OT:US don't qualify for EU membership, don't spank children, WW2 history.

[Ruatha]

Originally posted by DeadZone:
Well, I can say this, most Brits hate the fact that we are apart of the EU because of how they have decided to screw up our justice system, need I say more?

What do you mean ? (Will read the answer tomorrow)
Our justice system hasn't changed very much since joining EU (I voted against joining though)

[Slynky]

Tks Pax (how much do I owe you ) (J/K)

Sometimes, I think 2 or 3 swats on the butt (and 5 minutes of crying and injured feelings) would be more acceptable than some of the punishments that were dealt out in this household. Our 8-year old (really, too old to spank) stole/took some Pokemon cards from a playmate. When I found out, I hit the roof. Stealing is abhorent to me. So, she had 2 weeks restriction to the house, no TV, no PC, no Gameboy, no Nintendo, no phonecalls...you get the idea. She thought it was a living hell.

But, all I can add to what Pax has said is that when administered under calm conditions, and it is over, you hold the child and talk to him/er. The Last time I spanked her was when she was about 4 or 5. When it was over, and I was back in our bedroom, I cried.

But, I have seen parents yank their children by the arm (several possibilities for injury), slap them in the face (more possibilities), and throw them into the back seat of their car (in a parking lot). That's wrong.

As to my comparison with the death penalty? I just think some people don't belong in society. Usually, they've proved it several times over. For all the bleeding hearts out there, how would you feel if a person had been declared rehabilitated from raping, murdering, and dancing in the blood of an 8-year-old girl as a culmination to many other "black marks" on their history moving into the apartment/house beside you? I guess that's just fine with you. Not with me. I don't believe in hanging them, chopping off their head, electrocution, or gas. Just insert the needle and put them to sleep, permanently.

[Fyron]

When taking the license become more expansive a couple of years ago the traffic deaths decreased alot, now I'd guess it costs approx 1-200 dollars if you take it through a driving school, you can do it cheaper by having a parent or friend as driving instructor, but those who do seldom pass on the first attempt.

It generally costs a lot more than that around here...

[Pax]

Originally posted by Slynky:
Tks Pax (how much do I owe you ) (J/K)

The usual amount, sent to the usual address, of course.

...

Wait ... did I say that out loud? hehehe.

But, I have seen parents yank their children by the arm (several possibilities for injury), slap them in the face (more possibilities), and throw them into the back seat of their car (in a parking lot). That's wrong.

Yes, it is. OTOH, it is equally wrong for the parents to ignore the child's inappropriate behavior -- which is what many parents do when in public places: nothing. Oh, they may ground the kid when they get home, or deny them TV privileges, or whatever.

But in the meantime, the brat is screaming loud enough that I am getting a splitting headache, and am no longer enjoying the meal I've paid for, the movie I bought tickets for, etc, etc, etc. And yes -- been there, done that, watched the establishment's management wring their hands impotently when complained-to.

There's something to be said for nonphysical discipline. However, there's nothing good that can be said about no discipline.

As to my comparison with the death penalty? I just think some people don't belong in society. Usually, they've proved it several times over. For all the bleeding hearts out there, how would you feel if a person had been declared rehabilitated from raping, murdering, and dancing in the blood of an 8-year-old girl as a culmination to many other "black marks" on their history moving into the apartment/house beside you? I guess that's just fine with you. Not with me. I don't believe in hanging them, chopping off their head, electrocution, or gas. Just insert the needle and put them to sleep, permanently.

I've got my own ideas for an effective penal system.

Step one: no more plea bargains that change the actual charge; cooperating in solving other crimes may pass for mitigating circumstances when it comes to sentencing, but X crime is always X crime, not Y and/or Z lesser crimes if you play nicey-nice after the fact.

Step two: if you are convicted, serve your time, and re-offend, the sentence for your second offense is automatically extended by the entire term of ALL prior sentences; you pay any FINES over again, you do any TIME over again, etc. Obviously you didn't learn your lesson the first time around, so, you should try again from the beginning.

Step three: institute a sort of "three strikes" program. Assign comparative-weight point values to various crimes (or ranges thereof, to account for differences in which acts constitute X criminal act(s)). Pick a good, solid point total and draw a line.

Anyone who accumulates that many (or more) points, is faced with a choice: you have 48 hours to leave the country forever, or, choose to have your life terminated in a humane fashion, chosen by you form a list of approved methods. (inability to find a nation willing to accept you is your problem).

Step four: ditch the majority of privileges in prisons. This doesn't have to be cruel; you can keep TV available ... in a single TV room per block of cells, with access only to news and educational programming.

Eliminate this "no convict labor" nonsense; make the convicts do some form of work ... the army needs uniforms? Fine, build the right facility onto the prison, and have a company come in and manage the process. No competition with the private sector (youw on't be making Levis in there, just stuff for government consumption). Similar could be done for basic tools, stationary/letterhead for government offices, and so on. Pay participating convicts a (very) small stipend, set up a commissary in the prison, and if they want cigaretts or a candy bar or whatever, they can pay it out of their salary. No job, no money; no money, no luxuries.

Get in a fight and break something, get billed for it -- no luxuries until the bill is paid, 'cause the whole stipend goes towards that cost.

...

Would it be perfect? Heck, no. But it'd be somethign we haven't TRIED yet, withotu being (IMO) inhumane or needlessly cruel.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:

---

When taking the license become more expansive a couple of years ago the traffic deaths decreased alot, now I'd guess it costs approx 1-200 dollars if you take it through a driving school, you can do it cheaper by having a parent or friend as driving instructor, but those who do seldom pass on the first attempt.

It generally costs a lot more than that around here...

---

Jeeze; it cost more than that HERE, back when I was a kid. Let's see, when I was 18, IIRC each lesson cost around $40US, and you had to take 6-12 lessons before you got your drivers' ed. certificate ...

... at which point you still had to get yoru actual liscense, which was yet more money (not to mention having to get a learner's permit before you could take those lessons in the first place). And the expense of providing a vehicle for your test (most driving schools would provide one of theirs, for about the cost of one lesson).

All told, it could cost from about $300US to almost $600US to get a license ... and that was nearly fifteen years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if it was $80-$100 per lesson now ... not in the slightest. That'd mean double those total amounts, mind.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
So, who started the war in the west? Had France and England let Poland go would Germany have turned west in 39 or 40? I think they would have kept going east. War would have come, but France and England would have had two years to prepare.

I don't think that would have been a good thing Thermo. They would have had two more years to for the appeasement factions within their governments to take hold as well. In the end they likely would have been no more ready for war, and possibly less so. Having to fight on two fronts was a major factor in Germany not being able to defeat either Russia or England. Being able to deal with those fights seperatly would have likely allowed them to defeat both. Russia would have been unable to hold them off without allied distraction in the west and direct aid. France and the rest of continental Europe would have fallen. And even if Germany still wasn't able to ultimatly defeat England because of the Channel, the RAF and US assistance, Germany not having to fight Russia would have made the allied liberation of Europe difficult if not impossible.

The world would have been a very different place if England and France had not had the courage to draw that line in the sand. So say they started the war if you want, but thank God they did.

Geoscmo

[ July 26, 2003, 00:25: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Fyron]

Germany only had to fight on two fronts because they attacked the Russians long before it was wise to do so. If they had kept their non-aggression treaty with them, they would have been able to overwhelm England, and then it would have been really, really difficult for the US to have a chance of helping out and finally defeating them.

[oleg]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Germany only had to fight on two fronts because they attacked the Russians long before it was wise to do so. If they had kept their non-aggression treaty with them, they would have been able to overwhelm England, and then it would have been really, really difficult for the US to have a chance of helping out and finally defeating them.

I tend to agree with you, Hitler made a fundamental mistake here. However, Red Army was at its lowest readiness in 41. It did not recover from purges of 37-38 and was in the middle of reconstruction of the material base. For example, there were only 150 T-34 in service - only 3 months of large scale production. If Germany postpone the attack till summer of 42, there will be 1500 or even more.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Germany only had to fight on two fronts because they attacked the Russians long before it was wise to do so. If they had kept their non-aggression treaty with them, they would have been able to overwhelm England, and then it would have been really, really difficult for the US to have a chance of helping out and finally defeating them.

That is true, but I was responding to Thermo's belief that if England and France had not given Germany an ultimatum they would have attacked Russia first.

It's no secret that Germany made a lot of mistakes. We were in a lot of ways very lucky that the war turned out he way it did. But many of those mistakes were forced errors because England and France did not continue to appease Hitler and the way he expected them to do. This caused him to have to change plans and improvise, something he didn't do very well.

Geoschmo

[oleg]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Note:

France has begun to very quietly modernize its nuclear forces. If I were a German that remembers that Last war, I would be calling for a deterrent force for Germany. Remember that it was France that declared war on the Germans. And many Germans still believe that their government was only interested in righting the wrongs of Versailles [sp] and barring the gates to communism.

The reason may be more subtle. Once US install SDI, France nuclear deterrent will almost disappear. It is China and France who would be most affected by SDI. Russia has too much arsenal and UK, well, we all know I don't know how many missiles France has but I doubt it will be enough if US is serious about SDI.