If you could make any laws what laws would you make?

[Kuro DCupu]

I will end the world's hunger by banning starvation.

 

[Dalph]

@Tai_MT
Sorry bro but many of your statements in this thread are really dumb, you live in a fictional world apparently.
I never read so much nonsense all at once. If you're serious about all the things you state then I'm glad you don't have any sort of influence or political power because dayum, you are beyond scary.

 

[Tai_MT]

@Tai_MT
Sorry bro but many of your statements in this thread are really dumb, you live in a fictional world apparently.
I never read so much nonsense all at once. If you're serious about all the things you state, I'm glad you don't have any sort of influence or political power because dayum, you are beyond scary.

I prefer to address problems rather than symptoms. Most people just want the symptoms addressed and are afraid of actually solving problems.

"Healthcare is expensive! Make it affordable or mandatory to carry insurance so we can all get Healthcare!"

I'm sorry, but that's stupid.

I prefer, "why is Healthcare expensive? Let's enact policies that promote competition and falling prices rather than rising ones that are also monopolies."

My logic works that way in almost everything I do. I tackle the problem and not the symptoms.

 

[ScorchedGround]

I would make a law to ban all criminal behaviour.
So no one is able to commit any crime.



I wonder why no one thought of that yet.

Also, the amount of Hot takes in this thread are already astonishingly high.
The part that really got me was the "Yeah okay lets kill off some innocent people for the greater good."

Most of the suggestions made here are really egotistical in the sense that they would only mainly serve the people that proposed them and people in similar living conditions. And also with the mindset, that the "punishments of breaking said law" would never apply to themselves.
The problem with lawmaking is that someone always gets screwed in the long run. That is because it is very difficult to cover each and every single situation that could arise from any given law. That's of course why he have courts. But since these are led by humans, they are prone to human error.

For example; what if YOU happened to be one of the innocent people, that would get EXECUTED ON THE SPOT on false claims? I am sure that law does not sound so great anymore huh?

Another example, concerning the parenting law; Just because you raised your kid perfectly well does not mean they will never commit any crimes. The world is unpredictable, as is the human mind.
Every human has a "mental rock bottom". If your "perfect kid" reaches that point for whatever reason, they are more than capable of commiting crime in the heat of the moment. And then you'll be made responsible for another humans outburst.

 

[Tai_MT]

I would make a law to ban all criminal behaviour.
So no one is able to commit any crime.

View attachment 169481

I wonder why no one thought of that yet.

Also, the amount of Hot takes in this thread are already astonishingly high.
The part that really got me was the "Yeah okay lets kill off some innocent people for the greater good."

Most of the suggestions made here are really egotistical in the sense that they would only mainly serve the people that proposed them and people in similar living conditions. And also with the mindset, that the "punishments of breaking said law" would never apply to themselves.
The problem with lawmaking is that someone always gets screwed in the long run. That is because it is very difficult to cover each and every single situation that could arise from any given law. That's of course why he have courts. But since these are led by humans, they are prone to human error.

For example; what if YOU happened to be one of the innocent people, that would get EXECUTED ON THE SPOT on false claims? I am sure that law does not sound so great anymore huh?

Another example, concerning the parenting law; Just because you raised your kid perfectly well does not mean they will never commit any crimes. The world is unpredictable, as is the human mind.
Every human has a "mental rock bottom". If your "perfect kid" reaches that point for whatever reason, they are more than capable of commiting crime in the heat of the moment. And then you'll be made responsible for another humans outburst.

It's weird that you have the same mindset of those you are accusing.

"OMG, law is imperfect, so we should never do it!" This happens immediately after you admit that laws aren't perfect and will never cover every situation.

What is this weird mindset of, "It won't have a 100% efficacy rate, so it should never be implemented"? By that logic, murder shouldn't be illegal.

Also, I said that even if the law happened to kill me, I wouldn't mind. I'd rather it be in place and kill me while preventing hundreds of thousands of other deaths... rather than not be in place and only prevent a handful.

If you're really concerned about innocent people getting executed, then perhaps you should lay more responsibility on those citizens that convicted that person? Or the forensics team who found and came up with the evidence? Or the police. The problem isn't the execution of innocents. The problem is that innocents get convicted at all. Most often done by a jury of their own peers. Most often aided by lawyers and police and forensics.

Is it better to kill a few innocents for the sake of hundreds of thousands of innocents? Or, is it better to kill no innocents in the vain hope that it is worth more than the hundreds of thousands of innocents?

Also...

The parenting law is meant to reduce the amount of child criminals. What your kid does after they're 18 and they moved out is their business. They are adults. If they choose to be criminals when they're adults, that's their problem. Personal Responsibility.

This is why I have the hard cut-off. 18 AND still living with parents. At 19, they are personally responsible for themselves no matter who they live with. If they've moved out before 18 or at eighteen, they are responsible for themselves. Parents have a personal responsibility to their children to raise them to be well-balanced and functioning members of society. Or, at the very least, if they fail that, reporting their kids for the appropriate behaviors (police for law breaking, mental institutions for actually mentally broken people like psychopaths and sociopaths).

it's a law that forces parents to actually parent... or they, you know, get punished alongside the kid for not doing their job. It isn't the job of society to raise your child. It is your job as a parent to raise your child. If you are incapable of raising a well-balanced child, it is your responsibility to report that so as to limit the threat and impact to society.

Ideally, the law will impact child on child violence the most. School shootings, children assaulting each other, stabbing each other, etcetera. Ideally, it will also eliminate the parents who let their kids drink or do drugs while their brains are still forming (both of which often lead to mal-adjusted adults who have one or more psychological issues).

Will it eliminate it all? Probably not.

But, the goal is two-fold.
1. Get parents to actually take responsibility for raising their children and to do their jobs.
2. Eliminate a large amount of violent crimes by children under the age of 18, with special attention paid towards school shootings.

 

[ScorchedGround]

I can agree with the notion that the root problem is that people get convicted falsely despite being innocent. But humans are prone to making mistakes, that's why bad things will never stop happening.


It seems that you misunderstood my parenting example. I am talking about children under 18 years old that experience a traumatic situation (like being heavily bullied in school) and then in a fit of emotion decide to do something horrible. Even though that kid is otherwise raised as an angel, things like that can still happen.

Other than that, I despise laws that "tell" you how to live your life. Obviously there need to be rules, but I don't want them barging in my home to tell me "you only spent 3 hours with your kid today, even though the law is 4 hours minimum".

 

[Featherbrain]

Most of the suggestions made here are really egotistical in the sense that they would only mainly serve the people that proposed them and people in similar living conditions.

Dude, how dare you.

I can't think of anything that would benefit humankind in general and, frankly, the advancement of civilization itself, more than fining people who don't play my game.

 

[Tai_MT]

I can agree with the notion that the root problem is that people get convicted falsely despite being innocent. But humans are prone to making mistakes, that's why bad things will never stop happening.

Bad things will always happen. This is true. But, if we ignore potential solutions because it doesn't eliminate 100% of problems, then there's no value in doing anything differently than we did thousands of years ago.

It is not as if I'd be unwilling to repeal such a law if it turns out to be incorrect or not serving its intended purpose.

In general, I believe the overall issue is the court system and not necessarily the punishment system. But, the punishment law I want in place is meant to alleviate strain on an already overburdened court system, reduce recidivism of violent crimes (like murder), and to overall save lives.

It also wouldn't hurt that this saves taxpayer dollars for better usage, either.

It seems that you misunderstood my parenting example. I am talking about children under 18 years old that experience a traumatic situation (like being heavily bullied in school) and then in a fit of emotion decide to do something horrible. Even though that kid is otherwise raised as an angel, things like that can still happen.

Other than that, I despise laws that "tell" you how to live your life. Obviously there need to be rules, but I don't want them barging in my home to tell me "you only spent 3 hours with your kid today, even though the law is 4 hours minimum".

I think that this becomes a very rare issue. If parents are involved in the lives of their children and their children trust them, then the parents will know when this bullying is taking place. They will know when their children are reaching breaking points as well and are then in a perfect position to actually intervene and prevent the horrible event.

Likewise, if a child is in trouble at school for bullying (something current legal systems are trying to make illegal), the parents of those doing the bullying would be held responsible for that as well.

I'm not saying we tell people how to raise their children. I'm saying we have laws that hold parents responsible for the bad behavior of their children. Your child doesn't need to be "a perfect little angel". All they have to be is "not a criminal" while they're 18 or under and living with you. Which, you know, easy enough to raise your kids to be, provided you're involved in their life and include them in things. Kids learn most of their behaviors from their parents, after all. Most of it through mimicry.

 

[Featherbrain]

BTW, is there a way to block users in this forum so that you never see any of their hateful, bizzare and infantilistic drivel again?

ETA: Thank you, ignore button. Holy crap.

(TBH, I'm impressed there aren't more catastrophically hot takes than there are in a bait post inviting gamers to air their horrible politics.)

 

[mlogan]

.......is nobody going to mind the fact that this thread was started by a random bot pulling phrases from a database?

Actually, looking at post history, we don't believe this is a bot, but will be keeping an eye on the account.

@Featherbrain If you hover over someone's name, a little window will appear and there is an Ignore option.

Mod Reminder: Political discussions are not allowed and we will be monitoring this thread closely to make sure it doesn't go there. It's close.

 

[gstv87]

Actually, looking at post history, we don't believe this is a bot, but will be keeping an eye on the account.

I didn't, initially.
but look how the posting changes from their three or four latest post, to the last one.
that's why I say it's probably a hijacked account.... there's a change in structure, from sound to straight up nonsensical.

 

[mlogan]

I didn't, initially.
but look how the posting changes from their three or four latest post, to the last one.
that's why I say it's probably a hijacked account.... there's a change in structure, from sound to straight up nonsensical.

I'm going to message rather continuing arguing about it here.

 

[Punamaagi]

When it comes to my home country (Finland), I'm not sure if I would make any new laws, but I'd definitely change the way our law treats transgender people. Currently, anyone who wishes to officially change their gender needs to be unable to reproduce - i.e. get sterilized if they aren't sterile. It just... doesn't feel right in any way.

On a global level, I'd probably rule death penalties as illegal.

Overall, I think it's quite difficult to come with many if any good suggestions since countries work differently. Economy, geography etc. can complicate things a whole lot, and some laws might not be viable everywhere (e.g. laws that strongly favour the use of electric cars wouldn't be a good idea in a country where charging stations are scarce outside cities).

 

[Tai_MT]

Overall, I think it's quite difficult to come with many if any good suggestions since countries work differently. Economy, geography etc. can complicate things a whole lot, and some laws might not be viable everywhere (e.g. laws that strongly favour the use of electric cars wouldn't be a good idea in a country where charging stations are scarce outside cities).

Honestly, "morality" isn't really a thing because of this. The point of morals and laws is to create and maintain a society that furthers human progress, prosperity, and quality of life.

Laws that work in one country will probably not work in another as a result. The culture is too different as well as entrenched within the values of that society.

It's actually much easier to view laws as a "system" rather than some nebulous set of moral principles and code. You can codify and reason with them that way.

You look at society and make an unbiased assessment on how it works and why it works that way as well as the common behaviors and beliefs of that society.

Then, you say, "I want to accomplish X within this society, how do I do that?" You then create laws that operate based on the societal structure, values, and resources in order to attain a (mostly) concrete solution.

It's a complicated way of saying, "If X, then Y", but that's how it works. Few people who put together systems (creatives included) think much beyond "tomorrow" or "immediate satisfaction". Few of those people putting together systems even include the critical thought process involved in asking "what am I actually trying to accomplish?".

That critical thought process is actually very useful in game design.

"I want a crafting system in my game!" Why? What are you trying to accomplish with it? Rule of cool? Does it have some function other than your immediate gratification at having it in your game? How does it affect the way players interact with your game? Do your players even like it? Any plans to make it palatable to those who don't like it?

The list goes on and on.

When considering laws for any nation, one needs to consider that same argument that devs should be using for game design. "What am I trying to accomplish with this? How does it accomplish that? How does it interact with everything else?"

Without that thought process, we all might as well be yelling at clouds about our hopes and dreams and whining about unintended consequences of our instant-gratification decisions.

Laws need to synergize or create new synergies with any society they exist in, just like any feature in a game. If they do not, then they are just "rule of cool". They exist to instantly please someone and make them feel like they're good people for "doing the right thing" and then ignore unintended consequences.

 

[lianderson]

(steps out of freezer with clown hat and a bottle of jack)

Discussing how the world should be is the entire concept of politics! Close the thread! Good day humans.

 

[rainyday]

there are zero legal benefits to being married.

There are, in fact, quite a few.

The only legal benefits to being married are... um... taxes

This in, in fact...um...false. Despite what you think, next of kin cannot be designated with a will. Next of kin is important, just ask all the gay people who couldn't visit their dying lifelong partners in the hospital cause their homophobic relatives refused to allow them to visit. I mean, aside from next of kin, being married lets you sue in case of wrongful death of a spouse. Without marriage you'd have no legal path to recourse.

All other benefits of being married only apply to women. Why do you think a lot of men are refusing to get married any more?

They really don't, and believe it or not, marriage rates haven't meaningfully declined, people just get married later.

Parents are meant to be raising their children to be responsible adults. If they did their job, they don't have to destroy their privacy.

You know what's crazy? Just how many parents of school shooters or other child criminals who are textbook definition good parents and have no idea their kid is up to no good cause they don't, in fact, massively violate their kid's privacy. Your kid could tell you they're going to the library to study, and actually go do bad stuff or whatever. How're you supposed to know, except by violating their privacy? Your insistence on destroying parental-child privacy is just gonna breed a generation of abusive parents.

My parents gave me an extreme amount of leeway in my life and a lot of privacy. But, I never got in trouble with the law.

Cool. I guarantee your parents could do the same for 10 different kids, and not get the same results every time. It's almost like there's more going on in a kid's development that just their parents.

If parents are involved in the lives of their children and their children trust them, then the parents will know when this bullying is taking place.

Parents of heavily bullied kids wish it would work this way lol. Go watch like Mean Girls or something man, most kids don't tell their parents they're being bullied.

They will know when their children are reaching breaking points as well and are then in a perfect position to actually intervene and prevent the horrible event.

Again, they really won't. It's almost as if kids can lie or something like that. Crazy, I know.

It's a very good idea

Then why has no municipality, city, state, or country in the world ever implemented a system remotely like it?

Also, a lot of death row inmates file endless appeals in order to keep themselves from being executed.

They don't cause, in fact, that's not how appeals work.

File your appeals in a year, set your court dates, have your trials, and if you fail, executed anyway. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Damn bro lemme pre-emptively appeal my appeal so when my execution date is stayed it's automatically shunted off to the next level of court. Oh wait, why would I appeal that? And again, you just fundamentally misunderstand how our courts work. An appellate or supreme court could void the original sentence and order a retrial, which can take just as long as the first trial did and resets the entire appeals sytsem. Under your system, does that reset the year? And for a crime you've been sentenced to death to under state law, you can, in fact, appeal your way through the entire state court system, and then appeal to the federal courts at a point if you feel federal law mandates you don't be executed. Transferring circuts takes a long time. What's your plan for that? No more federalism in our court system?

It also wouldn't hurt to have some means of putting in an "express lane" in our court system for all other stuff.

Our current president is doing a wonderful job of showing why there's an express lane. Hint hint, it's for time limited cases.

Though, the less appeals you have going through the system, the less work there is going to be to do... so... you know, you might have an initial issue with the workload, but it would normalize once appeals started dropping and other laws went into effect.

Your system would do nothing to cut down on the number of appeals and basically all your other laws are unconstitutional which would, in fact, bog down the court system.

It also wouldn't hurt that this saves taxpayer dollars for better usage, either.

It doesn't save money cause executions are expensive, not just from legal costs but cause the actual process is expensive.

But, the punishment law I want in place is meant to alleviate strain on an already overburdened court system, reduce recidivism of violent crimes (like murder), and to overall save lives.

If the death penalty is such a good deterrent to crime then why do people still regularly commit crimes that could get them sentenced to death? It's almost like it does nothing to stop crime that jail time wouldn't and we should get rid of it cause it kills innocent people, who are often poor and racial minorities.

What is this weird mindset of, "It won't have a 100% efficacy rate, so it should never be implemented"? By that logic, murder shouldn't be illegal.

Actually by that logic we should get rid of the death penalty cause it's inhumane, inneffective, and a massive waste of money. But sure, legalize murder, I guess. Ohhhh wait, you already did that to illegal immigrants!

If you're really concerned about innocent people getting executed, then perhaps you should lay more responsibility on those citizens that convicted that person?

Hey this ties into your ****ed up views about rape accusations! A lot of times, especially in the southern United States(aka where most executions happen), black men are convicted of crimes they didn't commit by white DA's falsefying evidence to white juries. Obviously it's not nearly as common these days, but it still happens. Should the DA, or presiding attorney, and entire jury be executed? Or do you just hate women?

s it better to kill a few innocents for the sake of hundreds of thousands of innocents? Or, is it better to kill no innocents in the vain hope that it is worth more than the hundreds of thousands of innocents?

This is like the dumbest trolley problem, cause the death penalty doesn't deter crime. It's like "is it better to kill no one cause taking a life is a bad thing" or "should we kill lots of people, innocent or otherwise, cause the state should have that power".

No, it's not strange. It is the only crime that carries with it a punishment far greater than the courts carry. There mere ACCUSATION ruins the life of a man. He can be found completely innocent and the world still finds him guilty. Just the accusation is damning and damaging. It is also not as rare as society would lead a person to believe. An accusation with no proof can cause a man to be kicked out of college (happens all the time), lose his job (happens all the time), make him unhirable (happens all the time), unable to see his children (happens all the time), and drop his social status to just above pond scum (happens all the time). All of this happens before even going to court or being convicted. No other crime works like this in western society. None. It needs to be balanced in order to prevent abuse and to punish those who would abuse it with the same punishment that it causes the man.

The only people that wouldn't like this law are those that would like malicious women to continue to abuse it and ruin lives through that abuse.

Besides, women rarely get more than a slap on the wrist when it's found out they made the whole thing up. Seriously, go look it up. Even when undeniable proof is found, there are women who continue to believe the one making the accusation or worse... say the man deserved it anyway.

It's disgusting behavior and it needs punished.

Incel says what? But seriously, false rape accusations are incredibly rare. That's why all the dudes who care more about protecting rapists than the women and men who are actually raped bring up the same few. But I'll bite some more. What if, say, a woman was actually raped! And she knows exactly by whom, to boot. So she files a police report, gets a rape kit test done immediately, has witnesses to back up that both she and her rapist were where they were, and by all means has everything to prove her claims in court. Except...maybe the police don't run her kit like they do with so many thousands of rape kits every year. Or maybe they laugh her off cause this woman doesn't know what she's talking about. Or maybe the community calls her a liar cause her rapist is "a good boy" who wouldn't do something like that, so her witnesses are scared to testify cause of being ostracized. Suddenly her picture perfect case ain't so picture perfect, and you're gonna make her register as sex offender on top of that. If you can't see why this idea is bad, then well you really are a misogynist.

Poor people are poor because they've mismanaged their life.

Even Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher didn't believe this lmao.

The only times in life I've ever been poor is due to my mismanagement of my own life or funds.

Damn bro that's cool. Hey what if tomorrow you found out you had a very deadly form of cancer. One that requires thousands and thousands of dollars to treat, and it wipes out your ability to hold that job you're so proud of that you wrote like 4 paragraphs about. Suddenly, without savings, it would seem you're poor...through no fault of your own? Wait, that can't be possible!

Also, a flat tax would actually work, and would provide the government an actual budget so they aren't wasting money on stupid crap. There is currently a ton of waste in the system for no reason. I work for a state government, I can tell you that about 60% of our budget is wasted on nonsense and fraud rather than actually doing with it what is meant to be done with it.

Flat taxes require massive property taxes to cover for it. Look at Colorado, or Oregon, or Wyoming, or any state with a flat income tax or no income tax. And as for an "actual budget", the wonderful thing about fiat currency is you can borrow money to spend it on improving your economic infrastructure. And, crazily enough, it's something America and West Europe have been doing for decades and it, believe it or not, works!

Also, based on that MT in your name, I'm pretty sure we work for the same exact state government, and uh, our budgest is 60% nonsense lol.

My guess is... it's Florida. It's more of a surprise if that state does something correctly.

Florida has the 15th largest economy in the world, so they're clearly doing something right.

What probably happened (because I work for state government, particularly government assistance programs, and it's what would happen here) is that they found an exceptionally high number of people using the drugs and just chose to sweep it under the rug.

I work for the exact same state government you do, and not only would that not happen here, it didn't happen in Florida. What they did is reimburse anyone who tested negative for illicit substances, which is what you'd want to do with this system. Turns out, again, most poor people are either not on drugs or smart enough to get around a drug test, h

What stops them from doing it now? It won't even exacerbate the problem either. Nor does it make it legal in anyway.

You legalizing crime against illegal immigrants. By making it so crimes against illegal immigrants are not investigated, and their perpetrators not charged, you are, literally, incentivizing human trafficking and legalizing it's most common use in the US(sex work, which should be decriminalized anyways). And you open up so many cans of worms with this stupid idea. Say you find a body in a ditch with stab wounds and no identification! Well, do we investigate the murder? Cause if it's an illegal immigrant, under your galaxy brained system, it would be a complete waste of money to investigate. What would end up happening is bodies that can't be identified would not be investigated, excaberating an already existing problem. And because of racial stereotypes, you would probably kill any investigations into the homicides of Latino people.

How is it an invasion of privacy?

I don't know man, how is the government mandating you hand over your DNA for them to store not an invasion of privacy.

Anyone can get anyone's DNA at any time if they want to.

Gibbe DNA. Huh? It didn't work...

There are even services now where you can pay to find out someone's lineage using that DNA.

Yes, there are services where I can pay to find out MY lineage using MY DNA. Little different from anyone being able to access my DNA.

You just keep the servers off the public internet to prevent hackers as another safeguard.

That's not how the internet works, and defeats the entire purpose of a DNA database. The FBI's DNA database is online so that, you know, forensics departements around the country can actually crosscheck DNA they have with it.

These are the people who already have office to begin with. What's the difference other than we're not paying them tax dollars to make them even wealthier?

You know, for someone who works in a state where half our legislators and one of our senators are like actual farmers, and makes such a big deal about how you work for this state government, you seem to be pretty unaware about who actually runs it(let's just ignore the tech billionare governor-elect convicted of assault I'm sure you voted for).

It's funny that you keep making these assertions about how I'm wrong while ignoring the fact that these things are going on anyway.

It's funny cause that's not what's happening lol.

I want health insurance to work the same as car insurance.

Mandated by the government? Me too! Thanks Obama!

 

[Tai_MT]

There are, in fact, quite a few.

You haven't really named any. Or should I just assume you're right because you say so?

This in, in fact...um...false. Despite what you think, next of kin cannot be designated with a will. Next of kin is important, just ask all the gay people who couldn't visit their dying lifelong partners in the hospital cause their homophobic relatives refused to allow them to visit. I mean, aside from next of kin, being married lets you sue in case of wrongful death of a spouse. Without marriage you'd have no legal path to recourse.

"Next of Kin" is a designated legal document that doesn't have to be a spouse. It can be a blood relative. If you want to designate your significant other as "Next of Kin", then sure, get married just for that one privalage that only really applies to people in high risk jobs. Like... I don't know... the military?

Also, why aren't they just designating their spouse as "power of attorney" instead? You can literally assign anyone you want power of attorney over you, which means you could get in to visit your gay spouse.

"Next of Kin" is really only designated in case of death. Namely, "notifying your next of kin". Which, you know, usually means closest living relative. But, realistically, you could designate anyone. It's not like they actually check to see if you're "blood related" or "legally related" on those documents anyway.

They really don't, and believe it or not, marriage rates haven't meaningfully declined, people just get married later.

Cursory search for "Marriage Rates" turns up this as the first result in Yahoo.:

https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2020-04-29/us-marriage-rate-drops-to-record-low

First result in a cursory search of "Marriage Rates" in google turns up this:

U.S. Marriage Rates Hit New Recorded Low - U.S. Marriage Rates Hit New Recorded Low - United States Joint Economic Committee

.

I mean... this is the internet. It's not really that difficult to determine whether something is true or not. Especially when you use an unbiased search phrase.

Anyway, thanks for playing on that one.

You know what's crazy? Just how many parents of school shooters or other child criminals who are textbook definition good parents and have no idea their kid is up to no good cause they don't, in fact, massively violate their kid's privacy. Your kid could tell you they're going to the library to study, and actually go do bad stuff or whatever. How're you supposed to know, except by violating their privacy? Your insistence on destroying parental-child privacy is just gonna breed a generation of abusive parents.

Actually, what's crazy is that many of these parents that "didn't know what was going on" never once stepped into the bedrooms of their children and noticed the crazy artwork on the walls, the stockpiles of weapons and/or explosives, the "out in the open" detailed plans...

Most of these events happen because the parents actually aren't involved in their childs' life at all. A child with caring parents (aside from true psychopaths... which you can pretty much see coming based solely on the way they look at people and the world... you can tell they're empty people and the emotions on their face are fake... provided you're paying attention, anyway, and you haven't lost your self-preservation instinct) tends to confide in their parents or go to their parents to seek comfort in trying times. Most of the "shooters" in the last decade are so have come from homes where the parents spent very little, if any, time with their children. Or, they were parents the child felt they couldn't trust with anything. Most shooters feel "isolated" and "alone" in their households as well as at school or work.

Human psychology is very easy to predict and map with very few actual outliers. People are easily predictable, despite how many think they are unpredictable. Likewise, there are only so many personalities to go around, so once you've seen one personality, it's likely you've seen it at least 100 times before.

Are there outliers? Sure. But, outliers don't disprove the rule. They are simply the exceptions.

Cool. I guarantee your parents could do the same for 10 different kids, and not get the same results every time. It's almost like there's more going on in a kid's development that just their parents.

Behavior is a mixture of learned responses, environmental pressures, and biological drives. If you control two of those factors, you can get fairly accurate and repeatable results. Much as we like to think we are above animals... we are not. We are simply animals that are sometimes self-aware instead of reactionary. To that end, it is as easy to control the development of children as it is to control the development of most domesticated animals.

My parents spent time controlling the learned responses (by teaching me how to act and behave) and as much of the "environmental pressures" as they could. Environmental Pressures they could not control, they used to teach more learned responses to me.

Parents of heavily bullied kids wish it would work this way lol. Go watch like Mean Girls or something man, most kids don't tell their parents they're being bullied.

Oh yes, TV works exactly like reality. Let's take life advice from TV and assume the world works exactly as it is portrayed on TV!

Yeah, no. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

I was bullied in High School, I know how Bullying works. I was bullied worse than the current crop of children who only put with "cyber bullying", which is essentially just their classroom calling them names or posting unflattering pictures of them online for the world to see. Childs' play, really.

When I was physically bullied, I was taught to defend myself and told not to hit unless they struck first.
When I was psychologically bullied, I was taught "sticks and stones will break your bones" and how to ignore people who were lesser than me (people who bully you are less than people as they only do it because they are sad, insecure, and pathetic people).
When I was emotionally bullied, I had to learn for myself, "nobody can make you feel any way you don't want to feel. If you don't want to feel sad, then don't feel sad. Why give someone else that kind of power over you?".

Then, when I became an adult, I was so thankful for being bullied in school because adults do it far more often and far worse and they have the skills to get away with it.

Not everyone can handle being bullied, but children who trust their parents confide in them about being bullied (which is what I did). Parents doing their job properly offer support and alternatives to their children rather than solving the problem for them.

Again, they really won't. It's almost as if kids can lie or something like that. Crazy, I know.

Kids only lie if the parents have given them reasons to do so. My parents never gave me a reason to lie to them, so I rarely, if ever, did. When I did, it was more to make them feel good rather than get myself out of trouble. I was taught that lying resulted in punishment 100% of the time while being honest resulted in a conversation about whether or not I was in the right or wrong, and if I was in the wrong, what sort of punishment I deserved.

It wouldn't work on every child, sure, but if you make kids feel safe to tell you the truth, they will do it. Kids are basically less intelligent adults. Adults lie to you for the same reasons children do. They don't trust you. They don't want to hurt your feelings. They don't want you to be disappointed in them. They don't want to get in trouble for doing things they know are wrong.

Then why has no municipality, city, state, or country in the world ever implemented a system remotely like it?

Ah, yes, the "argument from authority". The people you view as in charge have never done it, therefore, bad idea! Let's not ever entertain the notion that they don't implement it because they've never thought of it before. Or, any number of 1,000 other self-serving reasons to not implement it.

Yes, it has to be because the authority figures thought it up, knew it was a bad idea, so they didn't implement it.

"Argument from authority" logic is as bad as "Argument from popularity" logic. "Government hasn't done it, so it must be bad" alongside "It's popular, so it must be good!".

They don't cause, in fact, that's not how appeals work.

Yeah, pretty sure it is.

How Courts Work

www.americanbar.org

While an appeal is being made, the person raising the appeal cannot be executed because of the possibility of being overturned. You can, actually, use appeals to avoid the death sentence for as long as possible. Because court systems are overworked, the dates of these appeals are often years away. That is, they file the appeal, have to wait to be heard, have to wait for a decision, and then they might get executed when no evidence of any kind can be found for a decision to be overturned. The more you put into the appeal that contests the validity of the court decision the more has to be "proven to be valid court processes and legal upholding of rights". This can take years and years and years for each individual aspect to be proven, disproven, or struck down entirely.

Appeals tie up the court system. The result of the court system being tied up means prisoners get a "stay of execution" so long as they are tied up.

I want criminals to have 1 year to file their appeals. If they don't file within a year, executed on schedule. Once they have filed their initial appeal, that's all they get. Win or lose. Lose? Executed in the next 30 days or whatever. Win? They go free.

I don't want our court system tied up with frivolous appeals just for the sake of criminals on Death Row trying to live longer.

Damn bro lemme pre-emptively appeal my appeal so when my execution date is stayed it's automatically shunted off to the next level of court. Oh wait, why would I appeal that? And again, you just fundamentally misunderstand how our courts work. An appellate or supreme court could void the original sentence and order a retrial, which can take just as long as the first trial did and resets the entire appeals sytsem. Under your system, does that reset the year? And for a crime you've been sentenced to death to under state law, you can, in fact, appeal your way through the entire state court system, and then appeal to the federal courts at a point if you feel federal law mandates you don't be executed. Transferring circuts takes a long time. What's your plan for that? No more federalism in our court system?

My plan for it is in what you're actually appealing. If you're appealing something that only a higher court could rule on, then your appeal goes straight to them. If you're appealing something that any court system could handle and does handle frequently... well, it doesn't move up anywhere. It goes to whomever it should go to, is heard, arguments made, then done deal. There is no need to keep appealing to higher and higher and higher courts in an effort to get something overturned. Especially when no new evidence or witnesses can be presented. Appeals are essentially just arguing the validity of the court proceedings while you were in court as well as whether any of your rights were violated in some way. Or, you know, you had some kind of biased trial against you or something. Honestly, any other court except the one you were tried in would be enough to review most appeals and have the final say without endless appeals until you run out of higher courts.

The idea is we stop tying up the court system with stupid nonsense and stop tying up valuable taxpayer money housing people who have murdered other people.

Our current president is doing a wonderful job of showing why there's an express lane. Hint hint, it's for time limited cases.

I'd add another express lane called, "caught red-handed". That is, if the police roll up on you and you're actually stabbing someone... yeah, no court. Straight to jail, sentence carried out. Maybe you can appeal based on "Self Defense", at which point the trial becomes about whether or not it was self-defense, but I don't think there'd be many of those that are "serious" and could probably be thrown out based on, "wasting the courts time".

Court should be used argue innocence or guilt. It shouldn't be used when there's no shadow of a doubt in what you did. FBI raided your house and found you had 15 girls captive in your basement? Why do we need a court or a trial for that?

Your system would do nothing to cut down on the number of appeals and basically all your other laws are unconstitutional which would, in fact, bog down the court system.

It actually would. I already elaborated on that above. You've yet to elaborate on how they wouldn't.

Also, please elaborate which laws are unconstitutional and in what way. This is the internet, it's easy to claim anything and make wild assertions. I tend to prefer someone at least use logic in their assertions and walk me through their thought process.

I don't tend to accept, "I'm right because... I'M RIGHT!" as an argument.

It doesn't save money cause executions are expensive, not just from legal costs but cause the actual process is expensive.

Shotguns and shells are pretty cheap. So are some basic medications that can be used. Asphyxiation is fairly cheap. You could probably execute someone with the Sunday New York times if you wanted. Price of a newspaper. I'd actually like to see your numbers on the legal costs of an execution and why it costs so much money.

I mean, I don't doubt that government, courts, and lawyers massively inflate prices that would otherwise be dirt cheap to line their pockets or justify their existence...

But, I'd still kind of like to see the numbers. I bet we could make it a lot cheaper without issue.

If the death penalty is such a good deterrent to crime then why do people still regularly commit crimes that could get them sentenced to death? It's almost like it does nothing to stop crime that jail time wouldn't and we should get rid of it cause it kills innocent people, who are often poor and racial minorities.

I never said the Death Penalty is a deterrent to crime. Nor did I ever insinuate it. Stop constructing straw men to knock down. Especially when they're really stupid and easily proven wrong strawmen.

It's not about deterring anyone. It's about executing criminals to save on taxpayer funds, to free up court systems, and prevent any further deaths from escaped criminals who have already killed before. Yes, that includes these criminals killing other inmates of the prison.

I'm not looking to deter stupid/psychologically unhinged people from breaking the law. I'm out to punish them when they do and prevent them from ever doing it again.

Though, let's be honest here. It's not like anyone has actually been executed in a while. Most states have done away with the Death Penalty. So, it's not like there even IS a deterrent of any kind in place for murder to begin with.

I'd guess a Death Penalty that was carried out frequently would likely prevent a lot of the more "casual murders" in society. Spouses killing each other rather than using divorce, etcetera. It wouldn't stop complete headcases, of course. Or, people who thought they could get away with it. But, whatcha gonna do?

If we did away with every law that wasn't a 100% deterrent to the crime, we'd have no laws.

Besides, punishment for a crime is for the victims and not for the perpetrators. It's basically just a show to give the victims closure. To make them feel like "justice was served" and the person who wrecked their life "got what they deserved".

Actually by that logic we should get rid of the death penalty cause it's inhumane, inneffective, and a massive waste of money. But sure, legalize murder, I guess. Ohhhh wait, you already did that to illegal immigrants!

Again, bullets are kind of cheap... and 100% effective unless you're a crap shot. So... not sure what you're arguing here.

"No protection under American laws" translates to "legalized murder of illegal immigrants"? I mean, sure, some people will take advantage, but those people are the same people who would murder someone regardless. A regular person off the street isn't going to murder someone because of the moral implication involved (and guilt associated with the act).

But, I mean, no harm in ignoring reality in order to try to make a point.

I don't really condone murder of any kind. But, it would be a highly effective tactic and law that would get the borders under control in less than a year.

If you didn't mind dragging it out for 10 years or more, I could think of more humane ways of doing it... but those ways would increase the chances of politicians and lobbyists getting involved to overturn it or outright ignore it (like we have now with Sanctuary Cities and ICE being basically neutered).

I prefer to solve the problem as quickly as possible in order to minimize the meddling. I like "guaranteed" over "probably won't ever work".

I'm not going to say my solution is "morally right" in any way, because it isn't. I don't pretend to be a good person and I lack the desire to be truly terrible. I'm a pragmatist. Problem is X, most expedient solution is Y with options W, V, and Z to minimize backlash and obtain support. If I must sacrifice myself to achieve that solution, then that is a price worth paying.

Hey this ties into your ****ed up views about rape accusations! A lot of times, especially in the southern United States(aka where most executions happen), black men are convicted of crimes they didn't commit by white DA's falsefying evidence to white juries. Obviously it's not nearly as common these days, but it still happens. Should the DA, or presiding attorney, and entire jury be executed? Or do you just hate women?

I'd appreciate if you cite sources here instead of just saying something in such a way that I have no choice but to assume it's a strawman argument. If you have actual examples of this happening, then I'd like to know about it because it's wrong and reprehensible. But, if it's just a, "someone told me this happens so I believe it and now I'll spout it as fact" type argument... then I'm not interested. It will hold no more water than a paper cup without a bottom. I would even accept anecdotal evidence in such an instance (where you knew the person personally, or something similar where it was part of your actual experience as a human being rather than just hearsay from someone else).

I've also been nothing but respectful to you, and you're sitting here making accusations about my character rather than trying to refute my ideas (or even attempt to prove them wrong).

I do not appreciate you implying that I am a racist or that I hate women just because we do not agree. This is childish behavior akin to a 7 year old on the playground calling another names because they can't agree which teacher is better.

If you can't refrain from insults and slander, then I have no use in talking to you. Insults and slander are the last bastion of the intellectually bankrupt. The place where those who can't defend their arguments or points of view seek refuge when they can't win a debate any other way.

This is like the dumbest trolley problem, cause the death penalty doesn't deter crime. It's like "is it better to kill no one cause taking a life is a bad thing" or "should we kill lots of people, innocent or otherwise, cause the state should have that power".

It's nice that you like to spend so much time in the fields knocking over strawmen. As well as putting words into my mouth. There's no point in even justifying these assertions with a response since they were 100% made up by you.

Incel says what?

Is there a reason you're insulting me other than you can't prove me wrong? Have I called you names? Insulted you? If so, I'd like to know how and where.

I'm entitled to my opinions just like everyone else. You may not agree with them, but that's okay. If you want to debate the validity and logical strength of those opinions, I am more than happy to engage in that with you. I have no problem admitting to people when I am wrong and have been proven wrong.

My opinions do not necessarily make me a bad person. Nor do they give you the right to treat me as less than human.

Personality isn't what actions you take. Personality is WHY you take those actions. Who you are as a person isn't WHAT you think. It is WHY you think it.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of what you said. Near as I can tell, you were just devolving into insults, insinuation, innuendo, and constructing straw men arguments while putting words in my mouth.

In short, nothing worth even reading.

You should keep it in mind that it is against the forum rules to insult people like you've done here. If you are heated, you do not have to respond to me. You do not have to participate in the conversation. You can leave and never talk to me again. You can hit "ignore" if you so desire so you don't have to even read it. There are 100 ways to avoid breaking the rules on these forums.

My advice is simply to do one of those things.

The problem that you're going to have in dealing with me is going to be two-fold.

The first is that I don't really argue emotions. I don't get bogged down by them. I don't engage with others who have clearly over-indulged in theirs. Sometimes, I get heated and say things I shouldn't. I often apologize for this. But, this action is rare.

The second is that you're making the assumption I don't care about people. The contrary is, in fact, true. I care a lot more about people than I let on. Again, I believe in making the most people happy possible. I don't believe in ending life if it can be avoided. I am not above making "the hard decision" for the betterment of all mankind, even if that decision is a direct harmful detriment to me or those I personally love. I believe in teaching everyone to be better than they are as well as in refining my own ideas and opinions and discarding those which are proven incorrect or incomplete.

I want to end as much suffering as possible. I want to provide as much support as I can.

Put simply, the most basic understanding of who I am as a person is summed up with a simple moral quandary.

"If you could cure every known disease in the world, for all time, would you do it? Would you do it even if you had to kill a 5 year old child with your own hands?" Yes, I would. Yes, even if it was my own child. In a heartbeat. Without hesitation. I would accept any and all responsibility for this action even if I never received praise for it. Even if I were to be condemned a monster for all eternity for this action, I would still do it. Even if I were executed for this action, I would do it. Even if my entire family were executed for this action, I would do it.

That's who I am. That is why I believe the things I do. That is why I have posted the laws I'd like to enact.

I am not a caricature of the people you think oppose you. I do not fall into the stereotype of your "hated enemy". You can not and will not be able to reduce me down to a generalization because I think for myself rather than let others think for me. I hold opinions and values from nearly every walk of life. I hold disdain and contempt for those who do malicious things (that is, hurt others intentionally, for any reason). I do not think of myself as especially smart, only especially observant. I do not think my solutions are the "be all, end all" to any problem. I am not unwilling to bend.

I argue facts and logic and nothing more.

 

[Lornsteyn]

I would like to introduce a >Stand your ground law< in my country.
Also more protection for animals, if someone hurts (or worse) a dog, cat, bird...just throw the ***** in jail and bury the key.
There are not really other laws I could think of, I actually would remove some silly laws we have here.

 

[magnaangemon01]

Any elected position can only be held for 2 terms. NO exceptions!

 

[Darth Equus]

I would make a law giving everyone a free taco on Tuesday. Can be declined by the recipient for whatever reason, but yeah. Everyone is entitled to a free taco on Tuesdays.