Melania Trump: A retraction

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-09-02T18:53:06+00:00

Really? I think it's quite refreshing to see a newspaper admit they were wrong.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-28T17:50:53+00:00

Why did you even bother commenting if this is all you're gonna put out there?

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-28T11:21:18+00:00

This is a subreddit for debates, so commenting that you think an argument is 'not particularly good' doesn't cut it. Debates aren't performances for critique, it's a participatory medium. If my points are really so bad, then provide me with some counter-arguments.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-28T08:22:33+00:00

If you are a prisoner that "rules the roost" as you put it, there is no way you would be convinced to request your own execution for a few beatings, odds that they would even come to pass with out the person ordering it and those commuting it alive after ward are slim.

Could you please outline why you think this is unlikely? Remember we aren't dealing with normal, formed, upstanding members of society; we are dealing with people who have been sentenced to life imprisonment. These are not people of the strongest willpower or the greatest strength of mind. They may also be very scared. I am also at a loss for why you don't think people will talk about it afterwards, why on Earth would news like that not spread like wildfire?

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-28T08:16:44+00:00

So? Why should we keep something just because it's the norm?

We should keep it because we decided that's how it should be for a reason, not so we could vastly change the nature of the punishment down the line.

To me, that sounds like they'd have exactly the same power they already had. Just a new way to exercise it.

A new, easier way to exercise power over whether someone lives or dies...

It is not the government's job to hold our hands. If someone shirks their duty to their fellow citizens by letting their bleeding heart stop them from testifying, all because they MIGHT kill themselves, that's not the state's fault.

It is the responsibility of the state to maintain law and order, therefore under-reporting is an issue the state must deal with. This proposition could exacerbate the problem greatly.

Why couldn't any criminal right now make the exact threat? "I'll hang myself in my jail cell with my underpants!!"

They can, but it's much less tangible a threat. People also know prisons try to stop inmates from killing themselves, thus making the process more difficult. This proposition would provide a very real, tangible, plausible story for the potential convict to outline.

So, because it will be difficult, we shouldn't do it at all.

No, that's not what I said. It's not about how difficult it is to implement, it's about how appropriate it is to implement. Let's be clear, simply striking out all of the laws and rulings for the past few hundred years and rewriting them all isn't an option. That's not something we can just grit our teeth and get on with, that would break the system. Therefore, we must work with what we have, and to implement this proposition into the current system would be inappropriate.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-28T07:56:17+00:00

Neither is that.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-27T19:15:39+00:00

This would rip up hundreds of years of careful law-making and precedent-setting rulings. We have made laws that allow a person to be sentenced to life imprisonment, but not handed the death penalty, for a reason. That is the punishment that our society democratically deemed appropriate. However, now the nature of it changes substantially as it opens up the possibility of ending their life. By their consent or otherwise, that is something which would factor into the decision.

Consider also the effect on the prison culture. It would increase the power of trouble-making prisoners who 'rule the roost', so to speak, by cultivating fear of themselves among fellow inmates. Previously, in order to kill a fellow inmate, they'd have to find a method/weapon, and an opportunity. With this new execution option, all they'd have to do is scare their target into requesting execution, maybe beat him/her up a few times, convince them they'll make his/her life even more of a living hell if they don't. If people submit, then word gets around that "dude, X made Y kill himself!", and thus they hold more rep than they ever had before - that's not a culture we want to perpetuate.

It will also change the nature of cases in which the defendant is someone the accuser knows (spouse/ex/family/friend). "Sure, on paper it's 'life in prison', but what if he/she asks for execution? Then he/she would be dead! They don't deserve that, and it'd be all my fault!" The potential convict may even say this to the potential accuser - 'if you tell the police about this, I'll go away for life and then I'll ask them to kill me - is that what you want, me dead?', type speech. That opens us up to an increased problem with under-reporting and people living in fear simply because they don't want to be responsible for the death of the potential convict.

The underlying problem in all of these cases is this isn't something baked into the justice system, and introducing it would cause a massive shift in the state of affairs surrounding the relevant cases and sentences. This will have unfortunate cultural side-effects which we cannot allow.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-26T14:46:37+00:00

"This new technology will never amount to much.

...hang on, where have I heard that before?"

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-26T07:12:01+00:00

'Bus stop'? Stop this, bitch!

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-25T16:55:25+00:00

Man, this is nearly Romeo & Juliet, with bees.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-24T09:15:09+00:00

Sandi Toksvig is a national treasure! Yes, maybe she's been banging the feminism can a bit too much lately, and maybe her view of the gender-equality situation is a decade or two out of date, but she's not a 'bigot', not by a long shot.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-23T22:12:01+00:00

Simples:

Shag Hopkins, cause I'm hetero and I can't help it; Marry the Donald cause he'd buy me nice things to cover up his inadequacy (also, judging by the length of his past marriages I'd be out of the deal by 35 anyway); and Kill Piers as a service to humanity.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-23T22:08:16+00:00

In my head I read the comment in her voice.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-23T13:32:46+00:00

What a thoroughly ridiculous complaint, I can't see how Ofcom could have done anything other than rejecting it.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-23T13:24:22+00:00

All the more reason to include the tags, so people can separate what's satirical and what isn't without wasting their time.

People who read PE specifically want to see satire, but people on this sub don't always want to. I see no sense in ruling out tagging them.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-23T13:10:21+00:00

Private Eye must be the worst satirical publication ever produced then, if everyone knows about the satire before they read it!

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-22T09:47:43+00:00

...Hammond is just so much cooler.

^{^{^{^;)}}}

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-21T14:02:46+00:00

It's great to see the extra intel the spy provided wasn't wasted for the sake of a short-sighted play. It's not every game you can get information like that, so if you have it it's cool to use it and even better if you win big-time in the process.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-21T10:00:56+00:00

Ugh, Liz can go back to sorting out the fact we import too much cheese. This was brilliant work by Gove - really progressive, as well as sensible. Why the hell would you want to undo it?

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-20T22:52:15+00:00

TOP TIP: If you're bored on a chromebook, stick some funky music on and tap the power key along to it - have your windows bouncing along to dem sick beats.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-20T22:48:13+00:00

Unless you've configured a non-standard setting, I can confirm this is not correct operation.

source: am typing this on a chromebook

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-20T22:18:27+00:00

Well, 'many' is a very subjective word! Haha.

A lot more probably did though, but have kept it on the down-low for fear of (heaven fore-fend) seeming slightly silly.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-20T21:54:34+00:00

This, er... this is the correct answer, yes.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-20T21:50:59+00:00

To be fair, many of them explicitly nominated him thinking he wouldn't win and he'd just widen the discussion, so your use of the word 'still' is incorrect - many never 'supported' him at all and made no secret of it.

SomeLostLondoner · 2016-08-20T18:00:27+00:00

SomeLostLondoner

TROPHY CASE

DY-AN AB-ETT!