Bleeding heart liberals

[Harlequin]

Or set basic expectations of behavior and then encourage people to take responsibility for their own actions or face defined consequences. Then the problem doesn't happen in the first place and government doesn't have to get involved.

I know, that crazy conservative talk…

Considering that is what I SAID basically I am glad you are on board. What do you think the classes are for? To teach the skills and personal responsibility.

And you folks are crazy, taking the bible over science, tossing out the bill of rights and civil liberties in the name of 'security' and claiming this country was founded on christian values when it was not. So yes I take issue with conservatives and their attempt to destroy science and re-write history all the while trying to ram their beliefs down everyone else throat then have the gall to turn around and point fingers at anti-American this and that. The hypocrisy is amazing.

 

[dteowner]

Considering that is what I SAID basically I am glad you are on board. What do you think the classes are for? To teach the skills and personal responsibility.

And you folks are crazy, taking the bible over science, tossing out the bill of rights and civil liberties in the name of 'security' and claiming this country was founded on christian values when it was not. So yes I take issue with conservatives and their attempt to destroy science and re-write history all the while trying to ram their beliefs down everyone else throat then have the gall to turn around and point fingers at anti-American this and that. The hypocrisy is amazing.

But it is most definitely NOT what you said. You're wanting a shitload of government programs. You want a reactive methodology. My approach is proactive, making use of society and culture to reduce the incidence rate, rather than doing a better job of picking up the pieces after it's already too late, like you're proposing (not that such a plan wouldn't help, though). Not to mention that using society and culture is much, much less expensive than asking for Uncle Sam to give you a hug.

As for the rest of it…like nearly every leftie here, you're mixing social conservatives with fiscal conservatives and it badly undercuts the value of your rant. I might as well mix blue dog dems with hardcore enviro-nuts and make all sorts of broad condemnations. We've only got 2 major umbrellas in the US, but to ignore the variety of people that fall under each umbrella is simply ignorant.

 

[Harlequin]

But it is most definitely NOT what you said. You're wanting a shitload of government programs. You want a reactive methodology.

You clearly did not either a. read what I posted or b. pretending to not understand.

Either case I was debating about being PRO-ACTIVE, in fact that is WHAT I SAID. That said, Your stance a govt program can not help in that area is folly, typical anti-govt conservative propaganda.

When you re-read what I said, comprehend it, then lets talk.

 

[dteowner]

1. If you are in HS and get pregnant MANDATORY parenting classes AFTER school, not during.
2. Give DSS the funding it needs to address reports in a timely fashion
3. If a report is filed on you and evidence is found to be true see #1 but replace after school with after work.
4. MANDATORY health and sex ed classes (that teach contraception) in both middle and HS

When you re-read what I said, comprehend it, then lets talk.

How about I quote it instead, if you're going to be an ass.
1) REACTIVE- that's after the problem. Sure, it will help (as I mentioned) mitigate some longterm damage, but it's still too fucking late
2) REACTIVE- when DSS gets involved, it's already too late. The damage is already done. Sure, it will help (as I mentioned) mitigate the longterm damage, but it's still too fucking late
3) REACTIVE- if you've been caught, then it's already too late. The damage is already done. Sure, it will help (as I metnioned) mitigate the longterm damage, but it's still too fucking late
4) Congrats, it's proactive, but it's already in place in pretty much every state in the nation. Well done, Einstein.

If you want to be an ass, at least have a decent argument.

 

[Ubereil]

1) REACTIVE- that's after the problem. Sure, it will help (as I mentioned) mitigate some longterm damage, but it's still too fucking late

How is it reactive to teach those who are to become parents how to raise their children? Especially since we're talking about preventing crimes, not unwanted pregnancies. Promoting parents to actually give their children an upbringing worth a damn seems like incredibly pro-active behavior regarding crime to me. The first five years are the most important time in any child's life, and threat of prison isn't going to make up for parents doing a poor job during that time.

3) REACTIVE- if you've been caught, then it's already too late. The damage is already done. Sure, it will help (as I metnioned) mitigate the longterm damage, but it's still too fucking late

Most crimes are committed by the same pepole. So if you get criminals to merely commit one crime each the total amount of crime will be reduced significantly. Thus, this would be pro-active since it works to prevent the future crimes the criminal would otherwise have committed.

Übereil

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

"The US and Somalia are the only two countries not to have ratified a UN convention that bans life in jail without parole for under-18 year olds."

This is what rather disturbs me.

USA = Somalia

And everyone knows what kind of state Somalia is [in].

Even Germany appears to be further developed in this sense, it seems to me.

 

[Harlequin]

How about I quote it instead, if you're going to be an ass.
1) REACTIVE- that's after the problem. Sure, it will help (as I mentioned) mitigate some longterm damage, but it's still too fucking late
2) REACTIVE- when DSS gets involved, it's already too late. The damage is already done. Sure, it will help (as I mentioned) mitigate the longterm damage, but it's still too fucking late
3) REACTIVE- if you've been caught, then it's already too late. The damage is already done. Sure, it will help (as I metnioned) mitigate the longterm damage, but it's still too fucking late
4) Congrats, it's proactive, but it's already in place in pretty much every state in the nation. Well done, Einstein.

If you want to be an ass, at least have a decent argument.

This is me being far from a ass, this is me a social liberal who had it up to here with social conservative (SC) garbage.

That said, as for the last point it WAS in place 20 yrs ago but thanks to social conservatives who want to ram the BS bible and their beliefs down our throats its been chipped away at where many schools either don't teach about contraception, abortion and other options that study after study shows it is helpful and has a marked impact to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies. Where vast majority of studies show the opposite when it comes to teaching abstinence. Which again is what SC' s have been ramming into public schools in health/sex ed class. What I was taught in Health class in HS in the early 90s and what is today is VERY different is very effective as a whole comparatively speaking.

As for the re-active part yes, educating with PROPER information (minus the xian religious BS) will help and does have a big impact will not stop all situations. In that case you need to break the cycle and educate the girl/boy about not doing this again, give them the tools to raise the child in a healthy, positive environment so hopefully it does not repeat the parents mis-steps. So it IS, in that space pro-active as well as re-active.

Unless you are a heartless prick and want to just toss this teen girl and her child into the street with no chance of getting back on track. All to save a few bucks, nice. Didn't know compassion had a price tag.

And since you didn't take gov't class (or fell asleep during it) the definition of gov't is to defend its people and provide for the welfare and health of the population. That includes unwanted children and assisting the mothers even if you disagree with their actions. Yes now THAT was me being a ass, so we are clear and you see the difference.

 

[Harlequin]

How is it reactive to teach those who are to become parents how to raise their children? Especially since we're talking about preventing crimes, not unwanted pregnancies. Promoting parents to actually give their children an upbringing worth a damn seems like incredibly pro-active behavior regarding crime to me. The first five years are the most important time in any child's life, and threat of prison isn't going to make up for parents doing a poor job during that time.



Most crimes are committed by the same pepole. So if you get criminals to merely commit one crime each the total amount of crime will be reduced significantly. Thus, this would be pro-active since it works to prevent the future crimes the criminal would otherwise have committed.

Übereil

Thank you for seeing my point.

 

[Jhari]

to give you a hug.

As for the rest of it…like nearly every leftie here, you're mixing social conservatives with fiscal conservatives and it badly undercuts the value of your rant. I might as well mix blue dog dems with hardcore enviro-nuts and make all sorts of broad condemnations. We've only got 2 major umbrellas in the US, but to ignore the variety of people that fall under each umbrella is simply ignorant.

Glad to see someone make the distinction here.

 

[Rithrandil]

Well, in order for criminals to be blameable it needs to be so that they do the crime despite knowing they shouldn't. The thing is, if they knew better, why would they do the crime? The only reasonable explanation is that they don't, and thus they're not blameable for comitting the crime.

And treating non-adults as having the same agency as adults? Why not put wolves in jail if they attack some farmer's sheep while we're at it?

So, what, Plato? Most people are fully aware that what they are doing is wrong when they do it. As a child I understood that murder, rape, etc were wrong and you shouldn't do them.

Under your system, no criminal can be blamed for ever committing a crime.

 

[Rithrandil]

That has to be translated from blatantninjanese (and dtese) into common language:
"We, and Somalis, are special and we are the only ones who know what's right and what's wrong. The rest of the world is wrong. So there!"

Actually, that's a really horrible and dumb way of phrasing the argument. BN and DTE are correct.

Why, suddenly, at 18 are you now an adult and instantly in possession of all legal faculties? There are gray areas. One I'd point to is if I shot a pregnant woman in the stomach on the way to the delivery room and killed the fetus, in most states it would be assault 1 or man 1, but if I shot it the second it emerged from the woman, it's murder. Fun world we live in, eh?

 

[Rithrandil]

So is Emancipation Proclamation, Voting Rights Act of 1965, 19th Amendment to the Constitution or any law you care to mention. And 18 just happens to be the age which signatories of UN Convention on the Rights of the Child agreed upon as a borderline between juvenile and adult. Except USA. Oh and Somalia

BTW, Just for reference, dragging out "somalia" for any sort of actual comparison is pretty dumb. What, do you expect the city-state government of Mogadishu headed by the feckless TFG to actually sign on to any real UN Convention or accord and have that signature be worth more than the ink from the pen? At least use a country like Iran or the DPRK with an actual functioning government.

 

[DArtagnan]

Knowing something is a crime is not the same as knowing something is wrong, or understanding why it's wrong.

People develop into who they are through a myriad of factors - many of which are completely beyond the realm of being fully measurable and intricately understood at this stage. So, I think we should focus on what we CAN measure and understand within reason - and a big part of that is pattern recognition. No need to be in-depth at every turn, if the pattern is obvious.

Essentially, assigning blame is not particularly useful in and of itself. Being willfully ignorant and blind to the causes of crime is no less deserving of blame - than becoming who you are and doing what you do because you've become what you are.

It's a lot more useful to try and understand what happens to individuals that make them do harm.

From my point of view, it's obvious that endorsing a society in which people are not allowed to function in accordance with their drive served through human nature - is a very direct path to endorsing crime.

So, the key is to understand human nature (as in WHAT is it, not so much WHY is it like that) - and then work towards a society which does not go counter to our nature.

 

[zahratustra]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16153045

 

[dteowner]

It also suggests that because of differences between individuals a cut-off age may not be justifiable.

I seem to remember some ignorant pigdog making the same comment not too long ago. But let us not lose sight of the undeniable fact that America is completely barbaric because the UN (a moment of respectful silence if you please) says a cut-off age is mandatory and they know best.

 

[zahratustra]

I don't react well to insults which you throw with monotonous regularity.

 

[dteowner]

Yeah, cold showers and corporal punishment. Are you on mothballs diet Corwin?


You and Somalia. Feeling all cozy is such an exclusive club?

That has to be translated from blatantninjanese (and dtese) into common language:
"We, and Somalis, are special and we are the only ones who know what's right and what's wrong. The rest of the world is wrong. So there!"

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

I don't react well to insults which you throw with monotonous regularity.

You're right. Please forgive me my countless failings. I shall endeavour to follow the glorious example of your dignified and respectful tone.

 

[Corwin]

Could we ease off the personal crap please!!

 

[Thrasher]

Yes, please stick to impersonal crap.

 

[Corwin]

Yes, the sort Thrasher specializes in!!