So is the Punisher.
But you know what? THEY'RE COMICBOOK CHARACTERS!
Are you a teenager? You sound awfully like one. All those half-assed ideas how to fix very, very complex problems (they just don't care, don't let them breed!) and that disturbing rage (just execute everyone!), all that looks so familliar. So much misanthropy and so little understanding of the world. The only people I've ever seen like that are teenagers and people so far in the political right wing, they make Neonazis seem progressive.

Please tell me, are you pro-life?

@RedSky

1) I never said that wasn't any research showing that rehabilitation can reduce recidivism. I said there's not enough research. The cultural and economic situation of a small European country isn't quite analogous to the current state of the U.S. Also, how does the death penalty not eliminate recidivism entirely? You can't commit crimes if you're dead. Thus, guaranteed results.

2) So by "first-world," you're basically talking about Europe. Does Greenland qualify? They have a murder rate of 19.4. I'll concede that the U.S. has a higher murder rate than Europe. Is that due solely to how we deal with criminals? Possibly, but I doubt it. It certainly doesn't prove that increasing surveillance, enforcement and punishment wouldn't reduce crime rates.

3) Like I said before, most criminals are fully aware of the severity of their crimes. The problem is that they think they can get away with it. Harsher penalties mean nothing without the enforcement to back them, which is why I suggested increasing surveillance and enforcement in addition to harsher penalties. You need both in order to provide an effective deterrent.

4) If you can provide more data than Scandinavia's recidivism rates, I'll gladly accept that rehabilitation can work in the U.S. But even then, rehabilitation will never reduce recidivism completely whereas death would. Is it realistic to expect the U.S. government to enact the death penalty for all crimes? No, not at all. It's unrealistic to expect them to enforce breeding restrictions too. That doesn't change the fact these things would reduce crime rates. If we're stuck on realism, the likelihood of the government ever adopting a rehabilitation policy like in Norway's is pretty low.

5) One could just as easily argue that crime in Venezuela is a result of drug trafficking dominating the country, resulting in corrupt police and politicians that let the cartels do whatever they want. You exclude third-world countries because they undermine your argument. Third-world countries have a lot of poverty, yes, and nobody is going to deny the correlation between poverty and crime. However, they also suffer from a distinct lack of police surveillance and enforcement, either because the police are corrupt or there simply aren't enough to sufficiently enforce the law in all areas.

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.

Are you a James Bond villian?

Look at yourself, here you are, argueing basically for eugenics and executing the untermenschen who breed illegally. Oh sorry, I confused terms here, "unqualified parents" not untermenschen, "crime prevention" not eugenics. I'm sorry, you just sounded so incredibly aryan here, I did nazi the mistake I made. Call it a Freudian slip.

you realize your entire argument is promoting a police state yes?
and that somebody referencing "nazi" is a fairly appropriate response in regards to your "solution".

breeding programs?........
/drops mic and walks away

my god he cant be serious....

Innocent people being convicted has nothing to do with prisons. That's a problem with our legal system (and one that would be need to be remedied before enacting any major changes to the punishments for conviction).

As for the other things, I've already covered them pretty extensively in my previous posts. The punishment for illegal breeding would either be execution or forced sterilization. Sounds harsh but the ends justify the means in this particular case. We already do it to animals and animals breeding is a lot less dangerous than people breeding.

I read your first post... and your second which for the most part was like reading the first one again, although without the zeal for rapid executions. Speaking of replying and not reading...

Never did get an answer to how many innocent people you'd be willing to sacrifice to see that "justice' was enacted that much faster?.

What your argument has lacked in its entirety is any sort of facts beyond what you seem supremely confident would work.

Correct me where i'm wrong... i'm genuinely asking here... Lets get the whole list of what exactly your advocating... as the solution to solving the prison problem.

Rapid executions... i'm assuming some kind of limit to appeals and time to issue them? (despite over 140 people being exonerated since 1973)

Dramatic increase in government surveillance... Because you know... its not like a right to privacy was one of the founding principles of this country.

Forced Sterilizations?... I'm really curious how else you'd enforce your breeding policy... or would you simply lockup the parents if they didn't meet the criteria you think appropriate, and had a child anyway? May fine them into oblivion?

Dramatically stricter sentencing?.. because lets be honest those jaywalkers have had it too easy for too long!... guessing this means you'd be advocating dramatic bulding projects... more prisons... more guards... MUCH more from the sounds of it. I'm sure companies like Geo Group would LOVE to provide that service... they're doing just awesome so far!...

And finally prison conditions... despite it being extraordinarily expensive to warehouse people for profit like we are... Doing just a TERRIBLE job of doing it and already sending an unprecedented number of people to prison... you want more.. because THAT will deter crime.

You want conditions to be 'adequate' yes? Indoor-plumbing... clean water... etc... just not TOO adequate lest they get to comfortable at 'casa de prison' system and never want to leave!...So things like AC or 'clean food' might be optional?... and of course... they should be billed for any treatment?.. .maybe have to 'work off the cost'?

Did i miss anything?

I only hope the conman hadn't bred yet, and is doing his part to improve the species. If "deserve" comes into this picture at all, it's that stupid doesn't deserve to breed.

Calling this EIA is a bit incorrect. These are different species and any inter-specific breeding that may have happened after the video cut out would not lead to viable offspring. Also, two males, so again no viable offspring. Also a cautionary tale about trying to take a dump in the donkey pasture.

Not what you're watching though-Pig is playing, dog is playing, neither is in survival-circuit-instinct-mode. This is a simple manifestation of the unique, hard-wired breed-orientation of specific species.

Yes, probably not a good behavior to reward..considering this breed's track record.

Q: Why do governments continue with experiments if there's not much truth to them?
A: Men who stare at goats (a few ppl fooled by ideas and passion can easily consume some government resources)
A: Magicians (show the audience one thing while you do another)
A: Bias perception (Misinterpretation of the results)
A: Progression (Legitimate achievements in technological advancements)

Either pick what makes you comfortable (mentally lazy), or utilize your critical thinking (worth breeding)

A rational mind staring into darkness will begin to see shapes and movements that aren't really there. It's due to mental cheat sheets, where the mind attempts to understand that which it doesn't by using current knowledge, assumptions, imagination and internal values/preferences/emotions (gross simplification).

An irrational mind more easily sees whatever is familiar/preferred to be seen. Those who stare long enough can become very difficult to persuade with an alternative view or bring back to a more rational position. (it's why teaching young humans 'what' to think is so much more defining than 'how' to think, re stubborn beliefs)

Yes humans are capable of some seriously great feats, but if you genuinely think that weather can be "controlled" to the extent he's referring to (while disregarding the far greater impacts that would occur globally for every smaller influence) then you're not likely to listen to reason, rather then continue to perceive that which you're predetermined to think.

Also it might help to listen to how he's making his points. It's psychological warfare, he's seeding you and getting you to defeat your own rational thought, poorly i might add, but still the attempt is there.
Why? By only making statements, your 100,000's year old critical thinking system will instinctively aim to challenge every point that isn't previously accepted (like how a cat instinctively chases a running non-threat target), so he mixes in the questions, the same questions, as repetition is the best form of learning (mind-raping)

And just to fuck with yas: if you 'knew' something crazy to be true, and as you spoke about it you could hear the crazy.. how would you convince a friend, a parent and a stranger?

Saddam started the Iran Iraq war, which saw over a million dead, including the most prolific deployment of chemical weapons since WW1.

Saddam followed that up with the Al-Anfal campaign. Read up on it, it's one of the most brutal attempts at genocide in recent history, including chemical weapons, concentration camps, over a hundred thousand deaths and an effort to breed the Kurds out of existence through systematic rape of Kurdish women.

Saddam followed that up with the complete annexation of Kuwait. Effectively removing a UN member state and claiming at as part of his Iraq.

Saddam followed up his forced removal from Kuwait with a retaliatory genocide of Shia Iraqis again topping a hundred thousand dead again.

But yeah, he fortunately lacked the military might to succeed in such ventures for a time. He was bluffing having stocks of chemical and nuclear weapons to keep his neighbours in check. Pity he was removed from power then and we didn't wait till he could make good on his bluff.

I think this is both right and wrong...natural selection CAN be even faster (but is not always) at forcing evolutionary change than 'breeding for traits' is, because breeders are not perfect and may allow unwanted traits or incomplete but wanted traits to continue, but nature is a horrible bitch goddess and if your traits really don't work for her, you simply die. That's certainly not always the case, but when it is nature is better at 'selecting' than humans. The rate of reproduction makes either process move faster.
It's true that humans have artificially created more breeds than nature would likely create alone, because we sometimes like traits that would hinder survival and through breeding amplify them to create a 'new breed'.
Nature forces the one's most suited for their environment to thrive, while humans often allow those less suited to live in their environment to survive for human reasons, erasing natural selection from the equation. Without our 'guiding hand' in their evolution, I think it's likely they would likely have even MORE change in some areas (and less in others) because environments are drastically different and different traits would evolve in different places, creating different 'dogs' such as wild dogs in Africa and/or dingos in Australia, which I think (but may be wrong) have evolved so separately that they can't breed with non-"wild dogs". It may lead to less variation in specific areas/populations, but more variation between those from different areas.

This is kind of an aside, but I thought dogs vary so wildly in physical characteristic and behavior (over such a small period) not because of their rate of reproduction, but because favorable traits were selected for/unfavorable traits selected against artificially, by people.

Yes, they breed faster than us which helps the process along and, yes, the desired traits will vary geographically depending on a whole host of cultural and practical concerns, but without our guiding hand there'd be little outside impetus for such seemingly drastic change at all, right?