At 2/1/15 07:29 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Cause of Freedom !

You've got to more in depth than that. Your reasoning logically abolishes all criminal laws, including murder, rape, and so on.

At 2/1/15 10:33 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/1/15 07:29 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Cause of Freedom !

You've got to more in depth than that. Your reasoning logically abolishes all criminal laws, including murder, rape, and so on.

If your not hurting anyone the it's not a problem.

At 2/2/15 04:22 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: If your not hurting anyone the it's not a problem.

What about the businesses who are trying to help those who they believe have served the community?

Fraud doesn't have an exception for people and causes you don't like.

At 2/2/15 10:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

What about the businesses who are trying to help those who they believe have served the community?

One man in Military garb is not the problem. If the store keep could not afford to give the deal they would not.

Fraud doesn't have an exception for people and causes you don't like.

Good on the chap for scoring some slick deals.

At 2/24/15 01:16 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote: nor do service benefits. we all benefit each other in equally valid ways.

So? Anyone can choose to give a discount to any group they so choose (so long as it is does not run afoul of discrimination laws). What's wrong with someone giving a discount to a an occupation they believes provides them a great service?

for the record, as i said numerous times, money is nearly every bit as asinine as law. laws are meaningless, money is meaningless.

Exectly what does your baseless and easily dismantled pipe dream have ANYTHING to do with this topic?

what matters is these businesses have the gall to remain businesses.. profit precludes both potential quality realization and true humanitarianism.

And you call lealifter a troll... Wow.

if you're not intrinsically motivated, dont manufacture anything unless it's for personal use. it's that simple.

Again, what does this have to do with the actual subject?

Please, for the rest of our sakes, when a subject is rooted in reality, please answer based on reality, not on your own personal magic based manifesto.

At 2/24/15 03:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Please, for the rest of our sakes, when a subject is rooted in reality, please answer based on reality, not on your own personal magic based manifesto.

You personally believe in Law manifestos ... others in religious manifestos and some people believe in realty and the scientific methods. Words written to control the population for the benefit of the few is not a good practice for as we can see the world is seriously fucked up because of it.

At 2/26/15 09:30 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:

pay attention.. i called him EITHER a troll OR a fool. i was not sure which. me, i am 100% honest.

Depending on whom you are talking to being 1000% truthful and honest could mean in there eyes your a troll. For instance try and talk to a Cop about the benefits of of anti fascism and limited Government and he might be inclined to whip you with his baton in which case your the troll even though your right. Talk to a libertarian about limited government and anti fascism and your a hero. Talk to an indigenous Indian tribe in the middle of the jungle about politics and money and they will not understand.

At 2/26/15 10:52 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:

At 2/26/15 10:35 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/26/15 09:30 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:

Depending on whom you are talking to being 1000% truthful and honest could mean in there eyes your a troll. For instance try and talk to a Cop about the benefits of of anti fascism and limited Government and he might be inclined to whip you with his baton in which case your the troll even though your right. Talk to a libertarian about limited government and anti fascism and your a hero. Talk to an indigenous Indian tribe in the middle of the jungle about politics and money and they will not understand.

exactly the problem.. i prepare myself for both eventualities as a result, only the one they go with backfires on me.

Point is we can learn and move forward from every spectrum of opinion and knowledge discipline. Take the good from everything and say bye to the bad.

I hate people who are impostors or fakes/frauds/phonies with a passion.

This goes for any fakes and not just military impostors, by the way. Don't pretend you have some great honor or you hold some high degree or that you are some particular kind of professional or have some important position if you don't.

It can be quite hard to prove online that someone's a fraud (although I've proved it before), and unfortunately sometimes only those who have adequate knowledge in a field can even tell the difference.

Personally I think most people are far too soft on frauds, but that's just my opinion. I think they should be routinely humiliated in public and wherever they go. And I think it should be a perma-bannable offense for forum posters. But it should be proven beyond reasonable doubt that a person is a fraud.

And honestly, if someone has some sort of mental disease that causes them to want people to like them by pretending to have prestige they lack, I just don't care. That's not a valid excuse to me. If someone is that mentally unsound, they should be in an institution and not roaming the streets. I have no sympathy for frauds and fakes.

At 2/24/15 01:03 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:

At 12/8/14 09:00 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

i am not in agreement at all with the military's policy, nor do i deny the highest ranks can be fatsos. however, the ground troops need to be active to survive. your ignorance is astounding..

either that or you're a troll.. cant really tell..

he's both, it's not hard to see that.

At 3/21/15 01:10 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote:

And honestly, if someone has some sort of mental disease that causes them to want people to like them by pretending to have prestige they lack, I just don't care. That's not a valid excuse to me. If someone is that mentally unsound, they should be in an institution and not roaming the streets. I have no sympathy for frauds and fakes.

so you think attention whore-ery is comparable to murderous psychopaths.. okay...

Not at all. I want people who have mental health issues to get the treatment they need to better their own quality of life. If someone is so mentally unsound they believe they are a soldier when they're not, for example, perhaps they would be better served in a mental ward. It's not a punishment. I would say the same if someone thinks they're a princess fairy rather than a soldier. It's a mental illness and they need help. They're not living in reality.

At 3/21/15 01:10 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote: goddammit neon.. why? punishment does not rehabilitate anyone. it just makes them bitter at the world and likely to do even worse things. this sort of attitude from people is why i'm an anarchist.

The penal system and criminal justice system is NOT about rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is an important part of the system, but it is neither the main point or even a large portion. Deterrence and incapacitation are the primary purposes of the criminal justice system, and as well they should be.

People aren't the lovey dovey rainbow dancers you believe them to be. Most people don't do crime, not because of an inner unwillingness to do it, but because of the knowledge they will be punished. Those who do the most dangerous crimes are not able to be truly rehabbed, as once you cross that line you cannot uncross it. That leave a very small percentage of the population with which rehabilitation has any use, and even then, there are so many things that go into recidivism that the criminal justice system cannot ever work on.

Yes! I remember seeing this before and being glad that this guy was being called out for it. In fact, I think I may have seen up to three videos that were just like this! It's just something on the Internet that should be brought up. I don't know much about the legal repercussions of this, though.

At 3/21/15 06:51 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote: deterrence is frankly an impossible goal. people who want to commit crime will do so regardless of how much fear you fill them with.

I suggest you comprehend something entirely before responding to it. I did not say deterrence was 100% effective. The fact that we hve some fairly strong punishments (for modern times) and people still commit crimes is testament to this. You assume I am only speaking of criminals. I am not. I am speaking of the bulk of the populace who has been inclined to do something criminal but has chsen not to because of the consequences they would face. In this aspect, deterrence has been wildly successful.

incapacitate people and you are no better than they are.

People who represent a danger to society? Those people need to be removed from society so that they cannot harm others. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and in this case they strongly outweigh them.

on the contrary, i know full well they're not perfect. on the other hand, people arent the demonic abominations you believe them to be either.

You sure seem to act like humans are all angels. Give them all a drug course and some flowers and they'll commit no further criminal acts!!!

I go off of the 10-80-10 philosophy. 10 percent of the population is never inclined to commit crimes. another 10 percent of the population is inclined to commit crimes regardless of consequences or situation. The other 80 will likely not commit a crime, bu if the incentive is high enough or the boundaries low enough, they will commit a criminal act. This means the justice system has to focus mainly on the 80, ingore the good 10, and find a way to "deal" with the bad 10.

it is indeed the unwillingness that keeps people from not committing crimes worth rehabilitating them for, such as rape or murder.

Funny thing, you mention two extremely different crimes there. Rape is a very high recividism crime. Murder is an extremely low one (for most who commit it). This poses a problem as to exactly how to treat whom, by virtue of what they committed and why they committed it. The variations in this treatment idea are far more numerous than the amount of crimes that are avaiable to be committed.

Would rehabilitation help many? Yes. It already does. However, current rehabilitation does not have the power (and I find it difficult for it to ever have the power without the government taking an extremely totalitarian role in society) to fix most of the problems that led to the commission of many crimes. Other people have already forsaken any notion of being a part of society and thus will not recieve an effective treatment as the goal of treatment no longer has any mening to them.

this particular crime however isnt worth it. fraud is just fraud. money is meaningless, so it's no object to hassle them over.

Your idea on money has been thouroughly, utterly, and wholly debunked on this site already. So, I suggest you stop warping other ideas around to fit a notion that about as much connection to reality as unicorns and the Ood.

Because as a society we have given money worth, money has worth. Therefore the removal of it from someone by force or deception is considered to be a crime, i the same way the removal of a tangible object by force or deception is a crime.

In the end, you need to stop thinking of this as some easy fix system. It is not. Our system of criminal justice is built upon 500 years of trial and error with numerous different philosophies being worked in and most of them failing to make a difference. It has also been constrained by the notion of Democracy and freedom.

Wow! This topic has gone really, really far afield! I don't think pot would help clarify it...maybe something stronger like meth or huffing shoe polish. Speaking of, my favorite military (kinda...he did serve):

MSgt Soup Sandwich.

As for people dressing the part to get the discounts sickens me. Many places on Veteran's Day have stopped asking for ID or any proof of service because of the adamancy of the scammers. In reality, I think the vast majority of veterans who didn't bring proof of service would not push the point. After all...if you don't have the paperwork the VA and government aren't going to serve you. So why should Applebee's?

I am deeply appreciative of the companies that give vets a free meal or a discount on 11/11 each year. I have to wonder at the moral decay, total lack of ethical standards, and general loss of humanity that this country is so accepting of those who would take advantage of other's goodwill.

On the flip side; I don't like it when vets/servicemembers or their dependents come to expect it. In a free society when a business decides to give a discount to military they the business owner has the right to set the terms. Only in uniform? Okay. Only the military member? Okay. Any form of military ID? Fine. Just don't be a bitch about it.

At 3/24/15 02:01 AM, TheMason wrote: I am deeply appreciative of the companies that give vets a free meal or a discount on 11/11 each year. I have to wonder at the moral decay, total lack of ethical standards, and general loss of humanity that this country is so accepting of those who would take advantage of other's goodwill.

It's not a general loss of humanity. You described what has actually happened in your post. I've seen the same thing with seeing eye dogs. The policy of the local grocery store chain is to only let in seeing eye dogs and leave all others out. However, because a few ass hats have made a big enough stink the policy has essentially become little more than window dressing. Because the stroe does not have the tools to definitively prove whether or not a dog is a seeing eye dog, and assholes have no limits to their depravity, the store has backed down out of fear and exhaustion. The store doesn't want one (it only takes one) of the assholes' dogs to geniuinely be a seeing eye dog. If they kicked that one out, the PR and legal ramifications would be huge. Also, with how hard the assholes fight, it has become too much effort to enforce the policy, even in its lightest form, than to just let all dogs in.

Same with vets. Because those who wish to enact the fraud are so asshole-ish about it, the stores have just been beaten down and so worried of denying an actual vet that they just don't try that hard anymore. Only a few businesses are willing to risk it, and they usually already have the specific PR that wouldn't be hurt by a mistake.

On the flip side; I don't like it when vets/servicemembers or their dependents come to expect it. In a free society when a business decides to give a discount to military they the business owner has the right to set the terms. Only in uniform? Okay. Only the military member? Okay. Any form of military ID? Fine. Just don't be a bitch about it.

Entitlement comes i many forms.

At 3/23/15 11:24 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote: i suggest you take your own advice. i did not imply you were making the argument it was 100% effective, nor that you spoke of only people who commit crimes. however, everyone inclined to commit crimes has already done so if it's something serious enough to warrant their removal.. i guarantee that. people dont streak or piss on the road because of legal ramifications, but those arent serious at all.

The crimial justice system applies to ALL people. You cannot divorce those who have not committed a crime from those who have. Also, don't think it's just streaking or ublic runkenness that has been deterred. Have not heard of anyone who's been so angry that they wanted to hurt someone, but they did not? Most likely, one of the factors in them deciding not to was the consequences. That sort of intangible deterrence justifies the penal system's detrrence factor.

the needs of nobody outweigh that of anyone else. a system that does not serve everyone in the end serves no one. imprisoning people is in itself an act of evil, even if it's a necessary one for the time being.

Governments are meant to perform little evils in order to protect society from bigger and more dangerous ones. This is why we created governments.

in our current society that's a bullshit idea.. our mental health facilities are far too incompetent.. medical science needs to evolve first. but it is possible. you handwave it as something beyond making possible without researching it first.

You deal with the society you have, not the society you want.

great job pulling statistics out your ass..

I didn't claim that number was a statistic. It may be. I haven't looked. All I said was that is the basis of the way I look at society. This idea came from many peace officers who had used thier experiences and others' experiences in criminal justice.

okay, so in layman's terms that's likelihood of a person repeat offending? what relevance does that have?

It's 100% relevant. Recidivism is what measures rehabilitation. I'm also trying to tell you that crime and it's motivations and factors is not a simple thing.

well you and society both on the idea of totalitarianism.. however, it doesnt mean that notion has any basis. furthermore, i dont believe people need to accept society to be effectively treated. most often they arent accepting of being a part of society..

Laws are society. To effectively fit back within society, one must accept the notion of laws and must accept the boundaries those laws place. If one has forsaken the notion of society, they are not likely to find any appreciation in society's laws, save for any punishment factor.

no it has not. none of my ideas have. gamefaqs was the only website to refute any ideas of mine. and those ideas werent ones i felt strongly about.. you have yet to provide an explanation as to why we cant just use the star trek replicator device for production, thereby making everyone on earth self-sufficient and not needing of trade.

And if I had a magic wand to cure all poverty and give everyone the things they need, I'd wave it.

A replicator would likely not fix anything. Think about it now. In the US, we live in a society with more abundance than humans have ever known, and yet we still have rampant property crime. The amount of things in existence and the availability of necessities and luxuries has not dampened the criminal need to take. So what makes you think more access will?

i know it doesnt exist in our current one. i never said it did. but you need to do as i do and see all possibilities before they ever happen and address them accordingly if you are to win this one. your lack of foresight dooms you to failure.

Again, I deal with the society I have, not the society I want. If replicators were a distinct possibility in the near future, things would be VERY different. However, trying to look at current society through the lens of cure all technology we do not have won't do anything but make you look and act foolish

yes it's a crime. but it's not serious.

Never said it was.

where did i say this would be easy? in all the thousands of years we've had law however, nobody has ever proposed my ideas. our system isnt working to make a difference at all, free for all self defense is better because at least you're not deluding society into a false sense of security.. police are every bit as insidious in policy as the people they might put away.. because insidious policied people arent the only people they put away.

First off, the lack of punishment and laws HAS been implemented. It was perhaps the first thing we got rid of long before we created civilization because communal groups of humans need rules.

Second, because, as you have admitted in numerous different threads, your ideas require things that just don't exist. You require humans without much of their humanity. You require replicators to replace need and money. These do not exist, and have NEVER been even close to existing.

At 3/24/15 10:35 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/24/15 02:01 AM, TheMason wrote: I am deeply appreciative of the companies that give vets a free meal or a discount on 11/11 each year. I have to wonder at the moral decay, total lack of ethical standards, and general loss of humanity that this country is so accepting of those who would take advantage of other's goodwill.

It's not a general loss of humanity. You described what has actually happened in your post. I've seen the same thing with seeing eye dogs.

How is it (along with your seeing eye dog example) NOT indicative of a general loss of humanity? Humanity is the quality of being humane. To be humane means having compassion, sympathy, and/or consideration for others. To be so self-centered that you would pretend to be something you're not or use the disability of others to fulfill your own hedonistic and momentary whim...is a loss of humanity.

At 3/24/15 11:41 AM, TheMason wrote: How is it (along with your seeing eye dog example) NOT indicative of a general loss of humanity? Humanity is the quality of being humane. To be humane means having compassion, sympathy, and/or consideration for others. To be so self-centered that you would pretend to be something you're not or use the disability of others to fulfill your own hedonistic and momentary whim...is a loss of humanity.

Sorry, I got the direction wrong. I agree. It is totally inhumane to pose as someone either in need or who has done a great service just to get a little benefit here and there. I thought you meant it was inhumane that the stores have given in.

At 3/25/15 02:05 AM, TNT wrote: And committing the crime in of itself doesn't make them mentally ill. If they're consciously aware that it's a bad thing to do and does it anyway, then the person is still sane.

Clearing things up. Being mentally ill does not make one criminally insane. The vast majority of mental illnesses would not rise the that level.

At 3/25/15 01:44 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote: not guilty by reason of insanity isnt a valid defense strategy anyway, it almost never works.

It works when it is properly applied. I'm not one for the defense trick of throwing everything under the sun out there regardless of its merit. I believe such tactics should result in an ethics investigation for harming the reputation of the profession. However, when there is a legitimate claim that the person is legally insane under one of the 4 tests (M'naghten, Durham, MPC, irresistable impulse) it succeeds a good amount of the time.

however, you are dealing with squares and rectangles.

True, but what I am addressing here is terminology moreso.

all criminals are insane, but not all insane people are criminals.

I don't like the use of the term insane, as insane is very specific and holds a legal meaning. In regular speech, insane is a high end form of mental illness. Mental illness covers every sort of mental malady ranging from full on violent schizophrenia to mild depressive behavior. Mentally ill is a better term as it fits the broader definition. Mentally ill covers things such as attachment syndrome, the numerous disorders that increase a person's propensity for violence (but are not overtly visible mental illnesses), as well as a bunch of other syndromes and NOS. Insane tends to only refer to the extremely visible and strongest of the socially abnormal mental illnesses.

All criminals are mentally ill, but not all mentally ill people are criminals.
All Insane people are mentally ill. but not all mentally ill people are insane.

i'm not sure what argument you're trying to make so forgive me if i strawmanned you.

No, I am just trying to clarify as using the wrong terminology dramatically changes the meaning of the conversation you and TNT were having.