Prev: Getting pushed back in your seat
Next: Lack of arm signals
From: Ed Chilada on 30 Nov 2009 19:33
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:26:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:51:55 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:59:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:10:18 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:41:26 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:16:24 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:47:37 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:06:47 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:44:33 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
><snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's called prevention. I'd rather he was prevented from killing
>>>>>>>> someone, rather than simply punished when he does.
>>>>>>>> Do you disagree?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should probably hope that you're never presented with a scenario
>>>>>> that would sharply change your mind. Consider how much the death of a
>>>>>> family member wouldn't even remotely be compensated by the
>>>>>> incarceration of someone you didn't even know existed in the first
>>>>>> place.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would not change my mind. Why would I want people to be punished who have never had anything to do with injuring or killing someone?
>>>>
>>>> They're punished for endangering lives. Let's say there's an arsonist
>>>> on the loose who keeps setting fire to old people's homes. However, in
>>>> all cases so far, the fire has been spotted early and nobody was hurt.
>>>> Do you try and prevent him from repeating this behaviour, or do you
>>>> wait until he kills someone and then punish him retrospectively for
>>>> doing so?
>>>
>>> He is TRYING to kill someone.
>>
>> Not necessarily - maybe he just gets a cheap thrill out of fires the
>> same way you like speeding - and in both cases doesn't care what
>> danger other people are put in. So - do you wait until he kills people
>> and then punish him, or do you try and prevent his dangerous behaviour
>> before anyone comes to harm?
>
>Setting fire to someone's house is obviously going to hurt someone.

Well when I said old people's homes, I kinda meant those old people's
homes rather than the homes of old people, if you see what I mean.
Let's say that he just keeps letting off fireworks in a crowded play
park. He's doing no harm, right? He's never hit anyone. So do you
intervene to prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he
disfigures a child and then punish him?


> Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.

Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!


Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
makes sense?



From: Peter Hucker on 1 Dec 2009 14:39
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:33:09 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:26:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:51:55 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:59:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:10:18 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:41:26 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:16:24 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should probably hope that you're never presented with a scenario
>>>>>>> that would sharply change your mind. Consider how much the death of a
>>>>>>> family member wouldn't even remotely be compensated by the
>>>>>>> incarceration of someone you didn't even know existed in the first
>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would not change my mind. Why would I want people to be punished who have never had anything to do with injuring or killing someone?
>>>>>
>>>>> They're punished for endangering lives. Let's say there's an arsonist
>>>>> on the loose who keeps setting fire to old people's homes. However, in
>>>>> all cases so far, the fire has been spotted early and nobody was hurt.
>>>>> Do you try and prevent him from repeating this behaviour, or do you
>>>>> wait until he kills someone and then punish him retrospectively for
>>>>> doing so?
>>>>
>>>> He is TRYING to kill someone.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily - maybe he just gets a cheap thrill out of fires the
>>> same way you like speeding - and in both cases doesn't care what
>>> danger other people are put in. So - do you wait until he kills people
>>> and then punish him, or do you try and prevent his dangerous behaviour
>>> before anyone comes to harm?
>>
>> Setting fire to someone's house is obviously going to hurt someone.
>
> Well when I said old people's homes, I kinda meant those old people's
> homes rather than the homes of old people, if you see what I mean.
> Let's say that he just keeps letting off fireworks in a crowded play
> park. He's doing no harm, right? He's never hit anyone. So do you
> intervene to prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he
> disfigures a child and then punish him?

The children shouldn't be standing so close.

>> Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.
>
> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>
>
> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
> makes sense?

I can't think of one.

--
I'm no. 2623 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 78th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 203rd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....

http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

What is the first thing a blonde learns when she takes driving lessons?
You can also sit upright in a car.
From: Ed Chilada on 2 Dec 2009 03:39
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:39:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:33:09 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:26:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:51:55 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:59:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:10:18 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:41:26 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:16:24 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You should probably hope that you're never presented with a scenario
>>>>>>>> that would sharply change your mind. Consider how much the death of a
>>>>>>>> family member wouldn't even remotely be compensated by the
>>>>>>>> incarceration of someone you didn't even know existed in the first
>>>>>>>> place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That would not change my mind. Why would I want people to be punished who have never had anything to do with injuring or killing someone?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're punished for endangering lives. Let's say there's an arsonist
>>>>>> on the loose who keeps setting fire to old people's homes. However, in
>>>>>> all cases so far, the fire has been spotted early and nobody was hurt.
>>>>>> Do you try and prevent him from repeating this behaviour, or do you
>>>>>> wait until he kills someone and then punish him retrospectively for
>>>>>> doing so?
>>>>>
>>>>> He is TRYING to kill someone.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily - maybe he just gets a cheap thrill out of fires the
>>>> same way you like speeding - and in both cases doesn't care what
>>>> danger other people are put in. So - do you wait until he kills people
>>>> and then punish him, or do you try and prevent his dangerous behaviour
>>>> before anyone comes to harm?
>>>
>>> Setting fire to someone's house is obviously going to hurt someone.
>>
>> Well when I said old people's homes, I kinda meant those old people's
>> homes rather than the homes of old people, if you see what I mean.
>> Let's say that he just keeps letting off fireworks in a crowded play
>> park. He's doing no harm, right? He's never hit anyone. So do you
>> intervene to prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he
>> disfigures a child and then punish him?
>
>The children shouldn't be standing so close.

They aren't*. So stop dodging the question. So do you intervene to
prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child
and then punish him?

*Or if you do believe they're too close, do you think someone should
intervene and get them to move away, or punish them when they get hit?



>>> Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.
>>
>> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>>
>>
>> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
>> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
>> makes sense?
>
>I can't think of one.

I'm not surprised, you do appear a little erm, hard-of-thinking. Try
and think a little more. Consider this recent sad tale perhaps:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm

From: Ed Chilada on 6 Dec 2009 19:50
On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:36:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:39:21 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:39:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:33:09 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:26:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:51:55 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:59:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:10:18 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They're punished for endangering lives. Let's say there's an arsonist
>>>>>>>> on the loose who keeps setting fire to old people's homes. However, in
>>>>>>>> all cases so far, the fire has been spotted early and nobody was hurt.
>>>>>>>> Do you try and prevent him from repeating this behaviour, or do you
>>>>>>>> wait until he kills someone and then punish him retrospectively for
>>>>>>>> doing so?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is TRYING to kill someone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not necessarily - maybe he just gets a cheap thrill out of fires the
>>>>>> same way you like speeding - and in both cases doesn't care what
>>>>>> danger other people are put in. So - do you wait until he kills people
>>>>>> and then punish him, or do you try and prevent his dangerous behaviour
>>>>>> before anyone comes to harm?
>>>>>
>>>>> Setting fire to someone's house is obviously going to hurt someone.
>>>>
>>>> Well when I said old people's homes, I kinda meant those old people's
>>>> homes rather than the homes of old people, if you see what I mean.
>>>> Let's say that he just keeps letting off fireworks in a crowded play
>>>> park. He's doing no harm, right? He's never hit anyone. So do you
>>>> intervene to prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he
>>>> disfigures a child and then punish him?
>>>
>>> The children shouldn't be standing so close.
>>
>> They aren't*. So stop dodging the question. So do you intervene to
>> prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child
>> and then punish him?
>
>Life's no fun without danger.

Make your own danger if you wish, don't inflict it on others. Anyway,
you're dodging the question again. So do you intervene to prevent the
clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child and then
punish him?


>> *Or if you do believe they're too close, do you think someone should
>> intervene and get them to move away, or punish them when they get hit?
>
>Experience is the best form of education.

Stupid people often can't be told, sure. But smart people learn from
other people's mistakes, especially the mistakes that result in injury
or death.

So then, do you think someone should intervene and get them to move
away, or punish them when they get hit?



>>>>> Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.
>>>>
>>>> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>>>>
>>>> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
>>>> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
>>>> makes sense?
>>>
>>> I can't think of one.
>>
>> I'm not surprised, you do appear a little erm, hard-of-thinking. Try
>> and think a little more. Consider this recent sad tale perhaps:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm
>
>If a boy mauls a dog to death, is he put down?

No.

So then, have you yet managed to think of a scenario where prevention
rather than retrospective punishment makes sense? How might you think
that should apply to the story I referred to?

From: Peter Hucker on 12 Dec 2009 15:04
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:50:41 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:36:06 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:39:21 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:39:18 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:33:09 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:26:10 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:51:55 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not necessarily - maybe he just gets a cheap thrill out of fires the
>>>>>>> same way you like speeding - and in both cases doesn't care what
>>>>>>> danger other people are put in. So - do you wait until he kills people
>>>>>>> and then punish him, or do you try and prevent his dangerous behaviour
>>>>>>> before anyone comes to harm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Setting fire to someone's house is obviously going to hurt someone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well when I said old people's homes, I kinda meant those old people's
>>>>> homes rather than the homes of old people, if you see what I mean.
>>>>> Let's say that he just keeps letting off fireworks in a crowded play
>>>>> park. He's doing no harm, right? He's never hit anyone. So do you
>>>>> intervene to prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he
>>>>> disfigures a child and then punish him?
>>>>
>>>> The children shouldn't be standing so close.
>>>
>>> They aren't*. So stop dodging the question. So do you intervene to
>>> prevent the clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child
>>> and then punish him?
>>
>> Life's no fun without danger.
>
> Make your own danger if you wish, don't inflict it on others.

You're expecting me to put a stranger's life above my own. How absurd.

> Anyway,
> you're dodging the question again. So do you intervene to prevent the
> clear danger or do you wait until he disfigures a child and then
> punish him?

I would only intervene in a certainty, not a slight danger.

>>> *Or if you do believe they're too close, do you think someone should
>>> intervene and get them to move away, or punish them when they get hit?
>>
>> Experience is the best form of education.
>
> Stupid people often can't be told, sure. But smart people learn from
> other people's mistakes, especially the mistakes that result in injury
> or death.
>
> So then, do you think someone should intervene and get them to move
> away, or punish them when they get hit?

Think how many would learn from the others' mistake when they're too close!

>>>>>> Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fast? We're talking about 166mph mate!
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the idea of prevention rather than retrospective punishment
>>>>> entirely alien to you? Is there any scenario in which you think it
>>>>> makes sense?
>>>>
>>>> I can't think of one.
>>>
>>> I'm not surprised, you do appear a little erm, hard-of-thinking. Try
>>> and think a little more. Consider this recent sad tale perhaps:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8389013.stm
>>
>> If a boy mauls a dog to death, is he put down?
>
> No.

Why not?

> So then, have you yet managed to think of a scenario where prevention
> rather than retrospective punishment makes sense? How might you think
> that should apply to the story I referred to?

Some people might keep those kind of dogs safely locked up, why prevent them too?

--
I'm 2615th worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Join here: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm 81st in protein research systems alpha testing.
And 118th in extreme weather event research.

http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Federal Expresso: When you absolutely, positively have to stay up all night.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Getting pushed back in your seat
Next: Lack of arm signals