| ||||||||
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above. | ||||||||
|
Has Jack Bauer ever tortured anyone who honestly didn't know anything? If so, would that make him a bad person? — Keenan Pepper 04:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, anyone who tortures other people is a bad person. No good person has ever tortured anyone. In fact, even just saying a good person is torturing you, can only refer to your being a stalker. (e.g. you are referring to the fact that you have no contact with the "good person", they are a celebrity who doesn't answer your psychotic mail, and by "torture" you mean your obsession with them is torturing you.). Hope this helps. 82.131.188.227 09:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC).
If they're also carving you up limb by limb with a sharp knife to get you to talk (or confess -- if you had chosen slightly different "vices", we'd be talking about the inquisition) then obviously no, they're not good people. 82.131.190.191 15:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC).
Jack Bauer Did Torture that guy with the stripped wires of a lamp in season 4 (I think it was season 4) Dave 19 July 2006
I have two questions to ask you about pantheism:
1.I've heard that there is a type of pantheism which says that God is the only thing that actually exists and that everything else, including ourselves and our own personal identity, is an illusion.But what type of pantheism is this? Classical or naturalistic pantheism?
2.I've heard that there's a connection between pantheism and belief in magical,supernatural, paranormal, and occult phenomena (excluding God).By that, it means those things are much more related to pantheism than to other types of theism.I've heard that many pantheists such as Shintoists,many ancient pagans, and believers of New Age religions believe in supernatural and/or magical phenomena such as spirits.I've also heard that most "witches",sorcerers,fortune-tellers, and psychics (or at least people who claim to be them) and many very superstitious people are pantheists.Is that true?If so, then why?If you said that pantheists don't really believe in the supernatural or that physical laws can be violated, then how do you explain this?
Shintoists are animists, not pantheists.
I thought animism was a type of pantheism.If not, then what's the difference between animism and pantheism? 60.241.116.24 01:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
But is animism similar to pantheism in that it says the universe began without the cause of a divine creator, or is it more similar to theism in that it says the universe was created by God or supernatural spirits?
Dear all! I'm busy with a project in monitoring web-sites of military TV channels all over the world. I've already found four channels in the USA (including Discovery), but I'm supposed to research TV channels in other countries too. The thing is that I can't find any more. I would be truly grateful to you, if you could give me any information of the worlds military channels or related ones. I mean channels both run by the military and about the military. Thank you! Julia -- 81.195.190.194 12:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The Discovery military channel is neither by the military nor for it. Please define your terms. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I've heard people, who not like the content of the History Channel call it the hitler Channel because there's so much stuff about the nazis on it, and because the programming bends over backwards to be neutral and factual, it sounds like it is praising them, to someone who doesn't think anyone should be neutral towards the bad guys.
What is the meaning of the tamil word 'Thamban'?
I'm sure it translates to "Ask this in the Language forum" :)
Does anyone know the song that is in the new Vodafone advert in the UK with the people floating about and what not. It sounds like an older band but I'm not sure! Thank you muchly.
What is the origin and significance of guardian angels being on the left shoulder versus the right shoulder?
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to you with not typical matter. I have a friend whos name is Dike. We know that it is greek name. But we do not know when she has her nameday... She was looking for it in many places and did not find anything. I was also looking for the date of her nameday but also without result.
We were looking mainly in the Internet on various pages with nameday dates.. But the name "Dike" was always missing...
Could you help us with this? Do you know some page/callendar where we could find it? If you have such callendar with nameday of my friend Dike, I and she would be very grateful for sending/selling it, if possible.
Small description:
Dike, the Greek goddess of moral justice, one of the three second generation Horae
Dike (Greek for justice) was the goddess of moral justice. She ruled over human justice; her mother (Themis) ruled over divine justice. Dike was born a mortal and Zeus placed her on earth to keep mankind just. He quickly learned this was impossible and placed her next to him on Olympus.
Kind Regards
<personal information removed to prevent spam>
Are the Parthians the same at the Persians in 40 BC and are they the same in 600 AD?
just to be clear, Rmhermen linkified the two words Parthians and Persians, by way of answer. Searching for the word "persian" on the Parthian page I find: Consequently Parthian history is largely derived from foreign histories, controlled by the evidence of coins and inscriptions; even their own name for themselves is debatable due to a lack of domestic records. Several Greek authors, of whom we have fragments, including Apollodorus of Artemita and Isidore of Charax, wrote under Parthian rule. Their power was based on a combination of the guerilla warfare of a mounted nomadic tribe, with organisational skills sufficient to build and administer a vast empire - even though it never matched in power the Persian empires that preceded and followed it. This is kind of confusing, there's no clear timeline on the page or anything. And, as for whether they're "the same" in 40 BC and in 600 AD as the Persians, I can't seem to find it. (Didn't read either article carefully though). If someone wants to, what's the answer? 82.131.186.80 21:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC). (I'm not the original poster).
I have read the articles about Judaism, Jews, Christianity, Anti-Semitism and other related articles. But I have this doubt lingering on in my mind that : Is judaism derived from christianity? I mean, Jews also have bible, so do christians. And other wise also, they have "ten commandment" or torah, and i think christians also have something in religion like it. So if someone could clarify my doubts. I may be wrong in presenting some of above facts, so correct me. Bye.
And how did Judaism originate? No where in any article has it been mentioned.
I will respectfully suggest another view: Christianity did NOT evolve from Judaism. Both Judaism and Christianity evolved from the same religious tradition in the middle centuries of the first millennium. Modern Judaism is not a lot closer to the Judaism of 50 AD (temple, priests, animal sacrifice) than Christianity is. They were considered two branches of the same religion in the second century. Modern characteristics and institutions gradually developed but modern Christianity is just as "legitimate" a descendant of the ancient religion of the Torah as modern Judaism. Maybe even bigger than the obvious have-we-or-havent-we-had-the-messiah difference, Christianity cut itself loose from the ethnic association and became one of the first "universal" religions claiming to be independent of culture and ethnicity while the tradition that remained "the religion of the Jews' became modern Judaism and is still bound to a culture and an ethnicity. alteripse 21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to be sure, Stu, I always preface all of my responses to questions regarding religion with some sort of qualifier. In this case, please note that I prefaced the entire post with the qualifier "according to scripture". Personally, I disagree with taking any position on the veracity of these texts. Literally, I take an entirely Neutral Point of View. To insist that either the Torah, Bible or Koran is the absolute truth that EVERYONE must accept is nothing short of ignorant arrogance. Likewise, however, to state as you did that these texts are absolutely, without question, works of fiction is just as arrogant and ignorant. The only acceptable NPOV view is that we simply DON'T KNOW what's true and what isn't. Loomis 02:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Both sides have good arguments. Here is an argument from the pro-death penalty side which seems hard to counter: Fred murdered three people and is now serving three consecutive life sentences, with no possibility of parole. Fred murders a guard. How should Fred be punished? He can't be beaten or starved, because that would be cruel, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. What kind of additional punishment can be inflicted on Fred, to achieve some measure of justice for the family of the dead prison guard and for society in general? From Fred's point of view, what is the downside for killing a guard or another prisoner? What if the prison authorities cut his food ration in half? What if he were placed in solitary for twenty years - would that be cruel? How about water only from now on - no juice, milk or coffee? 66.213.33.2 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Putting all prisoners in solitary confinement would prevent the reformation of the prisoners and create a much higher recidvism rate when they were released. Prisons, at least in the US, aren't supposed to be warehouses, but places where criminals are turned into good citizens. Emmett5 23:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Prisons in the United States, and prisons in European nations since the late 18th century, have been dedicated to the premise that they are not there to punish. citation needed Prior to the 18th century, prison was never a punishment: it was where one was stored until punishment could be enacted. In the 18th century itself, prison terms were lengthening and medieval and renaissance punishments were being put aside. Therefore, the idea was to come up with a place where persons could do penance -- a penitentiary -- and where people could be reformed -- a reformatory. However, there has never been an official change of overall philosophy to prison as punishment, and yet the general public (and criminal public) thinks that prison is suffering, is punishment, is "justice." Be aware that the prisons were not designed for that. I think they shouldn't be designed for that, either, but the most important thing is that you should not be concerned with trying to inflict pain to match pain inflicted, for doing something like that is, in the first instance, impossible and is, in the second instance, to reiterate cruelty and predation. So the answer to the argument is, "You're asking the wrong question: we're not trying to punish at all." Geogre 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, all. But I wasn't really asking for philosophies of prison. I want suggestions for SPECIFIC PUNISHMENTS for the murder of the guard. What punishment can be imposed that would not be cruel or unusual? For example, I suggest: (1) life in solitary confinement, with no mail in or out, and no visitors (2)half rations for the rest of Fred's life (3)water only from now on(4)five hours of brutal exercise every day (5) sleep deprivation, maybe three or four days at a time (6) slaps and kicks from the guards (7) two or three days each week in a "sweat box", with heat up to 130 degrees. Fred would probably leave this world in a year or two, but would that be a problem?
In what context was this quote and who said it? Thank you. B.Mackey
See Sermon on the Mount -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
At least according to popular culture, sexual assault is an extremely common phenomenon in prisons, at least maximum security prisons, a phenomenon so common that it's almost considered inevitable that if you're actually sentenced to do any time, you're almost guaranteed to be sexually victimized in some way or another.
Therefore my first question is to determine how true this is. Popular culture has a tendency to overdramatize things, and so this phenomenon may indeed be not nearly as common as it's made out to be. However, I can't help to assume the truth of the fact that sexual assault is indeed a rather common occurrence. Having never been in prison, can anyone verify how the veracity of this inhumane phenomenon?
My next question would be this: Why is this such a non-issue in popular media, among goody-goody NGO's etc...? It's not that I have any particular sympathy for the most heinous of criminals, such as cold-blooded murderers, rapists and pedophiles, (in fact, I have to admit small part of me sees this as them getting a taste of their own medicine). But these don't seem to be the only victims. Is it not cruel and unusual punishment in the extreme to sentence a bank robber or even a second degree murderer to several years of forced sodomy? Why doesn't anyone seem to care? In fact, not only is this phenomenon taken for granted, it's actually callously joked about in, for example, some of the more serious of television dramas. For example - [The prosecution in a plea bargain]: "Either agree to pleading guilty with our offer of a suspended sentence, or else get used to being the latest plaything of a 300lb cellmate named "Bubba'".
Of course that was drama, and in real life I doubt any prosecutor would actually say something like that without being severely disciplined by a legal ethics committee. But the attitude is still there. Sexual assault is commonplace in prison and nobody seems to care. We seem to care more about saving the whales, about baby seals being slaughtered, about rodents being bred and killed for their fur, and even about the fact that many ranches mistreat their animals by having them cooped up in tiny pens waiting to be slaughtered (which I agree, are all bad things) yet we don't seem to give a damn about the fact that the sexual assault of human prison inmates is a routine part of being incarcerated. Can anyone explain this to me?
Finally, I have a cultural/historical question on the matter: When I speak of "popular culture" and "sexual assault in prisons", I'm generally referring to contemporary prisons in North America. Is this phenomenon culture, region and time specific? For example, was it commonplace in other places and at other times, such as in Soviet gulags, old English debtors' prisons, in medieval kings' dungeons or present day third world detention centres? How much is the phenomenon of sexual assault in prisons a 20/21st century "western" thing? Loomis 21:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys. What is the name of that tool used in filmmaking to synchronize video and audio at the start of a sequence? The one with the black and white stripes and information written on it, such as scene number, name of project and date? I know it in portuguese (which is "claquete", I believe, from the "clacking" sound it makes). I tryied several online translators and none got the word. Thanks! Quase 22:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do middle eastern countries object to the existance of a Jewish state?
Good question...beats me. Loomis 23:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The obvious answer is that their only objection is to it being placed in the middle of what were previously primarily Muslim lands. I think they would have the same objection to a Buddhist state there. Their attitude is "it's our land, now give it back !" StuRat 00:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
All this begs the question: "Where do Jews belong"? Loomis 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Suppose you have an old bike. I steal it and fix it up. Is it now my bike? DirkvdM 09:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do the people of any invaded place object to being invaded? You may find Zionism useful, particularly this section. Natgoo 11:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
What I would like to see, and this is completely objective so all sides should normally have no problem with this, is
- an answer to the question : is the union of the State of Israel with the Palestinian territories exactly (not more or less) the same as the land in my first question - if the answer to the latter question is yes : an area depicting the Jewish and Arab half of the land discussed in the first qustion.
Evilbu 12:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Having said all that in a calm, composed manner, I feel that an apology is nonetheless due to all you guys for all my recent outbursts, and the inevitable ones to follow. If any of you would actually ever meet me in real life, I'm sure you'd be shocked. I'm actually one of the most soft-spoken, mild mannered people you'd ever meet. However if you think that on the inside I'm just another paranoid Jewish whack-job, then I'm afraid the truth is...you're right. I take this wiki thing waaaay too seriously. We're all here to share views, not to attack each other. Stu, if you think that the establishment of the State of Israel was the first step to inevitable nuclear armageddon, that's your belief, and you have every right to it. Dirk, if you believe that the US government is basically a self-serving, corrupt, sadistic regime bent on world domination, it's totally within your right to believe that too. Ben, you love Jesus and I'm sure he loves you back. (Please don't take that in a sarcastic or condescending manner, Ben, I truly admire your religious convictions). Finally, Jack, (didn't think I'd leave you out now did you?)...well, you're quite the mystery. You speak your mind when you feel it necessary, and the rest of the time, when not providing a witty quip (or at least what you believe to be a witty quip :) ), I imagine you sitting back on a comfy loungechair at your computer wondering what the hell the rest of us whack-jobs are smoking. So now I'll take a deep breath, count to ten and imagine myself in my happy-place. All the best to ALL of you.
Loomis
21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heartwarming responses guys. I don't mind at all being called crazy, just not an asshole, that's all. As for what I'm smoking...well, the only thing I smoke is tobacco, (which I've quit several times in the past, and hopefully will quit for good sometime in the near future). Otherwise, my only poison (and source of lunacy) comes in the liquid form.
And no, Jack, the 51 doesn't stand for that. God forbid! I may admire US foreign policy, but I'd never want to live there! US domestic policy sucks! I've visited the US a zillion times and each time those people scare the shit out of me! I'm just a cowardly Canadian who admires US foreign policy. But if push came to shove, and WWIII started, I'd get on the first EL/AL flight to Tel-Aviv and enlist in the IDF. That way, at least I'd be confident that I'm fighting for a cause I believe in. :)
The story of the "51" is this: I'm a baseball player. I play in a league. We all got our choice of numbers for our uniforms. Originally I picked "50", as signifying perfect balance. The next year, though, I decided that perfect balance just wasn't quite right for me. I wanted to be at least a bit off kilter, so I switched to 51, and I've stuck with it ever since. Thanks again and all the best guys. Loomis 00:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh don't worry Dirk, that paragraph was meant mainly as an excercise in self-criticism. I was merely caricaturizing everyone's viewpoints, not criticizing them. My only point was that whatever you believe is your business and that it's innappropriate for me to get all hostile every time I disagree with someone. I really hadn't put nearly as much thought into that remark as it would seem to appear, and for that I apologize as well. How about "Dirk, if you believe that hyper-pacifism is the way to go, and that any violence, no matter how morally justified, is still morally wrong, than you have every right to believe that." I retract the previous statement. :) Loomis 11:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
| ||||||||
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above. | ||||||||
|
Has Jack Bauer ever tortured anyone who honestly didn't know anything? If so, would that make him a bad person? — Keenan Pepper 04:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, anyone who tortures other people is a bad person. No good person has ever tortured anyone. In fact, even just saying a good person is torturing you, can only refer to your being a stalker. (e.g. you are referring to the fact that you have no contact with the "good person", they are a celebrity who doesn't answer your psychotic mail, and by "torture" you mean your obsession with them is torturing you.). Hope this helps. 82.131.188.227 09:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC).
If they're also carving you up limb by limb with a sharp knife to get you to talk (or confess -- if you had chosen slightly different "vices", we'd be talking about the inquisition) then obviously no, they're not good people. 82.131.190.191 15:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC).
Jack Bauer Did Torture that guy with the stripped wires of a lamp in season 4 (I think it was season 4) Dave 19 July 2006
I have two questions to ask you about pantheism:
1.I've heard that there is a type of pantheism which says that God is the only thing that actually exists and that everything else, including ourselves and our own personal identity, is an illusion.But what type of pantheism is this? Classical or naturalistic pantheism?
2.I've heard that there's a connection between pantheism and belief in magical,supernatural, paranormal, and occult phenomena (excluding God).By that, it means those things are much more related to pantheism than to other types of theism.I've heard that many pantheists such as Shintoists,many ancient pagans, and believers of New Age religions believe in supernatural and/or magical phenomena such as spirits.I've also heard that most "witches",sorcerers,fortune-tellers, and psychics (or at least people who claim to be them) and many very superstitious people are pantheists.Is that true?If so, then why?If you said that pantheists don't really believe in the supernatural or that physical laws can be violated, then how do you explain this?
Shintoists are animists, not pantheists.
I thought animism was a type of pantheism.If not, then what's the difference between animism and pantheism? 60.241.116.24 01:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
But is animism similar to pantheism in that it says the universe began without the cause of a divine creator, or is it more similar to theism in that it says the universe was created by God or supernatural spirits?
Dear all! I'm busy with a project in monitoring web-sites of military TV channels all over the world. I've already found four channels in the USA (including Discovery), but I'm supposed to research TV channels in other countries too. The thing is that I can't find any more. I would be truly grateful to you, if you could give me any information of the worlds military channels or related ones. I mean channels both run by the military and about the military. Thank you! Julia -- 81.195.190.194 12:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The Discovery military channel is neither by the military nor for it. Please define your terms. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I've heard people, who not like the content of the History Channel call it the hitler Channel because there's so much stuff about the nazis on it, and because the programming bends over backwards to be neutral and factual, it sounds like it is praising them, to someone who doesn't think anyone should be neutral towards the bad guys.
What is the meaning of the tamil word 'Thamban'?
I'm sure it translates to "Ask this in the Language forum" :)
Does anyone know the song that is in the new Vodafone advert in the UK with the people floating about and what not. It sounds like an older band but I'm not sure! Thank you muchly.
What is the origin and significance of guardian angels being on the left shoulder versus the right shoulder?
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to you with not typical matter. I have a friend whos name is Dike. We know that it is greek name. But we do not know when she has her nameday... She was looking for it in many places and did not find anything. I was also looking for the date of her nameday but also without result.
We were looking mainly in the Internet on various pages with nameday dates.. But the name "Dike" was always missing...
Could you help us with this? Do you know some page/callendar where we could find it? If you have such callendar with nameday of my friend Dike, I and she would be very grateful for sending/selling it, if possible.
Small description:
Dike, the Greek goddess of moral justice, one of the three second generation Horae
Dike (Greek for justice) was the goddess of moral justice. She ruled over human justice; her mother (Themis) ruled over divine justice. Dike was born a mortal and Zeus placed her on earth to keep mankind just. He quickly learned this was impossible and placed her next to him on Olympus.
Kind Regards
<personal information removed to prevent spam>
Are the Parthians the same at the Persians in 40 BC and are they the same in 600 AD?
just to be clear, Rmhermen linkified the two words Parthians and Persians, by way of answer. Searching for the word "persian" on the Parthian page I find: Consequently Parthian history is largely derived from foreign histories, controlled by the evidence of coins and inscriptions; even their own name for themselves is debatable due to a lack of domestic records. Several Greek authors, of whom we have fragments, including Apollodorus of Artemita and Isidore of Charax, wrote under Parthian rule. Their power was based on a combination of the guerilla warfare of a mounted nomadic tribe, with organisational skills sufficient to build and administer a vast empire - even though it never matched in power the Persian empires that preceded and followed it. This is kind of confusing, there's no clear timeline on the page or anything. And, as for whether they're "the same" in 40 BC and in 600 AD as the Persians, I can't seem to find it. (Didn't read either article carefully though). If someone wants to, what's the answer? 82.131.186.80 21:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC). (I'm not the original poster).
I have read the articles about Judaism, Jews, Christianity, Anti-Semitism and other related articles. But I have this doubt lingering on in my mind that : Is judaism derived from christianity? I mean, Jews also have bible, so do christians. And other wise also, they have "ten commandment" or torah, and i think christians also have something in religion like it. So if someone could clarify my doubts. I may be wrong in presenting some of above facts, so correct me. Bye.
And how did Judaism originate? No where in any article has it been mentioned.
I will respectfully suggest another view: Christianity did NOT evolve from Judaism. Both Judaism and Christianity evolved from the same religious tradition in the middle centuries of the first millennium. Modern Judaism is not a lot closer to the Judaism of 50 AD (temple, priests, animal sacrifice) than Christianity is. They were considered two branches of the same religion in the second century. Modern characteristics and institutions gradually developed but modern Christianity is just as "legitimate" a descendant of the ancient religion of the Torah as modern Judaism. Maybe even bigger than the obvious have-we-or-havent-we-had-the-messiah difference, Christianity cut itself loose from the ethnic association and became one of the first "universal" religions claiming to be independent of culture and ethnicity while the tradition that remained "the religion of the Jews' became modern Judaism and is still bound to a culture and an ethnicity. alteripse 21:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to be sure, Stu, I always preface all of my responses to questions regarding religion with some sort of qualifier. In this case, please note that I prefaced the entire post with the qualifier "according to scripture". Personally, I disagree with taking any position on the veracity of these texts. Literally, I take an entirely Neutral Point of View. To insist that either the Torah, Bible or Koran is the absolute truth that EVERYONE must accept is nothing short of ignorant arrogance. Likewise, however, to state as you did that these texts are absolutely, without question, works of fiction is just as arrogant and ignorant. The only acceptable NPOV view is that we simply DON'T KNOW what's true and what isn't. Loomis 02:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Both sides have good arguments. Here is an argument from the pro-death penalty side which seems hard to counter: Fred murdered three people and is now serving three consecutive life sentences, with no possibility of parole. Fred murders a guard. How should Fred be punished? He can't be beaten or starved, because that would be cruel, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. What kind of additional punishment can be inflicted on Fred, to achieve some measure of justice for the family of the dead prison guard and for society in general? From Fred's point of view, what is the downside for killing a guard or another prisoner? What if the prison authorities cut his food ration in half? What if he were placed in solitary for twenty years - would that be cruel? How about water only from now on - no juice, milk or coffee? 66.213.33.2 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Putting all prisoners in solitary confinement would prevent the reformation of the prisoners and create a much higher recidvism rate when they were released. Prisons, at least in the US, aren't supposed to be warehouses, but places where criminals are turned into good citizens. Emmett5 23:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Prisons in the United States, and prisons in European nations since the late 18th century, have been dedicated to the premise that they are not there to punish. citation needed Prior to the 18th century, prison was never a punishment: it was where one was stored until punishment could be enacted. In the 18th century itself, prison terms were lengthening and medieval and renaissance punishments were being put aside. Therefore, the idea was to come up with a place where persons could do penance -- a penitentiary -- and where people could be reformed -- a reformatory. However, there has never been an official change of overall philosophy to prison as punishment, and yet the general public (and criminal public) thinks that prison is suffering, is punishment, is "justice." Be aware that the prisons were not designed for that. I think they shouldn't be designed for that, either, but the most important thing is that you should not be concerned with trying to inflict pain to match pain inflicted, for doing something like that is, in the first instance, impossible and is, in the second instance, to reiterate cruelty and predation. So the answer to the argument is, "You're asking the wrong question: we're not trying to punish at all." Geogre 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, all. But I wasn't really asking for philosophies of prison. I want suggestions for SPECIFIC PUNISHMENTS for the murder of the guard. What punishment can be imposed that would not be cruel or unusual? For example, I suggest: (1) life in solitary confinement, with no mail in or out, and no visitors (2)half rations for the rest of Fred's life (3)water only from now on(4)five hours of brutal exercise every day (5) sleep deprivation, maybe three or four days at a time (6) slaps and kicks from the guards (7) two or three days each week in a "sweat box", with heat up to 130 degrees. Fred would probably leave this world in a year or two, but would that be a problem?
In what context was this quote and who said it? Thank you. B.Mackey
See Sermon on the Mount -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
At least according to popular culture, sexual assault is an extremely common phenomenon in prisons, at least maximum security prisons, a phenomenon so common that it's almost considered inevitable that if you're actually sentenced to do any time, you're almost guaranteed to be sexually victimized in some way or another.
Therefore my first question is to determine how true this is. Popular culture has a tendency to overdramatize things, and so this phenomenon may indeed be not nearly as common as it's made out to be. However, I can't help to assume the truth of the fact that sexual assault is indeed a rather common occurrence. Having never been in prison, can anyone verify how the veracity of this inhumane phenomenon?
My next question would be this: Why is this such a non-issue in popular media, among goody-goody NGO's etc...? It's not that I have any particular sympathy for the most heinous of criminals, such as cold-blooded murderers, rapists and pedophiles, (in fact, I have to admit small part of me sees this as them getting a taste of their own medicine). But these don't seem to be the only victims. Is it not cruel and unusual punishment in the extreme to sentence a bank robber or even a second degree murderer to several years of forced sodomy? Why doesn't anyone seem to care? In fact, not only is this phenomenon taken for granted, it's actually callously joked about in, for example, some of the more serious of television dramas. For example - [The prosecution in a plea bargain]: "Either agree to pleading guilty with our offer of a suspended sentence, or else get used to being the latest plaything of a 300lb cellmate named "Bubba'".
Of course that was drama, and in real life I doubt any prosecutor would actually say something like that without being severely disciplined by a legal ethics committee. But the attitude is still there. Sexual assault is commonplace in prison and nobody seems to care. We seem to care more about saving the whales, about baby seals being slaughtered, about rodents being bred and killed for their fur, and even about the fact that many ranches mistreat their animals by having them cooped up in tiny pens waiting to be slaughtered (which I agree, are all bad things) yet we don't seem to give a damn about the fact that the sexual assault of human prison inmates is a routine part of being incarcerated. Can anyone explain this to me?
Finally, I have a cultural/historical question on the matter: When I speak of "popular culture" and "sexual assault in prisons", I'm generally referring to contemporary prisons in North America. Is this phenomenon culture, region and time specific? For example, was it commonplace in other places and at other times, such as in Soviet gulags, old English debtors' prisons, in medieval kings' dungeons or present day third world detention centres? How much is the phenomenon of sexual assault in prisons a 20/21st century "western" thing? Loomis 21:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys. What is the name of that tool used in filmmaking to synchronize video and audio at the start of a sequence? The one with the black and white stripes and information written on it, such as scene number, name of project and date? I know it in portuguese (which is "claquete", I believe, from the "clacking" sound it makes). I tryied several online translators and none got the word. Thanks! Quase 22:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do middle eastern countries object to the existance of a Jewish state?
Good question...beats me. Loomis 23:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
The obvious answer is that their only objection is to it being placed in the middle of what were previously primarily Muslim lands. I think they would have the same objection to a Buddhist state there. Their attitude is "it's our land, now give it back !" StuRat 00:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
All this begs the question: "Where do Jews belong"? Loomis 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Suppose you have an old bike. I steal it and fix it up. Is it now my bike? DirkvdM 09:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do the people of any invaded place object to being invaded? You may find Zionism useful, particularly this section. Natgoo 11:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
What I would like to see, and this is completely objective so all sides should normally have no problem with this, is
- an answer to the question : is the union of the State of Israel with the Palestinian territories exactly (not more or less) the same as the land in my first question - if the answer to the latter question is yes : an area depicting the Jewish and Arab half of the land discussed in the first qustion.
Evilbu 12:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Having said all that in a calm, composed manner, I feel that an apology is nonetheless due to all you guys for all my recent outbursts, and the inevitable ones to follow. If any of you would actually ever meet me in real life, I'm sure you'd be shocked. I'm actually one of the most soft-spoken, mild mannered people you'd ever meet. However if you think that on the inside I'm just another paranoid Jewish whack-job, then I'm afraid the truth is...you're right. I take this wiki thing waaaay too seriously. We're all here to share views, not to attack each other. Stu, if you think that the establishment of the State of Israel was the first step to inevitable nuclear armageddon, that's your belief, and you have every right to it. Dirk, if you believe that the US government is basically a self-serving, corrupt, sadistic regime bent on world domination, it's totally within your right to believe that too. Ben, you love Jesus and I'm sure he loves you back. (Please don't take that in a sarcastic or condescending manner, Ben, I truly admire your religious convictions). Finally, Jack, (didn't think I'd leave you out now did you?)...well, you're quite the mystery. You speak your mind when you feel it necessary, and the rest of the time, when not providing a witty quip (or at least what you believe to be a witty quip :) ), I imagine you sitting back on a comfy loungechair at your computer wondering what the hell the rest of us whack-jobs are smoking. So now I'll take a deep breath, count to ten and imagine myself in my happy-place. All the best to ALL of you.
Loomis
21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heartwarming responses guys. I don't mind at all being called crazy, just not an asshole, that's all. As for what I'm smoking...well, the only thing I smoke is tobacco, (which I've quit several times in the past, and hopefully will quit for good sometime in the near future). Otherwise, my only poison (and source of lunacy) comes in the liquid form.
And no, Jack, the 51 doesn't stand for that. God forbid! I may admire US foreign policy, but I'd never want to live there! US domestic policy sucks! I've visited the US a zillion times and each time those people scare the shit out of me! I'm just a cowardly Canadian who admires US foreign policy. But if push came to shove, and WWIII started, I'd get on the first EL/AL flight to Tel-Aviv and enlist in the IDF. That way, at least I'd be confident that I'm fighting for a cause I believe in. :)
The story of the "51" is this: I'm a baseball player. I play in a league. We all got our choice of numbers for our uniforms. Originally I picked "50", as signifying perfect balance. The next year, though, I decided that perfect balance just wasn't quite right for me. I wanted to be at least a bit off kilter, so I switched to 51, and I've stuck with it ever since. Thanks again and all the best guys. Loomis 00:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh don't worry Dirk, that paragraph was meant mainly as an excercise in self-criticism. I was merely caricaturizing everyone's viewpoints, not criticizing them. My only point was that whatever you believe is your business and that it's innappropriate for me to get all hostile every time I disagree with someone. I really hadn't put nearly as much thought into that remark as it would seem to appear, and for that I apologize as well. How about "Dirk, if you believe that hyper-pacifism is the way to go, and that any violence, no matter how morally justified, is still morally wrong, than you have every right to believe that." I retract the previous statement. :) Loomis 11:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)