Random Thoughts II

[cEvin]

how can we be lollers if we can't be friends?

[Haydos]

Well, take it from this example.

In 100 years of modern psychology and pseudoscience, serious offender rates keep on growing, growing, growing.

Prevention of the cause means understanding and identifying the cause. Poverty is one, but then how do you bring people out of poverty when they're the same little fucks who place no priority on their education or employment?

100 years, billions of wasted dollars and people still think they're going to prevent serial offenders from occuring through rehabilitation.

[StN]

...and people always wondered what the next killer app would be.

[Cyberbob]

Originally Posted by Haydos

Well, take it from this example.

In 100 years of modern psychology and pseudoscience, serious offender rates keep on growing, growing, growing.

Prevention of the cause means understanding and identifying the cause. Poverty is one, but then how do you bring people out of poverty when they're the same little fucks who place no priority on their education or employment?

100 years, billions of wasted dollars and people still think they're going to prevent serial offenders from occuring through rehabilitation.

I'd argue that it's the reporting (and conviction) of the connected crimes that have gone up, not the actual per capita crime rates

[caffiend]

Originally Posted by cEvin

how can we be lollers if we can't be friends?

My boy lollipop.... he makes my heart go giddy-up.

.... wait.

[Haydos]

Whilst that's probably true in petty crime offense, violent assaults, murder, etc.. have all gone up, serial offense has all gone up and the poverty gap continues to be there, no matter how much money they throw into it.

[Helious]

I just blew my nose and felt air come out of my right eye (lower left corner)

[Haydos]

You have an auto immune disease, maybe Lupus.

[Lightspeed]

Well, I'm not trying going to try and change your mind, because your belief system is completely self-referential ( i.e. your unconscious thought process is along the lines of "How do I know if this is true? Do I believe it's true? Yes. Then it must be true." ).

But for everyone else, there is large amount of empirical evidence and even more anecdotal evidence showing that advances in psychology help prevent people from committing offences. Even if serious offences have increased over the last hundred years ( and I am not sure that is true ), that only suggests that the decline of societies values is greater than the benefit from advances in understanding the human condition.

[dead goon]

Originally Posted by cEvin

how can we be lollers if we can't be friends?

cEvin strikes again!

return of the lol king.

[Haydos]

Empirical evidence?





You mean like that?

Anyone disputing violent crime hasn't risen in the last 25 years is utterly stupid. Anyone disputing that prevention programs have been fruitless is utterly stupid.

I conclude, that I believe you are utterly stupid, therefore, you must be utterly stupid.

[A Corpse]

Originally Posted by Helious-

I just blew my nose and felt air come out of my right eye (lower left corner)

Yeah I have that with both my eyes. If I've had a cold for a few days blowing my nose ruptures the membrane/conduit.

There's a guy on Guiness World Records who squirted milk that way, so it's not that unusual.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Haydos

Empirical evidence?





You mean like that?

Anyone disputing violent crime hasn't risen in the last 25 years is utterly stupid. Anyone disputing that prevention programs have been fruitless is utterly stupid.

I conclude, that I believe you are utterly stupid, therefore, you must be utterly stupid.

You initially said the last 100 years. You provide evidence for 2-3 years, which give no indication of trends over the last 25 years which you are now making claims about. Buh?

Even so, how does this counter my statement:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Even if serious offences have increased over the last hundred years ( and I am not sure that is true ), that only suggests that the decline of societies values is greater than the benefit from advances in understanding the human condition.

[DrTiTus]

[Haydos]

June 88 to June 2008 is only 3 years?

Wow.

And lol at the above graph. Yes, For a few years there, crime rates did decrease, only to escalate massively straight there after - you can even see what you've posted above in the graph I posted.

[Lightspeed]

How does that counter my statement?

[Haydos]

The trend of the last 25 years mirrors the trend of the last 100 - I simply can't find the graph I saw which indicates it. The fact that the last 25 years shows the trend should be enough for you.

But you don't like empirical evidence, you like convinient evidence.

[Lightspeed]

You remind me of an old boss. We were having some argument about monitor refresh rates, so I brought up some page from google with evidence of what I was describing. He countered with great triumph that the website was wrong because the casing was wrong for kHz.

The phrase "beside the point" meant nothing to him.

[Haydos]

So far, I'm the only one posting an image/table documenting what I said earlier and disproving your theory "which give no indication of trends over the last 25 years which you are now making claims about. Buh? "

88 to 2008 is 20 years, maybe not 25, but enough to give you a good sampling of the overall trend. I'm sorry i'm 5 years off, it's a lot better than not having any information at all and then trying to say I'm the one not backing my claims with evidence.

Are you always this fucking retarded? No wonder your boss didn't take your link seriously.

[Baal]

Sorry guys but my graph goes up. The internet doesn't lie.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Haydos

So far, I'm the only one posting an image/table documenting what I said earlier and disproving your theory "which give no indication of trends over the last 25 years which you are now making claims about. Buh? "

88 to 2008 is 20 years, maybe not 25, but enough to give you a good sampling of the overall trend. I'm sorry i'm 5 years off, it's a lot better than not having any information at all and then trying to say I'm the one not backing my claims with evidence.

Are you always this fucking retarded? No wonder your boss didn't take your link seriously.

What theory of mine do you refer to?

[Lightspeed]

The one that's beside the point?

[Lightspeed]

Let me quote what we're talking about again:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Even if serious offences have increased over the last hundred years ( and I am not sure that is true ), that only suggests that the decline of societies values is greater than the benefit from advances in understanding the human condition.

You seem to be focused on what's beside the point and not the actual point.

[DrTiTus]

Whats missing is the data for repeat offenders, and how rehabilitation has an effect.

The population as a whole may have become more crazy (this I would not dispute), but you're suggesting (via your graph) that putting an offender in jail has no effect on ALL people commiting crimes. Hmm, obvious?

You need data on rehabilitation.

[Haydos]

Ah yes, so now we've gone from you talking about me having no empirical evidence and simply supposing based on theory and belief, rather than fact.

Now you're doing the same.

The point remains consistent. You're an idiot.

[Jonas Undrawing]

baal's graph has convinced me to buy shares in *squints*.... Civilian Casualties.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Haydos

Ah yes, so now we've gone from you talking about me having no empirical evidence and simply supposing based on theory and belief, rather than fact.

Now you're doing the same.

The point remains consistent. You're an idiot.

That's not true, which I assume is why you're being offensive.

You have demonstrated some crime has gone up, but you have not demonstrated how that shows psychology is ineffective. I'm questioning your theory, not offering a counter theory.

[Haydos]

Rehabilitation only works when the person involve sees that they have a problem and is keen to tackle/address the problem. Prevention is impossible in those that do not see they have a problem and largely, these are the people who are prone to more than the normal ruse/bar fight/whatever.

These are the people responsible for serial offense of violent crime and rehabilitation time and time again, proves to not work for the majority.

[Lightspeed]

Can you demonstrate this in graph form? Or at least provide reputable references?

[Jonas Undrawing]

im happy with interpretive dance form

[Haydos]

Not how it works - I've proven your point wrong regarding trends in crime, which you now say you weren't meaning to use as your point and that empirical evidence didn't matter.

You plant something to show me how in the face of rising crime and serial offense, psychology and rehabilitation is working, we just need to give it more time/resource.

Oh wait, that's right - you can't.

[Lightspeed]

I'm not interested of convincing you it's working. I'm only interested in demonstrating to others that you have no basis to say that it's not.

[Haydos]

Which merely shows how retarded you are.

You first state that I base everything off of belief, not empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is shown and instead of properly understanding it, you try and claim it's for a two to three year period.

Upon realising it's a 20 year period, you then move to stating evidence isn't required and it's solely rehabilitation we're arguing.

In the face of offender rates, reoffender rates and the fact that our prison population continues to grow per capita, rather than shrink, anyone with half a brain can assume that shows rehabilitation as it currently is, is a flawed concept for the majority.

But not you, you're special.

[buckies]

Can we get the stats related to the costs of imprisonment and rehabilitation (yes, I'm too lazy to do this) in order to determine why you think it's reasonable that a cost of $X in this respect warrants the judgemental termination of another human's life?

There are other trends over the years that have also likely influenced the increased crime rate that your graphs tend to suggest (i.e. increased gap between rich and poor in NZ).

I think the better approach would be to say "why has the crime rate increased over the past 25 years?", collate all measure the principal reasons, and apply a 80/20 model and throw money towards fixing that particular issue. This seems like a more reasonable approach to me then simply rounding up all offenders and killing them.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Haydos

...

You're right, I got distracted by something that is beside the point. Lets assume that crime is skyrocketing.

This does not in anyway demonstrate the rehabilitation is ineffective. It just means it's not effective enough.

If a boat is filling with water quicker than we can pump it out, do we stop pumping? Or do we keep pumping while we try and find a way to stop the water from getting in?

[Ritalin]

I know the data is old (1995-2001), but if I read that chart correctly 79% of violent offenders are re-imprisoned within 5 years of release. That's a *lot* higher than I was expecting.

I've yet to find any data on changing recidivism rates over time (or the effect of rehabilitation programs on these).

[StN]

I don't hold a lot of faith in stats that rely on reported crime rates - it appears anecdotally that it is harder to report low level crimes, either through apathetic staff or excessive paperwork. Some people just CBF'd. Violent crime is probably a different matter, and has probably swung the other way with the publicity around domestic violence.

[sv]

Originally Posted by Haydos

Rehabilitation only works when the person involve sees that they have a problem and is keen to tackle/address the problem.

Agreed. You can't help people that don't want to be helped.

In the case of violent crime, those people are better off locked up.

You'd rather have them executed, but in my opinion that takes a fairly cold view of humanity. Even if the odds of the individual accepting rehabilitation are slim to non-existant, it's preferable to allow for that possibility rather than do away them.

Execution implies they are beyond redemption (not so much to society, as to themselves), which isn't a principle I would ever subscribe to. In the US it costs more to have someone executed than to imprison them for life, and naturally the lower socio-economic classes are more likely to suffer the death penalty. There are also the unpalatable cases of the mentally ill, intellectually impaired or innocent being executed...

So that's me in the Namby Pamby, Not A Fan Of State-Sanctioned Murder basket.

[Haydos]

Ritalin's table tends to indicate that the majority of criminals re-offend which would seem to indicate that the majority of rehabilitation programs do not work.

I'm not saying put to death anyone who offends more than once - unless that offense is something like rape, murder, whatever.

At 100 separate (i.e not 5 charges for one act of crime) convictions for petty offenses? What then? That's where I think you could deem the person a menace to society and execute.

It seems the answer at the moment for rehabilitation is longer prison sentences, which if anything marginalises people and subjects them to an environment of survival where they're more likely to have different motives than the average person - meaning once out, they're more likely to reoffend in a nice little cycle.

So instead of throwing more money into this, why not find some final solutions - A: As ultimate punishment for someone like Graeme Burton and B: As a noose hanging over the head of people who may be on their final warning.

Wasn't it shown that the three strikes policy in America did result in lower criminal rates, the only sidepoint being that those on their third strike were more likely to murder to try and escape conviction rather than leave witnesses.

Prevention starts in breaking the cycle in the home of likely offenders, this only happens when the parents are able to show the children that their friends are wrong for them, the decisions they're making are wrong, the value of education and the value of employment.

Money has been thrown into that black hole for years with no result.

[Gentl e]

Originally Posted by Haydos

Ah yes, so now we've gone from you talking about me having no empirical evidence and simply supposing based on theory and belief, rather than fact.

Now you're doing the same.

The point remains consistent. You're an idiot.

Originally Posted by Haydos

Like I said before.

Only a very obtuse member of society would require stats to indicate that high level violent crime has increased in the past 10 years in NZ.

http://www.nzgames.com/forums/showth...54#post1542054