A cunt and a cock. Seems fitting given the recent conversation on here.
1 Like
thatâs your opinion. since youâve not understood the nature vs nurture argument Iâll ignore this part.
haha since when did legality have anything to do with this discussion? weâre talking about murder here, and youâve clearly stated above this:
Iâve provided you examples that we do, and yet youâre arguing? my wordâŚ
No, I was asking the question of WHO PAYS for the huge rehabilitation costs you speak of. your response was âtax the richâ, which is laughable. youâre starting to show your stripes here.
yes the evidence does. again, try to do some reading up on Nature vs Nurture. Iâll even do the work for you hereâŚ
1 Like
Jesus. I log in, see there are 83 new posts in here and think weâve signed a new left-winger. Imagine my disappointment finding that there is just bullshit and endless bickering about Terry Pratchett novels and bringing back capital punishment in the UK. Oof.
9 Likes
Yeah, the leniency we give to people driving cars is insane.
The sad thing is that more often than not there are loads and loads opportunities to identify people who really, really shouldnât be driving cars before they wipe out a family.
But the counter argument to this is that we keep designing cities and communities to be completely dependent on car use, so driving has taken on the status of a quasi-human right.
I have not misunderstood it. I just do not see it your way, which confuses you to think I misunderstand it.
That whole exchange was in reply to your saying
My point was that youâre implying that we should follow the example of what occurs in nature. Itâs not too far a leap to presume that this would be reflected in legality and what society condones.
What stripes? Your precise words were:
To which I replied, the lowest-hanging fruit is to actually tax the rich. To a meaningful degree, just as society used to do. Your reply was that the rich make the rules and so they donât pay tax. To which my reply was that your implication is that we canât fight with that because they make the rules, so in which case if they declare that murderers should all go free, then you should have no objection. Itâs the same thing.
Itâs not my fault youâre so wound up that you canât see past your emotions.
I spent the best part of 3 years looking at the various debates between nature and nurture, thank you very much.
Did you read the article yourself, or did you just do a quick Google to see whatever comes up that you can cherry-pick to suit yourself? The article quite clearly states the stronger influence of their childhood environment, which you literally just argued earlier doesnât matter.
Citations of that article also suggest that the role of the MAOA allele which you focus on so much is mainly in moderating the effect of early-childhood adversity (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006322313004125). Yes, I cherry-picked that because it was the first result that popped up in a Google Scholar search of articles that cited your article, that specifically discussed the result of that paper (I was looking specifically for replications and/or explorations of the particular topic).
Thatâs your mistake. Here, this thread mainly celebrates right-wingers.
1 Like
Corbyn.
Next?
A rare thing on a Liverpool forum.
GBNews bringing the viewers what they need.
But totally misunderstanding the concept of a comedy show.
1 Like
Next was the cock that youâd now like to hang
Gotta admit though,
Its the most entertainment iâve had this season
Keep up the good work lads!
Jesus!!
Its a completely valid question though. Are you saying that a murderer is incapable of being rehabilitated?
Revealed: The five murderers given life in jail but freed to kill again | Daily Mail Online
At least five of them did so case closed.
Disclaimer
I googled it and the mail was the first result,there may be thousands or these five may have done nothing on release apart from possibly support Corbyn and become vegans(which is absolute proof that they are bastards)
I disagree.
A murderer may be a woman who had been previously subjected to years of abuse, someone defending themselves against a mugger, a homeless person lashing out at a gang of tormentors. There are any number of terrible situations in which people find themselves. Not all are calculating cold blooded killers.
The problem in this debate is that there is a lack of understanding of the complexities of life. There are very few totally good people and very few who are completely evil.
Most of us are somewhere in between, and are capable of kindness, generosity, cruelty and apathy depending on circumstances.
Surely the criminal justice system should aim to prevent future crime as much as possible. The hanging flogging approach has been tried throughout history and has not succeeded. It has only brutalised all involved.
That doesnât mean that dangerous people should be at large, of course they shouldnât, but there has to be a greater emphasis on the causes of crime, the recovery of victims and the rehabilitation of those who are not beyond it.
8 Likes
Fair points.
First degree murder to be more specific then.
Great post.
Preventing crime is a far larger issue to deal with than punishing it, and the benefits of the former could be tremendous. I think, on the whole, we get the latter right, although there will always be notable anomalies.
4 Likes
Politics hey?
These threads were always crazy, even on TIA, when there was an international break. Not much football to talk about. Right now, it feels like it has been an international break for 2 months with the way we are playing, so I am not surprised the non-football threads are popular right now. Even if the convos arenât always on-topic.
3 Likes