|
hillo posted:seems about right, I just downed my roomates jallupullo and my glen scanlan from few days ago. Stand with your friends, for sure. Just remember who you see hurting them don't represent those nationalities or refugees or immigrants in general.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
Niin, toiset pakolaiset sentään askartelevat kaarnaveneitä.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Onko veneilyssä jotain vikaa?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Se on kulturaalista appropriaatiota meidän kielivähemmistöiltämme, noin alkajaisiksi.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Ej yjmmärrä.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
germlin posted:I get nosebleeds sometimes (not by fist) but broken ribs should carry minimum 6 months mandatory that´s pretty hard proof of acting as a violent gently caress. Finnish assault sentences place us firmly in eastern europe where property takes predecence over personal autonomy. I didn't self diagnose a "nosebleed", the doctor did it after I was ambulanced away. Most of the blood was from superficial cuts on cheeks and forehead. I do find it kind of funny that calling for harsher penalties on violent crime is in turn called out. Lemme phrase phrase it like this: "if you beat someone so they have broken bones and require an ambulance, you need to do some hard time". How is it Herman Perkele, do you disagree?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I suppose I'm still salty from the time someone broke my nose and ribs in front of a bar, was convicted, and did no jail time at all. He was homegrown so don't get exited Ligur. Just revenge kill him, you'll get off light. See, the system works both ways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I didn't self diagnose a "nosebleed", the doctor did it after I was ambulanced away. Most of the blood was from superficial cuts on cheeks and forehead. I do find it kind of funny that calling for harsher penalties on violent crime is in turn called out. Lemme phrase phrase it like this: "if you beat someone so they have broken bones and require an ambulance, you need to do some hard time". How is it Herman Perkele, do you disagree? Yes I do. You are being called out because demanding harder sentences for violent crime is widely known not to work in any other metric that some random guy's personal taste for vengeance - which is a loving bad metric for criminal justice system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 09:35
|
|
|
OK, where do you draw the line? Should we do away with prison entirely because it only drives up crime rates?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
I don't see how a longer sentence is really 'harder'. I mean we don't mistreat people in our prisons (I think). If anything a violent person should be in there longer so he can be rehabilitated more (counseling, therapy, etc, not buttrape) before being let back out. I also think you do have to weigh in the factor that ordinary people should see the system as just, or they will vote in people who are "hard on crime" and change the system to be more butt-rapey.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Note, he did no time, none. He was only fined. Not even ehdonalainen, which wouldn't have meant prison either. Some years later he apparently got a job though and paid the moneys for pain etc. so the system works I guess. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
doverhog posted:OK, where do you draw the line? Should we do away with prison entirely because it only drives up crime rates? Where did I state that? Please show me. Look, I understand your point of view, I just find it a very, very bad basis for criminal justice. You do not bear the costs of harsher sentencing, and from society's point of view victim's suffering is secondary to the wider view, which is to "not drive people outside the society when punishing them for crimes". Victim's situation matters, but if we were to give victims and vengeance prevalence, we would throw people in for 20 years for bike theft. First, prison is just one form of punishment. Fines and paroles are also tools, and also punishments. 30 day fines is not inconsequential. 6 months in parole is not inconsequential. Here's what prison time does, from system's point of view: a) the person becomes an expensive money sink b) the person starts to lose contacts and social network c) the person will most likely be unemployed once he leaves the prison d) the person has probably to sell property if he serves for a longer time and e) prison time is a punishment which does not exist in a vacuum without other forms of punishment, and judicious use of prison time is state's sovereign right and a tool for creating a stabler, crime-free society in long run. These are all accepted costs at certain situations. Many violent crimes, for example, result in several years of prison time because society considers this a suitable punishment. This is not actually "nothing", but very harsh sentencing, since the person becomes more and more detached from normal society. This, in turn, leads to increased chance of being sentenced again because, surprise surprise, people with bad life situation have a greater chance of committing crime. This is bad, because the societal costs now start to increase and it becomes quite possible to create a semi-permanent populace of people who spend most of their time in prisons for relatively small crime but high rate of recidivism. That simply makes no loving sense unless you simply want to punish The Other. State rather lets people out with less sentencing because that means that those people have a chance actually be a sensible part of the system. It's also easier to provide psychological and economic care for a people who is not sitting in a prison, which leads to reduced recidivism, which is a net good for society. Now, society knows that recidivism is a thing and it also happens to know that some people and some sort of crime have an increased chance of recidivism. That's why courts generally utilize a wide pattern of alternative punishments and pay special attention to person's previous crime history. Throwing first-timers in for 4 years will probably lead to them being sentenced again in 5 years, whereas light first-time prison time with other forms of punishment and treatment give. Obviously, victims are unsatisfied, but generally victims are not ones to bear the costs of "harsher sentences". So prisons do not increase crime rate, "harder sentences" as some sort of catch-all do. The societal costs are key in determining whether this is acceptable or not. Also "longer sentence is not harder" well good for you if you have enough money to not e.g. being forced to sell your property because you cannot afford it because you sit in prison. But that's besides the point. Let's get back to your first sentence: where did I state that prisons only increase crime rate? Please provide direct quotation. El Perkele fucked around with this message at 10:36 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
That's all nice, but I didn't call for harsher sentences across the board, only that violent criminals, as in beat someone so they are injured, do actual time in actual prison. That simply makes no loving sense unless you simply want to punish The Other. The other? Who is strawmanning now? I just think it would be fair that if you beat someone so it takes months to heal, you stay in prison for instance for the same amount of months. A person with no job and no income suffers no consequence from fines or ehdonalainen. None. In fact putting more debt on their ulosotto makes them less likely to rejoin society than a prison stint would.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
doverhog posted:That's all nice, but I didn't call for harsher sentences across the board, only that violent criminals, as in beat someone so they are injured, do actual time in actual prison. You didn't provide a quotation where stated that prisons only increase crime rate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
I don't have to, because it wasn't a factual claim, but rather a debate tactic, kärjistäminen if you will, intended to rile you up.  Mission accomplished.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I don't have to, because it wasn't a factual claim, but rather a debate tactic, kärjistäminen if you will, intended to rile you up. Oh poo poo, I am sorry. I thought I was talking to an adult
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
As a rule, the one who goes to ad hominems first generally loses. But, if you really wanna get into it, "OK, where do you draw the line? Should we do away with prison entirely because it only drives up crime rates?" does not claim you stated anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
doverhog posted:As a rule, the one who goes to ad hominems first generally loses. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
Debates are about winning and losing, and according to my rules you just lost 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
I concede this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
doverhog posted:As a rule, the one who goes to ad hominems first generally loses. But, if you really wanna get into it, "OK, where do you draw the line? Should we do away with prison entirely because it only drives up crime rates?" does not claim you stated anything. Let's clear up one thing before we end up in logical fallacy hell. Not every insult is an ad hominem fallacy. It's only an ad hominem if you dismiss the other person's argument based on their personal qualities. Consider the following examples: "You're an idiot, therefore you're wrong" is an ad hominem. "You're wrong and here's why, therefore you're an idiot" is not an ad hominem, it's just an insult. In any case, as already mentioned, locking people up is expensive and prison tends to gently caress up people. Therefore the only real reasonable cause for locking criminals up is if they present a credible danger to others that cannot be fixed by means other than physical separation. Therefore one should not lock up non-violent criminals, and probably not first-time violent offenders if extenuating circumstances exist. Repeat violent offenders should generally be locked up, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
doverhog posted:I didn't self diagnose a "nosebleed", the doctor did it after I was ambulanced away. Most of the blood was from superficial cuts on cheeks and forehead. I do find it kind of funny that calling for harsher penalties on violent crime is in turn called out. Lemme phrase phrase it like this: "if you beat someone so they have broken bones and require an ambulance, you need to do some hard time". How is it Herman Perkele, do you disagree? What kind of insane standard of justice is that? I was once beaten up and the rear end in a top hat had to pay, that was enough to satisfy me. Apart from your apparent vengefulness, is there any reason that you think that harsher sentences would do good?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Ilmeisesti miesgoonit juovat muovipulloista limukkaa jonnin verran, mikä selittänee miksi naiset ovat miehiä hanakampia kannattamaan ankarampia rangaistuksia  e: Laitoin lähdeviitteen ettei tarvitse triggeröityä Rappaport fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 12:30
|
|
|
Mitäs jos kaikki vaan omistettaisiin aseita ja open carry Suomeenkin
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
Patrocclesiastes posted:Mitäs jos kaikki vaan omistettaisiin aseita ja open carry Suomeenkin lol jos et kanna puukkoa vyöllä
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
doverhog posted:The other? Who is strawmanning now? I just think it would be fair that if you beat someone so it takes months to heal, you stay in prison for instance for the same amount of months. I'm very sorry for your ribs, but this is approaching an eye for an eye argument and makes no sense. The most important goals in punishment ought to be prevention of harmful behavior, reparations to victims, and reintegration of the perpetrator to society. Unless I misunderstood you, in your case they all worked out in the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Herman Merman posted:The most important goals in punishment ought to be prevention of harmful behavior, reparations to victims, and reintegration of the perpetrator to society. Unless I misunderstood you, in your case they all worked out in the end. Eventually, bunch of years later, ulosotto got to him. Maybe he inherited some money, or maybe he got a job, I wouldn't know. To divorce the argument from that, do you guys not see any problem with someone convicted of a violent crime only getting fines that he doesn't pay, or ehdonalainen, which doesn't do anything? It certainly erodes peoples belief in the justice system, and gives people with jobs etc. further reason to hate the "syrjäytynyt", since they are perceived as being immune to punishment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
doverhog posted:To divorce the argument from that, do you guys not see any problem with someone convicted of a violent crime only getting fines that he doesn't pay, or ehdonalainen, which doesn't do anything? Communist revolution is much easier to accomplish when you can do it in pieces and there are no punishments for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
doverhog posted:To divorce the argument from that, do you guys not see any problem with someone convicted of a violent crime only getting fines that he doesn't pay, or ehdonalainen, which doesn't do anything? It certainly erodes peoples belief in the justice system, and gives people with jobs etc. further reason to hate the "syrjäytynyt", since they are perceived as being immune to punishment. You're looking at the punishment of a single crime in isolation from everything else and so probation and fines and compensations seem like a non-sentence, which it isn't. If the perpetrator rötöstää again while on probation then he'll get a tougher sentence. Meanwhile if he stays out of trouble then the system has worked. Likewise if a first timer such as Jari Aarnio only has to sit half of his sentence it's not a problem if we may assume that afterwards he won't try to re-establish his status as a drug lord. But the second time there won't be such mercy. It's not immunity from punishment, it's a well-thoughtout system that only people whose perception has been corrupted by watching too many American fascist court shows like Law & Order cannot fathom. One fifth of Finns would also happily reintroduce death penalty which is another example of how obsessed with revenge people can be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
But it's different when it happens to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
That would be valid criticism if I had posted something about not wanting violent crimes punished with prison somewhere. If you can find that post, ok, pretty sure it doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Trogdos! posted:Ei aja likur sun asiaa poimia iltapaskasta mamujen rikokset tänne ihankuin ne ois enempää kuin anekdootteja Siitä vaan lukemaan meitsin postihistoriaa läpi jos muu kuin iltahöpöjen "yksittäistapaukset" kiinnostaa, sieltä löytynee jokunen tsiljoona viestiä jossa on erilaista tilastoa ja muuta dataa. En vaan jaksa postata kuule niitä nykyään kovin usein. On lystimpää seurata kuinka mamujen rikokset on yhtä tyhjän kanssa näille monikulttuuria tai mitä lie kannataville antifaskisteille (mamujen kepposethan ovat kaikki yksittäistapauksia ja merkityksettömiä anekdootteja vaikka sama asia tapahtuisi 100 kertaa, ilmeisesti sinunkin mielestä) mutta yksisin epäillyn natsin örähdys facebookissa on heti ihan sika iso kuvio joka todistaa vaikka mitä. Mua huvittaa se epäsuhta siinä kuinka nää pölvästit asioita käsittelee.. ja sitten on aina: Rexroom posted:That's because if he started to use them, he'd find some uncomfortable statistics. Joku Rexroom tai 10 jotka eivät oikeasti käsitä sitä, kuten ei Rubenkaan, että on vitun outoa ja huolestuttavaa jos joku aika pieni etninen vähemmistö tekee suhteessa paljon enemmän rikoksia X kuin kantaväestö (ja kun tämä toistuu maasta toiseen EU alueella). Etenkin jos se porukka saapuu tänne lähinnä "hakemaan turvaa" ja heidät on pakko elättää yhteiskunnan varoilla. Ja niitä tulee koko ajan lisää. Tämä on jostain näkövinkkelistä isompi ongelma kuin kuunatsit, eikä syynä välttämättä pidä olla se että on ignorantti nazirasisti. Nämä pellet kääntävät puheen muka älykkäästi siihen, ja ovat näin tehneet sellaiset 15 vuotta eli virsi on jo aika vanha, että "tekeväthän suomalaisetkin sitä ja tätä" tai "rikokseen X syyllistyy silti useimmiten suomalainen!!1" ja ovat sen jälkeen tosi smug. Aivan kuin kaikki ligurit eivät olisi tästä hyvin selvillä. Totta helvetissä rikokseen X syyllistyy useimmiten suomalainen koska Suomessa asuvista ihmisistä 94%-95% on suomalaisia. Eli mitä hemmetin hyötyä tällaisille aivopäälliköille olisi selittää mitään tilastoista? Mä en keksi. Lisään vielä, että käytännössä kaikki ligurit keitä tunnen ovat vittuuntuneita siitä, että myös suomalaiset raiskaajat ja väkivaltarikolliset saavat aivan liian kevyitä tuomioita, ja niitä ei dumata tarpeeksi lujaa, eivätkä suinkaan ohita asiaa mitenkään olankohautuksella, se on rexroomien ja rubenien keksintö joilla voi muka ovelasti yrittää mitätöidä hitlerligurien mielipide siitä, että kolmansista maista Suomeen kohdistuva muuttoliike ei ole pääasiassa hyvä asia suomalaisille niinkuin sitä nyt on toteutettu tässä parikolkytvuotta.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Totta helvetissä rikokseen X syyllistyy useimmiten suomalainen koska Suomessa asuvista ihmisistä 94%-95% on suomalaisia. If this is just a heitto from you then ok but if you've been reading iltalehti-statistics that look at the data like this then that's bad statistics. Finns and immigrants have very different population pyramids. If you take the Finnish population as a whole and compare it to immigrant population as a whole then yea it turns out our huge baby boomer old fart population bloc doesn't commit crime that much. This skews the results. Anyway, I'm not gonna surf 15 pages of your posts to look for proof supporting your argument. If you have posted statistics that aren't done by retards like iltalehden toimitus then cool, I have missed them because I don't read this thread that often. I'd gladly see them though. And yeah unfortunately I'm not going to draw massive conclusions about a large group of people from news articles you post here. Sure, I'd like that those crimes would not have happened but in the grand scheme of things I don't see it very relevant that a mamu killed his ex-wife. Or maybe you wanted to argue that his integration failed because he didn't also shoot his children with the family hunting shotgun as is our tradition? Jokes aside, if I see research about ex-wife-murder statistics w/r/t different population groups then sure, that I can draw conclusions from. That this is the 100th time this has happened is not relevant because as time passes, things indeed do keep happening  Also lastly I don't think anyone here is saying that mamu crimes are okay or should be ignored. Personally, I'm fairly sure that our police and court system catch and sentence them accordingly, though in specific cases some fine-tuning of the criminal law could be welcome. If you think that the law regarding x crime should be changed then sure, argue for it. I don't think that has much to do with immigration and integration policy though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Hyvää uutta vuotta, goonit pekkapaskalla.jpg
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Nyt pitää odottaa että onko seuraava vuosi vielä paskempi
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Patrocclesiastes posted:Mitäs jos kaikki vaan omistettaisiin aseita ja open carry Suomeenkin suojeluaseluvat kyllä kannatais mielestäni tuoda takasin kirjoihin Zero grinder posted:Nyt pitää odottaa että onko seuraava vuosi vielä paskempi tätähän ihmiset sanoivat tuossa viime vuoden alussa joten aika nähdä kuinka kovaksi tämän vuoden farssit menevät 
Triple A fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Hyvää uuttavuotta kaikki te höpsöt toisesta laidasta toiseen, totuus on, että tykkään teistä kaikista kuitenkin oikeesti <3 Puss puss.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Happy 2017 ye wee fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Hyvää uutta vuotta kaikesta huolimatta. Jumala myötä.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
Onnellista 2017. Muistakaa käyttää heijastinta.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:00
|
|