Forostar said:
When Graffin was asked to mention the planets from the solar system, he did it the opposite order the teacher expected him to do. That is not wrong. It's a choice. The teacher tries to interrupt him but Greg just continues til he's done.
Still he got punished because he didn't listen. Don't forget: He gave the right answer, namely: mention all the planets in our solar system.
You're saying that like it was an American thing. Did the author of your book say how he got punished? I.e. physically, or with bad grades? If bad grades is the answer, then that is no different from what is happening in Germany. My brother once had an English vocabulary test, and the required vocabulary was the translation for
bequem, which can mean
comfortable or
easy, with no difference in the meaning. My brother wrote
comfortable, the required answer was
easy and it was marked as a mistake.
If he got punished physically, I don't think that would be normally accepted in America either.
Wasted CLV said:
OK, I'm gonna take a firmer stance on this one. Organizations such as this can say whatever they want. I can start an organization tomorrow "Wasted's Victim's Rights Activist Outlook" and say that I believe countries that harbor criminals and that don't put them in prison are contributing to the downfall of political integration between nations. Is this true? How can I substantiate that? ...how do they back up what they are saying. Of course, they feel that we should all kiss and make up and people shouldn't be in jail.
I'm going to have to argue against that. It's not like a major organisation like Human Rights Watch does not base its statements on hard facts. They don't just say whatever they want, they make sure it is properly referenced from reliable sources. Of course, their interpretation is somewhat biased, and of course they interpret the facts according to their mission. But what they say certainly has substance.
Forostar said:
I am not going to be responsible for your own judgement on research. If you mistrust data and research we can stop this discussion already.
If you use arguments in a discussion, you must accept that people will question them. That is the whole point in a discussion. Your task in this case is to defend them, not by responding emotionally, but to bring forth arguments to counter their objections. If you think that one argument or one source speaks the whole truth,
then it's time to end the discussion.
You say:
"Countries that have a low level of belief in god are more likely to let criminals go free, because they don't give a shit." --for example.
You could, but I prefer it if you would back it up with some figures.
He said he
could say it. It was more of a piece of polemics than an actual argument.
Wasted CLV said:
Well, in essence, I'm saying the same thing. You have figures that say one thing, without looking at anything else. Your statistics say that people with a lower rate of belief are more likely to have lower prison rates. OK, great and all, but there is far more to it. I'm not saying I disbelieve those figures, I'm saying there is more to it than that. There are other factors involved. You can't take only two items of data and have a sound basis for a theory. I can say that people in airline crashes are more likely to die than people in car crashes, and I would be 100% correct. From that data I could say you shouldn't fly--But I also know that flight is still far safer than driving. All I am saying is that, as correct as that data is, there is too much more involved. These countries don't live in a vacuum-- too many other influences on them than religion.
Quoted for emphasis, also note SMX's post after this one for an illustration.
bearfan said:
I do not think it is a great mystery why the US prison population is so high, the war on drugs, which other countries are not waging. Remove minor drug offenders and the US prison population would be in synch with the rest of the free world.
I disagree: Other countries are waging the war on drugs. But they use different methods. It is true that the US are criminalising drugs on a much earlier state than other countries do, so more people go to prison in the US for drug consume than elsewhere, in countries that are using different methods.
However, it is certainly true that the US is simply a bigger
market for drugs. It has a bigger population and many more bigger cities than most other European countries, for instance, so there is much more crime related to that.
Let's not forget that a lot of crime happens in major urban areas, and the US simply has more and bigger of those than any given European country except Russia. While Germany or the Netherlands are certainly very urbanised countries, their cities are not nearly as large as some American ones.
To take this further, let's also not forget that the US have a lot more social problems than most European countries do. So obviously, there is also much more crime, and hence many more prisoners, even relatively. The only western European country I can think of that has comparable ghettos and social unrest combined with that is France. The reasons here are different than in the US and in my opinion can't be compared, and I also don't have any French statistics to quote from.
So, if you want to see less people in American prisons, laxing punishment laws can't be the answer. The solution lies in fighting the reasons for crime, and that is easier said than done. In fact, I think that no matter what America does here, they will get heavy flak from observers.
