Why is a hobby as neat as fermentation (Kraut! Pickles! Miso! Yogurt! Beer!) so dominated by asshole Woobots that believe Sauerkraut fights HIV and other such bullshit?
Mark Frauenfelder, you too are guilty of this affront to science.
That IGN review is much more solid than I was expecting.
Are you referencing to the quality of the writing? Because I thought that it was a horrible review. It started like there were a paragraph or two missing and it basically said "the battle mechanic is so awesome that I won't even write about it". Without watching the trailer provided one can't even tell what kind of game it is.
As for my opinions towards the game. It seems somewhat interesting, but I already have a mile long list of srpgs I wanna play, so that will go to the end of the queue.
That IGN review is much more solid than I was expecting.
Are you referencing to the quality of the writing? Because I thought that it was a horrible review. It started like there were a paragraph or two missing and it basically said "the battle mechanic is so awesome that I won't even write about it". Without watching the trailer provided one can't even tell what kind of game it is.
He linked to page two of the article. You have to read all the words on the page, or at least the last digit of the link!
1. That's the part where they serve time in prison. 2. Felons aren't just murderers and robbers. 3 DUIs is a felony (in MA, though this varies from state to state). Vandalism is a felony. Drug possession is a felony. These aren't crimes where someone is "depriving others of their rights," these are just simple mistakes. Should they be crimes? Yes (well, maybe not possession, but that's another argument) but they shouldn't permanently remove one's right to voice their opinion in the most meaningful way one can.
tl;dr: I'm bored on Bunker Hill Day (which I don't have school for, for some reason) and haven't been in a flamewar in a while.
EDIT: Shit, double ninja'd. @WuB, if it isn't obvious.
1) Arguably so, but a murder denies an individual his or her voting rights forever. 2) Strawman. The core of this argument is "Should criminals be denied voting rights?" The definition of felonies is an entirely different argument. Work with what we have, not with what we should have.
That IGN review is much more solid than I was expecting.
Are you referencing to the quality of the writing? Because I thought that it was a horrible review. It started like there were a paragraph or two missing and it basically said "the battle mechanic is so awesome that I won't even write about it". Without watching the trailer provided one can't even tell what kind of game it is.
He linked to page two of the article. You have to read all the words on the page, or at least the last digit of the link!
I'm in the "split the difference" camp when it comes to allowing criminals to vote (of course, I consider the difference to be between "let them vote in prison" and "never let them vote again"). Basically, while you're in prison, perhaps also on parole or other temporary restrictions related to your case, you can't vote. This seems reasonable as prison itself is a restriction of one's liberty as a penalty for breaking the law. Once you've completed your sentence, including parole, etc., you get your right to vote back as you've already paid your debt to society and, in theory, should have been reformed/rehabilitated. Of course, those who get life in prison without possibility of parole never get the right to vote, but since you have to have committed extremely heinous or numerous crimes in order to get in that situation, it's probably justified.
This also makes the assumption that people in prison were justly convicted of crimes. I'm not taking into account the whole race/class/etc. issues that influence why people go to prison vs. stay out of prison. That's a different argument entirely.
Another different argument is whether our prison system actually does reform/rehabilitate criminals. While some certainly do seem to get rehabilitated, I find it's less a case of the prison system itself doing so and more a case of the individual, for one reason or another, wishing to seriously do something to clean up his/her act. My gut is that all the prison system does for the vast majority of criminals is teach them how to be better criminals once they get out. It also certainly doesn't help that a felony conviction also is a black mark against someone that may make it difficult, if not impossible, to later find work and thereby forcing them back into crime just to survive.
My gut is that all the prison system does for the vast majority of criminals is teach them how to be better criminals once they get out. It also certainly doesn't help that a felony conviction also is a black mark against someone that may make it difficult, if not impossible, to later find work and thereby forcing them back into crime just to survive.
Oh, that feeling's absolutely right - prisons don't exist to reduce the amount of crime, they exist for (a) cheap labor and (b) to satisfy Americans' puritanical obsession with punishment.
My gut is that all the prison system does for the vast majority of criminals is teach them how to be better criminals once they get out. It also certainly doesn't help that a felony conviction also is a black mark against someone that may make it difficult, if not impossible, to later find work and thereby forcing them back into crime just to survive.
Oh, that feeling's absolutely right - prisons don't exist to reduce the amount of crime, they exist for (a) cheap labor and (b) to satisfy Americans' puritanical obsession with punishment.
The thing is, even back in the early 1800's or so, they knew that pure punishment doesn't do squat to rehabilitate prisoners. Sure, some punishment is unfortunately necessary, but at the same time you also need to provide the right support structure to keep the criminals from becoming repeat offenders. Back then, it was Bible study and similar religious-based support as they didn't know any better, but nowadays it should be some kind of social work/psych counseling combined with job skills training and post-incarceration job placement assistance as appropriate (i.e., a skilled laborer who committed a crime probably won't need more training, but probably would need placement assistance). Hell, you could combine the job skills training with the cheap labor. Many vocational/technical schools often allow you to submit your car, for example, to them to be repaired at a discount in exchange for agreeing to let the students practice their training on your car. Something like that could work for criminals who honestly do want to be reformed.
1) Arguably so, but a murder denies an individual his or her voting rights forever. 2) Strawman. The core of this argument is "Should criminals be denied voting rights?" The definition of felonies is an entirely different argument. Work with what we have, not with what we should have.
1) Is murder not traditionally a crime for which one is given a life sentence or capitol punishment? Not a rhetorical question. This was my perception, but I could be totally wrong. 2) It's not a strawman. If I either can give voting rights to all felons or none, I choose all for the reasons I expressed. I also should clarify that I meant what Lou said. I am not suggesting that we install polls in prisons, though that would be rather provocative imagery which I encourage someone to use in a political cartoon.
Okay, that's fair. I though you meant that people in prison should be polled.
Generally, I don't believe in the discrimination against felons that we have. Systemic oppression makes it impossible for people who fucked up due to circumstance to ever really be successful even if they have been rehabilitated. If a young kid does a bid for selling crack in the projects since that's the only way to keep his family fed and then completes high school with high marks by correspondence in prison, that kid still almost certainly has no chance of getting into a college with a good name.
1) Is murder not traditionally a crime for which one is given a life sentence or capitol punishment? Not a rhetorical question. This was my perception, but I could be totally wrong.
Depends on the "degree" of murder. Cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder will typically get you life/capital punishment. However, "heat of the moment" murder (such as you walk in on your spouse cheating on you and kill the person he/she's having the affair with at that moment) often is more lenient.
With the ever-increasing obsolescence of jobs due to computers and other forms of technology, how should we deal with the pool of unemployed, unskilled labor? This is already a major problem in the United States, and getting worse. Should we have massive education grants? WPA programs?
Comments
Mark Frauenfelder, you too are guilty of this affront to science.
I'm going to make some sauerkraut tonight, I think. There's a stoneware crock in the basement that I can steam and use.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/16/pokemon-conquest-review?page=2
As for my opinions towards the game. It seems somewhat interesting, but I already have a mile long list of srpgs I wanna play, so that will go to the end of the queue.
2. Felons aren't just murderers and robbers. 3 DUIs is a felony (in MA, though this varies from state to state). Vandalism is a felony. Drug possession is a felony. These aren't crimes where someone is "depriving others of their rights," these are just simple mistakes. Should they be crimes? Yes (well, maybe not possession, but that's another argument) but they shouldn't permanently remove one's right to voice their opinion in the most meaningful way one can.
tl;dr: I'm bored on Bunker Hill Day (which I don't have school for, for some reason) and haven't been in a flamewar in a while.
EDIT: Shit, double ninja'd. @WuB, if it isn't obvious.
2) Strawman. The core of this argument is "Should criminals be denied voting rights?" The definition of felonies is an entirely different argument. Work with what we have, not with what we should have.
This also makes the assumption that people in prison were justly convicted of crimes. I'm not taking into account the whole race/class/etc. issues that influence why people go to prison vs. stay out of prison. That's a different argument entirely.
Another different argument is whether our prison system actually does reform/rehabilitate criminals. While some certainly do seem to get rehabilitated, I find it's less a case of the prison system itself doing so and more a case of the individual, for one reason or another, wishing to seriously do something to clean up his/her act. My gut is that all the prison system does for the vast majority of criminals is teach them how to be better criminals once they get out. It also certainly doesn't help that a felony conviction also is a black mark against someone that may make it difficult, if not impossible, to later find work and thereby forcing them back into crime just to survive.
2) It's not a strawman. If I either can give voting rights to all felons or none, I choose all for the reasons I expressed. I also should clarify that I meant what Lou said. I am not suggesting that we install polls in prisons, though that would be rather provocative imagery which I encourage someone to use in a political cartoon.
Generally, I don't believe in the discrimination against felons that we have. Systemic oppression makes it impossible for people who fucked up due to circumstance to ever really be successful even if they have been rehabilitated. If a young kid does a bid for selling crack in the projects since that's the only way to keep his family fed and then completes high school with high marks by correspondence in prison, that kid still almost certainly has no chance of getting into a college with a good name.