point where one more person saying that he's a fag and his girlfriend is ugly will be just oxymoronic enough to make him snap.


There are only two factors here that actually lead to violence. A normal kid playing halo will be fine. A phsycopath killer kid playing halo will kill people regardless of whether he plays halo or not as long as the means and lack of supervision are present. Let's put this in more easily understandable terms

I am on a diet and have a desire to eat a whole gallon of delicious ben and Jerry's ice cream. Is it more logical for me to:

A: Try to avoid advertising for said Ice cream and food in general

or

B: Avoid purchasing the ice cream

If you said A then you're going to get mightily fat soon.

If I want to eat ice cream and it is available that ice cream is as good as eaten regardless of whether I listen to music about eating ice cream or not. However if the ice cream is made inaccessable than it cannot be eaten. I'm not suggesting outlawing guns, I'm suggesting outlawing guns that are made to kill human beings. It was pointed out in bowling for columbine that a pistol that can fire over ten shots in a few seconds for shooting deer is not. An assault rifle is not useful for hunting squirrels. People are free to own hunting rifles or the like but should not have access to semi automatic weaponry.

and my final point is that even though we know that it's the marketing pressures and peer cruelty and parental neglect and availability of heavy artillery that cause school shootings there is one thing that does not cause school shootings: Pot. If the tree young men mentioned here had smoked dope I have total faith that things would have been slightly better in their schools. So smoke up, America.

[SimeSublime]

I was wondering when you would step in. Nicely done. Although I don't agree with a lot of what you said(I do agree with the game stuff, though), I rather like the way you argued it. The only major objection I have to your post is the use of another language. Just because its not english, doesn't make it more resistancy

[J m HofMarN]

Sime- Thanks muchly, actually the middle phrase, fight until victory always, is a quotation attricuted to my all time hero Che Guevara, so that kind of had to be en espanol. The others, well they just sound cool.