18 minutes ago, Saltpeter said:

Off topic, the late 90s/early 2000s were incredible for QB underdog stories. Kurt Warner, Tom Brady, Jeff Garcia, Rich Gannon. Don't know how possible that kind of thing is in the digital/analytics age.

Chris Chandler too 

One would think with the league rules benefitting passing and protecting qbs more less known and would be more succesful.

Yet seems all it did is pad the stats if crappy qbs and make the good ones even better 

I mean look at qbs like Goff and cousins, they put up meaningless stats against defenses that aren't allowed to play defense yet when they go up against a team that has a better QB, which is most, or a marginally better QB paired with a marginally functional defense they lose.

They throw for 350 yards and 2 tds but they still lose because the opposition passed for 400 yards and 4 tds.

Back in the day running games and defenses could limit the inadequacies of ones QB and even the playing field 

In today's NFL if your QB sucks or isn't on par with the oppositions QB you're in trouble.

I miss defense and running, I enjoyed watching the eagles pound the ball this year it's too bad they didn't have a defense or a qb to make up the difference☹️

 

 

 

19 hours ago, ManuManu said:

 

To go from Allen to Tua is hilarious

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

 

wonder what took so long

6 minutes ago, schuy7 said:

Freaky.

 

Swag

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I sure wish Deshaun Watson tipped better after his Happy Endings.  Then we’d be talking about Jalen Swags and his accession to top 20 status.  

Why did you capitalize happy endings Mr. Kraft?

27 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

It's actually fairly easy. 

Legalize and tax the ever living poo out of weed. 

Get caught with C/crack/heroin/etc mandatory 20 years in prison, no parole. no matter the amount

Get caught with any fentanyl(any amount) get the death penalty. 

How'd that work in Eighteenth Century England?

3 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Didn't say I don't like punishment I just don't think it's very effective and I definitely don't thing more punishment would be more effective.

I think I. uSA we operate the criminal justice system the same way we do our health care, we treat the symptoms instead of the underlying cause of those symptoms.

The question then would be what are the underlying causes of crime?

Different theory and data and studies suggest different things, one of those theories is that crime decreases when basic human needs are met, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, food water shelter love ect...

The bonobo chimpanzee hypothesis suggest that competition for limited basic resources lead to violence tendencies.

Multiple studies show that lower income areas with higher density populations have higher crime rates and hypothesize it's due to lack of equitable resources and competition for them. I sited one of those studies In a previous post and sited another about the bonobo and chimp hypothesis In another.

If you would like me to repost those to you I can.

Either way leading social theory suggests that a more equitable society would decrease violence and crime.

I think locking people up chopping hands off is the easy thing to do, we pay for it as tax payers where as making society more equitable would require those who benefit from scarcity to actually do something that might cut into their bottom line.

 

 

 

This is pretty much what I thought you would say and not surprised in the least.  It sounds like you would be for a socialistic form of government where all your basic needs are met, and you believe this would reduce crime?  SOunds good in theory. This gets to the root of what I was asking- is it idealistic? Is it actually feasible? Nothing wrong with having some idealistic aspirations, as long as we keep them grounded in reality.

Do you believe that Socialism is the answer and will work in reality? 

no - I do not think Socialism works in reality - it works for a while, then the resources get thinned out as there is no motivation to succeed, or exceed because no matter what you do, your needs are provided for.  I think Humans need to have a reason, motivation to live, in order to produce. There needs to be an incentive. If we all get exactly the same things, there is no longer any incentives to succeed. If you inact a stepped program where those who produce less, only get the bare minimum, and those who produce more get excesses, this will only get you back to what we have now. Crime will still be prevelent. People who dont have what others have, will work to get it by any means necessary. And there is always a % of the population who only cares about themselves.  Lastly, and more importantly humans by nature are wired to crave freedom. 

Since I do not believe that Socialism will work in reality,  I would ask, again, if not Socialism, and not for punishing criminals, what else you got? 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, greend said:

I'm for the legalization of murder.

 

1.) We can rid society of people that cause a drain of resources 

2.) We can live more peaceably without people that have different opinions than the rest of us

3.) We can cause less accidental deaths by planning them ahead (causing less pain on the "victim")

 

I'm not for making laws because of some moral thing I'm all about society, blah,blah, blah.

 

Before I get reported this is sarcasm folks.

Carosel

8 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

So he is an etremely stupid idiot, who likes to argue/fight - when he is on probation - instead of walking away- leaving?  I mean cmon- I'm 57 years old, and the last time I got into a shoving match I was in my 30's, and not on probation. It's not hard to avoid, or de-esculate.. SMH. 

 

Bigger question- what do people who are against punishing crimes think we should do to reduce the amount of crimes being comitted? I mean if you are not for punishing those who commit the crimes, what do you suggest? Keeping in mind life is not some utopian fantasy where everyone is reasonable and rationale and gets along if we just let them. Too many progressives have this idealistic view, example, if we make having guns illegal, there wont be any gun deaths or crimes. And it's about as far from reality as you can get. SO I am very curious, if you dont like punsihment, what do you suggest? 

 

I am not against punishment.  I am against incarceration for extended periods of time for a lot of offenses.  I don't think incarceration serves any rehabilitative function. It is costly.  It creates a bigger government.    As system that is invested in criminal justice and incarceration allows for prosecutors to have leverage to take away innocent people's freedom.  The reason it is necessary is when a person places other people at risk.  In domestic violence situations, incarceration is the only practical way to avoid further violence.  I think we should take a utilitarian view on the morality of it.  We should look at methods that are short of incarceration to change behaviors. Where that is problematic is that people are invested in the idea of retribution and revenge.  We want wrongdoers to suffer.  The problem is that suffering doesn't seem to make a difference.  It is also an emotional and irrational response to larger problems that we should be rational about.  

 

 

28 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Alcohol was illegal once.  It can be addictive, destructive, and deadly…and fun.

If it can be illegal at one point…and legal now…we are just drawing lines.  You can debate cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, heroine, LSD, meth, whatever.

There’s no inherently right or wrong place to draw the line of legality.  If you don’t want to ban all of it or allow all of it, you are all just debating where to move the needle. 
 

But if you want to legally play with fire, just don’t use my hose to put it out.

@olsilverhair and @hputenis are always playing with each other’s hoses 

2 hours ago, vikas83 said:

My dividing line is simple -- it goes to the intent. I'm Indian, but look at my avatar. I have never viewed Apu as racist because he was portrayed as a small business owner, family man and immigrant with an accent.

I took Shocker's posts as offensive because he was highlighting a lack of intelligence and command of the English language and associating it with African Americans. Plus...it wasn't funny. 

Yep. For one thing, everything in the SImpsons is an exaggerated stereotype, in that context Apu was harmless.

Shocker was deliberately being an a-hole and wanting to get a rise out of people.

I don't have much use for political correctness, but I also don't have much patience with bad manners and people who like to insult others, unfortunately, message boards tend to reveal the worst in people - they'll say things they never would at the corner bar over beers.

3 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

This is pretty much what I thought you would say and not surprised in the least.  It sounds like you would be for a socialistic form of government where all your basic needs are met, and you believe this would reduce crime?  SOunds good in theory. This gets to the root of what I was asking- is it idealistic? Is it actually feasible? Nothing wrong with having some idealistic aspirations, as long as we keep them grounded in reality.

Do you believe that Socialism is the answer and will work in reality? 

no - I do not think Socialism works in reality - it works for a while, then the resources get thinned out as there is no motivation to succeed, or exceed because no matter what you do, your needs are provided for.  I think Humans need to have a reason, motivation to live, in order to produce. There needs to be an incentive. If we all get exactly the same things, there is no longer any incentives to succeed. If you inact a stepped program where those who produce less, only get the bare minimum, and those who produce more get excesses, this will only get you back to what we have now. Crime will still be prevelent. People who dont have what others have, will work to get it by any means necessary. And there is always a % of the population who only cares about themselves.  Lastly, and more importantly humans by nature are wired to crave freedom. 

Since I do not believe that Socialism will work in reality,  I would ask, again, if not Socialism, and not for punishing criminals, what else you got? 

 

Government spending money on social programs isn't socialism.   Socialism is government control of the means of production.   We are spending billions of dollars in tax money to police, jail and incarcerate people.  If we spent more on early childhood education/childcare, we would spend less to prosecute and incarcerate.  Those people who don't get incarcerated would also be tax payers and better citizens.  We are wasting money on incarceration.  

17 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

It's better to get caught with a pound of coke than it is to get a DUI. 

Where? 

39 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Nothing says "underdog story" like growing up in a rich white town(currently where I live) with amazing school districts. Getting a full ride to a high school that tuition costs more then most colleges, then getting a full ride to an actual college and then getting drafted in the NFL. 

Rich Gannon is far from a underdog story. Same as Brady. 

Gannon is from NE Philly. We went to the same grade school. And we all know how rich and white with amazing school districts Philly is.

3 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

This is pretty much what I thought you would say and not surprised in the least.  It sounds like you would be for a socialistic form of government where all your basic needs are met, and you believe this would reduce crime?  SOunds good in theory. This gets to the root of what I was asking- is it idealistic? Is it actually feasible? Nothing wrong with having some idealistic aspirations, as long as we keep them grounded in reality.

Do you believe that Socialism is the answer and will work in reality? 

no - I do not think Socialism works in reality - it works for a while, then the resources get thinned out as there is no motivation to succeed, or exceed because no matter what you do, your needs are provided for.  I think Humans need to have a reason, motivation to live, in order to produce. There needs to be an incentive. If we all get exactly the same things, there is no longer any incentives to succeed. If you inact a stepped program where those who produce less, only get the bare minimum, and those who produce more get excesses, this will only get you back to what we have now. Crime will still be prevelent. People who dont have what others have, will work to get it by any means necessary. And there is always a % of the population who only cares about themselves.  Lastly, and more importantly humans by nature are wired to crave freedom. 

Since I do not believe that Socialism will work in reality,  I would ask, again, if not Socialism, and not for punishing criminals, what else you got? 

 

 

 

Carosel

I'd counter that I don't believe the current system of capitalism works, in actual reality. we didn't get to where we are as a country under socialism,   where we are is  more to dothe late stages of unregulated  capitalism than the imagined fears of unpracticed socialism.

So other than going down the current path that has led us to where we are now under the current way if doing things what's is your alternate other than not socialism?

I haven't brought up socialism or said I think socialism solves all societal ills.

Talking on a message board To a bunch of middle aged conservative men about the perils of late stage capitalism and some of the benefits of social progressive policy isn't something I'm keen on doing, from past experience it's like taking to a brick wall that throws bricks.😳

7 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Since I do not believe that Socialism will work in reality,  I would ask, again, if not Socialism, and not for punishing criminals, what else you got?

Scandinavian countries and Germany have strong safeties nets and extensive income redistribution, but are as "capitalist" as the US (private ownership of the means of production).

It's a matter of finding the right balance between punishment, monitoring and rehabilitation.

For example, registering ammunition and allowing it to be traced would make it easier to solve homicides - and economic studies show the probability of being caught is a much bigger deterrent than the level of punishment. So if we increase the rate we solve crimes, we can both reduce incidence of crimes and lock up the truly dangerous (like the former Presidents of Phillip Morris who engaged in a criminal conspiracy to hide the danger of their product!).

This is the balance between privacy and safety, example, DNA databases make it easier to solve crimes, but people are concerned about their data - of course, many who worry about the government give all their data to Amazon and Google - go figure?

6 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

Government spending money on social programs isn't socialism.   Socialism is government control of the means of production.   We are spending billions of dollars in tax money to police, jail and incarcerate people.  If we spent more on early childhood education/childcare, we would spend less to prosecute and incarcerate.  Those people who don't get incarcerated would also be tax payers and better citizens.  We are wasting money on incarceration.  

Thats a theory that doesnt really hold up against the data.

 

46 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Not gonna read anymore cause I dont care. 

the penalties in this country arent stiff enough

End of story 

 

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world.  Why not step out of your revenge fantasies to think about what would work.  

43 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

It's actually fairly easy. 

Legalize and tax the ever living poo out of weed. 

Get caught with C/crack/heroin/etc mandatory 20 years in prison, no parole. no matter the amount

Get caught with any fentanyl(any amount) get the death penalty. 

I presume you're being over-the-top here. One valid point though - "Legalize and tax the ever living poo out of weed". Cheaper sources will become available - just like moonshine today.

3 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Cleveland 

2 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Thats a theory that doesnt really hold up against the data.

 

I think there's plenty of evidence that it does.  

2 hours ago, Bacarty2 said:

so what your saying is the threat wasnt strong enough so you did the things that landed you in jail. 

What I'm saying is, we need stricter and harsher penalties   because it's not stopping people from doing bad things. 

One problem is we know there's a significant % of innocent people who are jailed and executed, prosecutors and police have engaged in bad behavior for a long time with few consequences, and if you're poor and/or a minority, the odds significantly increase that you'll be railroaded.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1241&context=public_law_and_legal_theory

https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1297&context=faculty_scholarship

Of course if you're white and upper middle-class, you don't worry about you or your kids, b/c you're happy to increase the perception of safety by punishing others (note that white upper middle class people are rarely the victims of crime, violence against them is primarily domestic violence).

5 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Thats a theory that doesnt really hold up against the data.

 

What data you have yet to show any in any if this conversation?

2 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

Government spending money on social programs isn't socialism.   Socialism is government control of the means of production.   We are spending billions of dollars in tax money to police, jail and incarcerate people.  If we spent more on early childhood education/childcare, we would spend less to prosecute and incarcerate.  Those people who don't get incarcerated would also be tax payers and better citizens.  We are wasting money on incarceration.  

ahh, I'm with you to a point. The bolded is where I would like to see it, but not just spend more money or invest in this area, we need to actually offer quality education, which isn't happening in some city schools. Thats why I support School choice. Most children in poor areas, are forced to go to schools that historically perfrom among the worst, almost cement their future, and keeping them locked in a self perpetuating cycle.  Furthermore, more children are being brought up in single parent households now than at any point in recent history. There's a lack of quality parenting and quality role models. Not to mention what Social media is doing to chidlren. 

In the end, you cant just switch off incarcerating ciminals and expect it to get better (which is all we are doing now with justice reforms). We have to work from the education on up and allow the incarcerations to drop organically as less crimes are getting committed. 

1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

again, it's not working.

We've had close to 100,000 murders in the last 3 years and less than 2 dozen were executed. hmmmm 

50% of criminals are gonna end up back in jail... hmmmm

It has nothing to do with "revenge" This country is soft. 

Again the data and studies as recent as 2021 show that increased penalties punishment don't decrease violent crime.

Sounds like you're solution is to just execute everyone that commits a crime and voila no more crime?