ds_opseeker

GDPR? Doesn't give standing in US small claims court, but if you applied it to every F* camera that sureyed your vehicle??

Maybe the California privacy law??

History would have some objections to what you believe. In defense of your position, however, the last 40 years (at least in the US) have been dominated by the ethos you describe, and the eras and the politicians who were not consumed by greed tend to be less common than the reverse.

> What determines the flight level of understanding you need to function?

The level where r and fl are seen as different letters?

Look, I know this comes off like I'm being an ass, which means I am being an ass, and I'm sorry. I also make many mistakes and need much forgiveness.

I'm also seeing many more innocent typos such as yours on HN. Does it matter? I don't know. Every other response to your question seemed to understand that you meant "right" instead of "flight", but that's also the kind of error, i.e. `if x=1` instead of `if x==1` which is easy to make but not always easy to catch visually when you are looking at the logic internal to the loop.

So if we are going to pick on people who live off of a government-sponsored subsidy, can I ask if the home interest mortgage deduction also counts as a government-sponsored subsidy?

and if not, why not? is it because people who have a house are good people and deserve it, while CHILDREN who are born to the wrong parents are bad people and don't?

> How does punishment work without cruelty?

My mother spanked me when I misbehaved. She caused real pain as punishment.

It was never cruel.

Punishment and cruelty are not equivalent.

Please note, I am not in favor of spanking children, and never spanked mine.

Now as to your final point, that justice is the state taking revenge on behalf of the victims. I replied to you above that I see the validity of this, and for the same reasons you give (discourage eternal feuds). And for those same reasons Justice is restraint. At most equivalent harm, no more than an eye for an eye.

I think it was your anger that made you say these ethics we both share are bullshit rules designed to hurt your family.

Now in the current case, for that point to stand, we need to ensure that the prisoners have in fact harmed identifiable others. Google tells me "Roughly 40% of inmates in Texas prisons are incarcerated for non-violent offenses". Thus 40% of the time, there is no cause for vengeance.

And where prison is vengeance, if it is just, it needs to be restrained. Not cruel. Not unusual. Just as punishment is not cruelty, justice is not cruelty.

For other readers, as I mentioned above, while I see a valid ethical stance behind NoMoreNicksLeft's anger and hurt, I do not share it. I seek mercy, and as for Justice, "Justice is mine sayeth the Lord"-- in other words, I leave it to God. I find it sick that the US, the "land of the free" has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Look, I've had bad interactions with bonafide unredeemable unrehabilitable psychopaths, and I'd like to see such people locked up for life. But I do not wish them cruelty beyond the innate cruelty of life behind bars.

> But I also fully understand the point of prison is /punishment/... Prison is not supposed to be pleasant and comfortable...

I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which you present your view, and also see it's validity-- that one purpose of prison is for the government to take a measured and limited 'revenge' for the victims of harm. Where the alternative is blood feuds.

Thus prison should not be comfortable, for those rightfully convicted of crimes involving harm TO OTHERS.

But by this same line, that the government's actions should be measured and limited. Prison should not be cruel, nor should the punishments be unusual.

Ok, so as an athiest, could you do what is right, love mercy, and walk humbly with your beliefs?

Your comment on which god you might choose suggest you are not a fan of mercy. Have you ever made a mistake and wished for mercy for yourself? Have you ever received forgiveness that maybe you didn't think was deserved, if even only from you family?

I can agree with you that justice calls for punishment in response to a harm, and thus harming the person who caused the first harm. And if one considers any intentional harm to another as cruelty, then yes, "the purpose of punishment is cruelty". However, justice also limits the cruelty. The earliest example is "an eye for an eye"-- because the prior system was "a death for an eye" or "I burn your village for an eye", and Hammurabi saw that this lead to endless blood feuds. Vendetta, i.e. you hurt me so now I cause you and your family as much pain as I possibly can, that is not justice.

In fact, I was taking your side in this argument. Many others talk about prison as rehabilitation and keeping society safe, totally dropping the psychological need of the victim for some sense of vengeance. And while I agree with those others, and prefer to leave the vengeance to God rather than to the prison system, I took your side and legitimized the victims need for vengeance.

I am sorry that you have such anger that you saw this as bullshit rules from someone who doesn't care for you and wants to disadvantage you.

> The entire point of punishment is the cruelty

That's a pretty messed up morality. I don't even know where to start on this one.

How do you align this with "to do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."

Its also messed up ethics.

The purpose of having the government administer punishment for crime is to prevent vendetta. And from the first time this ever came up it came up as the government saying justice should be balanced. "eye for an eye" == "Punishment fits the crime"

obviously you fail to see the possible nuances in engineered concrete...

I agree with you, and also wish the wakeup call had come when the Mouse locked up our culture. (Copyright Act of 1976 Shifted the framework to the life of the author plus 50 years, Or 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act pushed individual protection to the life of the author plus 70 years)

Maybe now the wakeup call is loud enough to actually wake more people?

> there are some gaps in that chain

for example, a reliance on apple wallet, instead of an open standard.

With that quibble aside, I do like the basic structure of your solution.