your comparison is invalid. he was invited to speak at Stanford. . it was not stanford that revoked its' invitation. It was woke *******s who prevented it. Major fail on your part
You're gonna need to provide a better citation then. "some rando conservative judge" doesn't cut it and I'm not even gonna try to look it up.
you are unaware of what happened at Stanford, yet you want to defend mobs preventing interested citizens from hearing someone speak?
How many convicts serve the full term of their sentence? How many violent crimes are committed by repeat-offenders? Take a good look at recidivism in the United States: https://wisevoter.com/state-ranking...rates in the U.S.,within their first year out. We need longer sentences for crimes -- especially crimes involving violence. And those sentences need to be served to the full term, with no parole, or "early release". I know it sounds elementary, but criminals who are in prison don't go on committing crimes!
We already have the largest prison population in the world. The results haven't lined up with your expectations. Making sentences longer would make that prison population larger without appreciably changing that result. Overall about 3/4 of offenders in federal prisons are serving time for a nonviolent offense and have no history of violence.
i quit watching TV decades ago, i dont live in fear, but i seriously feel sympathy for views of RW media and wonder how they can sleep for fear of whatever BS they are pushing
if you are unaware of what happened, I cannot take your arguments seriously. This matter was discussed for days on this board.
I fear incredibly small minds. And people who don't learn from history. And people who are eager to listen to those who will tell them who to hate and why.
I don't read every thread on every board. There is no citation on this thread. Your excuses point toward this incident not being real. One citation would be so much shorter than multiple posts, after all.
I chose 'starvation by breakdown of supply chain.' Tho thats only partially accurate. My fear isn't anything on that list. My fear is that I'll end being the sole provider for those I care about in any of the above situations (societal collapse in general) and then I'll be the one left picking and choosing who survives and who doesnt. I'll be fine no matter what happens because I've invested in the skills/tools necessary for survival. Few of my loved ones (despite my best attempts at incentivizing their material autonomy) have done the same, and I cant support everyone.
Fear is caused by feeling a lack of control over an event, thing or person one thinks will do something negative. It often is associated with an ignorance causing the perception that the event, thing or person, to be appear dangerous, threatening, negative and it is also often based on a false assumption or assumotions or lack of understanding. As a result my answer is I do not wish to be ignorant because it can cause needless misunderstanding and fear. I am not afraid nor do I fear, fear. I do regret being ignorant all the time. In regards to dangerous people and events, at my age I have learned fear is a wasted emotion. If it comes I now confront it and strip its perception and characteristics down into components and challenge any assumptions that trigger fear. If they are based on common sense, I do not fear the fear, I see it as instinctual preservation and try deal with it. So its not fear but if anything annoyance, regret, despair, but not fear if I have a chance to think it through. Otherwise it is a reflex reaction and I try examine the trigger to ask could I have better reacted in a more constructive way. The question asked is highly personal and subjective to each person who expresses it and on their life experiences. As I have witnessed sick and violent people and been exposed and subject to violence, what happened was as I got exposed more to it my response became more and more reflex reaction not deeply entrenched fear. It was activated without long drawn out thought in the moment of attack. Afterwards it is not fear that developed but anger, disgust, apprehension, post event stress that either led to instant reflexes over the same situation in the future or caused the reaction to be triggered by something that reminded me of the stressful event, i.e., a smell, a loud noise. For me its not fear. Its anger, disgust, contempt I have to watch for. Also often people like me get to a point where things that should cause fear cause what is called a nothingness-there is no emotion at all-its just a flat, focused, intense, tunnel vision directed at the source of attack that passes when the shooting or explosion or attack is over.
It is merely your assumption that serving longer sentences would not change "the result". Did you look at the recidivism page I provided? Still, I would make a concession that if you're right about three-fourths of prisoners not being in there for "violent" crimes, how would it be if we prescribe longer sentences only for the one-fourth that did commit violent crimes? Again, convicts in prison don't commit crimes of any kind... it's only when they're turned loose that they cause more trouble. The prison population is what it is, because crime in this country is what it is. If we could discourage crime with very long sentences in prisons that are not run like "community recreation centers", then many fewer people would take a cavalier attitude about committing crimes in this country any longer.
It would seem that the recidivism rate does not differentiate between the various lengths of sentence, so I don't really see how you mean to use it. Unless you want to institute execution as the penalty for all violent offenses. That would tend toward a recidivism rate of zero. Criminal sentences don't generally work as deterrents for two simple reasons. Either 1) the perp doesn't care/think about consequences (this would be a crime of passion) or 2) the criminal doesn't expect to get caught. Prisons are not run like rec centers. Where did you come by that notion? IMO there should be less of an emphasis on punishment in our prisons and more on rehabilitation and reform of the inmates. Punishment alone will never be the complete answer.
Correct. Gov't prevention of said speech and arrest of said person if speech is made is what it means to be against free speech. Not allowing one to spread stuff is not required to be an open platform to every entity in the country. I don't think you understand the concept of free speech.
The report’s findings and insights can credibly and authoritatively anchor coverage and debate about this issue. The following are key statements within the 464-page document. Empirical findings: In 2012 the U.S. penal population was 2.23 million adults, the largest in the world, with an incarceration rate of 707 per 100,000. That year, nearly 25% of the world’s prisoners were held in American prisons, yet the United States constituted just 4.5% of the global population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. “During the 1980s, the U.S. Congress and most state legislatures enacted laws mandating lengthy prison sentences — often of 5, 10, and 20 years or longer — for drug offenses, violent offenses, and ‘career criminals.’ In the 1990s, Congress and more than one-half of the states enacted ‘three strikes and you’re out’ laws that mandated minimum sentences of 25 years or longer for affected offenders. A majority of states enacted ‘truth-in-sentencing’ laws requiring affected offenders to serve at least 85% of their nominal prison sentences.” “From 1980 to 2000, the number of children with incarcerated fathers increased from about 350,000 to 2.1 million — about 3% of all U.S. children. From 1991 to 2007, the number of children with a father or mother in prison increased 77% and 131%, respectively.” “Among white male high school dropouts born in the late 1970s, about one-third are estimated to have served time in prison by their mid-30s. Yet incarceration rates have reached even higher levels among young black men with little schooling: among black male high school dropouts, about two-thirds have a prison record by that same age — more than twice the rate for their white counterparts. The pervasiveness of imprisonment among men with very little schooling is historically unprecedented, emerging only in the past two decades.” https://journalistsresource.org/pol...prisons-statistics-national-research-council/ So, has it worked? We did incarcerate people longer and for less violent crimes.
you are claiming I DON'T UNDERSTAND free speech and you think it is perfectly acceptable for a woke mob to disrupt and interfere with a meeting others wanted to attend? No wonder people like you want to ban honest people owning firearms
yet you want to make it illegal to own lots of firearms that are currently legal. do you want people who continue to own the firearms you want banned to be incarcerated?
The venues 1st priority is safety. They are not obligated to let any speaker speak if safety becomes a concern. That has nothing at all to do with taking away free speech. That you still claim so only prove's you don't understand the free speech right.
so let's think this through. A group approaches a university administration and say-we want say Justice Thomas to speak. Permission is given, arrangements are made and he shows up, only to have a bunch of scumbags threaten those who want to listen and disrupt the meeting, and you think that is acceptable. . And you claim that does not interfere with free speech.
this is coming from a poster whose postings are well known for refusing to actually answer direct questions, and engages in all sorts of evasive and disingenuous subterfuge. Like asking you what firearms should be banned. we all saw your duck and hide on that after you claimed you really aren't interested in that subject despite posting hundreds of times on gun control issues
we put too many non violent people in prison-few non-violent offenses should be punished with incarceration. However, incarceration prevents violent criminals from harming innocents. Most violent crime is committed by a small group of hard core mopes. These offenders need to be locked away for long periods of time. while I have issues with "three strikes" (read this case https://www.lawpipe.com/U.S.-Supreme-Court/Rummel_v_Estelle.html) I was a federal prosecutor when the three strikes laws were popular and that had a great deal with decreasing the rate of violent crime.
I'm typing this slowly so you'll understand. Interference with a platform is not the same as interference with speech. The two are different. Otherwise, modding forums would be against the law, as it would be counter to free speech.
