NAACP: Vick Shouldn't Be Banned

[quote name='pittpizza']Mykevermin, you're not going to be able to convince me you know more about the judicial system than the US Supreme Court. Sorry, and no offense or anything, but your just not going to be able to do it because you dont.

And deterrence does work. We know this empircally because we see it everyday in civilized society. That criminal punishment has no deterrent effect is a fallacy and could only be beleived by someone who is blind, deaf, and dumb. There is all kinds of shit that I would LOVE to do but dont because, guess what, I dont want to go to jail/get a ticket/get sued or whatever![/QUOTE]

If deterrence was such a grand ideal, then, given the change in criminal justice policies over the past three decades (reduction/elimination of rehabilitation programs and the beginning of more punitive policies such as "three strikes" laws, mandatory minimums/"truth in advertising" laws, indeterminate sentencing, the reduced discretionary power and parole boars), we have seen (1) an immense increase in the currently serving prison population (from 700K to 2.1m+ in 30 years), (2) immense increases in the annual releases from state/federal prisons (over 600K this year, meaning that the number of annual prison releases is almost as large as the entire prison population in the mid-70's), and (3) immense increases in time served. So, considering and increase in both the certainty and severity of punishment (Beccaria's favorite notions), we would thus expect the deterrent effect to take hold in prisons, right?

Yet, while we have seen crime rates go down (beginning in the mid-1990's through today, about a 10% drop from the early 1990's peak - another interesting point, to see how crime rates soared during the time of heightened punishment!), we have seen sky-high recidivism rates. So, if we expect harsher punishments to deter criminals from returning to a life of crime, then we wouldn't have the recidivism rates that we do right now. Langan and Levin put together a report in 2002 showing recidivism patterns (recidivism, in this case, meaning rearrest) for prison releases in 1994 (at the time of the crime peak, and after all the punitive policies had been established for quite some time). They found that 67.5% of prison releases were rearrested within 3 years of release. That's 2 out of every 3 prison releases! And yet you're telling me that deterrence works?

Based on what data? Show me that deterrence works. Give me some statistics, so reports - because I see nothing to show that deterrence works on criminals. Does the threat of jail time, a suspended sentence, fines, or incidental manslaughter reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road?

I did not say I know more than the justice system - the only thing I'll say about policies is that politicians, if they want to commit political suicide, call for leniency towards criminals in their campaigns. Treatment of criminals in political campaigns resembles the scene in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure when the bikers are arguing over what to do to Pee-Wee after he knocks over their bikes. Policy reflects what the public wants generally, which is punishment, punishment, punishment - and what the public thinks of patterns of crime is substantially incorrect and misinformed.

Moreover, to speak of fallacies is to speak of substituting anecdotal evidence for data. That most of society is law-abiding is no evidence whatsoever for deterrence. A society with behavioral patterns such as ours could just as easily be the result of overall people's desire to behave *prosocially*, rather than a successful policy of scaring the shit out of people into not committing crimes. Your attempt to label my argument as fallacy is laughable in face of your post-hoc theoretical wanking. Step out of law school for a minute and show me a causal model.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I've already cited empricism.[/QUOTE]

WHERE? Empirically, I'm giving you the finger right now. But, in terms of data, that fact, by itself, is pretty meaningless. "Empiricism" is an approach to measurement, and not simply a fact by itself. What the hell have you cited that's empirical?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']A: He reminds me of you. The need, or want, to feel slighted because of someone's color. I don't know whether the two of you have honestly been the victims of so much racism that you automatically put your shields up whenever something negative is expressed, or that you're so much of a racist yourself that you can't see when it doesn't exist to that level in someone else.[/quote]

Come now. Read back through the thread from the start. Racism was a general undercurrent from the start. Color entered the picture LOOOOOOONG before I got here. Was it me putting up my shield, or you ignoring the reality of the previous comments?

Please, if you could, point out anything I've said in this thread that's the slightest bit racist.
Click to expand...
I wasn't calling you out for being a racist. That's why I kept pointing you back to your comment. The chickenshit part probably didn't help, but "Explain where the NAACP got this wrong" is dead on. Bust em out when they do something wrong, but the speaker said *nothin* wrong. Right? Be fair.

This is a staggeringly large organization we're talking about here, with many agendas set by many different people. Some credit should be earned for that.

And seriously dude, a halfway intelligent comment like yours only served to legitimize the garbage from the 1st 2 pages. I mean really, look at HotShot waxing poetic and being a hanger-on.
 
Myke, I'm not going to give you the finger back because I'm not going to lower myself to your level. Lets try to keep it structured, professional and not personal.

You asked "What the hell have you cited that's empirical?" Answer: Life experience. The philosophical definition of empiricism, since you dont seem to know, is: the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience.

The answer to your question of what I've cited thats emprical is real world (not the show) experiences. The things i've mentioned earlier that I would love to do but dont because....now this is crazy but get ready for it...THE PUNISHMENT DETERS ME FROM DOING THEM! Crazy huh? That my friend, is called deterrence.

BTW, getting into a one on one debate with me is a bad idea, you're entering a world of pain. Check out this one http://boards.ign.com/brothers_in_arms/b7613/136211912/p1. That was just absolutely absurd and really really fun for me.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']you're entering a world of pain[/QUOTE]

Sure thing, Walter. :lol:

So, I provide you with data that says the following:
1) corrections policies became more punitive over the past three decades
2) as a direct result, the prison population exploded

so, we have more people in prison and for longer periods of time. If the theory of "deterrence" holds, we would expect recidivism patterns to go down, correct? Because harsher punishment, and more people directly experiencing the corrections system, should deter more.

Right? After all, that's the analogy behind deterrence: the crime is a consequence of the certainty and severity of punishment. So, if more people are caught, certainty goes up. If people are punished more harshly, severity goes up. What happens to the deterrent effect?

That's right: more people recidivate. 100% *contrary* to the idea of a deterrent effect, increasing the certainty and severity of punishment seems to have spawned a defiant effect (you can thank Lawrence Sherman for that theory). For prisoners, there is no deterrent effect.

Moreover, your claims of empiricism are, at best, as weak as could be. First, your claims of a generally law-abiding society are empirically valid. Most people *don't* commit crimes (or they're just really good and don't get caught ;)). However, by claiming that this is because of deterrence is *imposing* your theoretical perspective on it. You have seen a social pattern, placed an explanation on it without proof, and claimed it as truth.

Why can't other explanations not be valid? Why don't we believe that people don't commit crimes because they respect their neighborhood, their neighbors? Why can't we say that most people don't commit crimes because they learned adequate controls ("morals," if you will - though I hate the term) as children and adolescent? That people learn "right" and "wrong," that that guides their actions - not fear of government sanction and reprisal. Why can't it be just as valid that people don't commit crimes because they are afraid of going to hell after they die? Or that they'll be reincarnated as a cock-a-roach? All I'm trying to tell you is that general law-abiding patterns in society is *NOT* proof that deterrence works. It is proof that most people don't commit crimes; providing an explanation and believing it is the true explanation is insufficient.

As for your "individual anecdote = empiricism," while it is true that the plural of anecdote is data, by itself, one person's story is meaningless. Suppose I had a ham sandwich every morning at 3AM. I certainly can not generalize and assume that everyone has a ham sandwich at 3AM, right? Of course not. So, while, in your mind, you may be a one-man crime spree waiting to happen, if only you weren't afraid of punishment and sanction, it is irresponsible and incorrect to claim that everyone else is just like you.

Now, your notions of empiricism are still, in my opinion, sorely lacking and neither scientifically valid nor reliable. I have demonstrably shown that a deterrent effect did not take hold in a time and place where we would expect it to (in fact, the opposite happened!). You have fought back with your own tale of why you, as a single individual, do not commit crime. If you're not to be trifled with in debate, as you claim, then I surely hope you have something more substantive than "Well, *I* don't commit crimes, so deterrence must work."

EDIT: Ah, I see you are from Pittsburgh. I shall refrain from any further ad hominems, and simply remind you that your football team sucks. That sounds good.
 
"I have demonstrably shown that a deterrent effect did not take hold in a time and place where we would expect it to." No you have not, I've already said this but I'll say it again: "Additionally your "prison data" is compeletely useless (okay well maybe not completely) and not probative to this discussion, which it appears I need to remind you is about DOG FIGHTING and Vick, not recidivism. People can't form organized dogfighting rings in prison. Do you want me to cite you some statistics on this too or do you have enough common sense to know that its impossible for prisoners to engage in organized dogfighting rings behind bars? You also must admit that the vast majority of those imprisoned will end up back in jail, they are breeding grounds for criminals and once labeled with the social stigma of a convict, life doesnt get any easier for an ex-con on the outside which results in rearrest and reinstitutionalization. Prison stats are misleading and inapposite when used to analyze the effect of deterrence on the majority of society. So there!" So that blows the shit out of any argumetn that you have proven anything with your prison info and vitiates the need to respond to anything in the first 4 paragraphs of your last post.

"However, by claiming that this is because of deterrence is *imposing* your theoretical perspective on it." I suppose this is a good point. It is true that I dont have or feel like putting the time and energy into getting statistical data prooving deterrence. My, and the majority of the rest of the population's common sense tells us this through sense impressions. If you are too stubborn/secluded/tied down to your argument to realize it thats your shortcomming, not mine. I only mentioned my life experiences earler that show me deterrence works but I should have said our, the collective "we". I am not claiming "MY" life experiences, rather "One's" or "our" life experiences demonstrate that. Nor have I said that everybody else is exactly like me, (if that were the case the world would just be too damn sweet) but it is probably safer to assume that the majority of the public is closer to me than a prisoner. This makes my position and assumptions carry a lot more evidentiary weight and credibility than your prison data does (which I remind you only applies to PRISONERS! Who cant engage in ORGANIZED DOGFIGHTING IN PRISON CELLS!).

As to the ad hominem stuff, you said "EDIT: Ah, I see you are from Pittsburgh. I shall refrain from any further ad hominems, and simply remind you that your football team sucks. That sounds good". Now that is a low blow man. That has nothing to do with the substance of our argument and, (you know this already or you woudlnt have said it) saying that to someone from Pittsburgh cuts deep:cry: . But in response, I will simply direct you to that little section of text below my join date. Suck it.

:lol: In conclusion, You're out of your element Mykevermin.:lol:
 
[quote name='speedracer']Wow. So let me get this straight. Someone's who renown for being a A-list douche makes an A-list douche comment, and you run with it? Do I fault you for being the lowest common denominator, or for reading the AJC?



If we're going to be fair, we need to mention that this will be in no way unusual, special, or different concerning those possessing fame (of any color) to get out of, when/if he does. This is also not special within sports, or his sport.


Why? Sounds like all you cool cucumbers got that covered.



THIS MUST BE BROUGHT UP EVERY SINGLE TIME ANYTHING POTENTIALLY NEGATIVE HAPPENS TO A BLACK PERSON AND/OR THE NAACP'S NAME IS BROUGHT UP. ALSO, BRAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSS.


Tighter with every post of yours I see.


See? Even the real racists are cheering you on now.[/quote]

This post had no substantitive value whatsoever.

However the section in the middle did remind me of a 3-year-old's tantrum that I saw in the supermarket the other day. So that's something, I guess...
 
*sigh*

So, I have a valid point, but you completely disregard it in the following sentence by, yet again, imposing your perspective on people's behavior. I *DO* want statistics and a causal model. Direct effects, indirect effects, and measurable errors! Show me your r-squares, your beta coefficients, and your sample size. Give it to me!

I don't see why you keep beating your head against the wall about not being able to have dogfighting in prison. Why are you so stuck on such an obvious point? My point about prison was to demonstrate, in the time ordering of events, why there is no deterrent effect of incarceration. Your flippant disregard that "it doesn't work for prisoners, but there still is a deterrent effect" is absurd. So, your claim has suddenly shifted from "there is a deterrent effect, dummy" to "there is a deterrent effect, except where there isn't." Bravo, my good man. You have all the bases covered with that theory.

I have a theory like that, too: Everybody eats ham sandwiches at 3AM, except when they don't. Same construct, same all-inclusive principle, same absurdity of clinging onto a tautology.

Moreover, you are, again, imposing deterrence on society by claiming "common sense." If you can realize that you are making claims about social behavior and recognizable patterns of law-abiding behavior that you can not verify, and that you're applying an explanation after you've gathered your evidence, you'd see the logical fallacy you're making here.
 
If you could realize that you are asserting "There is no such thing as deterrence" you'd see the logical fallacy you're making here. This is a completely ridiculous assertion that makes no sense. You can beleive what you want to, but don't try to sell me on the idea that nobody in society is deterred from criminal acts by punishment, especially when you yourself provided data that as severity/likelihood of criminal punishment went up the crime rates went down.

Another logical fallacy is extrapolating princibles applicable in prison to all of society. I dont get why you are allowed to impose prison's perspective on the rest of society yet I am not allowed to impose mine? I dont like the double standard, or any standards for that matter. Also I never called you a dummy, you're doing a good enough job of that on your own.

On a completely unrelated and nonsensical note: your flippant use of the word "flippant" is flippilishly flippy.

"Direct effects, indirect effects, and measurable errors! Show me your r-squares, your beta coefficients, and your sample size. Give it to me!" NO! (Oh I'll give ya something...) Go get them yourself, do a little bona fide research and you will come up with my statistical support for me. I'm much too busy w/ videogames and interenet message boards to go engage in such trivial matters.

I know this is off topic but while we're at it, I see that you have no response to the 5 time Superbowl Champion PITTSBURGH STEELERS!!!!. Yeah! Get some!

EDIT: A friend just sent me this, it is back on topic and HILARIOUS! "South Carolina Inmate Hits Michael Vick With '$63,000,000,000 Billion Dollar' Lawsuit Alleging Al Qaeda Ties" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293268,00.html
 
How about this: he who makes the claims must also find the supporting evidence.

If you want to be a prat, be a prat. If you want to make claims, don't come looking to me to back them up; after all, I (and the data) disagree with you.
 
[quote name='speedracer']you said stuff here[/QUOTE]

Let's look at that statement you quoted from Mr. White of the NAACP...

"In some instances, I believe Michael Vick has received more negative press than if he would've killed a human being," White said. "The way he is being persecuted, he wouldn't have been persecuted that much had he killed somebody."
Click to expand...

First off he hasn't received more negative press than if he killed a person, if Vick killed a human the negative press would be much much worse. Also, hes not being persecuted he's being prosecuted.


"whatever he's done wrongly, he needs to pay for it."
Click to expand...

and he will.

White also said he didn't understand the uproar over dogfighting, when hunting deer and other animals is perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...


He's comparing a regulated, legal activity that requires a license with the murder of domesticated pets. You can't compare sitting in a tree for 6 hours and shooting one buck with training dogs for months for the sole purpose of fighting other dogs in small arena while people are betting with the animals lives on the line.

"We feel that whatever the courts demand as a punishment for what he has done, once he has paid his debt to society, then he should be treated like any other person in the NFL"
Click to expand...

The NFL is not tied to the legal system you can not get time served from your workplace for jail time. Vick violated the NFLPA Rules of Conduct which state

"Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a criminal violation (including a plea to a lesser included offense; a plea of nob contendere or no contest; or the acceptance of a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, disposition of supervision, or similar arrangement) will be subject to discipline as determined by the Commissioner. Such discipline may include a fine, suspension without pay and/or banishment from the League."​

So Vick will be lucky if he is just be suspended after his jail sentence. Considering Adam Jones got a year suspension for his off field activies (with no felony convictions) then you have to believe that Vick, with felony convictions on the way, will have to be suspended for at least 1 year if not more or complete banishment.


So there ya go, the NAACP is just on the wrong side this time.
 
[quote name='camoor']However the section in the middle did remind me of a 3-year-old's tantrum that I saw in the supermarket the other day. So that's something, I guess...[/QUOTE]
Are you still posting? You must not have noticed that no one cares what you think.

[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Let's look at that statement you quoted from Mr. White of the NAACP...

First off he hasn't received more negative press than if he killed a person, if Vick killed a human the negative press would be much much worse. Also, hes not being persecuted he's being prosecuted.[/quote]
I mean really, how could the level of coverage be any higher? We aren't there yet but let's be real, all we need is a white Ford Bronco. I can't turn on the TV, look at *any* RSS feed, or god forbid look at a sports page without - seeing - Vick's - mug.

Re: hunting vs. dogfighting
He's comparing a regulated, legal activity that requires a license with the murder of domesticated pets. You can't compare sitting in a tree for 6 hours and shooting one buck with training dogs for months for the sole purpose of fighting other dogs in small arena while people are betting with the animals lives on the line.
Click to expand...
And really, that's the only thing I see a rational person taking issue with concerning the NAACP.

Really, we all know there's enough opinion in this world that it goes around and back again. You find that comment "out there". Personally, I don't really. Then again, I've eaten dog and see them as just another animal and tasty with BBQ sauce to boot. Obviously that nutcase camoor that's skulking around this thread trying to get someone to talk to him disagrees, but even then if you look hard enough, you'll find someone else in this thread that quietly said the same thing I am.

When you boil that *single* comment by the NAACP down, is it really that big a deal?

Nuh-uh.

The NFL is not tied to the legal system you can not get time served from your workplace for jail time. Vick violated the NFLPA Rules of Conduct which state

"Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a criminal violation (including a plea to a lesser included offense; a plea of nob contendere or no contest; or the acceptance of a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, disposition of supervision, or similar arrangement) will be subject to discipline as determined by the Commissioner. Such discipline may include a fine, suspension without pay and/or banishment from the League."​

So Vick will be lucky if he is just be suspended after his jail sentence. Considering Adam Jones got a year suspension for his off field activies (with no felony convictions) then you have to believe that Vick, with felony convictions on the way, will have to be suspended for at least 1 year if not more or complete banishment.
Click to expand...
I don't see how any of this part matters re: NAACP.


So there ya go, the NAACP is just on the wrong side this time.
Click to expand...
You know, it's ok to say they're not wrong on this, you just disagree with them. We won't make you turn in your Chez Whitey membership card.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']How about this: he who makes the claims must also find the supporting evidence.[/QUOTE]

Seriously, don't bring any kind of logical thought into this. He clearly has no interest in presenting his premises and then supporting them with evidence. He only seems to enjoy repeating himself over and over again while completely ignoring everything you say.

[quote name='pittpizza']If you could realize that you are asserting "There is no such thing as deterrence" you'd see the logical fallacy you're making here. This is a completely ridiculous assertion that makes no sense. [/QUOTE]

He can't realize that because that it not what he said. Myke's argument was that more severe punishment did not act as a deterrent against those who had committed crimes because of the increase of recidivism.

[quote name='pittpizza']You can beleive what you want to, but don't try to sell me on the idea that nobody in society is deterred from criminal acts by punishment, especially when you yourself provided data that as severity/likelihood of criminal punishment went up the crime rates went down. [/QUOTE]

He didn't. You're not reading his posts at all:

[quote name='mykevermin']Why can't other explanations not be valid? Why don't we believe that people don't commit crimes because they respect their neighborhood, their neighbors? Why can't we say that most people don't commit crimes because they learned adequate controls ("morals," if you will - though I hate the term) as children and adolescent? That people learn "right" and "wrong," that that guides their actions - not fear of government sanction and reprisal. Why can't it be just as valid that people don't commit crimes because they are afraid of going to hell after they die? Or that they'll be reincarnated as a cock-a-roach? All I'm trying to tell you is that general law-abiding patterns in society is *NOT* proof that deterrence works. It is proof that most people don't commit crimes; providing an explanation and believing it is the true explanation is insufficient.[/quote]

Myke is clearly stating that the evidence that more severe punishment is a deterrent against crime has nothing but anecdotal evidence as it pertains to the non-crime-committing portion of the population. Therefore, the best way to judge the effectiveness of more severe punishment would be to analyze the recidivism rates of those who have been incarcerated since said increases in severity became widespread.

[quote name='pittpizza']"Direct effects, indirect effects, and measurable errors! Show me your r-squares, your beta coefficients, and your sample size. Give it to me!" NO! (Oh I'll give ya something...) Go get them yourself, do a little bona fide research and you will come up with my statistical support for me. I'm much too busy w/ videogames and interenet message boards to go engage in such trivial matters. [/QUOTE]

MASSIVE argumentative flaw here. Everyone who is capable of forming a sound argument knows that when one is making a claim, they are responsible for presenting the evidence for that claim. My school has a critical thinking requirement because, unfortunately, many people seem to think as you do, and believe that one only needs to say something in order to make it true.

[quote name='pittpizza']I know this is off topic but while we're at it, I see that you have no response to the 5 time Superbowl Champion PITTSBURGH STEELERS!!!!. Yeah! Get some!

EDIT: A friend just sent me this, it is back on topic and HILARIOUS! "South Carolina Inmate Hits Michael Vick With '$63,000,000,000 Billion Dollar' Lawsuit Alleging Al Qaeda Ties" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293268,00.html[/QUOTE]

Distraction portion of the post. You realize that your shallow argumentative pool has run dry and you must resort to the internet equivalent of jingling your keys to try and distract us from your lack of comprehension. This is basically admitting you lost and that you have absolutely nothing else of any value to contribute to this discussion.

In other words, you've lowered yourself to using the Chewbacca Defense:
[media]http://youtube.com/watch?v=eH5EblIjkrk[/media]
 
[quote name='speedracer']Are you still posting? You must not have noticed that no one cares what you think.


I mean really, how could the level of coverage be any higher? We aren't there yet but let's be real, all we need is a white Ford Bronco. I can't turn on the TV, look at *any* RSS feed, or god forbid look at a sports page without - seeing - Vick's - mug.

Re: hunting vs. dogfighting

And really, that's the only thing I see a rational person taking issue with concerning the NAACP.

Really, we all know there's enough opinion in this world that it goes around and back again. You find that comment "out there". Personally, I don't really. Then again, I've eaten dog and see them as just another animal and tasty with BBQ sauce to boot. Obviously that nutcase camoor that's skulking around this thread trying to get someone to talk to him disagrees, but even then if you look hard enough, you'll find someone else in this thread that quietly said the same thing I am.

When you boil that *single* comment by the NAACP down, is it really that big a deal?

Nuh-uh.


I don't see how any of this part matters re: NAACP.



You know, it's ok to say they're not wrong on this, you just disagree with them. We won't make you turn in your Chez Whitey membership card.[/QUOTE]

It's OK to disagree with someone, it's another thing to poke fun and call names while doing so. Especially when no direct personal attacks were made until you posted in the thread. That's uncalled for, period. Calm, rational debate is always welcomed here, but if you want to continue the attacks, you'll find yourself arguing with no one in particular.

While the Atlanta NAACP person took a huge leap by stating what he did, White didn't exactly retract the statement either. He merely qualified it with he should serve his punishment byline. That's certainly the smartest and least controversial statement anyone from that organization has made on the matter.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the NAACP coming to Ray Lewis's aid shortly after he came under suspicion for murder. There wasn't a public stance that he should get his job back. Same for Jamaal Lewis with conspiracy to distribute narcotics, both circumstances felonies. Why did they take a wait and see approach with these players, but not with Vick? Why was there such an impetus to stand up for Michael Vick, but no one else? Is it because he's black? No, we covered that for the other two players. Same for being a NFL player. So, we can only assume it either has to do with the seriousness of the charges, or the fact that Vick is 'a bigger role model' than either Lewis. IF it is either of those two reasons, I still say the NAACP is in the wrong. If the NAACP holds Vick in higher esteem than either Lewis because he is a QB, then the NAACP should hold him to a higher standard, not a lesser one. If it is because they view dogfighting, gambling and animal abuse less serious charges than conspiracy to commit murder or drug dealing, then they have a serious PR issue in and of themselves. I can't wait for PETA and the NAACP to wage PR war against each other. PETA's nuts, they'd be smart to drop that fight before it starts.

I can't speak for anyone else in Atlanta in particular, but there has been a feeling that white people wanted him to not be the QB because he was black, and that's why his name has been connected with less-scrupulous activites. That's not it at all, at least from a majority perspective. A lot of people here didn't want him to be the QB because he screwed up so much on the field. The off-field issues didn't help, but a lack of judgement seems to matter most with how it relates on the field.

With the charges he was allowed to plea to today, he should count himself lucky. The plea and the indictment don't add up at all, he better hope he has some good info to give the Feds so they don't go back on it.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Are you still posting? You must not have noticed that no one cares what you think.


I mean really, how could the level of coverage be any higher? We aren't there yet but let's be real, all we need is a white Ford Bronco. I can't turn on the TV, look at *any* RSS feed, or god forbid look at a sports page without - seeing - Vick's - mug.

Re: hunting vs. dogfighting

And really, that's the only thing I see a rational person taking issue with concerning the NAACP.

Really, we all know there's enough opinion in this world that it goes around and back again. You find that comment "out there". Personally, I don't really. Then again, I've eaten dog and see them as just another animal and tasty with BBQ sauce to boot. Obviously that nutcase camoor that's skulking around this thread trying to get someone to talk to him disagrees, but even then if you look hard enough, you'll find someone else in this thread that quietly said the same thing I am.

When you boil that *single* comment by the NAACP down, is it really that big a deal?

Nuh-uh.


I don't see how any of this part matters re: NAACP.



You know, it's ok to say they're not wrong on this, you just disagree with them. We won't make you turn in your Chez Whitey membership card.[/quote]

Don't forget there's the small matter of the way that the NAACP phrased this issue, not to mention the word "persecute" being used.

The word persecute carries religious and ethnic overtones.

The victims of the Salem Witch trial were persecuted. The Japanese rounded up into American interment camps during WWII were persecuted. Vick is not being persecuted. He is being prosecuted by the government for torturing animals, he is being judged by the public for these same actions, the heinous crimes that he commited would garner a swift and negative reaction no matter who he was (as can be seen - even the aegis of sports superstar did not save him). Vick is a public figure who lost his job because he tortured animals. And now there is a group that is asserting he deserves a second chance in a few years, leaving us to infer from their language that to deny him this would be racist. At the end of the day, the NFL is a business, and if they think they can make more money with Vick then without him he will eventually be rehired. It is an arrogant and ridiculous claim to imply he deserves to have an reserved employment position at his old corporation in a few years after he has "served his time" - like any other hard working American he should have to win that position based on what he brings to the table and his ability to fulfill all obligations of the role. In the world of entertainment, personal behavior can play a role, and I really can't blame football fans for not buying Ron Mexico jersies or refusing to buy 70 dollar tickets to a game that celebrates a player who tortures animals. So let's all stop whining about "unfair treatment" and realize that if you take part in a horrible crime such as the torture of animals, you don't automatically get complete and total forgiveness from everybody on the day that you step out of jail.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Are you still posting? You must not have noticed that no one cares what you think.


I mean really, how could the level of coverage be any higher? We aren't there yet but let's be real, all we need is a white Ford Bronco. I can't turn on the TV, look at *any* RSS feed, or god forbid look at a sports page without - seeing - Vick's - mug.

[/quote]

Yes, he's getting a lot of press coverage but to think it's worse than if he killed a man, cmon.

Re: hunting vs. dogfighting

And really, that's the only thing I see a rational person taking issue with concerning the NAACP.

Really, we all know there's enough opinion in this world that it goes around and back again. You find that comment "out there". Personally, I don't really. Then again, I've eaten dog and see them as just another animal and tasty with BBQ sauce to boot. Obviously that nutcase camoor that's skulking around this thread trying to get someone to talk to him disagrees, but even then if you look hard enough, you'll find someone else in this thread that quietly said the same thing I am.

When you boil that *single* comment by the NAACP down, is it really that big a deal?

Nuh-uh.
Click to expand...

Just because you've had dog before doesn't mean it's kosher in this country. Even if you thought that eating dog isn't bad, the brutal killing of these dogs is still not a just comparison to hunting. Vick didn't go into the wild and hunt these dogs and eat them for sustenance, They were drowned, electrocuted and had their skulls bashed against the ground.

I don't see how any of this part matters re: NAACP.
Click to expand...

It has to do with White (and the NAACP by proxy) saying that by serving jail time he should have fulfilled his, soon to come, suspension from the NFL. There is no basis for that and he should be suspended after he gets out of jail, whether he plays in the NFL again is another story. (Personally I think he will).



You know, it's ok to say they're not wrong on this, you just disagree with them. We won't make you turn in your Chez Whitey membership card.
Click to expand...

I'm Mexican, but go ahead and make your assumptions.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']And my whole point with the last sentence is, what's worse, Accidentally killing someone in a car accident, or organizing and maliciously killing 50 dogs?[/QUOTE]

Definitely killing someone, accidentally or not, in a car accident. Killing all dogs in existence is not as bad as killing one human being. IMO of course.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']nice coming from a guy who likes what herman goerring has to say.[/QUOTE]

Again, you're using the Chewbacca Defense. You have absolutely nothing else to say about the topic at hand, so you resort to a red herring fallacy in order to get people to pay attention to you. Furthermore, you can't seem to use the quote button, despite the fact that its labeled very clearly in the lower right hand corner of every post. This level of ignorance of basic message board functionality (see also: double posting/not knowing how to use the fucking edit button), along with your incredible inability to put together a cohesive argument, leaves me with only one choice: I'm adding you to my ignore list. Expect to be shunned or banned outright. It's what happens to people whom I ignore.
 
[quote name='evanft']Again, you're using the Chewbacca Defense. You have absolutely nothing else to say about the topic at hand, so you resort to a red herring fallacy in order to get people to pay attention to you. Furthermore, you can't seem to use the quote button, despite the fact that its labeled very clearly in the lower right hand corner of every post. This level of ignorance of basic message board functionality (see also: double posting/not knowing how to use the fucking edit button), along with your incredible inability to put together a cohesive argument, leaves me with only one choice: I'm adding you to my ignore list. Expect to be shunned or banned outright. It's what happens to people whom I ignore.[/quote]

:rofl:
 
fuck, did level1on1withhismom post some conspiracy theory about Michael Vick's hands are not strong enough to kill dogs or something? Ah hell, and I'm missing all the comedy!
 
[quote name='evanft']fuck, did level1on1withhismom post some conspiracy theory about Michael Vick's hands are not strong enough to kill dogs or something? Ah hell, and I'm missing all the comedy![/quote]

:rofl:
 
Evan you are the one who has butted into what used to be a debate about deterrence. Before your post it was hardly personal at all and pretty much dealt only with deterrence but you've offered alot of personal attacks. What are your thoughts on deterrence and whether punishing Vick harshly will help prevent more dogfighting in the future. If you're going to join in then join in and talk about the debate/argument at hand.

Here is my view on the recidivism issue. It was, IMO, presented not as the claim itself, but as support for the claim that deterrence doesnt work. If his only claim was about recidivism itself then there is really no argument because I don't dispute the accuracy or reliability of the statistics (although I probably should since they are being presented against me but Myke doesnt seem like the kind of guy that woudl just lie and create false statistics); also I am not going to go do outside research to support some debate I'm having in a message board. I do enough of that shit at work and dont really feel like going and doing more work to support arguments made in boards I post in for fun.

As to my duty to support my assertions, I am not the one who originally said deterrence exists. If you read way back to my original post, my original statement that started this whole thing was that The USSC has reasoned that deterrence exists. That is good enough data for me because I have a great deal of deference for the institution. Myke is the one who shoudl therefore have the (sorry to use legalisms) burden of proof to support his contention that deterrence does not exist. Even though it is a negative proposition, about something NOT being there, it is still his claim. My only claims were that the USSC said it exists and that IMO common sense tells me it exists because I feel deterred all the time and I would imagine that others do too. The fact that I dont feel like researching it doesnt make me wrong, it makes me lazy. Myke has produced stats about prison pops which I admitted may be true but challenged their relevancy to the majority of the population.

My inclusion of the article about the inmate suing vick for 63 bill was only there because i didnt think it desereved a new thread or post; and if it was the only thing in contained in that post, then maybe you might be right, but it was an aside after I responded to Myke's points. BTW, to lose a debate one has to be wrong about something. What am I wrong about? If cant be wrong in my belief that deterrence works, or in the very least that the USSC has reasoned it does (my original assertion) because I have read the case where they did it and studied it in my criminal law/procedure classes.

The flame about goerring admittedly had nothing to do with deterrence, but neither did alot of your post so I dont feel bad about it, even though usually i try not to lower myself to other people's methods of ad hominem flaming. Also you are just begging for comments about it by having it in your sig. Its hard to tell if you have it in there to expose the injustice or because you admire the idea.

Im newer to CAG (just like you were once) but have been posting for years, so you will please have to excuse me for not using the quote and shakfu button. Ignore me if you want but know that it is pretty much admitting defeat. I guess the kitchen is too hot for ya eh? Its all in good fun (for me anyway).
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Here is my view on the recidivism issue. It was, IMO, presented not as the claim itself, but as support for the claim that deterrence doesnt work. If his only claim was about recidivism itself then there is really no argument because I don't dispute the accuracy or reliability of the statistics (although I probably should since they are being presented against me but Myke doesnt seem like the kind of guy that woudl just lie and create false statistics); also I am not going to go do outside research to support some debate I'm having in a message board. I do enough of that shit at work and dont really feel like going and doing more work to support arguments made in boards I post in for fun. [/quote]

I assure you I'm not making anything up. Here's the main source of the points I've made here: the report is Langan and Levin (2002): Recidivism of Prisoners Released in the United States, 1994.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...icial&hs=Liz&q=langan+levin+&um=1&sa=N&tab=ws

As to my duty to support my assertions, I am not the one who originally said deterrence exists. If you read way back to my original post, my original statement that started this whole thing was that The USSC has reasoned that deterrence exists. That is good enough data for me because I have a great deal of deference for the institution.
Click to expand...

Except that it isn't data. It's a statement. "I like pudding" is a statement; "94% of Americans surveyed like pudding" is a statement culled from data. Now, I do have respect for the USSC (although, personally, I liked it better pre-Alito and Roberts). But, the USSC offers judgments based on opinions. They are opinions grounded in scholarly interpretations of law, but they aren't beholden to data at all. They do sometimes cite supporting data, but keep in mind that previous court precedents are not data - they are prior judicial opinions.

Myke is the one who shoudl therefore have the (sorry to use legalisms) burden of proof to support his contention that deterrence does not exist.
Click to expand...

Fraid not. I provided evidence that, in a context ripe for a deterrence effect to show up (and change patterns of recidivism), it did not, and, in fact, moved in the other direction. I'm still of the mindset that I'm the only one who has presented data thus far; until you show me the data, explain its source, cite the USSC's statement on opinion, the burden of proof does not lie with the person (me) who has backed up their claims. You can not, I'm afraid, hide behind the SC's robes and act as if that is sufficient evidence for something.

Even though it is a negative proposition, about something NOT being there, it is still his claim.
Click to expand...

And I showed that it wasn't there.

My only claims were that the USSC said it exists and that IMO common sense tells me it exists because I feel deterred all the time and I would imagine that others do too.
Click to expand...

The USSC (1) saying something exists doesn't make it true, especially when you consider that (2) the USSC rarely, if ever, shows complete internal agreement. If you're trying to substantiate fact, you'd do well to avoid a governing body with such diverse ideological interpretations of constitutional law as Alito/Scalia/Thomas and Ginsburg/Breyer/that other liberal (Warner?). The USSC can't agree on things to begin with, so, while we, as a society, respect what the *majority* of them conclude, it's silly to interpret this for fact (or data).

Common sense is not data either. You keep using this word "data"; I do not think it means what you think it means.

Moreover, you're even wrong about the 4 guiding philosophies of corrections: punishment and "revenge" are one concept ("just desserts"), while the others include two you mentioned (deterrence and incapacitation), while the last one you overlooked: rehabilitation. Methinks you need to re-read your Ray Paternoster.

The fact that I dont feel like researching it doesnt make me wrong, it makes me lazy. Myke has produced stats about prison pops which I admitted may be true but challenged their relevancy to the majority of the population.

My inclusion of the article about the inmate suing vick for 63 bill was only there because i didnt think it desereved a new thread or post; and if it was the only thing in contained in that post, then maybe you might be right, but it was an aside after I responded to Myke's points. BTW, to lose a debate one has to be wrong about something. What am I wrong about? If cant be wrong in my belief that deterrence works, or in the very least that the USSC has reasoned it does (my original assertion) because I have read the case where they did it and studied it in my criminal law/procedure classes.
Click to expand...

If my response to your entire argument is "Playstation 3 plays Blu-Ray discs," do I not lose the debate because I'm not wrong? Please.

Most of all, you're still disregarding what you admitted was a fatal flaw of your argument: that you imposed your perspective on a law-abiding population, substituting introspection and a large assumption about other people's behaviors (and the rationales for those behaviors), and insisted that it was flawless gospel truth.
 
[quote name='monkeydeew']i scored a cheap ass deal on a vick jersey 2 weeks ago. marked down 55$ i got it for a cool 20 spot.[/QUOTE]

Good luck wearing that in public.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Good luck wearing that in public.[/quote]

size medium too, not like xxxl like you'd normally find. ill probably just keep it for memorys sake, or when the supply plummets then perhaps ill throw it on ebay
 
Myke myke myke....why can't you just follow my example and ignore this miserable little fuck? We've both demonstrated his idiocy quite well, so I don't think there's any real reason to continue viewing his posts.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Any chance we could get back on a more relevant point of discussion?[/QUOTE]

QFT, your senseless gibberish bores me. You've completely killed this thread with your idiocrity. Once again, more proof that Darwin is rolling over in his coffin because the idiots are taking over. Heres your source -->Nofx, War on Errorism
 
[quote name='speedracer']Don't be a chickenshit. Reconcile your comment with the words that actually came out of the man's mouth.


You *could* have noted that I did not make any claim whatsoever against those that made no mention of race. I didn't say anything about those that made the point from an animal/humanitarian perspective. You could have noted that, but then you wouldn't have gotten any attention because you wouldn't have had anything to work yourself up over. Good form.



I am wounded, sir. Wounded to the core. Now be quiet and let me lecture these 'chilluns.


You mean, except this case, this case that you opened your fat mouth about and made a bunch of claims, right?


Then why do you keep qualifying your statements by bringing up types of racism that you're not ok with? Why haven't you directly spoken to what you said before? The quote I'm actually dogging you for?



No race card was pulled (except by white kids.. right?). No blacks were on TV... what was it... ? "agrue [sic] about if they want to be equal they should act like they are equal and not the greatest race", and where was the "try[ing] to get white people fired and keep blacks out of jail"? It'd be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

Every example is an excuse to talk shit about the NAACP, and to a lesser extent it can be argued reasonably that blacks in general will be regarded scornfully. The evidence is there. Posters didn't just rip the NAACP, but some imaginary black that irritates them.

Why? For existing, right?[/QUOTE]

So, you're pulling the racism card, I see. I agreed with a good number of things you said, but being so quick to throw out the racism claims with no solid backing pretty much destroyed your side of the argument. Had you simply pointed out the difference in opinions and you side of the argument you would have looked like the better man / woman. Now you just look like some PC nut calling everyone in sight a racist just because their point of view differs from yours (and a funny notion, because I very much doubt you know the race(s) of each user here).

As for a one Mr. Vick, as my very black uncle put it: "They need to hang that dog-killing son-of-a-bitch!" I don't wholly agree with him, but I thought you'd to get a real live black person's perspective on the whole ordeal.

Killing is wrong, killing in the way he did it should warrant severe penalties, no what race he (or she) may be.
 
[quote name='-Never4ever-']So, you're pulling the racism card, I see. I agreed with a good number of things you said, but being so quick to throw out the racism claims with no solid backing pretty much destroyed your side of the argument.[/quote]
You're kind of missing my point. I don't think it's a race thing, I really don't. It's being made a race thing by people conditioned to believe that anything and/or everything that the NAACP dares speak about (even a single individual with the behemoth organization that is the NAACP) must inherently have an angle.

Let's be real here, man. *Someone* *somewhere* in the organization comments on just about everything. Don't we all? I'm not explaining this well, but you're smart enough to get the gist.

Which is the other point I was making with my rather haphazard gunslinging. Look around the thread. Clearly, nuance is lost. Rampant extrapolation is the king of the day. I was trying to say this to Cochese in so many words. Bluster was for the lionshare (if we care to admit it) of posters that can't see past their nose. The underlying, base argument (which you agree holds weight) was for the proverbial "rest of you". You gotta know your audience, ya know.. but at the same time, I tried to reach out to those I thought capable.
Had you simply pointed out the difference in opinions and you side of the argument you would have looked like the better man / woman.
Click to expand...
And the "debate" (haha) would have continued just as it did after my 1st post, which was nothing of the sort that brought you out of the woodwork.
Now you just look like some PC nut calling everyone in sight a racist just because their point of view differs from yours
Click to expand...
People will see what they want to. There are broad issues within this story. It's a good story that works in different ways to bring about good debate. If people choose to fixate on the race issue, I can't help that. If you read me again, you'll see that my underlying pressure point (which is admittedly convoluted, this far down the road) was a question of many things, race being the least.
(and a funny notion, because I very much doubt you know the race(s) of each user here).
Click to expand...
I don't know, and I don't care. A "hyuk-hyuk" good 'ole boy kind of herd mentality was/is taking place. That was my purpose when I chose the language I did.
As for a one Mr. Vick, as my very black uncle put it: "They need to hang that dog-killing son-of-a-bitch!" I don't wholly agree with him, but I thought you'd to get a real live black person's perspective on the whole ordeal.

Killing is wrong, killing in the way he did it should warrant severe penalties, no what race he (or she) may be.
Click to expand...
Animal rights as such are not really a proper subject for solid debate as it's more of a personal gut feeling regarding animals. I'm sure not a fan of a painful, unnecessary death for dogs. But is that or should it be the crux of the debate? I think it's a simple answer. So what about the other interesting aspects?

1. Does/Should a monopoly employer have the right to ban workers with specialized skills?

2. Should proportionality matter regarding punishment doled out by a monopoly employer?

3. Why do we all think "race card" (as clearly evidenced in this thread) every time we hear "NAACP"?

I didn't ask and you didn't offer, but let me thank you for using your post as a way to clarify my position, particularly to those more intelligent posters that think I'm a crazy person.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/27/deschanel.commentary/index.html

Look at that: " Since Vick's indictment, animal control agencies across the country have reported a sharp increase in the number of calls about dogfighting. " That would deter me and anyone else with half a brain from dogfighting. I am, after all, a rational human being. But since I dont have any statistics to show that it must mean that I am an idiot and wrong.

But wait, I forgot, Myke and Ivan have already purportedly proven that deterrence doesnt exist (in prisons). Laughable.
 
More calls = more arrests = increase in the per capita crime rate for this offense.

Let's see how that per capita rate shifts over time. You're predicting a near-simultaneous cause-and-effect relationship here, which is absurd when you want to make arguments about longitudinal patterns (crime rates don't really prove anything about deterrence when the time frame you're examining - which, AGAIN, aren't data - when that time frame is a mere sliver relative to longitudinal trends.

If deterrence is such a big deal, why would you allow your argument to rest on the shoulders of a claim that is (1) not data and (2) looking at a time frame of 3-4 weeks at best? If, as you claim, "deterrence works," but it only lasts for 3-4 weeks, then deterrence is theoretically significant but practically important. If I buy an Xbox 360 that lasts for 4 weeks before going RROD on me, should I claim "the Xbox 360 works!" or "the Xbox 360 is a piece of shit!"? Theoretically meaningful, but practically unimportant. Think about that one, ya lil' "philosophy major."

I'm also going to venture that you have either (1) no formal training in statistics or research methods or (2) you slept through them both and somehow managed to get a "C-" in them. You really keep coming back for more, claiming to be bringing "a world of pain," but that pain has only been the anxiety-inducing idiocy of a person fighting research and data with (1) their gut feelings about the reality of deterrence, (2) a poorly imposed post-hoc causal model that believes a retrospective application of an explanation is more proof than anyone needs (and, say, to hell with path modeling or factor analysis), and (3) a one sentence snippet from a goddamned CNN article.

I tells you, next post this kid makes, he's gonna be citing a "Goofus and Gallant" cartoon from "Highlights for Children" magazine to make his point.
 
[quote name='level1online']not to detract from the severity of killing dogs....

but my two cents...

just make a rule: Any person with a felony should not be employed by the NFL.[/quote]:applause:

[quote name='VipFREAK']Wouldn't they have to kick out like 1/2 or 1/3 the players in the league then? lol[/quote]Yup. And you know what? I'd pay double for season tickets to see a team that wasn't manned by thugs and reprobates.

[quote name='HotShotX']This just in...PETA is putting down the dogs taken into custody from Vick's home because no one is coming to claim/adopt them. But then again, I wouldn't want a dog trained to fight for sport either.[/quote]You can't retrain or untrain a dog which has been bred and raised to be a killer. It's sad, but there's no other option.

[quote name='speedracer']Don't be a chickenshit. Explain where the NAACP got this wrong.[/quote]Simply put, Vick screwed up. Read the indictments and tell me where his race has anything to do with the crime.


[quote name='pittpizza']you're entering a world of pain.[/quote]
worldofpain.jpg
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I tells you, next post this kid makes, he's gonna be citing a "Goofus and Gallant" cartoon from "Highlights for Children" magazine to make his point.[/QUOTE]

Oh God, I can't believe I knew exactly what you were talking about even before I saw 'Highlights'. Amazing how stuff from one's childhood can be recalled instantaneously.

Another point on why the NAACP was wrong in stating that Vick should be able to go back to work: they kinda forgot (or didn't care) to read the NFLPA Handbook. It specifically calls for very harsh penalites for gambling, and not just on the NFL. Remember how Hornung and Karras got suspended for a year. Yes, they bet on games, however this is a new NFL. Adam Jones (I refuse to use his nickname) got the same suspension for, at the current moment, being arrested a lot. I'm sure actual indictments will come, but for right now he's not been indicted on anything. (If I'm wrong, just point it out) Vick has not only brought disrepute to his name, his organization and his league, but also specifially violated NFL bylaws by gambling on these matches.

Now, the federal government may accept his plea-bargin, but it doesn't mean the NFL will. Gambling is gambling to them, no matter if you partake in the winnings. He seeded the bets, he gambled. That's pretty cut and dry to the league. He also directly lied to the commish. Neither of these two things are going to be looked upon lightly. He's shown extremely questionable judgement over the past year, not counting the indictment.

If the NAACP (and as much as we qualify individuals speaking on behalf of an organization when they are just speaking their own opinion, they still represent a company or organization, and their views are almost always taken as an official stance) believed that he should play just on the charges brought against him, I stand firm in my assessment that they are misguided. If they thought he should play with the public backlash and disregard of specific league rules as well, they are out of their gourd.

Vick is going to jail for at least two years. That's my guess, but who is going to sign a speed guy who has been sitting on his duff 18 hours a day for two years?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Just to clarify, isn't it just the Atlanta chapter of the NAACP siding with Vick? I think the national chapter has condemned his actions.[/QUOTE]

One person from the Atlanta chapter is. However, in the statement that White gave (of the national chapter) didn't exactly retract it. If I didn't have to go to class, I'd find it for you.
 
[quote name='guinaevere']Yup. And you know what? I'd pay double for season tickets to see a team that wasn't manned by thugs and reprobates.[/quote]

You're not the core demo. Football is the modern equivelent of the Gladitorial games, the job of more then half of these guys is to pound the opponent melee-style after the whistle.
 
Guinivere, hilarious pic.

Myke, try to follow me here.

Harsher penalties (your data) + decreased crime (your data) = deterrence (my logical inference.

You keep on pointing to data and stats and r squares to bolster your argument and weaken mine but I already told you I am not going to go to a library or go do research to support a common sense position. You're the one claiming the untenable positioin and I did take stats and did well. They dont carry alot of weight IMO because of a quote I once heard (i dont know who said it so dont complain that I didnt cite it) "If you dont have enough statistics to support your position, you need to find some more statistics." This means that you can find stats to say whatever you want them to, depending upon your position.

BTW as to your off topic flaming, Im not "lil" or your "kid" Im probably the one of the older people on this board but thats just assuming that videogame boards are usually populated by a younger pop but I have no statistics or data supporting that so this makes it wrong according to your logic.

You said that I was fighting "data with (1) their gut feelings about the reality of deterrence, (2) a poorly imposed post-hoc causal model that believes a retrospective application of an explanation is more proof than anyone needs (and, say, to hell with path modeling or factor analysis), and (3) a one sentence snippet from a goddamned CNN article; when in fact I was owning you by pointing out that (1) your precious data is inapplicable or at best loosely applicable to pops other than prisoners; (2) common sense, (3) The USSC, and (4) my views gained from three years of studying criminal law in law school, (5) a random smattering of classes dealing with the subject in undergraduate classes under Poli Sci and Philosophy, and (6) the "goddamned CNN article" as you so eloquently put it.

I might as well go ahead and repeat myself since it doesnt seem to be getting through to you: i dont need stats to support my position since I am not the one asserting the untenable view that goes against common sense. The burden of proof is on you and you have done a piss poor job of carrying it with your prison stats. Nor am I going to go out and spend my time researching the issue, so STFU about my lack of data, its a message board, not a thesis ya stats freak!

Are you an engineer or something because you suck at arguing and are good with the data and stats; leave the debate to the pros lil guy!

EDIT: Props to you for at least staying in the ring though, Ivan couldnt take it. And if this causes you anxiety it makes me sorry to hear that, I have a lot of fun shottin the shit on vid game message boards.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']i dont need stats to support my position since I am not the one asserting the untenable view that goes against common sense.[/QUOTE]

:shock:

You don't need to support your position because it "makes sense," IOW?

:shock:

I truly hope that you are not a lawyer, and that you're just lying. For your hypothetical clients' sake.

Do you know how many research publications I could put out if I made the argument that you just made? I wouldn't ever have to fill out IRB forms, dig through ICPSR for existing datasets, do literature reviews, go through peer review...ANYTHING! I'd just say "I don't need to use data to backup my claim because it makes sense!"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Dear god, I truly hope you never finished law school. Don't think I'm kidding. I don't play "reasonable doubt" here; I play "substantiate the claim." And you have failed, remarkably, to do so, outside of a hodgepodge of imposed claims, hiding behind the internally inconsistent USSC, assuming false causation from a single newspaper article (and, as a result, using micro or meso-level information to make a macro-level claim), and not producing a shred of evidence.

Are you really trying to debate here, or are you just being a troll? I've got BioShock to play, so if you're just trying to be obnoxious, I can go play that instead. OTOH, if, by some perverse explanation, you're still trying to argue for deterrence based on thousands of words of yours (and not one bit of evidence), seriously, then you and I need to have a chat about how claims are backed up. I'll bring the research methods, you bring your eyes. K?
 
As to your first sentence, yeah, usually the one with the radical view has the obligation to back it up.

Yep, I am a lawyer (I have a J.D. but havent got bar results back yet, keeping my fingers crossed.)

Dont really know about research publications, IRB forms, or ICPSR data sheets or have any interest in them, i also dont know what IOW or OTOH means either. So if you're trying to change the subject instead of support your position you're doing a good job.

And it doesnt take a rocket scientist to pick between bioshock and a self-titled anxiety causing debate. If you're not enjoying yourself then I dont understand why people bother.

Seriously though, completely losing the egos. Here is a summation of what I've been trying to say:

My original assertion is just that this Vick thing will be good because it lends the justice system some credibility when the masses see the wealthy and famous are not above the law. (Keeping in mind of course that, there will always be complaints about mitigated or aggravated sentences, whether its due to $, race, sex, religion, age, celebrity status, etc...) I also proffered that it will deter people from dogfighting and referred to the USSC's rationale behind criminal punishment (Which I think came from Edwards v. Aguillard). These are just my opinions (as is pretty much everything I say on these boards) and I have been attempting to support them with my education, common sense, and life experiences. I really dont think its crazy to think that deterrence exists and in the narrowest terms, that is what I have been trying to explain/defend, simply that deterrence exists.

As to your prison stats, I challenged their applicability by pointing out that they're only loosely applicable to free populations. I have actually been surprised that you have not yet pointed out that prisoners are probably more like people who engage in dogfighting than the average law abiding citizens I have been referring to. This would be a good response to an attack on the weight/credibility of that recidivism data IMO.

So yeah, go play bioshock if you want to, if i had it i probably wouldnt be posting so much either. Well, not in this thread at least.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:shock:

You don't need to support your position because it "makes sense," IOW?

:shock:

I truly hope that you are not a lawyer, and that you're just lying. For your hypothetical clients' sake.

Do you know how many research publications I could put out if I made the argument that you just made? I wouldn't ever have to fill out IRB forms, dig through ICPSR for existing datasets, do literature reviews, go through peer review...ANYTHING! I'd just say "I don't need to use data to backup my claim because it makes sense!"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Dear god, I truly hope you never finished law school. Don't think I'm kidding. I don't play "reasonable doubt" here; I play "substantiate the claim." And you have failed, remarkably, to do so, outside of a hodgepodge of imposed claims, hiding behind the internally inconsistent USSC, assuming false causation from a single newspaper article (and, as a result, using micro or meso-level information to make a macro-level claim), and not producing a shred of evidence.

Are you really trying to debate here, or are you just being a troll? I've got BioShock to play, so if you're just trying to be obnoxious, I can go play that instead. OTOH, if, by some perverse explanation, you're still trying to argue for deterrence based on thousands of words of yours (and not one bit of evidence), seriously, then you and I need to have a chat about how claims are backed up. I'll bring the research methods, you bring your eyes. K?[/quote]

You're making the critical flaw of assuming that all lawyers base their arguements on "fact" and "scientific evidence".

From the sophists onward through history, there have been lawyers who ignore objective reality and instead construct their arguements based around "truthiness".

I will speak to you in plain, simple English. And that brings us to tonight's word: 'truthiness.' Now I'm sure some of the 'word police,' the 'wordinistas' over at Webster's are gonna say, 'hey, that's not a word'. Well, anyone who knows me knows I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books.
I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. 'Cause face it, folks; we are a divided nation. Not between Democrats and Republicans, or conservatives and liberals, or tops and bottoms. No, we are divided between those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart.
Consider Harriet Miers. If you 'think' about Harriet Miers, of course her nomination's absurd. But the president didn't say he 'thought' about his selection. He said this:
(video clip of President Bush:) 'I know her heart.'
Notice how he said nothing about her brain? He didn't have to. He feels the truth about Harriet Miers.
And what about Iraq? If you think about it, maybe there are a few missing pieces to the rationale for war. But doesn't taking Saddam out feel like the right thing?
— Excerpts from the October 17, 2005 episode of The Colbert Report, stated by Stephen Colbert
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='camoor']You're not the core demo.[/quote]I'm aware of this.

[quote name='level1online']yeah... it's officially turned into a dick mearsuring contest...[/quote]So that's why I never have any reason to enter this forum. Y'all please excuse me, I'll just be on my way back out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top