7 ms·

I'm not saying it's the ideal solution, but it is a solution. What punishment would you suggest that would be equally or more effective? I think your minimisati

I'm not saying it's the ideal solution, but it is a solution. What punishment would you suggest that would be equally or more effective? I think your minimisation of their crimes only serves to perpetuate the problem. Indeed, there is a school of thought supposing that something like a public lashing or caning - carefully administered - is actually a more humane and effective deterrent than throwing them in jail for 5 years. Singapore would be an extreme example - they have very strict laws covering petty crimes with the punishment often being corporal - but they also do not suffer from the petty crime epidemic that the west currently is.

crtasm 2y ago
I find it very strange that you'd associate climate protestors with petty crime and suggest that their actions might be worthy of years in jail.
- 0xbadc0de5 2y ago
  But they aren't protesting, they're vandalising one of the UK's most historic archaeological sites - and that's a crime. Previously, they've also vandalised historic and priceless works of art among other things. Their right to protest does not include vandalism and the destruction of property. I'd argue that it also does not include depriving others of their right to enjoy said monuments and artwork. I noticed you dodged the question of how to effectively stop to the vandalism, so I'll ask again.
  - crtasm 2y ago
    This action continues to be a protest regardless of our feelings about the methods used, or their legality. >vandalised historic and priceless works of art Are you referring to the paintings behind glass that weren't affected at all? I did read that some of the frames had minor damage. I disagree that such actions require something with deterrence equal to or greater than corporal punishment to be inflicted, so I ignored your question.
    - Turing_Machine 2y ago
      > Are you referring to the paintings behind glass that weren't affected at all? You mean other than being unavailable while they were being cleaned/checked for damage? Some visitors likely traveled thousands of miles, possibly on a once in a lifetime trip, to see the paintings, which they weren't able to do thanks to a toddler-grade temper tantrum. That's a strange definition of "not affected at all" you have there.
      - happytoexplain 2y ago
        Try to respond honestly (and without sarcasm, petty insults, and other common internet-shitposting-style content) - the parent said the paintings were not affected at all, and they ostensibly were not, according the parent. That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a bad thing to do or didn't have real consequences. And regardless, the parent is speaking in the context of whether corporal punishment is justified, which obviously it is not (speaking in the usually-implicit context of morality/civilization). That's the topic of this thread.
        Turing_Machine 2y ago
        > Try to respond honestly Oh, do be quiet. Trying to excuse this childish temper tantrum and exculpate the infantile perpetrators with "herp, derp, the paintings weren't damaged at all" is what was dishonest.

crtasm 2y ago

I find it very strange that you'd associate climate protestors with petty crime and suggest that their actions might be worthy of years in jail.

0xbadc0de5 2y ago
But they aren't protesting, they're vandalising one of the UK's most historic archaeological sites - and that's a crime. Previously, they've also vandalised historic and priceless works of art among other things. Their right to protest does not include vandalism and the destruction of property. I'd argue that it also does not include depriving others of their right to enjoy said monuments and artwork. I noticed you dodged the question of how to effectively stop to the vandalism, so I'll ask again.
- crtasm 2y ago
  This action continues to be a protest regardless of our feelings about the methods used, or their legality. >vandalised historic and priceless works of art Are you referring to the paintings behind glass that weren't affected at all? I did read that some of the frames had minor damage. I disagree that such actions require something with deterrence equal to or greater than corporal punishment to be inflicted, so I ignored your question.
  - Turing_Machine 2y ago
    > Are you referring to the paintings behind glass that weren't affected at all? You mean other than being unavailable while they were being cleaned/checked for damage? Some visitors likely traveled thousands of miles, possibly on a once in a lifetime trip, to see the paintings, which they weren't able to do thanks to a toddler-grade temper tantrum. That's a strange definition of "not affected at all" you have there.
    - happytoexplain 2y ago
      Try to respond honestly (and without sarcasm, petty insults, and other common internet-shitposting-style content) - the parent said the paintings were not affected at all, and they ostensibly were not, according the parent. That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a bad thing to do or didn't have real consequences. And regardless, the parent is speaking in the context of whether corporal punishment is justified, which obviously it is not (speaking in the usually-implicit context of morality/civilization). That's the topic of this thread.
      - Turing_Machine 2y ago
        > Try to respond honestly Oh, do be quiet. Trying to excuse this childish temper tantrum and exculpate the infantile perpetrators with "herp, derp, the paintings weren't damaged at all" is what was dishonest.