Venting thread that still excludes eddy (2)

[linguoboy]

I wish more people were as cynical as me, at least almost as cynical. Then I wouldn't have to explain my fantasies of people who are sentenced to life in prison just be offed. They're such a waste of resources to keep alive. At least starve 'em to death. Apparently it's actually painless, contrary to what some may believe (or so /suicide/ on 8chan tells me).

There's a difference between being cynical and being callous.

On some level, every one of us is a "waste of resources".

[Koko]

I don't see how having people sentenced to life in prison is less "callous" than doing them in entirely.

[Matrix]

Killing someone is permanent. If it's later determined that the person was innocent, then we killed an innocent goddamn person for no reason.

[Koko]

It's an awfully controversial matter, so wouldn't we take serious considerations in it? Like, if the person hasn't been proven innocent within a decade or so (despite heavy research into their innocence), I think it's fair to say off with their head. And if it's super obvious they're guilty, I say stop wasting time and end 'em.

(hah! really coming off as empathetic here, Koko )

[Matrix]

By what measure is someone's guilt "super obvious"? There are certainly cases out there where someone was convicted of something big like murder and put in jail, and everyone though it was "super obvious" at the time, but then later developments show that the convicted was actually innocent. The court of law is imperfect. As death is a permanent solution that cannot be revoked, the decision of whether or not a person should die for a crime should not be left to anything that is imperfect, as any amount of mistake in such a matter - this being a situation where a mistake leads to the death of an innocent person - is unacceptable. As it is impossible to have a perfect judicial system, the death penalty should thus never be applied.

[Salmoneus]

I wish more people were as cynical as me, at least almost as cynical. Then I wouldn't have to explain my fantasies of people who are sentenced to life in prison just be offed. They're such a waste of resources to keep alive. At least starve 'em to death. Apparently it's actually painless, contrary to what some may believe (or so /suicide/ on 8chan tells me).

Anyways, this world is too full of oversensitive people who need to stop being so sensitive. There's a time and a place for that, and that's when the world isn't the giant craphole it currently is.

Cynical is not the same as psychopathic.
Besides, if we're dolling out death to those who are wastes of resources, surely it's those who fantasise about murdering prisoners who ought to be first against the wall?

More generally, leaving aside the problem of false convictions (and, reality here: America is still knowingly executing people who have been proven to be innocent; Texas in particular has a reputation for refusing to let innocence be a consideration in the appeals process under any circumstances), there's something profoundly sociopathic in the idea that death is no worse than life in prison. That's only true if we assume that life spent in prison not only can be, but always is, worthless. But people can study in prison, they can write, they can make friendships, they can fall in love, they can take up a craft, they can agitate for political reform, they can teach people, they can be actors and musicians, they can be nurses and therapists - they can do good, and they can enjoy life. Sure, it's a vastly more deprived and difficult life than the life of the free (or, at least, the life of a free and wealthy person - prison vs poverty may be a difficult choice in some cases), and some will find death preferable, but it's not inherently a life in which nothing of value can be constructed. And of course, the outside world sees very little of these lives in most cases... but that only matters if you think that fame is all that can validated the importance of a life. [Is the life of a convict who studies, gets a degree, and runs classes for other convicts, in some cases helping them avoid coming back to prison, really so much less valuable, to the individual or to society, than the life of any other professional teacher?]

[jal]

The phylosophical question being whether we, as humans, should allow the deliberate killing of other humans. I say we shouldn't, as rule of thumb, and certainly not as a form of punishment.

That said, again we're going off-topic...


JAL

[Koko]

You're throwing around those terms incorrectly, Sal >.> Being non-pro-life doesn't equate to psychopathy/sociopathy. One can certainly believe these things and still be empathetic and feeling, even towards those who would be affected (in fact, maybe especially).

But whatev, you do raise a good point in what you say, which also proves how absolutely retardedstupid I am and uneducated. (me) Being stubborn though… >.>

Wait, I see where you guys are getting the idea I'm antisocial!

Anyways, this world is too full of oversensitive people who need to stop being so sensitive. There's a time and a place for that, and that's when the world isn't the giant craphole it currently is.

Right? Well, you're taking that awfully the wrong way >.>

[Koko]

Cynical is not the same as psychopathic.
Besides, if we're dolling out death to those who are wastes of resources, surely it's those who fantasise about murdering prisoners who ought to be first against the wall?

Forgot to address this: 1) I don't fantasize doing the killing; that's just wrong. The government is made up of enough sociopaths who would be willing to do it since I certainly couldn't. 2) Explain how we are a waste of resources and should be first to go. We can still actually do stuff to further "society" and such (as long as we don't get ourselves imprisoned); those sentenced to life are already basically dead, but yet we have to keep them alive because people can't bare the idea that someone who killed and raped should "suffer" death (?!). 3) If we are a waste of resources, certainly every other person is too, since apparently it only takes one opinion that doesn't sit well in another's stomach to deem you a waste of resources who should be offed right away.

(btw, this latter is fine with me, but the second has obviously an underlying "Kys, you filthy scum of the Earth, or I'll kill ya meself!" Which one of us is more "psychopathic?")

[Salmoneus]

Cynical is not the same as psychopathic.
Besides, if we're dolling out death to those who are wastes of resources, surely it's those who fantasise about murdering prisoners who ought to be first against the wall?

Forgot to address this: 1) I don't fantasize doing the killing; that's just wrong. The government is made up of enough sociopaths who would be willing to do it since I certainly couldn't.

Fantasising about getting people to do it for you isn't any better, it's just less responsible.

2) Explain how we are a waste of resources and should be first to go.

Well, surely pretty much by definition the existence of people who want to massively expand the death penalty makes the world a better places - resources could be better spent on people who aren't evil. You yourself are happy applying that to "someone who killed" - why not to someone like you who WOULD have killed thousands of people if you were able to? [The difference between killing them yourself and paying someone else to kill them isn't morally significant]

those sentenced to life are already basically dead, but yet we have to keep them alive because people can't bare the idea that someone who killed and raped should "suffer" death (?!).

No, being in prison isn't the same as being 'basically dead', unless, as I say, the knowledge and opinion of people outside prison is all that matters in life. And we don't have to not murder people because some people don't like the idea of murdering people - we have to not murder people because murdering people is bad.

3) If we are a waste of resources, certainly every other person is too, since apparently it only takes one opinion that doesn't sit well in another's stomach to deem you a waste of resources who should be offed right away.

Yes, this is the point. You want to off one group of people you deem a waste of resources, so what protects you from being offed by those who deem you a waste of resources?

(btw, this latter is fine with me, but the second has obviously an underlying "Kys, you filthy scum of the Earth, or I'll kill ya meself!" Which one of us is more "psychopathic?")

The difference is, I DON'T want you to die, by your own hand or the state's. Because i DON'T think that those I dislike should be summarily murdered. This is a significant difference.

To put this in more concrete terms: in the US, you have people serving life without parole for shoplifting. You have people serving life without parole for one-time non-violent drug offences. Actual crimes for which people have served life without parole or an equivalently long sentence without parole: stealing a videotape; passing a forged check for the amount of $28. Anyone who is willing to execute shoplifters demonstrates a clinically significant lack of respect for human life, and frankly basic decency, in my opinion.

[Koko]

To put this in more concrete terms: in the US, you have people serving life without parole for shoplifting. You have people serving life without parole for one-time non-violent drug offences. Actual crimes for which people have served life without parole or an equivalently long sentence without parole: stealing a videotape; passing a forged check for the amount of $28. Anyone who is willing to execute shoplifters demonstrates a clinically significant lack of respect for human life, and frankly basic decency, in my opinion.

I honestly had zero idea how retarded some charges some people got sentenced to life for*… doesn't that say something about the judicial system (as someone has already stated)? Then wouldn't we first fix that before implementing the death penalty?

[Vijay]

We should, but that's not what actually ends up happening (down here. It's Texas).

[Koko]

That's stupid. I think the people who agree with the death penalty are actually a lot more reasonable, which is why I assumed if it were a thing something like shoplifting would not get someone executed… sentencing someone for life just for shoplifting is retarded! Again, this shows how little I know in things I have strong opinions about.

[Vijay]

When you say "the people who agree with the death penalty," are you thinking of any specific people besides yourself? If so, who?

[Koko]

Just most people in general who are for death penalty. My mom and most of my friends agree with it, if you want specifics. I certainly would want it used within reason, and I doubt the aforementioned supporters would want otherwise too.

[Viktor77]

So I'm in a bus that makes trips between cities. We left Paris this morning and got stuck at the French/Belgian border for 2 hours because of the border controls that aren't even supposed to exist in Schengen! The bus company was understandably upset since it meant being late for all coming stops so the bus driver finally just takes us on a wild ride through rural country roads and small villages. People had even come out of their houses with a look of WTF at seeing a giant bus on rural roads. Finally we crossed the border on a bridge that looked like it wasn't even designed for a vehicle this heavy and got right back on the highway.

So that's one way to avoid border controls that aren't supposed to exist. I can't help thinking these controls are angering companies. My bus company is now compensating us. That hits at their bottom line and it's all because of paranoid governments restricting the access to move freely in Europe. I wonder if enough corporate pressure could bring down the controls. I know for example that Deutsche Bahn basically told Danish officials to go fuck themselves when they tried to control trains between Germany and Denmark.

I also have to admire the skill of our Dutch bus driver who was able to navigate this monster through basically one lane snaking backroads.

[Salmoneus]

There are borders and there are borders. Nobody wants open borders with Belgium right now, given... well, Belgium. Would you like to be the politician who had to tell the public, "sorry about that terrorist atrocity - we could have stopped it by having some mildly inconvenient border guards, but an incredibly rich multinational company told us to take the guards away, so naturally I did, because, hey, you have to do what corporations say, right, even when people's lives are on the line?" ? I don't think that would be a great political strategy.

Things about Belgium recently:
- correct, detailed plans of the attack on the airport had been discovered by the Greek police (at a flat owned by a Paris attacker) and handed over to the Belgian authorities, who were unable to do anything about it
- the Belgian police didn't ask Abdeslam anything about future or ongoing terrorist plans, or his co-conspirators. They asked about the Paris attacks and he talked freely with them, then they warned him about the possibility of extradition to France and he refused to say anything else
- it took from November to March to catch Abdeslam. This is despite the fact he was living literally around the corner from where he grew up, and despite the fact that his known radical friend was known to be there (it was his mother's house) since a tip-off in December, but nobody bothered to follow it up
- after the airport bombings, the Belgian authorities decided to shut down the metro and evacuate it, just in case there was a further attack. Unfortunately, the Belgian authorities couldn't organise a piss-up in Belgium can't actually communicate or implement any plans outside of their own offices, so none of this happened. The government decided to tell the metro operator to evacuate, and thought that it had done so... but the metro operator did not actually receive any sort of communication from the government to tell THEM that the form saying that they'd been told had been filled in. So they didn't evacuate, and there was another bomb, more than an hour after the first attacks. The government then STILL didn't communicate anything to the metro company, who eventually took the initiative to close the system down themselves.

We're moving from the point where Belgium is the laughingstock of Europe to the point where people would really quite like them to get their damn shit together.

[Viktor77]

There are borders and there are borders. Nobody wants open borders with Belgium right now, given... well, Belgium. Would you like to be the politician who had to tell the public, "sorry about that terrorist atrocity - we could have stopped it by having some mildly inconvenient border guards, but an incredibly rich multinational company told us to take the guards away, so naturally I did, because, hey, you have to do what corporations say, right, even when people's lives are on the line?" ? I don't think that would be a great political strategy.

Things about Belgium recently:
- correct, detailed plans of the attack on the airport had been discovered by the Greek police (at a flat owned by a Paris attacker) and handed over to the Belgian authorities, who were unable to do anything about it
- the Belgian police didn't ask Abdeslam anything about future or ongoing terrorist plans, or his co-conspirators. They asked about the Paris attacks and he talked freely with them, then they warned him about the possibility of extradition to France and he refused to say anything else
- it took from November to March to catch Abdeslam. This is despite the fact he was living literally around the corner from where he grew up, and despite the fact that his known radical friend was known to be there (it was his mother's house) since a tip-off in December, but nobody bothered to follow it up
- after the airport bombings, the Belgian authorities decided to shut down the metro and evacuate it, just in case there was a further attack. Unfortunately, the Belgian authorities couldn't organise a piss-up in Belgium can't actually communicate or implement any plans outside of their own offices, so none of this happened. The government decided to tell the metro operator to evacuate, and thought that it had done so... but the metro operator did not actually receive any sort of communication from the government to tell THEM that the form saying that they'd been told had been filled in. So they didn't evacuate, and there was another bomb, more than an hour after the first attacks. The government then STILL didn't communicate anything to the metro company, who eventually took the initiative to close the system down themselves.

We're moving from the point where Belgium is the laughingstock of Europe to the point where people would really quite like them to get their damn shit together.

Hey look Salmoneous, I agree with you. Belgium has been absolutely shit at everything you mentioned. There's always a breakdown in Belgium because the country is federalized and everything has to be sent through government after government, language after language, and this has created a bureaucratic nightmare that probably rivals that of France. Belgium let this radicalism grow under their nose, we all know it, and we even had two ministers try to hand in their resignation due to mishandling of information communicated to them.

But none of that matters because of one reason, Schengen. Europe agreed on Schengen in 1995 and Belgium was a signatory. That means that the agreement is to be respected by all current signatories, even in Belgium, even when there seems to be every reason to temporarily put the agreement aside.

So now it's to Europe to decide which is more important, the success of free movement in Europe or the ability to control borders. If Europe wants to move backwards, to an Europe pre-Schengen, then it needs to be an unanimous decision within each state, an annulment of the state's signature to uphold the agreement must be made, and the fact that doing so will cause a huge economic loss for that state/Europe needs to be taken into account, not to mention that each member state must agree to fund full 24 hour controls on all borders, not just highways but on backroads, otherwise the controls are completely useless.

But this half-assed reinstating of border controls here and there, against certain states within Schengen, etc. is not going to fly. It will soon be in violation of the agreement. So either countries like Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Belgium, Austria consider leaving Schengen completely or they get their shit together and realize that upholding the agreement was never going to be easy work but an open Europe is a freer Europe.

[Yng]

R u kidding

I think you should stand for the EU parliament, or at least become a pr guy for them - they need more bureaucrats concerned more with the anal application of Schengen and the power of Big Money to make their own travel plans easier than they are with actual security threats.

[alynnidalar]

There's really nothing in the Schengen Agreement that allows for suspending it for matters of national security? That seems shockingly short-sighted!

I certainly agree with you that it's an all or nothing deal--either you tighten security at all border crossings, even the tiny rural ones, or it's pointless--but it just seems surprising if back when they signed it, nobody was like "y'know this is a really great idea, but what if something crazy happens and we temporarily need to restrict crossings?"

[vampireshark]

There's really nothing in the Schengen Agreement that allows for suspending it for matters of national security? That seems shockingly short-sighted!

I certainly agree with you that it's an all or nothing deal--either you tighten security at all border crossings, even the tiny rural ones, or it's pointless--but it just seems surprising if back when they signed it, nobody was like "y'know this is a really great idea, but what if something crazy happens and we temporarily need to restrict crossings?"

There are provisions of Schengen that permit the temporary reimposition of border controls, but only for temporary periods and in "exceptional cases".

[Viktor77]

And usually those temporary measures can only be instated for 6 months. Now member states are pressing for an extension of 2 years which is what I call the gutting of Schengen. Call me a Eurocrat as much as you want but either member states agree to uphold Schengen or they step out and reinforce all borders (which BTW according to several preliminary assessments will cost nothing short of a fortune, especially if one builds fences considering people can just run across land.) But it's either follow the agreement or remove your signature, this gutting is not going to solve a thing. In 2 years they'll ask to extend it again and soon we'll have an agreement whose entire purpose has been removed.

Yng and Sal, no offense but both of you live on an island where controlling the border is easy. There are only a few ways to the UK. There are literally 1000s of ways to enter Belgium, let alone a massive state like Germany.

And you're forgetting the cost to trade, tourism, and the entire economic sector as a whole. Every minute a truck waits at a border stop that company loses money and who will be paying for that? Not the company.

I agree that security needs to be stepped up. We need an EU-level CIA which will bring together all members' communications. We need to reinforce external borders and if the Greek government isn't prepared to do it then we need to eject Greece from Schengen, along with any other member with an external border who does not agree to reinforce external borders.

[Salmoneus]

As seen in the Sanders discussion, Viktor has troubling distinguishing what it avoidable and unavoidable from what he personally would like or dislike...


Controls on Belgian borders are perfectly in keeping with the spirit of article 25, as are the belgian controls on the french border in response to the closing of the camps. Article 25 allows for controls in exactly this sort of emergency situation. Article 23 further allows them in response to foreseeable events. Now, it could certainly be argued that some of the article 23 controls at the moment, aimed as restricting migrants, are contrary to the spirit of that article. However, I think they're clearly in the spirit of article 26, which allows for the suspension of schengen entirely in the case of serious deficiencies in the border controls of a specific member state (and hence of the zone as a whole). Clearly, Greece is not able to control its own borders, so a situation meriting the suspension of schengen is extant - and indeed plans have been drawn up to implement article 26. However, the article 26 procedures are lengthy, too lengthy relative to the scale of the migrant influx. So I think it's very much in the spirit of the agreed rules for countries to use their article 23 and article 25 exemptions in the short term while waiting for the problem to be either resolved or officially responded to via article 26.

Of course, if, in the long term, Greece is unable to secure its borders to a reasonable degree, then schengen will collapse - no internal controls plus no external controls means that everybody in the world can come to europe whenever they like, which is not a sustainable situation. But it would be wrong to blame that on the governments imposing internal borders - that's like blaming the fire brigade for the fire.

It is certainly unfortunate, though, that there are two border crises (migrants via greece and terrorist movement out of france and belgium) at the same time.

[Viktor77]

See above for a response.

[Yng]

please see salmoneus's post for a response to your response

This could go on for ever.