4 ms·

You’re gonna have to back up that “though experiment” with some data. Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think the majority of the population are

You’re gonna have to back up that “though experiment” with some data. Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs, held in check by the threat of prison time. Otherwise your comment is little more that a dark speculative fantasy.

lelanthran 4y ago
> Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs, held in check by the threat of prison time. You don't need the MAJORITY of the population to be homicidal maniacs, only held in check by the thread of punishment to see a marked rise in homicides. I'd guess that even with a low rate of one out of every thousand people being homicidal maniacs only kept in check by the threat of force, you'd get 200x or more homicides than you have now. After all, a homicidal maniac will, almost by definition, kill repeatedly, and since (in this hypothetical situation) they are not punished for it, there's simply no reason for them to stop doing it.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  Again, you’re gonna need some data. I would consider 1 in every thousand people being a homicidal maniac held in check by the the threat of force to be an extraordinary high incidence rate. Such a rate doesn’t even vaguely match up with my experiences of people. One in a million I could believe, but numbers lower than I have difficulty believing. Even if the state doesn’t punish anyone, and even if there was no physical retaliation. I imagine that murdering people would quickly result in your social ostracisation. Who the hell wants to spent time with a nutter who’s gonna kill you for rubbing them up the wrong way? I think most people would find better friends and colleagues.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    One in a few hundred will murder someone in USA with todays rules. Don't you think those people would murder a bit more liberally if they weren't punished for it?
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > Again, you’re gonna need some data. I would consider 1 in every thousand people being a homicidal maniac held in check by the the threat of force to be an extraordinary high incidence rate. I wasn't making a claim about the actual rate, I was contending your claim that >>>> Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs, held in check by the threat of prison time. The GGP only claimed that the homicide rate will rise if there was no punishment for it. You decided that he meant that the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs. I was merely pointing out that even with a small percentage (0.001%) being homicidal maniacs, the rise in homicides will still increase by two orders of magnitudes or more. > Such a rate doesn’t even vaguely match up with my experiences of people. Well, of course - people are punished for being homicidal maniacs so I don't expect them to go around advertising the fact. Your experience of not knowing very many matches the reality that those that do get found out are removed from society.

lelanthran 4y ago

> Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs, held in check by the threat of prison time. You don't need the MAJORITY of the population to be homicidal maniacs, only held in check by the thread of punishment to see a marked rise in homicides. I'd guess that even with a low rate of one out of every thousand people being homicidal maniacs only kept in check by the threat of force, you'd get 200x or more homicides than you have now. After all, a homicidal maniac will, almost by definition, kill repeatedly, and since (in this hypothetical situation) they are not punished for it, there's simply no reason for them to stop doing it.

avianlyric 4y ago
Again, you’re gonna need some data. I would consider 1 in every thousand people being a homicidal maniac held in check by the the threat of force to be an extraordinary high incidence rate. Such a rate doesn’t even vaguely match up with my experiences of people. One in a million I could believe, but numbers lower than I have difficulty believing. Even if the state doesn’t punish anyone, and even if there was no physical retaliation. I imagine that murdering people would quickly result in your social ostracisation. Who the hell wants to spent time with a nutter who’s gonna kill you for rubbing them up the wrong way? I think most people would find better friends and colleagues.
- Jensson 4y ago
  One in a few hundred will murder someone in USA with todays rules. Don't you think those people would murder a bit more liberally if they weren't punished for it?
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > Again, you’re gonna need some data. I would consider 1 in every thousand people being a homicidal maniac held in check by the the threat of force to be an extraordinary high incidence rate. I wasn't making a claim about the actual rate, I was contending your claim that >>>> Or at least a logical explanation, as to why you think the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs, held in check by the threat of prison time. The GGP only claimed that the homicide rate will rise if there was no punishment for it. You decided that he meant that the majority of the population are homicidal maniacs. I was merely pointing out that even with a small percentage (0.001%) being homicidal maniacs, the rise in homicides will still increase by two orders of magnitudes or more. > Such a rate doesn’t even vaguely match up with my experiences of people. Well, of course - people are punished for being homicidal maniacs so I don't expect them to go around advertising the fact. Your experience of not knowing very many matches the reality that those that do get found out are removed from society.