Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Released from Prison

Post by jsmthrowaway » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 1:17 AM UTC

tesq wrote: post #160

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #100

It's pretty rich that almost this entire thread is arguing about the prison not respecting Sunde's vegan wishes and his personal wealth and ideals. There are more than ninety comments here and all of them hang off nearly-dead comments. The entire point of prison is to suck, otherwise it wouldn't serve its role, which is to deter crime. Louis CK has a bit about this in one of his recent specials: ...but we really need…

Prisons aren't punishment and retribution factories. I also like that you get on your soap box about being detained as if that justifies your shitty opinion. Having been through the system as well, I am amazed that you'd come to that conclusion after experiencing it first hand. How can you visit a place where rights and common sense don't matter and then turn around and justify how it operates? How long were you deta…

Post by Crito » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 1:25 AM UTC

akerl_ wrote: post #143

tn13 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think the role of prison is to suck. The idea of justice has three components retribution, deterrence and prevention. As a society it is of paramount importance how we define these three components and the fact that we adhere to those definitions. If it has to suck, it has to be defined apriori to what extent it sucks.

In the US, the prevailing strategy of prisons for handling all 3 aspects is to make getting caught so shitty and destructive for the person involved that people don't do things that would lead them there. You can, of course, view any number of metrics to identify how well this is "working".

Post by Goopplesoft » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 1:41 AM UTC

geofft wrote: post #139

DanBC wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To counter your anecdote: I was vegetarian for 26 years (and had been vegan for 5 of those years) and I had no problems eating beef, mutton, lamb, or pork. Anecdotal evidence is stupid and pointless (includng my anecdotal evidence) and it's weird to see it so often on HN.

Wait, why is it stupid and pointless in this case? We have multiple anecdotes indicating people have had problems; we have at least one indicating people don't. This is, to me, clearly evidence against both "Everyone has problems" and "Nobody has problems" and in favor of "Some people have problems", and for the specific policy question at hand, we're trying to evaluate "Some people have problems".

Post by kmm » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 1:51 AM UTC

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #97

chc wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You shoplifted an expensive purse, so now we can force you to eat your late mother" is a positively medieval stance to take. Prisoners are still human beings, and forcing them to do horrible things like that is a violation of both the general idea of human rights and several parts of the US Constitution.

You're committing the slippery slope fallacy. My point still stands regardless of the extreme example you decided to illustrate it: you disregarded society's values and in return the society will disregard some of your values. The prisoner doesn't get to decide what is cruel and unusual punishment to them.

Post by geofft » Tue, Nov 11, 2014, 2:13 AM UTC

Goopplesoft wrote: post #165

geofft wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, why is it stupid and pointless in this case? We have multiple anecdotes indicating people have had problems; we have at least one indicating people don't. This is, to me, clearly evidence against both "Everyone has problems" and "Nobody has problems" and in favor of "Some people have problems", and for the specific policy question at hand, we're trying to evaluate "Some people have problems".

No in fact with questions of religion, psychiatry, diets, etc it usually comes to 'large bodies of populations' or even 'majorities of populations', you're going to find 'some' of everything.