6 ms·

It's disgusting that we treat humans like this. A reasonable person can understand perspectives on both sides of many contemporary hot topics, but I see no such

It's disgusting that we treat humans like this. A reasonable person can understand perspectives on both sides of many contemporary hot topics, but I see no such leeway here. Isn't it time we stand up and simply fix something which is so clearly broken?

justicezyx 11y ago
How we should treat the "animal" that kill people then?
- rbobby 11y ago
  Probably start by not calling them an animal? Dehumanizing someone is probably step 1 on the road mistreating them.
  - justicezyx 11y ago
    No, by "animal" I mean human as "animal". Not they are animal and I am not. We are animal. And some of us has more "animal" side of behavior. That's it. Please do not misrepresent my statement...
    - Retra 11y ago
      If you mean "human as animal", then _all_ human behavior is animal behavior. Saying "some of us have more animal behavior" is really more of an indicator that you think they are more animal than you, despite both being human. Your statement is dehumanizing. If you don't want it to be interpreted as such, then make better statements.
- whiddershins 11y ago
  All humans are capable of horrific acts. It is a part of our humanity, we are apex predators who organize socially. The evolved algorithm in our brain that manages that dissonance is extremely complex and will necessarily fail at times. We can't tolerate or condone antisocial behavior, but it is a mistake to feel safe in the thought "we" are better than "them." We are they, they are we.
  - sathackr 11y ago
    I wish there was a multi-upvote button. This, so much this. It's so easy to turn it into 'us' and 'them' So many stereotypes, so much historical(and, of course, current) violence and bloodshed because someone convinces a population how 'they' are different than 'us', 'we' are better, therefore 'they' must surrender(and become like 'us') or 'we' will force 'them' to. My favorite example? Extrajudicial killings of non-us citizens unilaterally declared to be terrorists. And since it's 'them', somehow it's moral. Terrorism is bad, but doesn't give us the right not to afford another human the protections of things we have declared to be owed to all men. If 'We hold these truths to be self evident..." then why do we only apply them to US Citizens? (And then, take them away from some US Citizens, the ones that have been declared to be 'them' no longer 'us')
  - ams6110 11y ago
    No, sorry. Some people kill or viciously assault other people, while most people don't. There's not a moral equivalence there. That said, I do think that the conditions described in the article constitute cruel and unusual punishment, at least by today's standards. I'm not sure what the framers had in mind; I'm sure 18th century prisons were not rose gardens either.
    - whiddershins 11y ago
      I heartily recommend "Why We Snap" http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Snap-Understanding-Circuit-ebook/dp/B00SI02CTQ http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Snap-Understanding-Circuit-eboo... and although a boring read, "Sex and War" http://www.amazon.com/Sex-War-Biology-Explains-Terrorism-ebook/dp/B003UBAX3A/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1458956045&sr=1-1&keywords=sex+and+war http://www.amazon.com/Sex-War-Biology-Explains-Terrorism-ebo... for a different perspective on your statements. The violent impulse is probably available to all humans, and it is plausible to say that all humans under the right circumstances can manifest extreme violence. So it becomes details. How are the various impulses moderated under various conditions. It is the precise opposite of black and white, in my opinion. edit: I am not excusing violence or advocating we tolerate antisocial behavior. I am urging compassion and empathy for people whose brains have made one or more decisions devastatingly incorrectly as a result of what may be an extremely tiny variation in programming, or an edge case that caused their brains to make the wrong decision.
- throweway 11y ago
  Thats a can of worms.
- throweway 11y ago
  Thats a can of worms.
- throweway 11y ago
  Thats a can of worms.
- JabavuAdams 11y ago
  Build a social system that results in fewer innocent people being killed and fewer unsullied children growing up into killers.
stopinsanity16 11y ago
(US point-of-view): in case one ignores the blaring media headlines and the incessant political noise on TV and via unsolicited phone calls, I must inform that this is an election year in this country. There is still plenty of time to mobilize disenfranchised voters to perform a "regime change" to ensure that the people who gave us private jails, funding cuts for schools , increased corporate welfare, "war on drugs", and "tough on crime" hypocrisy are voted out.
- zanny 11y ago
  The problem we are seeing this election cycle is the undemocratic consequence of first past the post. The American republic has degenerated so direly that, as is par for the course, the American people will once again be given only two choices for president (and likewise, at most two choices in every other ballot position they are eligible in this November, besides the most local of elections) of which very few non-hardline party members will be in favor of. It should also be very alarming how many primaries in the Democrat primary this year have demonstrated extensive systemic corruption of the party. Be it 7 "random" wins in Iowa, to past presidents using their authority and influence to shut down polling locations in Massachusetts for hours, to just this past week Arizona having its polling locations cut by 70% that produced waiting lines over five hours long, on top of mass relocation of voter registrations and many voters losing their party membership recognition in a closed primary. While of course I will still vote for every position I can for the person I want to win (and never for the lesser of two evils as I am provided by the establishment) the system is not orchestrated to enable the people to actually do anything any more. It would require a tremendous amount of public action, and for almost all issues - including the ones this article brings to light - Martin Niemöller's quote "First they came ..." rings true moreso today than I could imagine possible. There is tremendous apathy in America, as people only become aware or active when it is too late and their liberties and freedom have already been taken, and for the rest as long as it is not impacting their lives they will ignore it because it is "too much work" to do anything about.
  - eropple 11y ago
    > Be it 7 "random" wins in Iowa Programmer rails against randomness because it doesn't suit him. Film at 11. > to past presidents using their authority and influence to shut down polling locations in Massachusetts for hours Neither the Boston nor New Bedford locations at which Bill Clinton appeared (and I am setting aside whether it was right for Clinton to do so, because it appears to have not been illegal and the fine for such being all of $20 anyway) were closed at any point. Both remained accessible at all times. But you know that, or you should if it matters to you. > just this past week Arizona having its polling locations cut by 70% that produced waiting lines over five hours long This is the result of the VRA being gutted by the Roberts Court and the Maricopa County government (hint: really really not Democrats) choosing not to establish nearly enough polling places. But you know that, too. Or you should, if it matters to you. Because you are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

justicezyx 11y ago

How we should treat the "animal" that kill people then?

rbobby 11y ago
Probably start by not calling them an animal? Dehumanizing someone is probably step 1 on the road mistreating them.
- justicezyx 11y ago
  No, by "animal" I mean human as "animal". Not they are animal and I am not. We are animal. And some of us has more "animal" side of behavior. That's it. Please do not misrepresent my statement...
  - Retra 11y ago
    If you mean "human as animal", then _all_ human behavior is animal behavior. Saying "some of us have more animal behavior" is really more of an indicator that you think they are more animal than you, despite both being human. Your statement is dehumanizing. If you don't want it to be interpreted as such, then make better statements.
whiddershins 11y ago
All humans are capable of horrific acts. It is a part of our humanity, we are apex predators who organize socially. The evolved algorithm in our brain that manages that dissonance is extremely complex and will necessarily fail at times. We can't tolerate or condone antisocial behavior, but it is a mistake to feel safe in the thought "we" are better than "them." We are they, they are we.
- sathackr 11y ago
  I wish there was a multi-upvote button. This, so much this. It's so easy to turn it into 'us' and 'them' So many stereotypes, so much historical(and, of course, current) violence and bloodshed because someone convinces a population how 'they' are different than 'us', 'we' are better, therefore 'they' must surrender(and become like 'us') or 'we' will force 'them' to. My favorite example? Extrajudicial killings of non-us citizens unilaterally declared to be terrorists. And since it's 'them', somehow it's moral. Terrorism is bad, but doesn't give us the right not to afford another human the protections of things we have declared to be owed to all men. If 'We hold these truths to be self evident..." then why do we only apply them to US Citizens? (And then, take them away from some US Citizens, the ones that have been declared to be 'them' no longer 'us')
- ams6110 11y ago
  No, sorry. Some people kill or viciously assault other people, while most people don't. There's not a moral equivalence there. That said, I do think that the conditions described in the article constitute cruel and unusual punishment, at least by today's standards. I'm not sure what the framers had in mind; I'm sure 18th century prisons were not rose gardens either.
  - whiddershins 11y ago
    I heartily recommend "Why We Snap" http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Snap-Understanding-Circuit-ebook/dp/B00SI02CTQ http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Snap-Understanding-Circuit-eboo... and although a boring read, "Sex and War" http://www.amazon.com/Sex-War-Biology-Explains-Terrorism-ebook/dp/B003UBAX3A/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1458956045&sr=1-1&keywords=sex+and+war http://www.amazon.com/Sex-War-Biology-Explains-Terrorism-ebo... for a different perspective on your statements. The violent impulse is probably available to all humans, and it is plausible to say that all humans under the right circumstances can manifest extreme violence. So it becomes details. How are the various impulses moderated under various conditions. It is the precise opposite of black and white, in my opinion. edit: I am not excusing violence or advocating we tolerate antisocial behavior. I am urging compassion and empathy for people whose brains have made one or more decisions devastatingly incorrectly as a result of what may be an extremely tiny variation in programming, or an edge case that caused their brains to make the wrong decision.
throweway 11y ago
Thats a can of worms.
throweway 11y ago
Thats a can of worms.
throweway 11y ago
Thats a can of worms.
JabavuAdams 11y ago
Build a social system that results in fewer innocent people being killed and fewer unsullied children growing up into killers.

stopinsanity16 11y ago

(US point-of-view): in case one ignores the blaring media headlines and the incessant political noise on TV and via unsolicited phone calls, I must inform that this is an election year in this country. There is still plenty of time to mobilize disenfranchised voters to perform a "regime change" to ensure that the people who gave us private jails, funding cuts for schools , increased corporate welfare, "war on drugs", and "tough on crime" hypocrisy are voted out.

zanny 11y ago
The problem we are seeing this election cycle is the undemocratic consequence of first past the post. The American republic has degenerated so direly that, as is par for the course, the American people will once again be given only two choices for president (and likewise, at most two choices in every other ballot position they are eligible in this November, besides the most local of elections) of which very few non-hardline party members will be in favor of. It should also be very alarming how many primaries in the Democrat primary this year have demonstrated extensive systemic corruption of the party. Be it 7 "random" wins in Iowa, to past presidents using their authority and influence to shut down polling locations in Massachusetts for hours, to just this past week Arizona having its polling locations cut by 70% that produced waiting lines over five hours long, on top of mass relocation of voter registrations and many voters losing their party membership recognition in a closed primary. While of course I will still vote for every position I can for the person I want to win (and never for the lesser of two evils as I am provided by the establishment) the system is not orchestrated to enable the people to actually do anything any more. It would require a tremendous amount of public action, and for almost all issues - including the ones this article brings to light - Martin Niemöller's quote "First they came ..." rings true moreso today than I could imagine possible. There is tremendous apathy in America, as people only become aware or active when it is too late and their liberties and freedom have already been taken, and for the rest as long as it is not impacting their lives they will ignore it because it is "too much work" to do anything about.
- eropple 11y ago
  > Be it 7 "random" wins in Iowa Programmer rails against randomness because it doesn't suit him. Film at 11. > to past presidents using their authority and influence to shut down polling locations in Massachusetts for hours Neither the Boston nor New Bedford locations at which Bill Clinton appeared (and I am setting aside whether it was right for Clinton to do so, because it appears to have not been illegal and the fine for such being all of $20 anyway) were closed at any point. Both remained accessible at all times. But you know that, or you should if it matters to you. > just this past week Arizona having its polling locations cut by 70% that produced waiting lines over five hours long This is the result of the VRA being gutted by the Roberts Court and the Maricopa County government (hint: really really not Democrats) choosing not to establish nearly enough polling places. But you know that, too. Or you should, if it matters to you. Because you are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.