Argatoga said:
I have responded to your car analogy, please read my updated thesis.
I did read this and poor
Spectre concluded
your interpretation to be my own analogy (based on his response, which if you hadn't misled him he wouldn't have done). Which it isn't. I never made any mention of driving under the influence because such a thing was not included nor implied in my car analogy, you added that detail.
Argatoga said:
Also please respond to my questions in my quoted post.
I already have throughout this thread, but to save you and anyone else searching this thread, I shall do so again.
Argatoga said:
You used the argument that the purpose of an item should have an effect on the punishment even if it is used as a weapon. When did you say this point was not valid? I am not able to find the post, would you link to it? Below is when you last used this argument, posted after I wrote my counter argument.
Two things, first thing is this quote of myself from the post that you linked:-
YicklePigeon said:
You say to me "stop clinging to that straw" but you're the one using an inappropriate example...still! It seems to me though, that all you can think about is the possibility "if it hit someone on the head they'd be dead!" and its this narrow-minded thinking that I have a problem with because there are far too many variables to consider and few of the outcumes involve death. At least Okaen went to the trouble of attempting to figure it out scientifically.
So, until you can see the fatal flaw in your gun example (as I have already pointed out in my previous post) and acknowledge it, we'll never be able to see eye-to-eye on this.
Okay, I'm reading my quote and I say nothing about whatever object that has been chosen being an influencing factor in punishment.
What it
is about, was you using an item in your analogy - a gun (and also, as I recall, discharging it) - which its fundamental purpose is to injure/maim/kill as opposed to a fire extinguisher, which isn't. Nomix and Spectre have both argued about this in recent posts and, as Nomix states, you can't use a gun to slice a banana.
The second thing is that your counter argument, as it was then, is now irrelevant. I say that only because your argument has now changed to this:-
Argatoga said:
I have reconsidered my argument. There should be a regard to intention on the part of the perpetrator as well, as death by ignorance does not warrant the same (if any in some cases) punishment. One with intent to kill or maim is a danger to society and must be dealt with appropriately. Putting oneself in a state that has the possibility should be punished, but to a lesser degree if it does not have the purpose or guaranteed likelihood of causing death.
This has been my thinking since day one. Not near as makes no difference, the exact thinking. The only problem becomes when the case is compared to those who actually have caused physical harm, in fact, gone out of their way to do so and not just leave it at one thrown object (regardless of what that object might be) but to make a real mess of their victim. And then, as a result, get less of a sentence.
Two ways of looking at that, either the student should have gotten less or those who got a lot less for a lot worse should have gotten a lot more. Indeed only in one of the examples did one person get twice as much (but, if both the student and the teenage girl gang leader serve their full sentence, they'll both come out when they're 21) but everyone else gets either near as makes no difference or a lot less (right down to community service and suspended sentences). Whichever one you choose is up to you, just keep in mind that neither of us has to agree with one another on that but neither of us can assert their own choice is right and the other's choice isn't.
You also say that incarceration is just for the punishment of the perpetrator and/or protection to the public from the perpetrator. You forget that incarceration can also be employed to give an
example to the rest.
But before I go further, again I state that you should read my analogy. Originally it was:-
Someone driving a car from A to B could potentially[/b] injure/maim/kill someone but they get to point B without having done so. Should we put them in jail anyway for that possibility?
The reason, in my mind, that the student was put in jail really wasn't for the possibility of any dire eventuality happening but to make an example so that the Police, justice system and the Government are saying "if you ever so much as pick up throw a piece of paper in anger towards a crowd during a protest, we'll put you in jail!". An exaggeration perhaps, but only to illustrate the point I've made.
However, Interceptor introduced the concept of that hypothetical driver going from A-B honking the horn to get everyone out of their way - I agreed to that as it made the analogy far more comparable than it was previously. It was the flagrant disregard aspect that was (and still is) important, and that the result was the same in that nobody was so much as scratched let alone anything else as a result.
Thing is then is that Mr Policeman comes along and, assuming like the student the driver had no previous, would charge that driver for reckles driving and eventually that driver would go up against a magistrate. That driver, being guilty in this example as the student is, would get a few points on his licence, a fine and maybe community service.
Only if it was a repeated offence, like you recognise as well Arga, would the driver would possibly face jail sentence. The student, however, got jail immediately and for a timeframe that was a lot more than what others were getting for actually causing bodily harm (including brain damage!) which is why I found it so unpalatable. I forget now which other user it was, but the suggestion was a year imprisonment and a fine which is more in keeping with what actually happened rather than what might have happened.
Spectre doesn't understand why the permanent expulsion is important or should be considered - it's quite simply really. The jail sentence, everyone agrees, has a very high likelihood of not being served in full - the permanent expulsion...well...the clue is in the name. And likely it will be that other colleges will be very reticent or even completely reject the guy when he comes out - surely doing his time is enough of a punishment? Surely once he's done his time, and its not as if he went out that day to kill someone, that's it. It's done. Obviously, in the real world there is always a stigma and I have come across ex-offenders trying to get back on their feet and have listened to their problems (and I've had stigma attached as well for other reasons, not criminal, but I understand the gravity of the situation), that being said, there's every reason to believe he may be able to get some form of continuing education in the youth offenders institution and eventually Her Majesty's Hotel.
As Nomix said, its all about image and I'd much rather the college have said "we're excluding you until you are either acquitted or, if imprisoned, completed the sentence given and then we will consider (based on your behaviour while incarcerated) your continuing education if required". But no, they'd rather completely disavow any knowledge of him and his actions. Doesn't make me think highly of them to be honest.
And before this post gets to such a length that it breaks the forum entirely, I best get to the final point that I wish to address:-
Argatoga said:
You accused me of posting only to increase my post count then called me close minded. Either prove these or apologize.
As to the first part, about increasing your post count I said the following:-
YicklePigeon said:
you've finally cut it with the single sentence posts in order to boost your post count - well done!
This is because in this thread, the following posts (one was edited many hours afterwards I note, I disapprove of this only because if you're going to edit your post, edit it within a few minutes of the actual posting, not hours afterwards because I didn't even see it's newly edited form until I was checking the thread just now - next time just make a new post!):-
#10 - just quoting someone else and not even so much as a "5char" let alone a sentence of your own.
#17- a single sentence.
#30 - another single sentence.
#36 - quoting one of my posts in full and just a blanket covering single sentence, no analysis just a single sentence.
#47 - just about two sentences here, of note is the gun analogy coming into play, from someone else? I could have sworn you come up with it yourself.
And then you put effort into your posts (although I only see #64 as a culprit, any others - after I stated what I did - have full paragraphs and at that point I no longer considered you a grunter) and therefore my statement was no longer relevant.
And on the second part, about closed-mindedness, you rejected the content in my posts time and time again making me have to repeat myself. If I'm going to repeat myself, please let it just be on February 2nd thanks!
And on that bombshell, I trust that resolves everything. And tough if it doesn't because I'm sure as hell not typing something of this magnitude again...well not for a little while anyway...
Regards,
Yickle!
P.S. If any of you have managed to get this far and read this post of mine in its entirety, you deserve this:-
The text reads (as its a tad difficult to see) said:
For those with nothing better to do (such as being in the NSFW forum) that are vastly interested in every word that YicklePigeon had to say in this post.
Now go out and make some friends eh?