There haven't been any noteworthy aircraft losses on Russian side confirmed by Ukraine for a while except a couple helicopter.
So by your argumentation you should come to the conclusion that Ukraine will suffer very little plane losses at the current situation on the front.
If what you were saying was true about future F-16 aircraft, why does Ukraine still have an air force of Mig-29 fighters, SU-27 multirole, Mig-25 close air support, Mig-24 bombers, and all of their helicopters still in operation?
There’s no such thing as a MiG-24. (MiG has only ever used odd-numbered model designations, though I don’t know why. But it’s one of the reasons why it was a safe bet for Top Gun to use “MiG-28”, being sure not to refer to any real aircraft, past, present or (probably) future.
Yeah, fuck him. But also they should accommodate for his diet.
The reason we imprison people for life as opposed to executing them, is because we want to demonstrate compassion. Prison is merely isolation for the safety of the public.
His diet doesn’t just affect him though, if his diet is to reduce suffering of non-human amimals by not eating meat, then he’s still doing good.
Think about the flip-side of this, if in prison, vegan meals were the only option for everyone, and an inmate refused to eat until given meat.
I don’t like SBF at all, but I also think veganism should be a respected ethical position. Just like how I don’t like Caitlyn Jenner, but I’ll still use her preferred pronouns.
It’s being brigaded by vegans who only care about veganism, not other people, and people who think it’s unethical that anyone be punished for anything they do.
You know, apologia. They’re actually really disgusting
And practically all the courts in countries that used to be part of the Empire/Commonwealth wear pretty much identical outfits. The whole justice system was founded in the UK.
It's absolute bullshit that an organization as unfathomably, obscenely wealthy as the Catholic Church can break off parts of itself and pretend they're separate entities for the purpose of denying victims their due compensation.
The newspaper received a FB dm with a local restaurant owner’s driver’s licence and DUI convictions. The paper verfied the info (as one can do, online, legally AND through the local PD) but decided not to use it.
Another of their reporters was looking into the new chief of police as to why he left his former job (which paid a lot more). Seems there was some evidence of sexual harassment. The paper hadn’t run that either.
So restaurant owner hears about this and freaks out because she’s been driving around town with a suspended license AND is trying to get a liquor license for her restaurant. She calls the PD, PD gets search warrants from a judge, and here we are.
I've been following this story pretty closely. I'm nowhere near to being part of the press, but I do enjoy seeing clumsy attempts at suppression blowing up in spectacular fashion. As this one has done.
It’s not a punishment. Jail is the result of alleged bond violation through witness tampering. The same meal that every other prisoner eats there is made available to him. He’s not deprived of nutrition. If there was a medical reason that requires a vegan diet (like the prescribed adderall), don’t you think his lawyers and the media would be crying about it? No, his veganism is most likely a lifestyle choice. Still on nutrition - he may dislike it, but he can survive on boring food.
Who here said anything about depriving him food? He is depriving himself, because he is fixated on an idea that is 100% ideology, compared to just taking the vegetarian option.
We need nationalized healthcare. Now. There are 32 developed nations on earth. 31 of them have nationalized healthcare options. We are the only country that does not.
Why are conservatives (and neo-liberals) so opposed to modern healthcare?
There are, unfortunately, many people who only get enjoyment out of other people’s jealousy. They are proud that they have “good” insurance that covers everything, in the same way they are proud of their expensive house/car/boat/etc. If everyone has that thing, they aren’t special and it isn’t a cool toy because anyone could
One of several reasons is they can’t make obscene amounts of money from socialized healthcare. Another would be their aversion to helping the less fortunate who they see as simply moral failures in life who don’t deserve handouts. And maybe a final point is that they know and trust the corruption of free market solutions instead of the “obviously inept and corrupt, gravy-train of welfare cheating governments” that they’ve been taught to hate (until the handout money comes to them during an emergency).
I think it’s because it’d end a lot of jobs and moneymaking opportunities. Imagine all those huge insurance companies just… not being needed the day nationalized healthcare happens. What about all those administrators who fill out the paper work in doctor’s offices?
OTOH, it might also be what’s needed to cool down the job market in the US.
Lot of typewriter repair jobs got ended by the advent of computers but we didn’t let that stop us, we shouldn’t protect obvious economic inefficiencies like this just to reward already affluent people
I’m just saying that one thing most politicians do not want to be seen to do is get rid of any jobs. This is why it’s hard to get traction with it - it’ll hurt them politically directly(people think nationalized health care is worse or bad), it’ll hurt their campaigns (cause contributions), and it’ll hurt them on “the economy” because they “killed lots of good jobs”.
“I know my job makes the world a worse place and my boss treats me like trash, I wish I could just quit and pursue my own dreams, but I need health insurance!”
Jail should accommodate a vegan diet, but it also seems like they are to some extent. PB sandwiches are food. As long as he can cobble together a nutritionally complete diet, it isn’t cruel to have boring meals. Obviously JUST peanut butter sandwiches won’t do it but I have to think they have potatoes, beans, rice on the menu too, stuff like that.
I think that should go without saying, and the real question is why isn’t it the default? Why are we bothering to give prisoners (inherently relatively expensive/less sustainable) meat or dairy to begin with?
If you don’t, aren’t you just saying to the next con man that it’s okay, jail is too hard so you won’t actually get punished, might as well steal billions of dollars?
i don’t think he’s a malicious conman trying to swindle grandma out of her retirement: i think he’s a stupid guy who dug a whole way too fucking deep. and i don’t think we should put people in cages for being stupid.
That’s a separate discussion, I just wanted to point out that in fact he did something similar to stealing grandma’s retirement funds, but on a much, much larger scale.
You think a guy who graduated from MIT and got a job at fucking Jane Street is “stupid”. No. His problem is the missing moral compass, he’s got the smarts all day.
i don’t know his biography and i haven’t followed the case very closely. maybe he is worse than i assumed. i still think it’s inhumane to lock people in cages.
Yeah you said that a few times on this thread. I think it’s a weird view in the case of people who are likely to continue to harm people (if like SBF they show no empathy or contrition) but sure.
Why are you so motivated to comment on the case if you haven’t followed it? Maybe just read and learn something.
locking him up won’t get anyone their money back. i don’t know what would be the right thing to do but i don’t see how keepin him in a cage helps anyone.
i don’t really believe punishment is necessary, but surely there is something we could do to get him to help like… fix the problems he created for others.
i didn’t know all the details and it certainly sounds like he’s done some shitty things, but putting him in prison doesn’t stop him from ruining more lives.
Again- what would stop him from doing it all again? You don’t have a better solution.
Also, “done some shitty things” is a very big understatement. He literally ruined people’s lives. And you think he should be able to get away with that.
What if he’d published your private information online for everyone to see? Still fine?
I mean, I agree with the core of what you’re saying, but there’s a difference between believing in rehabilitation over punishment for someone who robbed a convenience store because they needed money to feed their baby, and someone who exhibited this degree of sociopathic behavior.
What would you propose we do to fix the problems he created? He could spend a lifetime paying it back bit by bit and still not be finished when he dies.
It ensures he can’t harm anyone else, for one. It provides some measure of closure and peace of mind to the victims, for another. It’s not like it’s just financial crimes, it’s witness tampering and threats that he’s in there for. How else can the witnesses feel safe? If I were they, I certainly wouldn’t feel safe if he was out on the street.
The main thing is to dissuade people from doing what he did, right?
Fuck around and find out and all that.
If it has any actual use for anyone (e.g. separating dangerous people from society, taking stolen property/money back, preventing them from committing more crimes etc), that’s entirely unintentional.
Of course it works. If you threaten someone with jail when they do X, then they are less likely to do X.
To take one example, several states have recently threatened doctors with jail if they perform abortions. As a result, obstetricians are now fleeing those states to avoid being prosecuted for performing their normal medical duties. If jail had no deterrent effect, then obstetricians would stay put and keep doing what they’ve always been doing, including performing safe abortions.
To take another example, several state have recently decriminalized marijuana, thus reduces the risk of jail for sale and possession. As a result, marijuana is more commonly consumed in public and far more commonly sold in public. If jail had no deterrent effect, there would be no change in the number of businesses selling marijuana.
I can’t stop anyone from doing something I don’t like.
But historically, there have been plenty of solutions to stop someone from doing something society doesn’t like. For example, execution. Torture. Punishing their relatives. Exile. Prison. And asking them nicely to please stop.
Of those, I think prison is the best option. Putting someone in a cage may seem wrong, but letting them freely murder and rape innocent people is more wrong.
What do you plan to do with murderers and rapists?
Exile is no longer an option, because no other country will allow them in. And everyone has already been told from a young age that murder and rape are unacceptable.
i don’t know: i don’t know the case. im not trying to litigate it in the comment section about sam bankman-fried, either. you asked, i answered. you just don’t like my answer. i don’t care to be interrogated any more.
You said you would not send anyone to prison but cannot offer any alternatives.
Now let me tell you why a policy of not punishing people like Lucy Letby is a terrible idea. She would become a target of revenge-minded people, possibly even the parents of the infants she killed.
She would be tortured and/or killed by individuals who felt justice hadn’t been done. After all, if Lucy Letby doesn’t face serious repercussions for her actions, then her killer has no reason to worry either.
For better or worse, people demand retribution. Government must provide it, otherwise people will take matters into their own hands.
You may trust your own judgement, but do you trust the judgment of literally everyone in the world?
Recently a woman was killed by someone who was offended by her rainbow flag. Last year, a teenager killed a boyfriend who wanted to break up with her.
Today, those are the actions only of unstable people. But they would become the norm if you allow everyone to be judge, jury, and executioner. How long do you suppose an LGBTQ person would survive in Idaho?
laws don’t stop people who want to do bad things. if vigilantism were normalized, mores would form around it, and there would be no need for laws or government.
that’s far off. we need to liberate people from the material conditions that keep them in bondage to the capitalist class before we can start figuring out what the world will look like after teh revolution. in the mean time, i still don’t think it does us any good to pay to jail these people.
Vigilantism is no better than a criminal justice system. You still have rules that you must follow, and punishment for those who break the rules. Vigilantes could even lock someone in a cage if they felt like it.
So I don’t see why you prefer subjecting someone to the whims of vigilante mob than to much more predictable criminal processing. If anything, vigilantes have embraced racism and class preferences far more openly than our legal system.
And laws do stop people from doing bad things. That’s why lynching suddenly became less common after it was outlawed.
A monopoly on violence is usually a good thing. The alternative is war, either on a local level (gang wars) or national (civil war). Wars are generally to be avoided.
And policy change may be hard, but changing the attitudes of a mob is much harder. We passed laws against racism in the 1960s, we still haven’t eliminated racist mobs.
Well, at least one alternative is war. Which I prefer to avoid, even if it requires a monopoly on violence.
And I will always prefer one group threatening violence to rule-breakers to multiple groups threatening violence to rule-breakers. Especially since multiple sets of rules are more likely to be contradictory.
If it has any actual use for anyone (e.g. separating dangerous people from society, taking stolen property/money back, preventing them from committing more crimes etc), that’s entirely unintentional.
shouldn’t those sorts of things be the actual goal of any “justice system”?
It’s called “justice” and in an ideal society it comes for everyone.
He commited billions of dollars worth of fraud. This was an intentional act. It might not “do any good”- but let me ask you, in a nation of laws, would allowing one that blatant to escape justice do any good? And what about the harm caused by signaling that Stanford-lawyer-parents means you’re immune to prosecution?
Lock him up. Give him his crappy budget-vegan-diet and let him serve as an example. (Even if only that example is to not steal from rich assholes.)
It’s called “justice” and in an ideal society it comes for everyone.
i don’t think justice is a vengeful spectre. i think it’s everyone feeling that wrongs have been righted, and i don’t see how locking him in a cage lets him right his wrongs.
hard to imagine how SBF is going to return 8 billion he hasn’t got.
hard to imagine how Floyd is going to get the same opportunity when he got choked out for 20 bucks. your sense of justice is tiered. Rich white guy? let him right wrongs! who cares that he’s ruined lives beyond recovery.
It’s interesting to me to meet someone wholly anti jail. I think our “justice system” is anything but, and at least that’s partially because we have a completely muddled idea about what we’re even trying to accomplish - mostly because of all these different opinions.
It seems pretty clear that our jails are “technically” just this side of cruel and unusual punishment as defined by our courts. But it’s all about punishment. Of course this assumes that retribution is a useful goal, and as you point out - it probably isn’t.
It’s also dubious that there’s any deterrence effect from jail sentences. Lots of people believe there is, but the studies I’ve seen don’t bear that out.
It’s also pretty clear that jail is expensive and just as likely to make criminals worse rather than better, so from a societal perspective, there’s a really good reason to re-think our justice system.
However, given our current system is about punishment and making victims and society at large feel better because “those who fucked around found out” - I would still prefer to see this guy get his to remind people we do in fact have laws and might enforce them.
i don’t relish the idea of keeping people in cages and this guy in particular just seems stupid. i don’t think there is a good case to be made that inconveniencing him for weeks months or years does us any good, especially since maintaining jails is, itself, kind of inconvenient for us.
I’m not debating the merits of anything about him any more than I would for Bernie Madoff. If you’re unable to see for yourself already why SBF and people like him deserve the realization of actual punishment in jail and/or prison for obvious entitled fuckery and fraudulent behavior that contributed to devastating financial losses for others while they acted like millionaire douchebros in the Bahamas, then thought they’d get away with “sorry, I fucked up”, there’s nothing I can say to correct that. Off you go now.
Duh. To make an example of them to deter other con men from doing the same thing. Same as for drunk drivers who kill people with their cars. No further respect, debate or justification needed. Fuck them and you.
i don’t relish the idea of keeping people in cages
I’m personally of the opinion that it’s sadly necessary sometimes, but we definitely overuse it and it’s always a tragedy when things get to the point where it’s necessary.
i think i’m ok with retribution, like a couple of brothers beating the shit out of their sister’s rapist, or shunning or whatever. but i don’t like the institution of prisons. we should figure something else out.
This article isn’t really addressing the mechanism for punishment, just the reasons why we do it. Like, whether it’s a couple of brothers or a taxpayer funded bureaucratic prison system, if we’re punishing someone just because we think they deserve it it’s retribution.
Beyond that, I feel like what you just described is actually just a step backwards from where we’re at currently. Like, why should people who aren’t privileged enough to have brothers not get the same kind of justice as people who do?
Like, why should people who aren’t privileged enough to have brothers not get the same kind of justice as people who do?
i imagine everyone has someone who would go to bat for them. it was just an example of ways that people organically take retribution which i am fine with
Understandable. When I said “pick up the terminology” I meant in the sense of having the right words to search to find the academic articles in favor of against.
Our society locks up more than just dangerous criminals. And if you're arguing against it there's probably millions of people more deserving of more lenient charges than this guy.
if you’re arguing against it there’s probably millions of people more deserving of more lenient charges than this guy.
no doubt. but this is the guy we’re talking about right now so i thought it was worth pointing out that jail is bad and we need to rethink that whole thing.
Crimes aside, punishment should not include limiting a person’s diet or basic food options. No one’s asking for gourmet in prisons, but basic fruits and vegetables should be the baseline.
This isn’t punishment yet. Not for his financial crimes anyway. He’s being held because he allegedly violated his bond through witness tampering and because he can’t stop flapping his mouth to the media. The judge has an obligation to preserve the court’s integrity throughout the case, for both the plaintiff and the defendant, and that means limiting the defendant’s freedom.
Limit the freedom with regards to how well they're fed? That seems pretty... draconian. "You're not guilty... yet, but we're going to curtail your basic freedoms on principle, cause fuck it right?"
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.