h a l f b a k e r yCompound disinterest.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Eye Opener
Use tax dollars for court systems to REALLY make a difference in peoples lives. | |
When a person in our society has a seroius problem (e.g. drug addiction) our tax dollars go towards getting them arrested, sent to court, and then through a rehab or other forms of generally redundant programs. Bottom line is, a very large percentage of those people end up going throught the same thing
over and over again, thereby making the use of our well earned money comletely pointless, and uneconomical. We as a society would like our tax dollars, either well spent, or not at all, right? So, instead of using that cash-gobbling system, why not have a one-time-relief, full-proof system? If a person with has a problem and the family knows it, instead of an intervention, have the family get together and decide to have the "victim" tranquilized, and taken to a remote, uninhabited location, far away from society. Whether it be on an island, or in the mountains somewhere. Put them in the position where they have the basic essentials that they need to live off of the land, but no way of return without outside help. Leave them there, make them live by themselves. The only choice they with have is to stay alive. They will not have enough time to think about their addiction, except the fact that they don't have the drug to relieve it. They will only have time to reflect, to see things for what they are, and for what they should be, enough so that they can pull themselves back on their feet. After a neccesary amount of time for them to recover has gone by. Go to their location, recapture them and bring them back to their family and the ones who love them. If this can't change a person for everything they are worth, then I don't know what can.
Makes me think of this, though I appreciate the dissimilarities.
http://www.britanni...l/micro/733_51.html
[calum, Aug 04 2005]
Metaphysics - another simpler definition
http://dictionary.c...key=50151&dict=CALD
You weren't trying hard enough. [coprocephalous, Aug 04 2005]
[link]
|
| |
"The only choice they... have is to stay
alive."
...and if they're not strong enough to
choose life? What then? |
|
| |
I like the idea of this back to nature
detox and mental cleanse (wouldn't
mind it myself for a couple of months)
but feel that it you're dealing with
someone that has lost control of their
life you may need to exert a degree of
control over it before they are ready to
take it
back. |
|
| |
Good observation, and thank you for the input. There are several points I did not cover, and that is one of them. I also said nothing for the people who do not have a family or loved ones to come home to, let alone be the ones to decide for this to happen. But if this were to take place, it would probably be after a previously failed run through with rehabilitation. |
|
| |
But this is exactly the logic (well it's not actually but I'm not going to let that get in the way of my argument) that led England to transport criminals to the unihabited wilderness of Australia. And look what a disaster that policy turned out to be. |
|
| |
That idea went sour because they took all of the bad and concentrated it in one place, all they created was a cesspool. It's the same problem we run into with letting prisoners associate with one another, all they do is learn more tricks and tools of the trade which can only further their careers as criminals. |
|
| |
Your rehabilitative intent is laudable, Gryph, but I can't go for this, for the following reasons: |
|
| |
a. Economic viability should not (ever ever ever) be a policy-guiding factor in the administration of justice.
b. This falls neatly into the constitutionally-prohibiting twin definitions of "cruel and unusual punishment" and the ECHR Art 3 right to "life, liberty and security of person."
c. Turning criminals into Ray Mears will not stop them reoffending. It will merely allow them to reoffend and evade justice by lying low with a family of badgers. |
|
| |
LMAO!!! I love it. You've got me by the balls, I give up. Very nice. |
|
| |
btw, I love your sunburn treatment. |
|
| |
Hey, don't give in too easy. Never show any sign of weakness. They thrive on it. |
|
| |
Cheers, though, Glyph, and welcome to the 'bakery. |
|
| |
I'm puzzled by the category "Other: metaphysics" - when I saw the title and started to read the idea, I thought this was going to be something out of "A Clockwork Orange". Maybe some line breaks would make it easier to read.
BTW [calum] Don't you think "pursuit of happiness" sounds more poetical than "security of person"? |
|
| |
Merriam Webster's definition of Metaphysics: the system of principles underlying a particular study or subject. So, in my eyes, it was a correct category.
BTW, I am a terrible writer. I write the way I think. (Very chaotic and disorganized) |
|
| |
//Don't you think "pursuit of happiness" sounds more poetical than "security of person"?//
Shore is, but "security of the person" sets a minimum standard, to be enforced and upheld, which requires clarity through functional word choice. "Pursuit of happiness", on the other hand, sets an aspirational standard, so can be as airy-fairy as it likes. Your honour. |
|
| |
Incidentally, Glyph, you can use < b r > (only without the spaces) to make a single line break, and a double carriage return for a paragraph break. If you went back and edited your idea text to incorporate these elements, it would make it significantly easier to read. |
|
| |
Merriam Webster online defines metaphysics as " a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology " or "abstract philosophical studies". Should this not be in "crime:punishment" "drugs:rehab" or something? |
|
| |
[coprocephalous] Having corrected the only insignificant thing you have to go on, I have entered the same word in every context that I can think of and I find no trace of your definition. But, yet it still supports my original statement. Give it up buddy, I'm not here to argue - just to gain insight. |
|
| |
Bettering one’s ability to function in society via isolation. Self-healing by those who do not know they are sick... |
|
| |
Left alone, the self-destructive will self-destruct. They need help and guidance from other people – sane people who understand them. |
|
| |
At least make it a reality TV show. Survivor: detox. |
|
| |
//Give it up buddy, I'm not here to argue // I'm not sure you're going to like it here...Welcome to the HB! |
|
| |