@Jerykk
i cant make heads nor tails what you are trying to convey.
are you making an argument for harsher prisons?
or an assertion that if they were less harsh people would WANT to go to prison?
that recidivism is irrelevant so we should just execute prisoners?

i agree that poverty leads to desperation which can lead to criminal activity.there is plenty of statistics to back that up,though interestingly those numbers are dropping in regards to poverty=crime.

as for your deterrence argument.
yeah..no.the numbers obviously dont add up.
right now there are more american citizens incarcerated than the soviet gulags of the 80's.in fact,america incarcerates more citizens per capita than any other nation in the world.

americas prison population=2.4 million..and rising.

which leads me to my next point.
what is the purpose of prison?
well,it should be to remove those violent elements from society and for the offenders who are non-violent a way to pay a debt to the society they betrayed (fill in the offense here ____).

when their time has been served (paid) then they are free to rejoin society and reintegrate themselves back into society.

but what if that system of punishment strips you of all dignity and humanity?treats you like an abandoned dog at the local animal shelter?physically beaten and spiritually shattered,just HOW to you rejoin normal society?

what then?
do you blame the inmate who was thrown into a inhumane system?or maybe..juuuuust maybe..it may be the SYSTEM which is the blame.

let us look at some stats shall we?
the private prison industry is the 9th largest lobbiest in the country.who lobby for stricter sentencing,zero tolerance and mandatory jail time.a new trend in this area is now regarding teens AND pre-teens.they also make contracts with the local government to have a certain % occupancy.(meaning that even if those beds are not filled,the company STILL gets paid).

and lets not forget those kick backs to the local judges.already 25 judges this year got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

the idea that prison is a deterrence has been debunked.
there are over 5000 federal laws NOT including state and local.so at any given time,in any given day,YOU have perpetrated a federal crime.

the idea the prison is for rehabilitation is utter bullshit,another liberal feel-good "look at the good we are doing" trope.

prison is a business.
based on the mafia principle.
it is about making the poor a commodity and exploiting their lack of resources to fight back.
recidivism?
thats just repeat customers.american prisons care zippo about recidivism.

again i reference the milgram experiment.
treat people like animals and they will soon behave like animals.
treat them with humanity and dignity and the outcome is far more positive for a society as a whole..we ALL benefit.

but the private prisons dont want that..it means less profit for them.

the norden is doing it right and the results are impressive.

@lucky760
um...what?
inmates are wild animals?

i guess i could get on board with your opinion if the parameters were exclusively directed toward extremely violent psycho/sociopaths.

otherwise your comment makes no sense.
2.4 million inmates in american prisons.the majority for non-violent offenses (think pot smokers),70% are non-white and to singularly lump them all as somehow being "wild animals" unworthy of participating in normal society,reveals a serious lack of understanding.

the american penal system dehumanizes and has zippo to do with rehabilitation OR corrections.
which is why i referenced the milgram experiment.

treat someone with humanity,even if they are paying a debt to society,and the results will always be a better outcome than what we do to prisoners here in the states.

the american penal system is a racket,a business.it commodifies the poor and those not deemed "of value" and its a travesty.something we should all be ashamed of,not celebrating.

@ChaosEngine

I hope I don't have to be the one to point out the multitude of studies which have shown where crowds, group think or subjugation of one's opinion's to someone's authority results in terrible consensual decisions being made:

Stanford Prison Experiment
Milgram Experiment
Asch Conformity Experiment
Bystander Effect

In a situation like this, it's likely no one in the crowd has ever dealt with a serious fire. They may not recognise the risks of unexpected suffocation. They may not recognise how fast fire can travel or the risks of being trapped.

Earthquakes are somewhat different (and living in Oz I have no experience with them), but I would imagine that they can go from mild to serious very unexpectedly. California sits on multiple major fault lines. A serious earthquake is very plausible, it is in fact 'expected and long overdue' to happen:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-japan-quake-california-idUSTRE72F5KG20110316

>> ^RadHazG:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg


I'm an atheist and I personally find it one of the most uninformed and absurd quotes ever. Good people do bad things for lots of reasons besides religion (see for example the results of the Stanford Prison experiment and the Milgram experiment). Also, a great many "evil" people (prison inmates for instance) find religion and turn their lives around--essentially allowing any religious teacher to turn the quote on its head and claim that "for evil people to do good things, it takes religion."

^concerning the above comments, I will concede two points: first, this is obviously an angry rant that is not to be taken too seriously (cf. the comic it is transcribed from). Second, the author clearly has Christianity (and the Abrahamic monotheisms in general) in mind when using the term "religion", causing its use to partially exclude certain religions.

That being said, the sentiment of contempt and disrespect for people's refusal to use their "god-given" brains in the domains of ethics, superstitious beliefs, etc., is perfectly understandable, and does not mean that the bearer of such sentiment has no empathy for the human being, even when considering said human being an idiot.

An extreme example: I have nothing but contempt and not one iota of respect for the WBC gang, and yet I would rush to their guru's aid (as probably any one of you commentators would) if he were to be hit by a truck. Does that mean I think he's not stupid? Or suddenly have respect for him? NO. Only basic human empathy.

As for the Weinberg quote, yes, I am aware of the Stanford and Milgram experiments, which show the effect of authority on human behaviour. Weinberg's quote implicitly integrates those experiments; indeed, what greater and more unquestionable authority is there than God(s)? How many disgusting, unethical and barbaric actions and wordlviews are continually sanctioned by religious authority (and the weight of the sheeple's adherence thereto), that no self-respecting ethical and empathetic person would otherwise accept?

As for Communism, it is nothing but a state religion, with the Party replacing God. I won't bother addressing the moronic argument of "Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc...", which has been thoroughly debunked by many speakers far more eloquent than myself (e.g. Hitchens).

Finally, @quantumushroom, your answer about atheists being delusional not only makes no sense (unless you're teetering into solipsism), but quoting the Bible does not help your case in the least. Benjamin Frankin's comment seems to be a cynical criticism of the masses' stupidity and immorality, not a sanction of religion's merit.

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the want of it." Benjamin Franklin

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

Thanks for the reply, i know it's hard to fully remember every nuance of what you were trying to express a year after the event. I read some of my old comments and wonder what in the blue hell i was thinking.

Funny though, every exam i've ever been in has had 10 clocks or upwards. I've only ever been in large halls for exams though. That leads me to believe it's just based on whether or not people can see it. If everyone can see it, you'd only need one, and if you've got a big hall you'd need a few so everyone could get a glimpse. Well, another thing to be honest adds to this; my dad was a head of department at a secondary school and i've seen him setting up for exams and also his nature towards students that will be taking his exams. It was always based towards making them more comfortable or facilitating their abilities during the exam.

It's weird how two people can have such different suspicions towards 'the establishment' based on a few experiences, isn't it? Perhaps if my dad had been in charge of personnel and recruiting at a large corporation and had to be ruthless and use such headgames to single different types of people out, i'd have an entirely different nature towards 'the establishment'.

For lack of a better term.

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
I think at the time I must have been talking about authority, or having to go to one place for the time, and that time could be wrong. How would you know? You wouldn't unless you had a clock of your own to compare it to. Even so, what are the consequences of leaving before the proper time? So yes, I think I was speaking on the monopoly of time that the testers have.

It adds to a situation, a way of setting you up. Making you uncomfortable, or comfortable. Provided you are comfortable in a room with only one clock. Most of the rooms I've been in, like the ones I described, had only one clock.

But now that I look at the comment, it may have been a bit of comedy on my part. Playing on the testing rooms were every one is quiet, and only the ticking of the clock is heard. With each tick, each scratch of the pencil on the test the tock gets louder.

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
It was a long time ago, but what did you mean about the clocks?

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
charles mansion proves that with proper conditioning a group of people can be made to do damning things.

Milgrams Experiment any one? People can and will be manipulated every day, will you be one of them? We should all strive to free our minds.

Ever wonder why the testing rooms for standardized tests have only one clock in them? Or no clock at all? Or One very loud clock?

I think at the time I must have been talking about authority, or having to go to one place for the time, and that time could be wrong. How would you know? You wouldn't unless you had a clock of your own to compare it to. Even so, what are the consequences of leaving before the proper time? So yes, I think I was speaking on the monopoly of time that the testers have.

It adds to a situation, a way of setting you up. Making you uncomfortable, or comfortable. Provided you are comfortable in a room with only one clock, or no clocks, or a loud clock. Most of the rooms I've been in, like the ones I described had only one clock and it was in a very visible place, most perfectly aligned.

But now that I look at the comment, it may have been a bit of comedy on my part. Playing on the testing rooms were every one is quiet, and only the ticking of the clock is heard. With each tick, each scratch of the pencil on the test the tock gets louder.

I hate clocks...

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
It was a long time ago, but what did you mean about the clocks?

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
charles mansion proves that with proper conditioning a group of people can be made to do damning things.

Milgrams Experiment any one? People can and will be manipulated every day, will you be one of them? We should all strive to free our minds.

Ever wonder why the testing rooms for standardized tests have only one clock in them? Or no clock at all? Or One very loud clock?

It was a long time ago, but what did you mean about the clocks?

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
charles mansion proves that with proper conditioning a group of people can be made to do damning things.

Milgrams Experiment any one? People can and will be manipulated every day, will you be one of them? We should all strive to free our minds.

Ever wonder why the testing rooms for standardized tests have only one clock in them? Or no clock at all? Or One very loud clock?

This is the sort of technology that causes the military to shit their pants with glee. No risk to personnel, easy targeting of less technologically advanced adversaries, and the fun of a video game for the operators. In addition, in light of the Milgram experiments, this scenario is the one in which the most subjects would be willing to follow orders to kill a helpless victim solely because they are told to by an authority figure. The disconnect provided by the remote control allows the operators to not feel and experience the actual horror that they are delivering.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'derren, brown, heist, armed robbery' to 'derren, brown, heist, armed robbery, Milgram experiment' - edited by RedSky

You're welcome. And thank you!

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*promote

perfect example of the outcome when you give a human authority over others,
put a weapon in their hand and unleash them unto the world.
"the milgram experiment".
the suspect did put innocent lives in danger driving the way he did,and he attempted to evade and elude the officers,but in the end he gave up peacefully.
sad to see an officer of the law abuse his position and behave in a very unprofessional manner.
ok...
the pot starts at 25 bucks.
im betting two weeks paid administrative leave,extra "training" and a note in his permanent file.
who wants in?

Well deserved RhesusMonk! Congrats!
A couple of my favorite sifts
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Stanford-Prison-Experiment
http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Original-Milgram-Experiment-1961

Hmm, I'm calling this a viral, I'll hold off labeling, but it smells like a viral from some human rights/political group.

IF this is the real thing, however, the crimes described are, to put it mildly, really disturbing. BUT, even with that in mind, and the fact that this guy sounds completely indifferent and cold-hearted about it all, I cant help but to disagree with the label "Human scum". I honestly dont think any of us can understand the situation these people are put into. The sad fact is that the cruelty of man is disturbingly universal to nearly all of us. There has been some research on this, the milgram experiment and the small world experiment suggests that the behavior is disturbingly "normal" under certain conditions, when one group (in this case the soldiers/guards) is given reckless authority over another group (in this case iraqis) obscene, brutal and disturbing crimes is nearly always the result. This is one of the reasons the real "human scum" is the people who invade countries with no real plan on how to rebuild it or run it afterwards.

the psychologist in me wants to point out a few things: robert cialdini, a research psychologist has written extensively on how people can be persuaded to do stuff they wouldn't normally do.

two such conditions under which a significant amount of people could be forced into killing a puppy are:

1. authority condition (as in the milgram experiment)
2. manipulation of the consistency and commitment effect


wikipedia article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_Science_and_Practice


here's an example of what i'm talking about, where derren brown psychologically manipulates a woman into killing a kitten:

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=ap35u0zB6QM