America's Fourth Largest City

[Illuminatus Primus]

To add, Ender, your criticism would be pertinent if he were disputing Shep's evidentiary support (i.e., you can't just claim in a debate that your opponent's facts are wrong and offer no evidence to the contrary). However, Stark didn't claim that Sheppard's experience was incorrect (an evidentiary dispute) but instead rebutted his logical argument (where all you must do is describe the flaw in reasoning and why it applies to your opponent's argument).

[Stark]

No. Problem is that is not what happened. Shep related first hand evidence based from his experience. Anecdotal evidence is entirely valid, and must be countered by other evidence. You would not have dared tried this if me or one of the other members of the Mess had made such statements about what it is like in the military.

If you made a post consisting of nothing except 'Everyone in the military is like the 300 guys I served with', I really would take issue with that.

No, you dismissed what he had to say out of hand rather then countering it. You know damn well that is not how things are done here.

Yeah I understand that, but like IP says, I don't have a problem with his experience (or even it's utility in a limited context). I have a problem with him simple-mindedly stretching that to include all prisoners in all the different kinds of prisons because he doesn't like convicts.

Hardly. His extreme views mean he rarely gets any support in a position he takes, which results in that tactic being quite common when he says something.

Maybe he'd get more support if he contributed more than 'obscene generalisation'. Shep's hardly a pariah on the board, any more than Duchess of Zeon is. I'm solely interested in the content of his post and whether I responded inappropriately.

Not even remotely the same and you know it. The makeup of people at public places is based on any number of random factors, including local population numbers, breakdown, time of day, day of the week, and local business practices. The makeup of people in a place as a result the government placing them there is dependent on their interaction with the government.

I know the example itself isn't the same (of course, there are different prisons for different criminals, making Shep's experience even less applicable to the entirety of prisoners) but the scale of the generalisation is similar. A couple hundred guys, stretched to include the population of all such facilities everywhere. It's useless because such a tiny sample with no attempt to control variables or appreciate other situations is retarded, as I originally stated. My point with the example was that something so absurd and stupid would be attacked, and I wouldn't expect people to have to go get arcade attendance statistics to disprove it. Would it have been more appropriate if instead of a throwaway post, I explained what was wrong with the logic behind his statement?

[MKSheppard]

It's really quite damn simple:

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Nobody held a gun to my head and forced me to put a shotgun shell into my dad's Explorer, likewise nobody held a gun to these millions of poor black disenfranchised people and told them to rob a store, be a pimp, sell drugs, or whatever.

[MKSheppard]

I'm no total hardcore joe arpaio type tho. Let them have TV, and some cable --basic stuff like cnn history channel no damn MTV or BET tho -- also crack down hard on gangs thru RICO--everyone's responsible for a gangmembers violence in prison

[Darth Wong]

First hand experience does not allow for generalization. Statistics exist for such purposes.

True, and that is why I have repeatedly told him to dig some up. But when the options are anecdotal evidence or no evidence, anecdotal evidence is superior.

You don't need evidence to refute a logical fallacy, Ender. You need only point out that it is a fallacy. I can't believe you actually need this explained to you.

[Superman]

It's really quite damn simple:

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Nobody held a gun to my head and forced me to put a shotgun shell into my dad's Explorer, likewise nobody held a gun to these millions of poor black disenfranchised people and told them to rob a store, be a pimp, sell drugs, or whatever.

The exploding prison population has more to do with stupid and unconstitutional laws like "three strikes and you're out." Three crimes, regardless of situation or circumstance, will result in a life long prison sentence.

What you're saying is correct, but it's also vast oversimplification. When you have laws like this "three strikes" business, people usually seem to forget that society gets to foot the bill.

[Darth Wong]

It's really quite damn simple:

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Nobody held a gun to my head and forced me to put a shotgun shell into my dad's Explorer, likewise nobody held a gun to these millions of poor black disenfranchised people and told them to rob a store, be a pimp, sell drugs, or whatever.

So what's your solution to the exploding US prison population then? Just tell everyone to behave? Oh right, you don't have any ideas at all; you prefer to simply spout rhyming slogans.

[ArcturusMengsk]

It's really quite damn simple:

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Nobody held a gun to my head and forced me to put a shotgun shell into my dad's Explorer, likewise nobody held a gun to these millions of poor black disenfranchised people and told them to rob a store, be a pimp, sell drugs, or whatever.

When there are few, if any, opportunities for employment viable - that might as well be the equivalent of holding a loaded pistol to someone's head.

[Durandal]

95% of the people who are in our correctional instututions are there for good reasons. I should know, because I heard way too many "sob stories" while doing my time.

But you went in for a violent crime. Didn't they put you in with other violent offenders?

[Darth Servo]

Houston is gonna be pissed at being knocked down to #5.

[ArcturusMengsk]

First hand experience does not allow for generalization. Statistics exist for such purposes.

True, and that is why I have repeatedly told him to dig some up. But when the options are anecdotal evidence or no evidence, anecdotal evidence is superior.

I was in county for three days earlier this year. Almost all of the guys just wanted to do their time and get out. Does my anecdotal evidence trump his?

[Lonestar]

When there are few, if any, opportunities for employment viable - that might as well be the equivalent of holding a loaded pistol to someone's head.

Buuuuuullllshit. There are always alternatives to becoming a criminal, even if they include donning a uniform for 2/4/6 years.

I was in county for three days earlier this year. Almost all of the guys just wanted to do their time and get out. Does my anecdotal evidence trump his?

Depends, were you sent to a Maximum security prison for taking a shot at someone with a shotgun?

[ArcturusMengsk]

Buuuuuullllshit. There are always alternatives to becoming a criminal, even if they include donning a uniform for 2/4/6 years.

The question which remains to be answered - the question which you will not answer - is whether criminality in itself is more undesirable than joining the military, or whether criminality is in fact altogether undesirable. One always presumes both, and yet neither is presumptuous.

Depends, were you sent to a Maximum security prison for taking a shot at someone with a shotgun?

No. I was, however, in with a number of people waiting for transfer to the State penitentiary for violent crimes.

[Darth Wong]

The standard alternative to criminality is welfare. However, it should be noted that conservative governments and voters have been steadily chipping away at "the welfare state" for a long time now, ever since the beginning of the so-called "Reagan Revolution". That, along with the increase in the gap between rich and poor and the beginning of the "War on Drugs", is coincident with the beginning of the explosion in US prison populations.

The standard conservative interpretation of these events is to simply proclaim that human beings have gotten worse in the last 25 years, and that this is a sign of the Apocalypse. But the same is not true in every nation, thus throwing a wrench into that idea. Unfortunately, the standard American conservative does not recognize the existence of other nations unless he's planning on invading them or exploiting them.

[Knife]

The question which remains to be answered - the question which you will not answer - is whether criminality in itself is more undesirable than joining the military, or whether criminality is in fact altogether undesirable. One always presumes both, and yet neither is presumptuous.

Wow, you just went from 'starving or desperate people will do serious shit when backed into a wall' to political idealism really fucking quick.

[ArcturusMengsk]

The standard alternative to criminality is welfare. However, it should be noted that conservative governments and voters have been steadily chipping away at "the welfare state" for a long time now, ever since the beginning of the so-called "Reagan Revolution". That, along with the increase in the gap between rich and poor and the beginning of the "War on Drugs", is coincident with the beginning of the explosion in US prison populations.

Precisely. Why should an individual work when there are ways by which he can better his position in life without sacrificing a great deal of his energy and time? It requires little in the way of either effort or education to make a career as a drug dealer, burglar, pimp, etc.

In fact, it's an evolutionary phenomenon - wherever there is a niche, one would naturally expect to find individuals who exploit it. Remove the niche and it will no longer be exploitable.

[ArcturusMengsk]

The question which remains to be answered - the question which you will not answer - is whether criminality in itself is more undesirable than joining the military, or whether criminality is in fact altogether undesirable. One always presumes both, and yet neither is presumptuous.

Wow, you just went from 'starving or desperate people will do serious shit when backed into a wall' to political idealism really fucking quick.

It's not idealism whatsoever. Society has always found a way by which to define what is deviant, and has always invented moral and ethical justification towards that end - "mainstream" or non-deviant society is, in fact, structured around the very concept of 'deviancy' and the exclusion thereof from social and political discourse. The presumption that what we call criminal is in fact universally criminal is quite unfounded, however. To say that a criminal 'deserves' his lot is to read into nature a code of morality which simply does not exist.

[Knife]

It's not idealism whatsoever. Society has always found a way by which to define what is deviant, and has always invented moral and ethical justification towards that end - "mainstream" or non-deviant society is, in fact, structured around the very concept of 'deviancy' and the exclusion thereof from social and political discourse. The presumption that what we call criminal is in fact universally criminal is quite unfounded, however. To say that a criminal 'deserves' his lot is to read into nature a code of morality which simply does not exist.

That was verbose. Anyhoo, how does that answer my driving point, or really Lonestars? Nobody wants a shit job, but if your desperate enough to sling drugs or rob a 7/11 why wouldn't you be desperate enough to sling burgers or join the military?

Your answer seemed to be 'might be undesirable' in the context of the person conteplating it. If a perfectly viable option is open to someone and they decide to go the crime route, why shouldn't society look upon him as if he deserves his fate.

[ArcturusMengsk]

It's not idealism whatsoever. Society has always found a way by which to define what is deviant, and has always invented moral and ethical justification towards that end - "mainstream" or non-deviant society is, in fact, structured around the very concept of 'deviancy' and the exclusion thereof from social and political discourse. The presumption that what we call criminal is in fact universally criminal is quite unfounded, however. To say that a criminal 'deserves' his lot is to read into nature a code of morality which simply does not exist.

That was verbose. Anyhoo, how does that answer my driving point, or really Lonestars? Nobody wants a shit job, but if your desperate enough to sling drugs or rob a 7/11 why wouldn't you be desperate enough to sling burgers or join the military?

Because man is essentially irrational in regards to acts of valuation, however offensive that sounds to traditional liberals. If one feels that he has two options presented to him to further himself, and yet only one requires that he put forth effort and time into attaining it, it's not very likely that he'll choose that option. Society can correct this, to a point, by making opportunities available to the potential criminal; however, criminality cannot and will not ever be done away with by means of social institutions - this includes morality.

Your answer seemed to be 'might be undesirable' in the context of the person conteplating it. If a perfectly viable option is open to someone and they decide to go the crime route, why shouldn't society look upon him as if he deserves his fate.

Because to condemn the criminal for not taking the 'long and hard road' would be utter hypocrisy: were I in his position, I'd be quite tempted to turn to drug dealing and the like to make my way, and would probably do it before I'd join the military. This doesn't indicate a 'character flaw'; it's nothing more than an innately human method of valuation. Unfortunately, our modern penal system (panopticism) dates to a time before it was well understood that rote methods of discipline and punishment do not effectively deter crime. The great effort that society has continually failed to make is to learn to administer punishment - which will always fail, but will nevertheless be the standard by which society deals with deviancy - dispassionately and without moral condemnation.

[Knife]

Because to condemn the criminal for not taking the 'long and hard road' would be utter hypocrisy: were I in his position, I'd be quite tempted to turn to drug dealing and the like to make my way, and would probably do it before I'd join the military.

We're obviously having a disconnect here. So lets try a small detour; subsitute (oh I don't know) a city buss driver in there instead of military. Guys got to wear a hookey uniform, drives goverment vehicles and is responsible for lives and could die just from driving sooooo much. You'd rather make crap pay being a slinger than that?

This doesn't indicate a 'character flaw'; it's nothing more than an innately human method of valuation.

It might indeed be a character flaw, but I have a sneaky suspition you don't see it because of some presumption you have about the military. So I guess we'll see if you answer the first part of this response.

Unfortunately, our modern penal system (panopticism) dates to a time before it was well understood that rote methods of discipline and punishment do not effectively deter crime. The great effort that society has continually failed to make is to learn to administer punishment - which will always fail, but will nevertheless be the standard by which society deals with deviancy - dispassionately and without moral condemnation.

Oh, I'll agree the correction system needs serious work. But that's societys option and not necessarily the would-be criminal. The criminals option is wether he is depserate enough to commit a crime even if there is other options and whether society should indeed look down upon and frown at such a choice.

[Lonestar]

The question which remains to be answered - the question which you will not answer - is whether criminality in itself is more undesirable than joining the military, or whether criminality is in fact altogether undesirable. One always presumes both, and yet neither is presumptuous.

Freakonomics has a rather interesting chapter describing how most "street thug" criminality is less financially lucrative than a minimum wage job. Pyramid Schemes for the win!

I'm not sure what you mean by "whether or not it's undesirable". If you are referring to "Gangsta" culture, you aren't convincing me. I see young people from economically depressed areas of the DC Metro area doing entry level IT stuff, and they are smart enough to "turn off" the Gangsta crap when at work. Most bust their ass, too.

No. I was, however, in with a number of people waiting for transfer to the State penitentiary for violent crimes.

So it sounds like you were in a holding cell for a bit...boo-hoo. A JAIL is a bit different from a PRISON.

I mean, you can be put in a holding cell for the weekend if you got a DWI on Friday and your court date is on Monday. All that means is you may have been sitting at one end of the cell trying your best to ignore everyone else. As opposed to, say, being thrown in with the General Population for months/years.

[K. A. Pital]

Nobody wants a shit job, but if your desperate enough to sling drugs or rob a 7/11 why wouldn't you be desperate enough to sling burgers or join the military?

Curves of supply and demand govern the market. If there's no supply of jobs for a particular population segment, but there is demand, it is forced out to other jobs.

Including crime, which also supplies "jobs", and has a "demand" for personnel.

To cut down that criminal demand, one needs to cut down it's human resource base, or, more simply, reduce poverty, income and nationality-based inequalities, reduce ghetto and gangster culture phenomena.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not sure what you mean by "whether or not it's undesirable". If you are referring to "Gangsta" culture, you aren't convincing me. I see young people from economically depressed areas of the DC Metro area doing entry level IT stuff, and they are smart enough to "turn off" the Gangsta crap when at work. Most bust their ass, too.

So what's your explanation for the explosion in prison population then, since you seem to be dismissing economic factors with a wave of your hand?

[ArcturusMengsk]

We're obviously having a disconnect here. So lets try a small detour; subsitute (oh I don't know) a city buss driver in there instead of military. Guys got to wear a hookey uniform, drives goverment vehicles and is responsible for lives and could die just from driving sooooo much. You'd rather make crap pay being a slinger than that?

Certainly not. Simply put, however, there isn't enough cheap labor to occupy everyone; the very nature of the beast requires a relatively large lumpenproletariat to justify prisons, a number of social welfare services, etc. It is inevitable and socially desirable that a criminal class should exist. One can work to minimize it, and one should; but it is abjectly impossible to do away with.

Even the welfare solution frequently works to compound the problem: an individual barely making enough to afford housing and food might be compelled to engage in criminal activity out of envy or some other irrational desire. I'd not be surprised to find - though I'm not making the claim - that individuals earning subsistence-level wages more frequently engage in crime than the homeless.

It might indeed be a character flaw, but I have a sneaky suspition you don't see it because of some presumption you have about the military. So I guess we'll see if you answer the first part of this response.

Again, the idea that the military is an option relies on the idea that time can be accorded a monetary value: but such a value does not exist.

Oh, I'll agree the correction system needs serious work. But that's societys option and not necessarily the would-be criminal. The criminals option is wether he is depserate enough to commit a crime even if there is other options and whether society should indeed look down upon and frown at such a choice.

Exclusivity creates criminality. And exclusivity is a necessary feature of any organized society. One should strive to minimize it - never to abolish it.

[Darth Wong]

The great effort that society has continually failed to make is to learn to administer punishment - which will always fail, but will nevertheless be the standard by which society deals with deviancy - dispassionately and without moral condemnation.

I agree with certain parts of your argument, but this makes no sense whatsoever. Morality itself is a social engineering construct. To say that we should strive to solve social problems through social engineering rather than moral condemnation is to ignore this fact.