The Goat Pen

hedge wrote:"Not really, no it isn't Hedge. I don't count a trillion dollar (or even a $700 billion dollar) annual deficit as functioning. That is not a budget nor is it a civilized society."

I'm not seeing the connection b/w the government's budget and the civility of the society...

Maybe not yet. But you will.

"We've pushed the legal punishment pengulim too far the other way"

Indeed...

FWIW, I can't remember the last time I witnessed (firsthand) rioting in the streets. Or the first time, either, for that matter...

hedge wrote:"We've pushed the legal punishment pengulim too far the other way"

Indeed...

FWIW, I can't remember the last time I witnessed (firsthand) rioting in the streets. Or the first time, either, for that matter...

We just had that in (marriageless) Ferguson MO a month an half ago, are you kidding me? And when they aren't rioting in some parts of the country, (where there is NO marriage) the kids just kill each other. The state of New Jersey had to f-cking militarize the Camden Police Department to reduce the crime rate even 21% and even then, Brian Williams had to do a special report on Friday from Camden to try and convince everyone that things there are really not that bad. He was bullshitting everyone.

Get used to this happening more and more. You can't expect fatherless children (who for the most part, were raised in the absence of all moral agency) to behave in a manner that we would grow to expect of adults in a first world nation. It's not going to happen. This decay is a gradual but never-ending rot that will continue to fester and grow (generation after generation) until we (as society) lance the boil and convince men they need to start marrying. They are only going to do that if we restore the incentives AND take away all the disincentives.

Property crime and violent crime have been decreasing nationally since the early 90's

I should say, they have been declining significantly since the early 1990's but overall have been declining since the 1790's

aTm wrote:Property crime and violent crime have been decreasing nationally since the early 90's

Point taken.

In Freakenomics, the writers argued that this happened primarily because of Roe vs Wade (in otherwords, the would be criminals had been aborted out of existance in 1973 before they could start their crime spree in 1993.) That would be an interesting little benefit to what is the most infernal of gifts from women's suffrage (the right a mother alone has to murder her own child.) I tend to think it has more to do with other little benefits awarded to the would-be-criminals of the the early 1990s that kept them too busy for your average B&E...

• Violent CGI Computer Games
• The internet
• increased drug acceptance and legalization
• increased acceptance of living at home well into adulthood

Its even easier now. Think about it, why break into someone's home to steal something when you can just wake up in the morning in your parents basement, light up the bong, fire up the computer, surf to x-videos high definition, and masturbate your day away? When you've emptied your prostate, start playing Diablo, Doom, or anything on the ole XBox 360. Why steal things when your parents just give them to you because its so cheap now?

But still aTm, we have Flash Mobs that break into stores and take everything and anything they can get their hands on, and that property crime is a relatively new hobby. Not to mention that most interesting of street games, "Knock Out." Its only a game, not violent crime.

innocentbystander wrote:

AlabamAlum wrote:IB,

If you continue to assert that a victim hiring a lawyer makes her un-raped and a whore, even if it's your own mother, then you're not just stubborn. You are stupid.

I didn't assert that. I asserted that she would not hire a lawyer.

All victims or just your mom? With the latter you were tasked with responding as if she had. It is not a logical impossibility, you just ducked and didn't answer the question because it challenges your opinion that you wield as unassailable fact. Instead, you trotted out the macho throwaway of 'I'd beat him up' or whatever.

AlabamAlum wrote:

innocentbystander wrote:I didn't assert that. I asserted that she would not hire a lawyer.

All victims or just your mom? With the latter you were tasked with responding as if she had. It is not a logical impossibility, you just ducked and didn't answer the question because it challenges your opinion that you wield as unassailable fact. Instead, you trotted out the macho throwaway of 'I'd beat him up' or whatever.

What possible good would a lawyer do my mother? She is not going to sue anyone nor will she be on trial for any crime. She doesn't want money, she wants justice. Government provides that with jail time to the offender (or I provide it with my baseball bat if government fails to step up and do its job.) She is a rape victim and wants his ass in jail (or in the ground) not a check. The man who rapes my mother needs a lawyer (a defense attorney.) My mother does not need (nor would she hire) a lawyer. She does not need one (nor would she hire one) because she is a rape victim. A rape victim goes to the hospital (first) then the police. Hell the police will show up at the hospital to take a statement. They proceed with an investigation. They meet with the DA with the evidence. They conclude a rape occurred. They arrest him. He goes to court. A trial date is set. The judge sets bail. The judge will probably issue an injunction right there (so he has to stay away from my mother even if he does make bail.) And we proceed. That's the way you do it.

At no time in the above scenario did my mother (nor would any rape victim) contact an attorney.

In many cases rape is a he-said, she said. It all boils down to credibility. Jameis Winston is the least credible person in the world. I'm not going to believe anything that crab legs stealing adolecent delinquint has to say. Fortunately for Jameis, he didn't have to say anything. The victim said it all by her irrational and unbelievable actions. She is even less credible if that is even possible. Its certainly what the DA is thinking. If Jameis had opened his mouth and said anything at all in denial that the event even occurred (when the whole world knows it did) I might be inclined to be on her side.

I was right. You're stupid. You can't even intelligently navigate around a run-of-the-mill hypothetical. I honestly think you would try to answer if able. You just don't have the ability.

Threat point!

I once blew my wad in IBs mothers mouth. No, I'm not his dad.

AlabamAlum wrote:I was right. You're stupid. You can't even intelligently navigate around a run-of-the-mill hypothetical. I honestly think you would try to answer if able. You just don't have the ability.

Well AA, I do not think that you are stupid. I do believe that you can intelligently answer a simple question I phrased to you. You simply choose not to because you are stuborn.

No. He's proud.

he's not stubborn, he's a Scot

That's redundant. Like Jewish rabbi.

What question?

billy bob bocephus wrote:he's not stubborn, he's a Scot

AA's okay. He just needs to tone down the irrational chivalry to this FSU co-ed. It's unbecoming.

AlabamAlum wrote:What question?

IB sez you refuse to answer him because, deep down, you know he's right and you are wrong. You just can't admit it.

innocentbystander wrote:

billy bob bocephus wrote:he's not stubborn, he's a Scot

AA's okay. He just needs to tone down the irrational chivalry to this FSU co-ed. It's unbecoming.

Again. You are not even average. You have an intellect that is at least one standard deviation below average.

I don't care about the FSU girl. I never have. You're just not smart enough to understand. You want to be. But you're not. And it hurts you. And while I can explain things to you, I cannot give you the ability to understand them.

Seriously, I feel very sorry for you. I know many people who believe mentally challenged people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Let me go on record with saying no matter how stupid you are, IB, I do NOT want to take your vote.

IB sez you keep refusing to answer his questions, which just proves the superiority of his intellect over yours.

And you are proud. So very proud.