Poll:- life better now or in 1959?

[JLM]

Well SIR, as a matter of fact, yes.

Glad you agree, have to head out now for the daily walk, while it's still bearable out there. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

 

[TenPenny]

Oh yeah, the 50s could be horrible, no doubt about that- my brother when he was about 5 went down to a vacant cabin with another young brat the same age and they took a rock and smashed the padlock. Strangely that evening my brother was very quiet at supper and when he was finished he went straight off to bed. Well awhile later the phone rang, and lo and behold if it wasn't George the owner of the cabin and he wanted a word with the old man. When the old man got off the phone he yanked my brother out of his deep sleep and administered one of the worst lickings I've ever seen. My brother is over 60 now, has never been in any more trouble, nor does he whine about rights and freedoms. Yep the 50s could be tough.

So the idyllic world of the 1950s did not prevent your brother from being a juvenile delinquent; however, being beaten made him stop.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And you followed that up by saying, and I quote, "The important difference is of course that in a religion, the Messiah or God threatens you with eternal damnation, eternal torture after you die,...". You have made a pretty sweeping statement there, sir. Have you read The Teachings of Buddah? I have. In fact, I live with a Buddhist. Your ramblings don't work there. Ditto for Shintoism.

Well, your basic hypothesis on religion is worthless, thus rendering anything that follows it (the dictator stuff) irrevalent and immaterial. Try again, if you wish.

My comment was a general comment, applicable to most religions; obviously there are exceptions, Buddhism being one. Indeed, Buddhism is the religion closest to atheism (if somebody held a gun to my head and told me to accept a religion, I would accept Buddhism). Thus besides Buddhism, there may be Shintoism, Jainism, Wiccan religion etc, which to not follow the mold.

However, the three major religions of the world, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, all of them threaten the infidel, the nonbeliever with eternal damnation, eternal torture if the nonbeliever does not mend his ways. My comment was applicable to most of the population in the world.

So yes, I do see many similarities between a dictatorship and religions such as Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Were the chicks ****tier in 1959? I always thought it would be kinda cool to travel back in time and impregnate a bunch of hussies, only to warp back to the present, leaving bastards in my wake.

I don’t know if the chicks were prettier, but they showed a lot less skin 50 years ago that they do today. Plus 50 years ago their dresses used to be much more modest. I think today’s chicks are more fun to look at.

Also, since they did not practice contraception in those days (and abortion was not an option), I assume you would be be to impregnate them rather easily (if you care about such things).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I was struck by the "A dictatorship has certain beliefs" bit, countryboy. Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't it be more truthfully put this way...'a dictatorship imposes certain beliefs' ? To me, has and imposes are worlds apart in meaning.

But then, SirJP might just think I was nitpicking. You think??? 8O

Indeed, you are nitpicking, Mowich. Sure, a dictator imposes certain beliefs, but then they become the beliefs of the society, at least while that particular dictator is in power.

Let me give an example. Stroessner used to be the dictator of Paraguay in the 60s or 70s. He was an insomniac, used to have the Devil of the time sleeping. So he decided that if he cannot sleep, nobody in Paraguay sleeps. He decreed that all the businesses must be open by 6.00 a.m. Which means people would have to get up at 4 or 5 a.m. every day.

It was his belief, his creed, he imposed it upon Paraguay. However, while Stroessner was the dictator, that became Paraguay’s belief.

So the two are not really that much different.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

How??????? every week on the news there are reports of parole violations by convicts who never should have been paroled in the first place. If you are to accept a system, S.J. then you have to consider the entire system, If I'm not confident of every aspect I veto it.

OK, I think we have a misunderstanding of the word ‘responsible’ here. I am using the word responsible in the sense that the Parole board is charged with the task of deciding the prisoner release, that they are responsible.

I think you are using it in the sense, that Parole Board is not acting responsibly, that they are acting recklessly.

Anyway, I fail to see how it is the fault of today’s era. If you think that Parole Board is not behaving responsibly, then it is the fault of the Parole Board.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Of course it is- that doesn't make the execution wrong, that makes the timing wrong. That wouldn't be a problem if time on death row was reduced from 20 years to 7 days.

It doesn’t work that way JLM, not in a civilized society. The appeals process for any crime, let alone death penalty crime, takes a couple of years. If somebody is convicted of robbery or rape, he can appeal and the appeal will drag on for a couple of years (of course he has to start serving his sentence as soon as he is found guilty, and keep serving his sentence while the appeal is in progress).

So if you are saying that robbery appeal my drag on for two years, but death penalty appeal must be over in 7 days, that is patently nonsense, no way the Charter would permit an injustice of that magnitude (I suspect neither will any of the political parties).

Now, normally it ends with the appeal. Thus if somebody gets life without parole, there is one appeal and that is it. However, there are many organizations which are adamantly opposed to death penalty in USA (ACLU being the most prominent). They have a bunch of smart, shred lawyers, who will try to find each and every loophole and launch another appeal, at the state level, at the federal level, they will claim that wrong man is being executed, they will claim that new evidence has been found, demand a new trial, apply for clemency, do whatever they can to postpone the execution.

Nobody cares about life without parole, but people are strongly opposed to death penalty. And so death penalty will always remain a more expensive option than life without parole. It usually takes more than 10 years to execute someone after they have been sentenced to death.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The answer to 'then what' is the following:What alchohol and street drugs has done to our 'weakest' people, whodon't have the sense to look after themselves is disgusting, and embarrassing. Speaking of capital punishment, it should be used first for drug sellers and importers, but for somereason the law chooses to back off, and allow it to fester and increase.It is worse than any war, in fact it is the biggest war we have, andright on the streets of north america.

I think capital punishment is always wrong, talloola; premeditated, cold blooded killing by the government is never justified. But that is a separate issue, subject perhaps for a separate thread.

Suffice it to say that all the civilized, developed countries frown on capital punishment and have abolished it (with the exception of USA and Japan).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Life's better now, no contest in my not very humble opinion. If you're old enough to have visited a dentist in 1959...

More to the point, I think, is this observation that I read somewhere recently: today, Terry Fox, an authentic hero if ever there was one, would almost certainly have survived his cancer. Today it's curable, in his day it wasn't. His day wasn't 1959 of course, but I don't think that materially alters the point. Most things are better now than they were 50 years ago. And I always remember my dad's comment about the 1930s and 40s: a world without homeless young men begging at the back door for some work in exchange for food, a world without Hitler and his gas ovens, doesn't seem too bad at all, whatever else might be going on in it. He remembered when things were obviously and clearly much worse.

"Brother, can you spare a dime?"

"Will work for food."

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Agree with all of that, JLM. I'm beginning to think that the only way to clean this up would be to have some visionary politician come along...one who has the magic combinaton of good looks, smooth manners, an ability to avoid offending people by speaking the truth, and so on...all the qualities required to get into a position of power. These somewhat superficial skills or attributes would of course be necessary to appease the flock (look good to the folks who have become detached from reality and thus want and vote for the strangest things).

This candidate would also have to understand how to sell successfully. Courses are available on that. Selling 101 would be based on the old teachings of a guy named Dale Carnegie who said that a successful sale requires the seller to first get the customer's ATTENTION, then create an INTEREST, followed by a DESIRE, and culminating in a CONVICTION (decision to buy, or in this case, get the vote).

You mean someone like Trudeau?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You have the right idea.............a benevolent dictaror is what's needed.

Benevolent dictator turns into a malevolent dictator in a short order, JLM. Democracy is messy and things move slowly in a democracy, but the alternatives are worse, much worse.

 

[JLM]

So the idyllic world of the 1950s did not prevent your brother from being a juvenile delinquent; however, being beaten made him stop.

Not sure if "juvenile delinquent" is the right term for a 5 year old. But yeah, immediate severe action apparently did make him stop at no cost to the system..................a win/win situation.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The problem is that anyone who doesn't agree with this person's particular vision will constantly brand them as "Canada's worst PM" for example.

Quite so, TenPenny. Look at Trudeau. He was an energetic, charismatic politician, he took the country by storm, he was well liked, well loved up to the very end. He influenced Canadian society in a profound manner, and to the good, in my opinion (and also in the opinion of a great majority of Canadians, I think about 70% of Canadians like the Charter).

Yet there are people who claim that he was the worst PM ever.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If DNA evidence is truly an iron-clad, scientifically-perfect method of establishing who done what, then I'd be in favour of it. (Death penalty for murderers)

And may I respectfully remind you that it's not relevant to mention the cost of things when you're talking about locking up murderers...I've been told that freedom (?) is worth any cost. In fact, I think I heard it right here from some highly-educated individual.

DNA evidence is also subject to error, countryboy. It may not be handled properly, it may be contaminated, there may be a mix up of DNAs, there may not be any DNA at the scene of the crime etc. DNA is definitely not the magic bullet, we cannot say for certain that the wrong person may not be convinced and executed.

And you have a point when you say that cost is irrelevant in the debate about death penalty, it is the principle that matters. I am opposed to death penalty on principle, I don’t think cold blooded, premeditated killing by the government is ever justified (and there is no evidence that it acts as a deterrent anyway, USA has the death penalty and also one of the highest crime rates in the developed world).

It is just that in USA, many ignoramuses have claimed that it is cheaper to execute somebody than it is to lock them up for life without parole. Such a misconception must be answered. The answer is, it is more expensive to execute somebody than to lock them up for life.

 

[JLM]

DNA evidence is also subject to error, countryboy. It may not be handled properly, it may be contaminated, there may be a mix up of DNAs, there may not be any DNA at the scene of the crime etc. DNA is definitely not the magic bullet, we cannot say for certain that the wrong person may not be convinced and executed.

And you have a point when you say that cost is irrelevant in the debate about death penalty, it is the principle that matters. I am opposed to death penalty on principle, I don’t think cold blooded, premeditated killing by the government is ever justified (and there is no evidence that it acts as a deterrent anyway, USA has the death penalty and also one of the highest crime rates in the developed world).

It is just that in USA, many ignoramuses have claimed that it is cheaper to execute somebody than it is to lock them up for life without parole. Such a misconception must be answered. The answer is, it is more expensive to execute somebody than to lock them up for life.

Um S.J. Before sending a guy of to Old Sparky wouldn't you do a second test on the D.N.A. at the scene and a second test on the subjects D.N.A.? Would make sense to me!

 

[countryboy]

You mean someone like Trudeau?

In a vain attempt to give the above question/reply a slight hint of credibility, I note that you conveniently left out a portion of the quote (my original post)..just to remind you, here's the part you left out:

"He/she would also need another set of qualifications necessary to fix things, such as common sense, an ability to sort out right from wrong or good from bad, honesty, incredible negotiating skills, a sense of law and order, an appreciation of people and their feelings, oratorial skills supreme, and a burning desire to leave this world in better shape than when he/she arrived in it."

So the answer to your question - which should appear obvious to any objective person (and I can't include you in that group as you've already shown a lack of that in that sneaky little deletion must mentioned) - is that Trudeau couldn't quite measure up to the job specification. The only one he had was in the oratical department, but as the old saying goes, talk is cheap. And you of all people should know what that means!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Um S.J. Before sending a guy of to Old Sparky wouldn't you do a second test on the D.N.A. at the scene and a second test on the subjects D.N.A.? Would make sense to me!

That is still not foolproof, JLM. There is never a 100% guarantee that a convicted criminal really is guilty of the crime. And law doesn’t require a 100 % guarantee, the standard of criminal law is guilty ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ not guilty ‘beyond all doubt’.

But in other sentences (life without parole etc.), if it is later discovered that the person convinced was innocent of the crime, the state can at least try to make partial amends (though if he has spent 15 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit, there really is no way to make full amends). However, when somebody is executed, there is no way to make amends, death penalty is irreversible.

 

[countryboy]

DNA evidence is also subject to error, countryboy. It may not be handled properly, it may be contaminated, there may be a mix up of DNAs, there may not be any DNA at the scene of the crime etc. DNA is definitely not the magic bullet, we cannot say for certain that the wrong person may not be convinced and executed.

And you have a point when you say that cost is irrelevant in the debate about death penalty, it is the principle that matters. I am opposed to death penalty on principle, I don’t think cold blooded, premeditated killing by the government is ever justified (and there is no evidence that it acts as a deterrent anyway, USA has the death penalty and also one of the highest crime rates in the developed world).

It is just that in USA, many ignoramuses have claimed that it is cheaper to execute somebody than it is to lock them up for life without parole. Such a misconception must be answered. The answer is, it is more expensive to execute somebody than to lock them up for life.

I'm a bit pressed for time here, but I have to point out to you (as usual) that your credibility is not being reinforced by the constant stream of inaccuracies that you attempt to show as fact. The death penalty is enforced by each state in the U.S., not the federal government. You might want to go and check your absolute facts on that one and see exactly which of those states does indeed have the death penalty.

I'm also dismayed that you don't place a lot of trust in that solid scientific DNA thing, even thought science is just so full of absolutes in other areas of your choice. A fine example of "selective perfection." I guess it just didn't fit your views here.

Definition of ignoramus: Anyone that doesn't share the view(s) of SirJP.

If you keep on fabricating "facts" in your head to try and make your points, I'm gonna' have to quit debating with you.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In a vain attempt to give the above question/reply a slight hint of credibility, I note that you conveniently left out a portion of the quote (my original post)..just to remind you, here's the part you left out:

"He/she would also need another set of qualifications necessary to fix things, such as common sense, an ability to sort out right from wrong or good from bad, honesty, incredible negotiating skills, a sense of law and order, an appreciation of people and their feelings, oratorial skills supreme, and a burning desire to leave this world in better shape than when he/she arrived in it."

So the answer to your question - which should appear obvious to any objective person (and I can't include you in that group as you've already shown a lack of that in that sneaky little deletion must mentioned) - is that Trudeau couldn't quite measure up to the job specification. The only one he had was in the oratical department, but as the old saying goes, talk is cheap. And you of all people should know what that means!

I was just having a little fun at your expense, countryboy (knowing how you feel about Trudeau).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'm a bit pressed for time here, but I have to point out to you (as usual) that your credibility is not being reinforced by the constant stream of inaccuracies that you attempt to show as fact. The death penalty is enforced by each state in the U.S., not the federal government. You might want to go and check your absolute facts on that one and see exactly which of those states does indeed have the death penalty..

And just where did I say that it is enforced federally, please point that out to me? I have never said that it is federally administered, I know that it is a matter for the states (although they also have death penalty federally), I don’t know where you got that idea.

This is called, putting up a straw man and knocking him down. You put up the straw man by claiming that I said that death penalty is administered federally (which I never did) and then proceed to knock him down. That is a standard debating technique.

I'm also dismayed that you don't place a lot of trust in that solid scientific DNA thing, even thought science is just so full of absolutes in other areas of your choice. A fine example of "selective perfection." I guess it just didn't fit your views here..

I have trust in ‘solid scientific DNA thing’, but I don’t believe in human infallibility. There is also a saying in science, ‘garbage in, garbage out’. If there has been contamination of the DNA sample, or DNA samples of two people have been mixed up, it doesn’t matter how good you DNA detection techniques are, they won’t do your any good.

DNA analysis may be infallible (though some may question even that), human beings are not.

Definition of ignoramus: Anyone that doesn't share the view(s) of SirJP.

Well, yes, I do think that if somebody thinks that in USA death penalty is cheaper than life without parole, he is an ignoramus.