Not now! The neighbors are watching!

[kandrathe]

Becareful. Sematics is not such an easy out.

Sometimes a descussion devolves to semantics because 2 people used different defintions.

Other times(such as when Bill Clinton talked to the lawyers) the sematics issue arises when someone who was wrong looks for a way to obfuscate a mistake. This is such a case.
[right][snapback]110116[/snapback][/right]

Maybe you would produce less conflict in your written communications if you stopped a] trying to make assumptions about others motivations, b] being abusive and insulting, and c] trying to win.

It might be interesting to discuss (politely) whether rehabilitation encompases probation or parole(early release), or whether rehabilitation is a pre-condition of parole. Some here are suggesting that rehabilitation is a pre-condition of parole and indicates the individual has been judged to be capable of returning to the society with a low risk of recividism. I take it you are suggesting that the judgement ("paying for your crime") encompases the parole and probation period. I believe a person can serve their entire sentence and still have probation added after their release. The probationary period would overlap the parole period, and perhaps for our discussion the two concepts are discrete.

Either way, no one needs to be bathed in hot oil for making those types of suggestions. No one gets any prizes here for winning, and no one ever seems to win an argument on an internet forum. People just get tired of arguing and stop writing, maybe driving away potential forum regulars, and possibly frustrating the Lurking audience. It would be nice to have a civil discussion, beat the horse to death if neccesary, then move on to a more interesting discussion where everyones dignity and respect for one another remains intact.

[Occhidiangela]

Maybe you would produce less conflict in your written communications if you stopped a] trying to make assumptions about others motivations, b] being abusive and insulting, and c] trying to win.

Either way, no one needs to be bathed in hot oil for making those types of suggestions.  No one gets any prizes here for winning, and no one ever seems to win an argument on an internet forum.  People just get tired of arguing and stop writing, maybe driving away potential forum regulars, and possibly frustrating the Lurking audience.  It would be nice to have a civil discussion, beat the horse to death if neccesary, then move on to a more interesting discussion where everyones dignity and respect for one another remains intact.
[right][snapback]110129[/snapback][/right]

Interesting Data Point on Re Arrest versus Recidivism

The Flaming recidivism rate on the Lounge could be studied to support your point on posting style.

*slowly backs away to avoid splash damage*

Occhi

[Guest]

You ought to read the whole messy conflict before commenting. Its appearant you didnt. Im not saying the discourse is worth reading, but if you see it that way stay out of it.

I didnt go negative just because I disagreed. I get negative when people use flawed reasoning to support their positions. I consider that unfair.
I have explained how Mith made a a mistake. Now Mith is dsaying it was a semantics issue, but it wasnt it originally. Mith has since tried to muddy the water rather than accept that he mispoke originally.

If he had siimply started this by saying this by saying we should change our legal system to focus on rehabilitaion rather than punishment primarily I would have disagreed and thought him naive. But I wouldnt have been so insulting as I was in response to him saying that in our current system when you are released you rehabilitated.

[Guest]

Check this out. Its oddly related to both this topic and our WOW.

http://p198.ezboard.com/folgafrm3.showMess...picID=335.topic

[Occhidiangela]

You ought to read the whole messy conflict before commenting. Its appearant you didnt. Im not saying the discourse is worth reading, but if you see it that way stay out of it.

I didnt go negative just because I disagreed. I get negative when people use flawed reasoning to support their positions. I consider that unfair.
I have explained how Mith made a a mistake. Now Mith is dsaying it was a semantics issue, but it wasnt it originally. Mith has since tried to muddy the water rather than accept that he mispoke originally.

If he had siimply started this by saying this by saying we should change our legal system to focus on rehabilitaion rather than punishment primarily I would have disagreed and thought him naive. But I wouldnt have been so insulting as I was in response to him saying that in our current system when you are released  you rehabilitated.
[right][snapback]110133[/snapback][/right]

I am reminded of the story of the boy who cried "wolf."

The CNN rehash of the event is a step away from the topic, whatever its merits and demerits, and toward escalating personal friction. Please invite K, R, and M to continue any further interpersonal disagreement via PM.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program: "Aesop's Foibles." ;)

Occhi

Edit: There is no "t" in the middle of disagreement."

*Coffee, thou art a cruel mistress!*

[Guest]

I am reminded of the story of the boy who cried "wolf." 

The CNN rehash of the event is a step away from the topic, whatever its merits and demerits, and toward escalating personal friction.  Please invite K, R, and M to continue any further interpersonal disagtreement via PM. 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program: "Aesop's Foibles."  ;)

Occhi
[right][snapback]110135[/snapback][/right]

Well if people(not you) would quite misrepresenting what was said - I would stop rehashing it.

[Occhidiangela]

Well if people(not you) would quite misrepresenting what was said - I would stop rehashing it.
[right][snapback]110141[/snapback][/right]

I understand. You can assist in a reader's understanding by crafting concise posts. I am painfully aware that doing so takes extra time and effort per post.

Many of my own posts are far too wordy, which can lead to obscuring my central points due to a low signal to noise ratio.

I find that "another edit" and a critical look at my posts, while asking "how clearly have I highlighted my central point and its support?" helps in two ways:

I frequently cut extraneous words (usually not your challenge since you tend to economize with words)

I find flaws in either word choice or connection (segue) between thoughts. (We can all run into trouble there.) Correcting linkages and word choices at the outset saves follow on "explanatory" posts. Failure to do so cost additional future effort, or simply render meaning ambiguous.

When one's style is less verbose, word choice and sentence structure become critical. Where there is room for the reader to "fill in the blanks," as often happens when the sparsely chosen words are not "just the right word for the subject", the "what the writer means" interpretation expands in variability.

Brevity may be the soul of wit, but wit and vocabulary are the source of effective brevity. The exponential loss in clarity per (imperfectly chosen) word makes terse and effective posts extremely hard to write well.

It does for me, in any case.

Hmmmm. I seem to be driving [wcip]Angel's "average word per post" statistic loopy with all of this verbosity! :lol:

Occhi

Liposuction Note: pre editing saved about 30 words, and 5 spelling errors

[Occhidiangela]

Check this out. Its oddly related to both this topic and our WOW.

http://p198.ezboard.com/folgafrm3.showMess...picID=335.topic
[right][snapback]110134[/snapback][/right]

That post is a made up story lampooning Tim Buckley, creator of the Control + Alt + Del webcomic, and a bit of web drama over a story alleging he sent inappropriate pictures of himself to a minor female on line.

Occhi

[Guest]

Well I thought telling people they were idiots or liars was the hight of brevity. No one liked that, so this is where we are.

[Mithrandir]

I didnt go negative just because I disagreed. I get negative when people use flawed reasoning to support their positions. I consider that unfair.
I have explained how Mith made a a mistake. Now Mith is dsaying it was a semantics issue, but it wasnt it originally. Mith has since tried to muddy the water rather than accept that he mispoke originally.
[right][snapback]110133[/snapback][/right]

Never have I at any point misspoke (I went back and read, to make sure). I suppose that I made a (bad) assumption on the parole and rehabilitation issue since I thought that pretty much everyone saw it my way... and I still don't understand how someone can believe that the prison system would knowingly allow an un-rehabilitated criminal out into the real world, relatively unsupervised "just because". But I digress. Lesson learned.

Please do not assign conspiracy theories, imaginary intentions, and evil plots to subvert reason to me when I am doing nothing more than making posts on a friggin message board.

Goodbye, adieu, and enjoy the thread.

[Guest]

... and I still don't understand how someone can believe that the prison system would knowingly allow an un-rehabilitated criminal out into the real world, relatively unsupervised "just because". But I digress. Lesson learned.


[right][snapback]110170[/snapback][/right]

That makes no sense. It happens every day with all kinds of criminals. When some ones time is served they are released no matter what, regardless of if reasonable people think they are not rehabilitated.

A criminal whose sentence is overcan publically say "I dont regret my crime." he will still be released - its the law. You should have learned this in 9th grade civics.

Im guessing you did and are pretending otherwise.

[Occhidiangela]

That makes no sense. It happens every day with all kinds of criminals. When some ones time is served they are released no matter what, regardless of if reasonable people think they are not rehabilitated.

A criminal whose sentence is overcan publically say "I dont regret my crime." he will still be released - its the law. You should have learned this in 9th grade civics.

Im guessing you did and are pretending otherwise.
[right][snapback]110172[/snapback][/right]

Here's an idea: take on the idea, or the content that you feel is in error, not the person.

Occhi

[Roland]

Well I thought telling people they were idiots or liars was the hight of brevity. No one liked that, so this is where we are.
[right][snapback]110151[/snapback][/right]

This is why people think you are insulting. This is why civil discussion breaks down. There are other ways, both verbose and concise, of making your above "points" without resorting to insults, as you so often do.

Mayhap you'd have better discussions (wouldn't we all) if you insults out of it. You've been warned a thousand times before, and still you do not listen, but for the sake of the Lounge (or, if only for the sake of my own self, if you prefer it that way), I'm pitching in my own voice: drop the use of insults.

And if someone else resorts to it, don't add to it by repeating their offenses. Use the tools given to you, in both language and software. Petty insult wars result in nothing gained, everything lost, as you and I have experienced with one another first hand.

I'm not trying to flame you, nor even touch upon the topic of discussion present here. Merely trying to point out a critical flaw in ALL discussion on the Lounge, but that happens to be particularly evident in "hot-topic" discussions such as this. Just because we feel emotion does not mean we should use that to lash out at every chance we get.

Civility is crucial for any form of discussion media. Failure to abide by even that simple of a rule results in utter chaos, and serves no one any good. As an educated person, please remember this, and if you have to, take some time out to reflect on whether your posts cross that guideline or not, regardless of whether someone else crosses the line. If nothing else, it will give you the upper hand in any discussion by keeping you above all the waste.

Take care.

[Guest]

Blah blah.


Im not upset because we dsiagree on ideas.
Mith keeps saying something that isnt true in order to promote his ideas - I find that offensive.

How to best deal with criminals is amatter of opinion - so its fine to disagree.
How our current system works is a matter of fact.

[Guest]

Im insulted when people are intelectually dishonest.
I guess most of you dont mind that I do.

Its possible the people truely are stupid and not dishonest(as Pete pointed out.) But in that case guess I would only be insulting by telling the trurth so it really is fair.
There is no way to avoid being personal when a person defends a position in a fair argument by resorting to lies or nonsense.

[--Pete]

Hi,

There is no way to avoid being personal when a person defends a position in a fair argument by resorting to lies or nonsense.
[right][snapback]110197[/snapback][/right]

Oh, yes there is. Since I often react the same way you do, I sympathize. But this past year has taught me to conserve my energies for what matters. So, when you find lies and nonsense, point them out. Refute the lies by offering facts, preferably facts that can be supported. Attack the nonsense by pointing out why it is nonsense, maybe by showing the contradiction, maybe by showing the erroneous assumptions the nonsense is based on.

Make your argument once, then drop it (unless you have something substantial to add). Repeating the same argument does not strengthen it, indeed it usually weakens it (I'm reminded of the "I object", "No, I strenuously object" scene in A Few Good Men). Realize that the primary objective of a discussion is to share and exchange opinions and information. Realize that the person disagreeing with you is your foil, not your target. The targets are the other Loungers who may not yet have formed a firm opinion. Antagonizing them is the only way to 'lose' a discussion -- there is no way to 'win'.

You've repeatedly stated that you prefer a logical argument. Now walk the walk -- keep your arguments based on logic, not ad hominem attacks. And remember that logic does not, indeed cannot, apply in the case of opinion. De gustibus non est disputandum was probably an ancient concept when Latin first appeared. It is still a good concept three thousand or more years later.

--Pete

[Mithrandir]

That makes no sense. It happens every day with all kinds of criminals. When some ones time is served they are released no matter what, regardless of if reasonable people think they are not rehabilitated.

A criminal whose sentence is overcan publically say "I dont regret my crime." he will still be released - its the law. You should have learned this in 9th grade civics.

Im guessing you did and are pretending otherwise.
[right][snapback]110172[/snapback][/right]

I had to come back and respond to this, I really will be done after this I promise.

Maximum sentence lengths are intended to prevent abuse by the judicial system such as by giving inordinate sentences to people who perform minor crimes, just as minimum sentence lenghts are in place so that very short sentences cannot be handed to those who perform heinous crimes. There are also laws in place that allow a state to hold an individual indefinitely if the state feels that they are not properly rehabilitated (see: kandrathe's story about Minnesota being able to hold someone indefinitely if they exhibit "'an utter lack of power' to control his sexual impulses").

Whether it is applied in practice 100% of the time or not, the fact is that in the eyes of the law you are rehabilitated once you are released from prison.

Edit: Missed a sentence.

[kandrathe]

Im insulted when people are intelectually dishonest.
...
[right][snapback]110197[/snapback][/right]

"Intellectual dishonesty is the creation of false impressions or advocacy of false ideas and concepts using rhetoric, logical fallicies, or insufficient or falsified evidence. It often stems from self-deception or a covert agenda, which is expressed through a misuse of various rhetorical devices. The unwary reader may be deceived as a result." -- Wikipedia

How do you know if a person is stating their opinion accurately, or if they are stating an opinion dishonestly just to contradict you? They might be wrong, or misinformed. Or, you might be wrong or misinformed.

It's impossible to determine their intention without clarification or their admission. But, you wield that butter knife like Julia Childs. Most people are careful to write "My perception is that the sky is blue.", rather than "The sky is blue." The later would require them to supply evidence, while the former is an opinion. Now, if someone writes "The sky is blue since it reflects the ocean." you are free to disagree and might suspect they are being intellectually dishonest, or they might be ignorant, or they might be joking, or maybe there is a misunderstanding in terms.

I also got quite a chuckle from your suggestion that if I agree with you I'm free to post, but if I should agree with someone who contradicts you that I should stay mute.

[Roland]

Whether it is applied in practice 100% of the time or not, the fact is that in the eyes of the law you are rehabilitated once you are released from prison.

In the eyes of the law? That could be a naive statement, depending on how you take it, or rather, how you meant it. In the eyes of the law, where "law" is the words and texts written and followed, I'd agree with you. In the eyes of the law, where "law" is the individuals who enforce the laws, you're naive, and I don't mean that to sound insulting.

I hate to sound too cynical, but it IS naive to think that all people who "enforce" (note I did not say "uphold"; there's a reason for that) the law do so equally, and with the idea that "in the eyes of the law, my eyes, you are rehabilitated once you are released from prison". Laws are created and controlled by humans. Humans are fallible. Thus, laws, ultimately, are fallible. This is why many rapists, murderers, and other heavy-weighted criminals are given sentences far below what they probably should be given (I say this as a matter of opinion, not fact, but also as a matter of looking at the laws as written, and looking at precedence). Corruption abounds, and it is naive to think it doesn't (not that I am insinuating that you do), although it is equally naive (or perhaps ignorant is a better word) to think corruption is all there is. I do not doubt that there are criminals who get out of jail long before they are "rehabilitated". I also do not doubt that some criminals can NEVER be "rehabilitated". But look at this: by your own admission, and indeed as very fact, there are limits as to how long a sentence someone can be given for any crime. Because of this very fact, it is impossible for all criminals to be "rehabilitated once their sentence is up", as you state as fact, even in a "perfect" world where all criminals can, as a matter of fact, be rehabilitated (another naive fallacy, but one we don't need to touch upon any more). The fact that all humans are different, have different makeups, different needs, different strengths and weaknesses, makes it entirely impossible for a "one-size-fits-all" punishment to guarantee that a criminal is rehabilitated once their sentence is up, combined with the checks and balances imposed upon the legal system to ensure as little abuse as possible will occurr.

I believe it is this that Ghostiger, however uneloquently, is trying to point out as an intellectual... what did he call it again? It escapes me at the moment, but you understand my point. Now, I could be wrong about Ghostiger's intent, as I am only guessing, but I believe this is what he meant. And, indeed, he would be right, but unlike him, I point out both sides of the available views on your stance. To reiterate: if you are stating that all criminals are rehabilitated once their sentence is up as it relates to the laws as written (putting a tangible face on an intangible idea), then I can certainly agree with that, given the limitations of our legal system. However, if you believe that all criminals are rehabilitated once their sentence is up, regardless of crime or length of sentence (or any other factor, for that matter), that it is the end, period, then I shall have to politely disagree, and refer you to my above arguments against such an illogical fallacy.

Now, it's my guess (just like my guess about Ghostiger's point) that you mean the former, and not the latter. But, given that you did not clarify further your stance on the issue (maybe you shouldn't have to, but as has been said, words can have very different meanings, as I tried to point out as best I could in this post), it is possible for someone (like Ghostiger) to be confused on your stance, simply because one statement can mean several things, each entirely opposed to the other.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm dragging you back into this discussion. I just wanted to post on your last point, as even I had questions about your true stance that I could not answer for myself with any certainty without asking further questions (and doing my best to explain where my questions were arising from).

As for my opinion on the matter of rehabilitation versus punishment, I'm going to stay out of it. It's far too late and I am far too tired to make any further remarks on the subject, not to mention that I'm not even sure how or where I would place myself on the scale. I do believe rehabilitation is possible for some, or at least preferable to outright punishment (i.e. in the case of the truly mentally deranged / deficient; if someone who is mentally handicapped murders someone, but truly does not understand the concept of murder, or is instead incapable of making the distinction between right and wrong enough to keep from doing right and wrong {ala the part in The Village where Mr. Fiance is hurt by Mr Handicapped}, I do not believe being tossed into jail with the rest of criminal society serves any useful purpose, to anyone involved) in certain cases. However, I do not believe at all that all criminals can be rehabilitated, and so I do believe that some criminals, most notably repeat offenders of the worst crimes (i.e. serial killers), should not ever be let loose upon society again. I suppose, to be concise, I believe a combination of punishment and rehabilitation should be the general order when dealing with crime, but I cannot claim to have any answers for that idea.

But as I said, I'm too tired to make any strong points about my feelings on the matter, so I'm leaving it where it stands now. To summarize: rehabilitation AND punishment, hand in hand, for most, with strict removal from society for those deemed unrepairable (serial killers, for one example), and strong rehabilitation (and removal of a different form, if needed) for those who are simply incapable (not unwilling; big difference) of functioning in society as a "normal" human being (mentally handicapped, for one example). In my mind, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, but I don't particularly believe in vengeance as the proper course of action (though I certainly couldn't be stopped from feeling the want, or even need, for vengeance should a crime occur to me; I just would do my best to rise above such basic urges, as in the end, they serve no good, and fulfilling them would only leave me hollow and degenerated).

Boy, what an unintentionally long post. I think I need to go to bed now. :P Sorry for being so verbose (I'm looking at you here Occhi :P).

Edit:
Cleaned up the first paragraph to look a little more polite, and better represent what I was actually trying to say, rather than give a better chance of it looking like I'm just being a jerk. :P

[Occhidiangela]

Boy, what an unintentionally long post. I think I need to go to bed now. :P Sorry for being so verbose (I'm looking at you here Occhi :P).
[right][snapback]110213[/snapback][/right]

I'll take that as "imitation being the sincerest form of flattery."

Now that you mention it, flattery get's you everywhere, big boy! :rolleyes:

*ducks*

Occhi