R-Flex Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Yes, and I have said that your argument is irrelevant because those systems punishments aren't harsh enough. I don't need to quote specific sources to validate what I say quite simply because they are there, we both no they are there and they are numerous both in a present day aspect as well as a historical one.Your opinion that I base my opinions in fear and anger is simply not true. I base my opinions on todays current climate and what I see. It is a simple logical step for me, with no basis in emotion. Do certain crimes disgust me and anger me? Sure they do, I wouldn't be human if I didn't, but that is not the basis for my argument. As I said, we just don't and will not ever agree on these points, so it is best to leave it at that. My argument was that crime rates cannot be easily affected by deterrence of harsher punishments, citing countries with low crime rates despite no obvious deterrence by long imprisonment or poor jail conditions, while others offer a higher crime rate despite attempting to fix crime similar to your ideas. Obviously, reducing crime must not be so simple as your idea. And that makes it irrelevant, how? It must be that you are ignorant to the entire concept, because it is a comparison of systems, not individual scaling of deterrence. The reason why you are able to convey your argument is that is obvious, that any sources need no citing because "simply because they are there"? How lame. How utterly intellectually lazy. To choose that as your evidence is laughable. That is why I choose to believe that you act on fear and anger, or on selectable media reports, because you have no examples to demonstrate your ideas, but that you have found them by simple observation around you. Let me see. You have demonstrated nothing but gut reactions. You come in here, dismissing my arguments as "irrelevant" without actually voiding the points, and claiming that crime is terrible because it just is. You have no justification for your ideas other than gut feeling. I'm sorry, but you lack a single shred of logic in your posts. You may wish to end this conversation, but I wish to change your mind because it is clear that you have some misconceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rednekcowboy Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 (edited) Lowering yourself to name-calling doesn't make your argument any less contradictory.You started out with a gut reaction of rage at Fritzl, gained some traction talking about the judicial system, but now you're back where you started - making unfounded assumptions that you expect everybody else to agree with. I expect no one to agree with me. I have my opinions and regardless whether you agree with them or not, that is what they are. When you take someone's words out of context, call them ignorant and misrepresent what they say, what do you expect? It's also not name calling if that's how I truly feel. In my opinion, you are an idiot! My argument was that crime rates cannot be easily affected by deterrence of harsher punishments, citing countries with low crime rates despite no obvious deterrence by long imprisonment or poor jail conditions, while others offer a higher crime rate despite attempting to fix crime similar to your ideas. Obviously, reducing crime must not be so simple as your idea. And that makes it irrelevant, how? It must be that you are ignorant to the entire concept, because it is a comparison of systems, not individual scaling of deterrence.The reason why you are able to convey your argument is that is obvious, that any sources need no citing because "simply because they are there"? How lame. How utterly intellectually lazy. To choose that as your evidence is laughable. That is why I choose to believe that you act on fear and anger, or on selectable media reports, because you have no examples to demonstrate your ideas, but that you have found them by simple observation around you. Let me see. You have demonstrated nothing but gut reactions. You come in here, dismissing my arguments as "irrelevant" without actually voiding the points, and claiming that crime is terrible because it just is. You have no justification for your ideas other than gut feeling. I'm sorry, but you lack a single shred of logic in your posts. You may wish to end this conversation, but I wish to change your mind because it is clear that you have some misconceptions. Get off your high horse. You, sir, are not more superior than I simply because you share a different view than I do. The fact that I don't feel the need to justify my thoughts to you with acutal stats, makes me no less inferior to you. I have seen the stats, I simply can think of better use of my time than continuing this lame discussion with you. I am secure in my beliefs and therefore feel no reason to validate them to you or anyone else. The simple fact that you feel that you have to somehow have to refute my beliefs while providing none of your own shows me how immature you really are. I dismiss your arguments as irrelevant because of what I have read and seen and have stated on a point by point why I feel that way. I feel no need to post them here to justify my opinions as I am solid in my beliefs and do not feel the need to justify them to you or anyone else. I have said that we should agree to disagree and I think we should leave it at that. You will not change my mind. The fact that you don't agree with my logic, doesn't mean I have "misconceptions" about anything, that is a totally ignorant statement in and of itself. I don't think that we need to start attacking each other simply because we do not agree. It has been enjoyable discussing this topic with you, but we have come to an impasse and it's time to let it go! Edited March 28, 2009 by rednekcowboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rednekcowboy Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 (edited) From todays newspaper...Fritzl's lawyer told the newspaper that Fritzl himself asked the court to get the hardest punishment available. He told them that he never realized the full damage he had done to his children until he listened to his daughters talk on court. Now the only thing he wants is to be locked up and never get out, and maybe try somehow to help them. Asking not to be put in prison, but a mental hospital. He said hes not ready to commit suicide at this point, cause he first needs to write some kind of book for his family and the doctors, in which he tries to explain the assumptions, obsessions and thoughts he had. So that he can not only relive what he has done, but to further torture his family by making them relive what he has done when the book is published, also to make a boat load of cash and to also justify what he has done. The only wish he has a this point is that they may be able to forget some of the bad things he did, and finally to forget him and continue with a better life. What his lawyer told him to say or what he feels society expects him to say! None knows his real intentions, but at least is sounds plausible and requesting them to lock him up forever was a good move... Edited March 28, 2009 by rednekcowboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gotenks98 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I want to know why arent they going after the man's wife too? She is just as responsible for letting it go on so long. There is no way I can believe that she did not know what he was doing for all those years. She would have to find out. I think she is just playing stupid so she doesnt get jail time. As for the guy, he should be stuck in prison to be raped daily by some huge hung dude called "Ass Taker". He deserves nothing less than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts