Jump to content

Bank Error In My Favor


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 289
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, I forgot the other reason why I'd be ok with outlawing the death penalty...the other countries that still have it aren't ones I'd want to be on a list with, which is pretty telling in and of itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Back when men were men and adultery got you a good Pressing.
Yeh, and Iron Maiden wasn't a metal band either...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I forgot the other reason why I'd be ok with outlawing the death penalty...the other countries that still have it aren't ones I'd want to be on a list with, which is pretty telling in and of itself.
Yea it has become embarrassing. Here's the top 10 list for 2010.China (thousands?)Iran (252+)North Korea (60+)Yemen (53+)USA (46)Saudi Arabia (27+)Libya (18+)Syria (17+)Bangladesh (9+)Somalia (8+)I can't even remember the last time someone made a serious defense of the death penalty. It's pretty well established that it doesn't deter crime and costs more. You could also make an argument that it provides political cover for repressive regimes. Then there's always the mistaken execution problem. I guess you can reserve it for symbolic executions for someone like Bin Laden, but it's hard to see how you can defend the common use of it any more.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's pretty well established that it doesn't deter crime and costs more.
The Chinese have the cost issue worked out.You charge the family of the crimimal for the bullet and then you sell their organs into the black organ transplant market. In fact they time the execution for when they have somebody lined up to buy the organs.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chinese have the cost issue worked out.You charge the family of the crimimal for the bullet and then you sell their organs into the black organ transplant market. In fact they time the execution for when they have somebody lined up to buy the organs.
I've heard that if you harvest the parts, a human body is worth well over $100K. This could help defer the costs here in the US.Seriously, though, miracle of miracles, I agree with SS on this one.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously, though, miracle of miracles, I agree with SS on this one.
It's really very cut and dried. We know we screw up all the time and have probably sentenced lots and lots of people to death who were innocent. And yet all we get is the tired BG line "liberals just are soft and won't kill people." Typical GOP hypocrisy.....a fetus is sacred life but once someone is born **** that guy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's really very cut and dried. We know we screw up all the time and have probably sentenced lots and lots of people to death who were innocent. And yet all we get is the tired BG line "liberals just are soft and won't kill people." Typical GOP hypocrisy.....a fetus is sacred life but once someone is born **** that guy.
cause we all know that this is morally equivalent to this
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea it has become embarrassing. Here's the top 10 list for 2010.China (thousands?)Iran (252+)North Korea (60+)Yemen (53+)USA (46)Saudi Arabia (27+)Libya (18+)Syria (17+)Bangladesh (9+)Somalia (8+)I can't even remember the last time someone made a serious defense of the death penalty. It's pretty well established that it doesn't deter crime and costs more. You could also make an argument that it provides political cover for repressive regimes. Then there's always the mistaken execution problem. I guess you can reserve it for symbolic executions for someone like Bin Laden, but it's hard to see how you can defend the common use of it any more.
So you want to allow for Osama to be murdered by our government? Who are you to allow another human being to be killed? In other words ( for the dense ) you destroyed your position once you admitted that person should be put to death by the government. All you are really arguing is what line is required top be crossed before you are okay with execution.
It's really very cut and dried. We know we screw up all the time and have probably sentenced lots and lots of people to death who were innocent. And yet all we get is the tired BG line "liberals just are soft and won't kill people." Typical GOP hypocrisy.....a fetus is sacred life but once someone is born **** that guy.
Yes...a baby is exactly the same as a man who kills 20 people and wears their scalps as he drives around in an SUV blaring American Idol runner ups albums as he refuses to properly use his turn signal and parks in a handicap spot.Those two beings are exactly the same, and killing them is 100% equal.I am wondering though why you are not out fighting the insane practice of swimming pools in people's yards?Over 250 children drowned last year in swimming pools, but we only put to death 46 people last year in our legal system after giving them decades of appeals from scummy lawyers willing to profit off the system.Or is it your position that those children were guilty?You should really read Couter's new book; Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America It explains why your mob mentality is preventing you from understanding that silly catch phrases like the one you just used are preventing you from thinking, not helping you solidify your thinking.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes...a baby is exactly the same as a man who kills 20 people and wears their scalps as he drives around in an SUV blaring American Idol runner ups albums as he refuses to properly use his turn signal and parks in a handicap spot.Those two beings are exactly the same, and killing them is 100% equal.I am wondering though why you are not out fighting the insane practice of swimming pools in people's yards?Over 250 children drowned last year in swimming pools, but we only put to death 46 people last year in our legal system after giving them decades of appeals from scummy lawyers willing to profit off the system.Or is it your position that those children were guilty?You should really read Couter's new book; Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America It explains why your mob mentality is preventing you from understanding that silly catch phrases like the one you just used are preventing you from thinking, not helping you solidify your thinking.
lol Anne Coulter. please stop trolling me. The only difference between a liberal mob and a conservative mob is a conservative mob will have more guns. I like the title though. Really fits her usual themes. You completely ignored my point (as usual). In the process of killing Mr. 20 scalps, we will inevitably kill an innocent person. It happened before and it will happen again. Of those 46, how many were innocent? 1? 2? Is there a number that would bother you? The fact that this loss of innocent life doesn't bother you is hypocritical given the standard conservative stance on sanctity of life.It's the same hypocrisy that causes most Southern states to have excellent records on fetus' rights and horrific records on infant mortality rates. Once it's born, who cares?I don't fight swimming pools for the same reason I don't fight cars (which kill hundreds per month). But the death penalty is perfectly controllable and it can be unequivocally proven that innocent people have been sentenced to death. Nice try attempting to compare an accident to intentionally killing someone though. Please don't worry about my thinking.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you want to allow for Osama to be murdered by our government? Who are you to allow another human being to be killed?
Military operations aren't the same as executions in the criminal justice system. Obviously.But, if you want to make an argument for why we should allow capital punishment, go for it. I'm guessing it's more or less, "some people deserve to die and the world would be better off without them", which we've already agreed to. But maybe there's more to it?
You should really read Couter's new book
Hahahaha. You're the cutest.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So you want to allow for Osama to be murdered by our government? Who are you to allow another human being to be killed? In other words ( for the dense ) you destroyed your position once you admitted that person should be put to death by the government. All you are really arguing is what line is required top be crossed before you are okay with execution. I am wondering though why you are not out fighting the insane practice of swimming pools in people's yards?
I didn't destroy my position. Morally a person forfeits their right to life once we unequivocably know that they are a murderer. My objection to the death penalty is on practical grounds. If it could be shown that the death penalty reduced crime or did some other significant good then it should be allowed. But it doesn't. Besides not doing any good though you have to consider the harm it causes, like execution of innocent people, increased costs, etc. I personally think we shouldn't kill anyone to avoid the risk of making them a martyr. But others think there are benefits in certain unusual cases- I'll let them make the case for why. There are a lot of dumb things our society does. But that is a completely different issue.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My objection to the death penalty is on practical grounds. If it could be shown that the death penalty reduced crime or did some other significant good then it should be allowed.
Your objection is on logically fallacious grounds... The phrase "you can't prove a negative" originated to address the fallacy of people demanding of evidence of an outcome had we NOT done something. Can we prove what people DIDN'T do because we have a standing death penalty? No. That's the whole "prove a negative" thing again. What we can do is examine our culture, examine human nature, be objective about it all and come to terms with the fact that in some cases, it's perfectly appropriate to apply the ultimate consequence. It's also certain that many criminals have stopped short of doing something even more heinous, with the needle whispering its presence, in the backs of their minds, for much the same reason you don't just go rape the hot girl walking down the street...There are two types of liberals- the sheltered ones who may otherwise be intelligent, and the dumb ones who sign up for liberalism because it gives them free stuff they would be otherwise unable to attain through their own abilities. It's natural that liberals would oppose the death penalty; the "sheltered liberal's" rosy outlook on human nature runs deep into the realm of delusion and fails to address certain realities of the human condition, while the "broke dick loser liberal's" are pretty much always the very ones for whom the death penalty is usually applied to. You don't understand criminals (as is the case with pretty much every soaring leftist principle- where they believe one thing based on good intentions, while safely tucked away from the practical manifestation and consequences of what their ideals really create).
"The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors--psychology, sociology, women's studies--to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view." -- P.J. O'Rourke
sa_soy-600.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your objection is on logically fallacious grounds... The phrase "you can't prove a negative" originated to address the fallacy of people demanding of evidence of an outcome had we NOT done something. There are two types of liberals- the sheltered ones who may otherwise be intelligent, and the dumb ones who sign up for liberalism because it gives them free stuff they would be otherwise unable to attain through their own abilities. It's natural that liberals would oppose the death penalty, as the former has a rosy outlook on human nature deep into the realm of delusion, and the latter are the very people for whom the death penalty is usually applied. Can we prove what people DIDN'T do because we have a standing death penalty? No. That's the whole "prove a negative" thing again. What we can do is examine our culture, examine human nature, be objective about it and come to terms with the fact that in some cases, it's perfectly appropriate to apply the ultimate consequence.
Your objection is about as relevant to the issue as South American soybean production. This has nothing to do with proving a negative or a logical fallacy. There are plenty of places that have/don't have the death penalty that we can compare. You don't have to be a criminologist to notice that the places without it generally have higher murder rates. Going beyond the obvious correlation, lots of studies have shown that there seems to be no crime reducing effect whatsoever when the death penalty is in place. Maybe it's liberals ability to accurately see the flaws of the criminal justice system that make them oppose the death penalty, while conservatives' simplistic and "rosy" outlook makes them ignore reality.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This has nothing to do with proving a negative or a logical fallacy. There are plenty of places that have/don't have the death penalty that we can compare. I'm not a criminologist, but as far as I can tell the places without it generally have higher murder rates. Going beyond the obvious correlation, lots of studies have shown that there seems to be no crime reducing effect whatsoever when the death penalty is in place. Maybe it's liberals ability to accurately see the flaws of the criminal justice system that make them oppose the death penalty, while conservatives' simplistic and "rosy" outlook makes them ignore reality.
Well, yes, it has everything to do with proving a negative, since that's precisely what you just demanded be done. A college professor and a rancher are tasked with raising beef cows. The college professor has studies, the rancher, an intimate knowledge of the issue at hand.They're both given 200 acres and 200 head.Who do you think wins?There's a reason impractical academia can only exist in college classrooms, and not the real world. You and I probably agree big time on the 'flaws' of the criminal justice system... Your position based ideals via what you've been told, meshed against your broader outlook on life, me based on what I've seen and figured out from that. My knowledge type is probably a lot more credible than yours. The death penalty issue is straight ideology. Arguing it on practical grounds fails 100% of the time, save for 'undesirable association'... and I really don't know how 'undesirable' China is.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, yes, it has everything to do with proving a negative, since that's precisely what you just demanded be done.A college professor and a rancher are tasked with raising beef cows.The college professor has studies, the rancher, an intimate knowledge of the issue at hand.They're both given 200 acres and 200 head.Who do you think wins?There's a reason impractical academia can only exist in college classrooms, and not the real world.You and I probably agree big time on the 'flaws' of the criminal justice system... Your position based ideals via what you've been told, meshed against your broader outlook on life, me based on what I've seen and figured out from that. My knowledge type is probably a lot more credible than yours.The death penalty issue is straight ideology. Arguing it on practical grounds fails 100% of the time, save for 'undesirable association'... and I really don't know how 'undesirable' China is.
A college professor and a rancher are tasked with accurately assessing the impact of the death penalty in our society. Who do you think wins?Not everybody believes that anti-intellectualism and deliberate ignorance is a virtue. You're going to have to work on your anecdotes if you want to persuade anyone. Wait, I thought you were all for "practical" arguments? Maybe you don't want to argue the death penalty on practical grounds because you know it fails there as well. At the risk of going completely off topic, you are also using an inconsistent argument. You seem to be implying that "academic intelligence" is irrelevant. But when the issue is racial differences you act as if academic intelligence(IQ) is extremely important.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we really only allow the death penalty for murders, then we can declare with confidence that the death penalty does in fact deter crime in one particular case.So far no one who has been killed with lethal injection has gone on to break the law ever again.But it is a cute mob mentality; 'give us a catch phrase to confuse the issue so we don't have to think about it'."It doesn't deter crime"Why would anyone associate the killing of a person for their crimes with a desire to send a message?The only other people who kill people to 'send a message' are terrorist.So unless you are saying that liberals are in fact terrorist coddling ignorants...then your argument is irrelevant.I don't ever want our government killing someone to send a message. I want them killing people who have been found guilty of crimes worthy of their death.Oh but some innocent people have been killed in the past....Every one of the victims of the guilty were innocent too, but let's ignore them.Since we cannot be perfect with punishment, we should never enforce the punishment is your argument.Let's carry that through to its logical conclusion....there are people in jail for life who are innocent. Let's therefore never send anyone to jail for life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since we really only allow the death penalty for murders, then we can declare with confidence that the death penalty does in fact deter crime in one particular case.So far no one who has been killed with lethal injection has gone on to break the law ever again.But it is a cute mob mentality; 'give us a catch phrase to confuse the issue so we don't have to think about it'."It doesn't deter crime"Why would anyone associate the killing of a person for their crimes with a desire to send a message?The only other people who kill people to 'send a message' are terrorist.So unless you are saying that liberals are in fact terrorist coddling ignorants...then your argument is irrelevant.I don't ever want our government killing someone to send a message. I want them killing people who have been found guilty of crimes worthy of their death.Oh but some innocent people have been killed in the past....Every one of the victims of the guilty were innocent too, but let's ignore them.Since we cannot be perfect with punishment, we should never enforce the punishment is your argument.Let's carry that through to its logical conclusion....there are people in jail for life who are innocent. Let's therefore never send anyone to jail for life.
There's a lot of sense in this post...
Link to post
Share on other sites
lol Anne Coulter. please stop trolling me. The only difference between a liberal mob and a conservative mob is a conservative mob will have more guns. I like the title though. Really fits her usual themes. You completely ignored my point (as usual). In the process of killing Mr. 20 scalps, we will inevitably kill an innocent person. It happened before and it will happen again. Of those 46, how many were innocent? 1? 2? Is there a number that would bother you? The fact that this loss of innocent life doesn't bother you is hypocritical given the standard conservative stance on sanctity of life.It's the same hypocrisy that causes most Southern states to have excellent records on fetus' rights and horrific records on infant mortality rates. Once it's born, who cares?I don't fight swimming pools for the same reason I don't fight cars (which kill hundreds per month). But the death penalty is perfectly controllable and it can be unequivocally proven that innocent people have been sentenced to death. Nice try attempting to compare an accident to intentionally killing someone though. Please don't worry about my thinking.
? Please site proof that a 5% innocent rate/death penalty is standard.Also please supply evidence that southern states horrible conditions are not results of democrat control for decades resulting in their current medical conditions.I'm not against saving innocent human life ( like Jews from being suicide bombed in Israel ), but I don't understand how you guys are so worked up over every single human life no matter how horrible, unless it is in the US military. Cause then you guys want to tie their hands with your silly ROE etc.More humans have died from the removal of DDT than from all death punishments from all countries through out human existence. And that would not be an accident, we know exactly what's happening and why we wanted to protect bird eggs more than small black children.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A college professor and a rancher are tasked with accurately assessing the impact of the death penalty in our society. Who do you think wins?Not everybody believes that anti-intellectualism and deliberate ignorance is a virtue. You're going to have to work on your anecdotes if you want to persuade anyone. Wait, I thought you were all for "practical" arguments? Maybe you don't want to argue the death penalty on practical grounds because you know it fails there as well. At the risk of going completely off topic, you are also using an inconsistent argument. You seem to be implying that "academic intelligence" is irrelevant. But when the issue is racial differences you act as if academic intelligence(IQ) is extremely important.
Wait. Wat?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...