News Stories

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

1. do you feel peter tobin should ever be allow out of prison
2. if a prison pyschologist said Tobin has been reform and should be release, would you ever let him babysit your daughter (if you had one) or near any of your female relatives.

It would have been better if you had just linked to your contribution in your message to me then I would have answered to it here instead in the message to you. There are a few deadlines coming up, some set by others, some set by myself and I haven't the time to browse animesuki as intensely as I do normally, so I wasn't aware of your question.

Or maybe it would have been better to send that message only to me since you seem to be only interested in my answer to this question, for whatever reasons, but these forums are meant for open discussion, not dialogs.

But since you asked openly you deserve an open answer, so here is my private answer again, somewhat edited and extended to be more clear:

(First of all, if I had children, before I even start to decide who babysits them, I would make sure not to brag about their existence on the internet or an anime forum in particular.)

As for a lifelong prison sentence I already made my point clear and see no real use in repeating myself. I've heard enough gruesome stories often coupled with the "you do not love your children!!!" angle and hearing another one doesn't make much of a difference.

Now, I said nobody should be brought to jail without the chance ever to get out again. I did not say nobody should be denied the right to babysit my (real or imaginary) daughters. These are obviously two different things. There are a lot of people I wouldn't let babysit those daughters which does not imply I want to see them all locked up in prison. The world would become quite empty if this was the case.

Now, why are you even bringing my potential daughters into this? Are you genuinely interested in their well-being or are they just an excuse to wallow in your feelings of revenge against some murderer? Looking into the statistics I see that the cars on the street before my house and drivers that consider them their penis extension are a more real threat than a potential psychopathic murderer on the loose or even a potential neighbor that is a potentially psychopathic potential murderer, according to Xellos but not according to a specialist. So acting out of love for my children instead of hate for some murderer somewhere in a different country I'd rather spend my energy more effectively on pressing to reduce individual traffic in this city that has a well-working public transport system, for example.

Another real danger to children, by the way, are overprotective parents producing messed up adults that aren't capable of standing on their own feet out in the real world where mommy and daddy aren't around anymore to catch them when they fall. Yes, parenting is not easy.

And as for my other female relatives, they are either adults or have parents by themselves. And my male relatives too.

I'm not sure if I will be around again in the next few days, so I wish everybody a Merry Christmas and that you'll follow your positive emotions rather than your negative ones. I promise to try that by myself too.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

It would have been better if you had just linked to your contribution in your message to me then I would have answered to it here instead in the message to you. There are a few deadlines coming up, some set by others, some set by myself and I haven't the time to browse animesuki as intensely as I do normally, so I wasn't aware of your question.

Or maybe it would have been better to send that message only to me since you seem to be only interested in my answer to this question, for whatever reasons, but these forums are meant for open discussion, not dialogs.

But since you asked openly you deserve an open answer, so here is my private answer again, somewhat edited and extended to be more clear:

(First of all, if I had children, before I even start to decide who babysits them, I would make sure not to brag about their existence on the internet or an anime forum in particular.)

As for a lifelong prison sentence I already made my point clear and see no real use in repeating myself. I've heard enough gruesome stories often coupled with the "you do not love your children!!!" angle and hearing another one doesn't make much of a difference.

Now, I said nobody should be brought to jail without the chance ever to get out again. I did not say nobody should be denied the right to babysit my (real or imaginary) daughters. These are obviously two different things. There are a lot of people I wouldn't let babysit those daughters which does not imply I want to see them all locked up in prison. The world would become quite empty if this was the case.

Now, why are you even bringing my potential daughters into this? Are you genuinely interested in their well-being or are they just an excuse to wallow in your feelings of revenge against some murderer? Looking into the statistics I see that the cars on the street before my house and drivers that consider them their penis extension are a more real threat than a potential psychopathic murderer on the loose or even a potential neighbor that is a potentially psychopathic potential murderer, according to Xellos but not according to a specialist. So acting out of love for my children instead of hate for some murderer somewhere in a different country I'd rather spend my energy more effectively on pressing to reduce individual traffic in this city that has a well-working public transport system, for example.

Let's say that there's this guy, and if you let him out of jail, you know he's going to stuff a child in a fridge. (I know you never know, but this is all hypothetical. That knowledge is there to simplify the situation.) Considering the number of children around, the chance that the kid he'll kill is yours is indeed minuscule, especially compared to traffic accidents. Is it any reason to let him out and kill a child? Because that's pretty much what I get from your argument.

Another real danger to children, by the way, are overprotective parents producing messed up adults that aren't capable of standing on their own feet out in the real world where mommy and daddy aren't around anymore to catch them when they fall. Yes, parenting is not easy.

While I'm all for teaching kids to cross the street, I think it's a bit much to expect them to defend themselves against adult psychopaths. Refusing to follow them to van supposedly full of candy will only take them so far.

[mg1942]

oh noes!

Brittany Murphy dead @ 32




why now...

[MihawkXGP]

Originally Posted by mg1942

oh noes!

Brittany Murphy dead @ 32




why now...

How tragic. Still only 30, still so beautiful. Oh man that sucks. May she R.I.P

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Let's say that there's this guy, and if you let him out of jail, you know he's going to stuff a child in a fridge (I know you never know, but this is all hypothetical. That knowledge is there to simplify the situation.).

If I know that somebody is going to stuff a child into the fridge I won't let him out of prison. If I knew somebody who's never been in conflict with the law s going to commit a murder I'd lock him up in prison too. But I don't know and why should anybody else listen to me on this in any case. Yes, I know you meant the "you" to be understood as a general "you", But you nevertheless implicitly assume that I'm right on this case and people who are actually involved in the case are wrong.

And any case in the real world you could construct that comes close to us just "knowing" is already enough for the authorities to take any action necessary. If not, there are probably good reasons for this.

You "simplify the situation" up to a point where it doesn't have any contact with reality anymore. What if I just know I'm right and you are wrong? You can justify literally anything if you just know of looming consequences grave enough.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Considering the number of children around, the chance that the kid he'll kill is yours is indeed minuscule, especially compared to traffic accidents. Is it any reason to let him out and kill a child? Because that's pretty much what I get from your argument.

It is true not only for my children in particular but for the whole country that is affected by its criminal laws. And in all the regions on this planet where murderers are actually a relevant threat to children, a too liberal justice is seldom the main problem. And the perpetrators often aren't even considered criminals by the ruling powers.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

While I'm all for teaching kids to cross the street.

That's already being done and "priced into" the statistics.

You're actual point is that some people should never come out of prison, period. Because they've crossed a line beyonfd you're not willing to care anymore.Then just say that. Don't tell me that there are risks. I know that. There are risks and chances in everything we do and that's why we have to make balanced decisions. But don't simply construct a probability of one and argue from there.

[Dilla]

Originally Posted by mg1942

oh noes!

Brittany Murphy dead @ 32




why now...

Damn, dropping like flies. R.I.P. Brittany Murphy.

I guess this will put a halt on the shooting of Sin City 2 for a while, they'll need someone to replace her.

[mg1942]

She was also a pretty good singer. Couple of years ago, went to go see a band play at the Key Club here in L.A. and she was the guest singer for the opening band and they rocked the house that night.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

If I know that somebody is going to stuff a child into the fridge I won't let him out of prison. If I knew somebody who's never been in conflict with the law s going to commit a murder I'd lock him up in prison too. But I don't know and why should anybody else listen to me on this in any case.

Why should anyone listen to any of us here? That didn't keep you from voicing your opinion before, why should it dispense you from defending it now?

Yes, I know you meant the "you" to be understood as a general "you", But you nevertheless implicitly assume that I'm right on this case and people who are actually involved in the case are wrong.

And any case in the real world you could construct that comes close to us just "knowing" is already enough for the authorities to take any action necessary. If not, there are probably good reasons for this.

"It's the authorities doing it, therefore it's the right thing to do"?

You "simplify the situation" up to a point where it doesn't have any contact with reality anymore. What if I just know I'm right and you are wrong? You can justify literally anything if you just know of looming consequences grave enough.

Fine. Then, instead of 100% certainty, what about 90%? I mean, we could probably compile statistics on repeat offenses. So, what if the expectancy of dead children was 0.9? (Yeah, I know, those two numbers aren't precisely the same. But either will do to illustrate.) What if it's 0.5? 0.1? What's the cut-off where you say "Oh, it's okay to give the guy a chance to kill children again."?

It is true not only for my children in particular but for the whole country that is affected by its criminal laws. And in all the regions on this planet where murderers are actually a relevant threat to children, a too liberal justice is seldom the main problem. And the perpetrators often aren't even considered criminals by the ruling powers.

Yes, psychos aren't a statistically significant threat. Does that mean they should live with the rest of us?

You're actual point is that some people should never come out of prison, period. Because they've crossed a line beyonfd you're not willing to care anymore.Then just say that. Don't tell me that there are risks. I know that. There are risks and chances in everything we do and that's why we have to make balanced decisions. But don't simply construct a probability of one and argue from there.

That, too. But I'm also serious about my analysis of your argument, which is that psychopaths are a negligible threat and therefore should be let out of prison even when we know how dangerous they are. And I can't agree with that.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

"It's the authorities doing it, therefore it's the right thing to do"?.

I was trying to point out that you're highly hypothetical assumption wasn't even just "You are smarter than some abstract law." but even "You are smarter than people who are better trained and informed." And are you arguing for vigilantism? And aren't it the authorities that put people in jail in the first place? I wonder why you don't object already at this point.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Fine. Then, instead of 100% certainty, what about 90%? I mean, we could probably compile statistics on repeat offenses. So, what if the expectancy of dead children was 0.9? (Yeah, I know, those two numbers aren't precisely the same. But either will do to illustrate.) What if it's 0.5? 0.1? What's the cut-off where you say "Oh, it's okay to give the guy a chance to kill children again."?.

If the probability is 0.1 then keep the guy in prison. That I can't pull a number out of my rectum doesn't mean it's zero. You could also ask what is the acceptable level of carcinogens in your food. It will never be zero. How much of the GDP are you willing to spend on this problem?

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

"That, too. But I'm also serious about my analysis of your argument, which is that psychopaths are a negligible threat and therefore should be let out of prison even when we know how dangerous they are. And I can't agree with that.

My whole point is that psychopaths "we all know how dangerous they are" should not be let out of prison. Otherwise, I'd let them out of prison (or madhouse) indiscriminately after 15 years. It's that you are not willing to accept any procedure as safe enough. And argue via emotional appeal ("Think of the children!")

And are you sure about the "But ...". I'm not 100 percent "safe" neither are you. Probably not even 99.9999 percent. So obviously, the number of killed children (and of killed ugly old men with smelly feet for that matter) could be reduced if all people were under video observation 24/7. Or in prison. You could pull the very same argumentation in this case but I don't think you're willing to do that. So please analyze for yourself which arguments make a difference here and which don't. All I can conclude is that you make a difference between average humans and convicted murderers (probably also depending on the circumstances of the murder, though I'm not sure). Which we all do but without coming to the same conclusions. Your conclusion is, if I got you right "I don't care what the psychologists say, I don't wanna hear, just keep him under lock." This is something we could argue endlessly about. But I'm not buying this "I demand all necessary measures to ensure100 percent security" argument in itself.

[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

While I'm unhappy that the health-care reform act isn't much broader in scope than the corporatist settlement we appear to be reaching, there are important reforms that will pass -- banning the practice of dropping coverage for "preexisting" conditions being an especially important one. It's also the case that another 30 million people will be covered under the act. It's not everybody, but it's a start. What the bill doesn't do is provide any obvious cost-control mechanisms, but since any meaningful strictures on costs would cut into the revenues that insurers and providers receive, true financial reforms like those are off the table.

Because of the way the corporate structure exists in the U.S. and incentives are designed, I'm wary about how the proposed (and may soon be passed) health care plan will end up. While there are points like a penalty to stop last-minute workings to penalize people that should help, let's face it. Overall, people are very good at coming up with ways to escape from doing things that they don't want to do.

The extra "pork" that has been added to get the 60 vote minimum will also grow the cost; I mentioned in the "U.S. Health Care" thread that I felt spending a few billion is a small cost for the U.S. if it means healthy and productive residents/employees/citizens in the end, but the plan looks... scary.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

The Afghan troop increases won't really begin much before next summer, so I'm doubtful that they'll have much of an impact on the 2010 midterms. Persistent unemployment at 10% will have an effect, though.

The U.S. military is, IMHO, very strong against a known enemy but not nearly as good against guerrillas. Afghanistan is a combo of both. There are, I believe, foreign "troops" that won't be protected by the Afghan villages as much as native ones, but terrain will make U.S. firepower weaker; you certainly cannot attack villages - even if you have proof - easily without risking inflaming the common people. Dragging the conflict on is good for the other side, esp. since troops are being told that they are not there for the long haul. While this was not started by Barack Obama and his administration, by taking responsibility through proposing troops deployment, it's now his to own. Hopefully, he does well.

Slightly off-topic: I'm a bit surprised that very little news on the Supreme Court decision to not hear the case on how the U.S. can declare someone to be a combatant, and then he essentially becomes a non-entity. It now stands as precedent, and can't be overturned except through legislation.

Unemployment (U-3) will likely remain at or above/near the 10% mark for awhile, IMHO - maybe through the 2nd quarter of 2010? It may get worse if the private sector doesn't step up. At the moment, public spending is pretty much propping up some big parts of the economy, and that can't last. China has already hinted that buying U.S. debt can't continue forever. Real unemployment (U-6) may approach 18-20% mark (very unlikely to reach that high, though); it was already 17% a month ago.

[MrTerrorist]

Originally Posted by mg1942

oh noes!

Brittany Murphy dead @ 32




why now...

I still can't believe she's dead. My condolences to her family & may she rest in peace.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

I was trying to point out that you're highly hypothetical assumption wasn't even just "You are smarter than some abstract law." but even "You are smarter than people who are better trained and informed."

Which "trained and informed" people are we talking about? Because, while in France, our legislators have indeed decided, as you did, that no one should be locked in for life, the USA's are notoriously not shy about 3000+ years prison sentences.

And are you arguing for vigilantism? And aren't it the authorities that put people in jail in the first place? I wonder why you don't object already at this point.

Of course not. We were arguing morals, not practicality. I guess I should have prefaced my questions with "Do you think it would be better, ethically speaking, to..." or something equally long-winded.

If the probability is 0.1 then keep the guy in prison. That I can't pull a number out of my rectum doesn't mean it's zero. You could also ask what is the acceptable level of carcinogens in your food. It will never be zero. How much of the GDP are you willing to spend on this problem?

For what it's worth, (and if you want to argue some kind of sample bias there, or that it's not about murder, I don't blame you), a number of repeat offenses for sex crimes is 24% of repeat offenses within 15 years after getting out of jail. 35% when it comes to little boys' rapes. (But, oddly enough, "only" 16% for little girls.)

My whole point is that psychopaths "we all know how dangerous they are" should not be let out of prison. Otherwise, I'd let them out of prison (or madhouse) indiscriminately after 15 years. It's that you are not willing to accept any procedure as safe enough. And argue via emotional appeal ("Think of the children!")

And are you sure about the "But ...". I'm not 100 percent "safe" neither are you. Probably not even 99.9999 percent. So obviously, the number of killed children (and of killed ugly old men with smelly feet for that matter) could be reduced if all people were under video observation 24/7. Or in prison.

Well, no. We'd just die on camera. Or in prison.

You could pull the very same argumentation in this case but I don't think you're willing to do that. So please analyze for yourself which arguments make a difference here and which don't. All I can conclude is that you make a difference between average humans and convicted murderers (probably also depending on the circumstances of the murder, though I'm not sure). Which we all do but without coming to the same conclusions. Your conclusion is, if I got you right "I don't care what the psychologists say, I don't wanna hear, just keep him under lock."

It'd be easier to trust psychologists and parole boards (which aren't even necessarily of the same opinion) if we didn't, every few years, have headlines which read "Serial killer-rapist strikes again after being let out on parole!".

This is something we could argue endlessly about. But I'm not buying this "I demand all necessary measures to ensure100 percent security" argument in itself.

No, not 100%. At the very least, I don't demand the streets be 100% safe. I'm not that unrealistic. But once we've caught a serial killer, I'd like to know exactly what justifies letting him out again. If we're going to tolerate statistically insignificant injustices, as we, indeed, must, I'd rather tolerate jailed killers than dead innocents.

[Mr. DJ]

Originally Posted by mg1942

oh noes!

Brittany Murphy dead @ 32




why now...

it's crazy, my sister told me she died from a heart attack.

[MeoTwister5]

At 32, the likely causes of cardiac arrest would be a pre-existing heart condition (possibly congenital), something she ingested (drugs, toxins etc.) or a thrombus/embolus (not very likely).

Ramen Girl will be missed.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

At 32, the likely causes of cardiac arrest would be a pre-existing heart condition (possibly congenital), something she ingested (drugs, toxins etc.) or a thrombus/embolus (not very likely).

Ramen Girl will be missed.

She's waaay too young to die... just like the famous singer from the disco era named Karen Carpenter (33).

I don't think she does drugs... it must be her abnormal eating habits.

[Mystique]

Originally Posted by mg1942

She's waaay too young to die... just like the famous singer from the disco era named Karen Carpenter (33).

I don't think she does drugs... it must be her abnormal eating habits.

Glad to hear some people think that dying in your early thirties is 'too young' now, reminds me of the 'do you feel old thread' around here

2009, grabs another celeb to take to the otherside. Last I heard she wasn't working much, so I guess she may have began to settle down and become a mother but it wasn't to be.
Eitherway, hope she rests in peace

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by mg1942

She's waaay too young to die... just like the famous singer from the disco era named Karen Carpenter (33).

Karen Carpenter died of anorexia. Judging from her recent looks I don't think she suffered from the same thing that happened to the former.

Skinny is beautiful only when you are a loli. Nyan~.

[Mr. DJ]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

At 32, the likely causes of cardiac arrest would be a pre-existing heart condition (possibly congenital), something she ingested (drugs, toxins etc.) or a thrombus/embolus (not very likely).

Ramen Girl will be missed.

maybe a pre-existing heart condition, there was no drugs or toxins in her system from what I was told.

[Shadow Kira01]

Poll: Public support for Japan PM plunges

Public support for Japan's new prime minister has plunged to 48 percent from a high of 71 percent, with a growing number of voters complaining he lacks leadership amid a deadlock over the relocation of a U.S. military base, a poll showed Monday.

Around 74 percent of respondents in the Asahi survey said Hatoyama lacked leadership, with another 60 percent disapproving of his handling of the relocation of a U.S. Marine base on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa.

[Eclipze]

Man guilty of indecent exposure in his own home

Reverse the situation, and...