Bank Error In My Favor

[AmScray 355]

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.

"Anti Intellectualism" and "Deliberate Ignorance" are two, completely different things. There is deliberate ignorance that comes from averting a knowledge type that might run contrary to your ideological profile, then there is deliberate ignorance that takes the shape of theories and studies that only exist to rationalize that very same ideological profile, in the face of a much more elegant, simple and appealing conclusion that may be ideologically offensive to some people.To wit:"Ya know, this idea that different groups on different continents raised in different climates over thousands of years... This idea that by sole virtue of a common humanity we're all magically "equal" might sound good, but it just doesn't seem to line up with what I'm seeing in the real world. It's possible that not all people are equal, physically or intellectually. Hell, you needn't look much further than the NFL or the Ivy League to see that!"The response from Academia: 500 pages of "Guns, Germs and Steel" where logic couldn't possibly be tortured any further without dying all together- or, deferring the question to their Apologetics wing, well funded in the world of Academia, where the various 'ologies will be put to work developing theories to explain why 1 + 1 really doesn't equal 2.And on the overall importance of "academic intelligence", again, you're employing your own definitions that are not accurate. "Academic intelligence" in terms of being able to conceive and design an airplane or a light emitting diode- something Caucasians and Asians seem to be supremely good at, but sub-Saharan Africans most definitely aren't- is not the same thing as "academia's" role in creating left-bent theories to influence social policy, or continuing to ask questions once the answer is already in the rear view mirror, just because they happen to dislike that answer.

[speedz99 145]

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?

It depends, really. For this to be a legitimate question, the professor would obviously have to be in a field closely tied to raising cattle. You have to assume the professor has at least a bit of hands-on knowledge, and the rancher has done some aggie schooling and/or read a thing or two about his chosen profession. Putting each of them in an equally strange situation, the 200 acres being on neutral ground and the 200 head being a from a line neither has worked with, and it'd be closer than you think. The rancher could obviously do better in a vacuum, being able to do almost everything on his own, but the professor would be able to hold his own and in plenty of situations do better after a short adjustment period and with the appropriate help. I'll put it this way...after taking a two credit class on "feeds and feeding", which was heavy on raising cattle, I could walk onto many, if not most farms and very quickly lower their costs and improve output based just on the proper feed ratios proven in academic settings. That's just one of many examples, and from a second year vet student, not a professor who has dedicated a lifetime to the academic study of cattle raising. He couldn't do everything on a farm like a rancher could, but he could learn the basics, and his studies would be incredibly helpful in terms of improving the efficiency of a standard farm.So, I have no idea how this pertains to your arguments about the death penalty, but your example isn't a good one if you're trying to prove that having gone to prison makes you more fit to make recommendations for how our criminal justice system should work than an academic. Not that it matters. I just felt like writing something; I'm bored.

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.

On human rights issues? Really? If that's your best example of how it's not only fucked up countries that use capital punishment...

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"

Ok, that's true. People in prison for life could continue committing crimes while in prison. Crimes against other criminals. That's just like a conservative to coddle prisoners by sheltering them from the worst of the worst.

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.

True terrorists crave martyrdom. That's just like a conservative to indirectly give terrorists exactly what they want by reacting exactly as expected.

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 deathOh 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.

This is so silly I can't even make a joke about it. An innocent man sent to prison for life has a lifetime to be proven innocent, as has occurred hundreds, probably thousands of times. An innocent man put to death is just dead. If, due to some horrific set of circumstances, you're ever wrongly convicted of a crime, you'd probably vomit at the realization that you ever argued life in prison and the death penalty were equal in terms of being awful for the Andy Dufresnes of the world.

There's a lot of sense in this post...

Heh.

[AmScray 355]

It depends, really. For this to be a legitimate question, the professor would obviously have to be in a field closely tied to raising cattle.

No, the question was legitimate, just not adequately clarified.It was in response to this.

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.

A Humanities Professor and a Cattle Rancher.Now, who wins? PhD, after all... And studies! Lots and lots and lots of studies!And studies of studies, and studies of studies of studies, and counter-studies, and counter-counter-studies! By golly, we have every possible variable and conclusion fully codified into a study of some kind and a PhD to make it appear a credible affair...I'm firmly convinced that the next rung up in intellectual development is realizing what a counterproductive joke present-day "academia" has devolved into and more importantly, not buying into their lie that intelligence or insight is somehow related to the number of hours someone sat in a college classroom, listening to a professor who believes the same thing. So much of what originates from the 'pantheons of thought' is nothing more than theoretical horseshit with ideologically-tied, self serving ends that accomplishes nothing more than confounding the obvious answer.Some call it 'nuance'. Really, it's just a seeming inability to commit to an answer, or trying to explain away an answer you do not like.

[speedz99 145]

A Humanities Professor and a Cattle Rancher.

Oh, well, yeah. As long as you're saying SilentSnow is the professor and you're the rancher, not generalizing the correlation to liberals and conservatives in general.

I'm firmly convinced that the next rung in intellectual development is realizing what a counterproductive joke present-day "academia" is and not buying into their lie that intelligence or insight is somehow related to the number of hours someone sat in a college classroom, listening to a professor who believes the same thing.

It really depends on the subject at hand, but I think you need people that have been entrenched in any given profession their whole lives and know the nuts and bolts, as well as having people in academia looking at big picture, game-changing ideas. Plus, I don't think it's fair to say that academics believe only high levels of education make someone worthwhile in any given field. I think most would admit that, in the grand scheme of things, the guy who actually knows how to take apart and rebuild an engine is more vital to society than the guy working in a lab setting to make one specific part work more efficiently.

[Balloon guy 158]

Ok, that's true. People in prison for life could continue committing crimes while in prison. Crimes against other criminals. That's just like a conservative to coddle prisoners by sheltering them from the worst of the worst.

So you are for cruel and unusual punishment as long as they deserve it?Just like a liberal to tear up the constitution if it means making a black man suffer.

True terrorists crave martyrdom. That's just like a conservative to indirectly give terrorists exactly what they want by reacting exactly as expected.

True terrorist crave terror. Killing them prevents them from terrorizing. If the living choose to martyr them, they have a constitutional right to.Just like a liberal to tear up the constitution to try to prevent innocent people from thinking a way different than what they want them to think.But thank you for introducing the reality of life after death through your argument. We can move into your responsibility to God anytime you want.

This is so silly I can't even make a joke about it. An innocent man sent to prison for life has a lifetime to be proven innocent, as has occurred hundreds, probably thousands of times. An innocent man put to death is just dead. If, due to some horrific set of circumstances, you're ever wrongly convicted of a crime, you'd probably vomit at the realization that you ever argued life in prison and the death penalty were equal in terms of being awful for the Andy Dufresnes of the world.

So a person like say...Hitler, deserves the right to tie up our court system for the sake of disrupting things even though his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt?Just like a liberal to do stupid things that results in hurting innocent people who need their day in court. People like little Becky Miller who had a wrongful injury lawsuit against a manufacturing company but she died before the case could be brought to trail because PRISON INMATES CASES ARE GIVEN PRIORITY over other cases.Also, please provide some remote proof that 'probably thousands of times' a person was sent to death row only to be found innocent. Cause we aren't talking about any other criminals. At least I'm not because as a conservative I don't try to muddy the waters to justify some feelings that they are probably right because they saw a movie or read a bumper sticker.If I am ever wrongly convicted and given 10+ years of preferred court dates to prove my innocence and I can't, I would not hold the system at fault, I would blame my scumbag lawyer who got rich off my case even though they failed completely.

[SilentSnow 1]

1.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.2.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.3.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.4.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.

1.You are looking at it wrong. The comparison is innocent people executed by the state vs escaped death row inmates who have murdered someone. It has probably happened, but I can't remember anyone ever escaping from death row and then killing someone. 2.This section is nonsensical. 3.We are trying to ask the question of what is better for society- life in prison without parole or the death penalty. That the victims were innocent is absolutely irrelevant. We are trying to prevent future victims. Nothing we do will bring back the dead. 4.No, our argument is that since the legal system is flawed and the death penalty does no apparent good then we should abolish it in order to prevent some innocent people from being executed(along with possibly other less tangible benefits). The logical conclusion is that cases should be reviewed for accuracy since mistakes are routinely made in trials.

[SilentSnow 1]

"Ya know, this idea that different groups on different continents raised in different climates over thousands of years... This idea that by sole virtue of a common humanity we're all magically "equal" might sound good, but it just doesn't seem to line up with what I'm seeing in the real world. It's possible that not all people are equal, physically or intellectually. Hell, you needn't look much further than the NFL or the Ivy League to see that!"The response from Academia: 500 pages of "Guns, Germs and Steel" where logic couldn't possibly be tortured any further without dying all together- or, deferring the question to their Apologetics wing, well funded in the world of Academia, where the various 'ologies will be put to work developing theories to explain why 1 + 1 really doesn't equal 2.And on the overall importance of "academic intelligence", again, you're employing your own definitions that are not accurate. "Academic intelligence" in terms of being able to conceive and design an airplane or a light emitting diode- something Caucasians and Asians seem to be supremely good at, but sub-Saharan Africans most definitely aren't- is not the same thing as "academia's" role in creating left-bent theories to influence social policy, or continuing to ask questions once the answer is already in the rear view mirror, just because they happen to dislike that answer.

There are plenty of studies that cast doubt on a race difference in IQ hypothesis. All these are numerical studies and have nothing to do with the "apologetics" that you are so opposed to. Although I guess you might claim that all research is faked as part of the grand conspiracy. -That blacks in other cultures have much smaller IQ gaps than in the US. -That there doesn't seem to be an IQ gradient in mixed "race" people.-That it is difficult to come up with any sort of clear race divisions based on skin color. -That current blacks have the same IQ as white southerners in the 1940s.-That IQ seems to be increasing generally(Flynn effect). This shouldn't be possible if IQ is as fixed as you act like.-That education seems to influence IQ scores in various ways. -That the IQ gap gets larger from early childhood to adulthood- exactly what you would expect if the gap were caused by environmental factors. But even if you could miraculously prove that there was definitely a real racial gap, then we would have to proceed to the next question-How would society be any different? What policy implications should there be if we knew there was a definable group that was likely to achieve less? We already do not even remotely believe in equality of outcome so there would clearly be no difference there. Race based quotas would be out, but I don't believe in these and most people don't either. Would the small group difference be enough to stop treating each person as an individual? Obviously not. Should we stop trying to help someone because they were somewhat less likely to be able to take advantage of it? I think the differences between our current society and this one would be very small.

[mtdesmoines 3]

It depends, really. For this to be a legitimate question, the professor would obviously have to be in a field closely tied to raising cattle. You have to assume the professor has at least a bit of hands-on knowledge, and the rancher has done some aggie schooling and/or read a thing or two about his chosen profession. Putting each of them in an equally strange situation, the 200 acres being on neutral ground and the 200 head being a from a line neither has worked with, and it'd be closer than you think. The rancher could obviously do better in a vacuum, being able to do almost everything on his own, but the professor would be able to hold his own and in plenty of situations do better after a short adjustment period and with the appropriate help. I'll put it this way...after taking a two credit class on "feeds and feeding", which was heavy on raising cattle, I could walk onto many, if not most farms and very quickly lower their costs and improve output based just on the proper feed ratios proven in academic settings. That's just one of many examples, and from a second year vet student, not a professor who has dedicated a lifetime to the academic study of cattle raising. He couldn't do everything on a farm like a rancher could, but he could learn the basics, and his studies would be incredibly helpful in terms of improving the efficiency of a standard farm.

I didn't realize a two-credit class was so comprehensive. Do cattle feeders know there is such a thing as two-credit classes?

[brvheart 1,755]

I didn't realize a two-credit class was so comprehensive. Do cattle feeders know there is such a thing as two-credit classes?

I'm confused. Are you claiming that he's lying about what he learned or that he's lying about how many credits the class was?

[speedz99 145]

Just like a liberal to tear up the constitution if it means making a black man suffer.

What? We LOVE black men!

We can move into your responsibility to God anytime you want.

My only responsibility is to...well, nobody. I'm irresponsible.So a person like say...Hitler, deserves the right to tie up our court system for the sake of disrupting things even though his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Also, please provide some remote proof that 'probably thousands of times' a person was sent to death row only to be found innocent. Cause we aren't talking about any other criminals.

You weren't reading very well by this point. My "probably thousands" was from people sentenced to life in prison, which was the whole point of that argument of death vs life in prison. There probably aren't thousand from people sent to death row, partially because that's less common, and partially because some of them were killed before they could be proven innocent.

I didn't realize a two-credit class was so comprehensive. Do cattle feeders know there is such a thing as two-credit classes?

Most farmers have neither the time nor the inclination to either get themselves to a university in order to take such a class. And I'm guessing many would scoff at the idea that someone other than them might know what's best to feed their cattle. But remember I'm saying "many" and "most"...some farmers I'm sure do their research quite well and have maximized their feed efficiency.

[Balloon guy 158]

What? We LOVE black men!

Poor and playing basketball at midnight.

My only responsibility is to...well, nobody. I'm irresponsible.

You are responsible for this.

So a person like say...Hitler, deserves the right to tie up our court system for the sake of disrupting things even though his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

That's what I said.

You weren't reading very well by this point. My "probably thousands" was from people sentenced to life in prison, which was the whole point of that argument of death vs life in prison. There probably aren't thousand from people sent to death row, partially because that's less common, and partially because some of them were killed before they could be proven innocent.

Nobody is arguing if people sentenced to life in prison are innocent or not, because there is no argument to change that. For you to bring it up while discussing the death penalty proves one of two points, one that you have to muddy the waters because you have nothing, or two you are a liberal who thinks that catch phrases give you credibility irregardless of their irrelevance.I'm going to go with C, a hybrid of A and B.But since you are under some delusion that you have made some point, please supply proof that thousands of people are serving time for life that are innocent.

Most farmers have neither the time nor the inclination to either get themselves to a university in order to take such a class. And I'm guessing many would scoff at the idea that someone other than them might know what's best to feed their cattle. But remember I'm saying "many" and "most"...some farmers I'm sure do their research quite well and have maximized their feed efficiency.

I know farmers, most of them do almost no research, but the salesmen who sell feeding systems do lots of research and show them what works best to save them money. Farmers are good at farming, not research.

[Balloon guy 158]

1.You are looking at it wrong. The comparison is innocent people executed by the state vs escaped death row inmates who have murdered someone. It has probably happened, but I can't remember anyone ever escaping from death row and then killing someone.

Now you are creating another straw man, there is no burden on the punishment of death to prove that our prison system is or isn't capable of holding a person securely. I freely grant you that our prisons are secure ( even though there have been escapes from death row where the escapee wanted to kill the guards but was prevented by other inmates )The punishment is a response to the crime, not to the ancillary results.I'll type slow: We don't kill people to save money, stop future crimes, make more dramatic endings for movies or to feed a blood lust of conservatives who obviously hate minorities and want them to die. We kill people to punish them for their most heinous crimes.

2.This section is nonsensical.

To you it would be, because you are basing your argument on a straw man and I destroyed your straw man here.

3.We are trying to ask the question of what is better for society- life in prison without parole or the death penalty. That the victims were innocent is absolutely irrelevant. We are trying to prevent future victims. Nothing we do will bring back the dead.

You have presented no proof that society benefits by keeping murders alive. I'm sure you will quote Ben Franklin with a cute catch phrase soon, but just know that I will mock that technique as another unprovable point that is based on feelings, not reality.And since we have shown that death row inmates have escaped in the past from death row, then the only way to perfectly prevent future victims is to kill those who have been shown to be willing to commit murders with special circumstances.

4.No, our argument is that since the legal system is flawed and the death penalty does no apparent good then we should abolish it in order to prevent some innocent people from being executed(along with possibly other less tangible benefits).

"Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153)

The logical conclusion is that cases should be reviewed for accuracy since mistakes are routinely made in trials.

False, mistakes are not routinely made in trials. This is another liberal BS catch phrase based on nothing but a desire to be caring and compassionate. Mistakes are not routinely made in capital punishment trials. In fact mistakes are almost never made in capital cases. ( This statement is based on the identical data that yours was in making your statement )

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

I know farmers, most of them do almost no research, but the salesmen who sell feeding systems do lots of research and show them what works best to save them money. Farmers are good at farming, not research.

This is funny. Salesmen are good at taking farmers' money, not saving them money. And that what their research is based on.

[mtdesmoines 3]

I'm confused. Are you claiming that he's lying about what he learned or that he's lying about how many credits the class was?

I'm just saying it's an arrogant and naive thing to say.

[mtdesmoines 3]

Most farmers have neither the time nor the inclination to either get themselves to a university in order to take such a class. And I'm guessing many would scoff at the idea that someone other than them might know what's best to feed their cattle. But remember I'm saying "many" and "most"...some farmers I'm sure do their research quite well and have maximized their feed efficiency.

You have to be kidding.EDIT: I've worked with farmers all my life aside from actively farming for a decent portion of it. I've also worked for a large commodity association. The great majority of farmers who are farming full time are not only well-educated, but hold degrees in crop sciences and related areas of study. They operate multi-million dollar businesses with razor-thin margins. The days of Ma and Pa Kettle or Green Acres or whatever you're thinking of ... long gone my friend.

[SilentSnow 1]

1.Now you are creating another straw man, there is no burden on the punishment of death to prove that our prison system is or isn't capable of holding a person securely. I freely grant you that our prisons are secure ( even though there have been escapes from death row where the escapee wanted to kill the guards but was prevented by other inmates )The punishment is a response to the crime, not to the ancillary results.2.I'll type slow: We don't kill people to save money, stop future crimes, make more dramatic endings for movies or to feed a blood lust of conservatives who obviously hate minorities and want them to die. We kill people to punish them for their most heinous crimes.3.You have presented no proof that society benefits by keeping murders alive. I'm sure you will quote Ben Franklin with a cute catch phrase soon, but just know that I will mock that technique as another unprovable point that is based on feelings, not reality.4.And since we have shown that death row inmates have escaped in the past from death row, then the only way to perfectly prevent future victims is to kill those who have been shown to be willing to commit murders with special circumstances.5."Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153)6.False, mistakes are not routinely made in trials. This is another liberal BS catch phrase based on nothing but a desire to be caring and compassionate. Mistakes are not routinely made in capital punishment trials. In fact mistakes are almost never made in capital cases. ( This statement is based on the identical data that yours was in making your statement )

1.It's not a straw man to correctly point out that your argument is wrong. You have to prove that life in prison without parole causes more harm than the death penalty. Let the record show that you didn't refute my point about zero death row escapee murders. 2.This is just getting embarrassing. In points 2, 4 and 5 you blatantly contradict yourself. Also, your response begs the question. Why are you so eager to kill people for no apparent reason? I know conservatives love senseless killings, but at least give us a reason for punishing criminals if none of the usual reasons for punishment are valid. 3.Society benefits by not executing innocent people, it saves money and there could be other less definable benefits depending on what statistics you would believe. 4.Shouldn't you have to show one case in history where this has happened before we accept this as a legitimate argument? 5.See point 4. We are talking about those who escape from death row, not those who have been released. Unless you come up with a link, then I will assume the total is zero or very close to it. 6. Given your false and contradictory points so far I'll have to see where you are getting this information from. Besides, If you're the one being killed one mistake is one too many.

[Balloon guy 158]

1.It's not a straw man to correctly point out that your argument is wrong. You have to prove that life in prison without parole causes more harm than the death penalty. Let the record show that you didn't refute my point about zero death row escapee murders.

Life in prison can be better or worse for the inmate, both are irrelevant. I want them to be punished for certain types of crimes. As do you:Morally a person forfeits their right to life once we unequivocably know that they are a murderer. Page 6

2.This is just getting embarrassing. In points 2, 4 and 5 you blatantly contradict yourself.

Your entire argument is fraught with this consistent desire to muddy the waters, so I got caught answering your silly notions that keeping guilty people alive is 100% safe for society.

Also, your response begs the question. Why are you so eager to kill people for no apparent reason? I know conservatives love senseless killings, but at least give us a reason for punishing criminals if none of the usual reasons for punishment are valid.

No apparent reason? Ummm we are talking about guilty people who have committed heinous crimes...oh, I get it...you are so indoctrinated with liberal BS that you have been unable to differentiate that a criminal is punished in every society in the history of the world, including your utopias of Cuba, the USSR, Denmark and even...gasp...Canada.

3.Society benefits by not executing innocent people, it saves money and there could be other less definable benefits depending on what statistics you would believe.

Much cheaper to kill a person than keep them in prison for life. And to date the value of sociopaths and murders to society has been quantified..their value is nil. But I do like the liberal spin..."let's see these murders and rapists as 'people' first and criminals second. Now what can this person who raped and killed 4 year olds contribute to society? Oh I feel so good about myself that I am so compassionate not to judge a person who rapes and kills innocent women for fun. this makes me better than everyone else...I need to buy a Prius now."

4.Shouldn't you have to show one case in history where this has happened before we accept this as a legitimate argument?

What? An escapee from death row? I did. The likelihood of a murderer committing murder again? Yea..I guess I took that at face value.But at least I like that you are demanding some proof to statistics being made up out of thin air. It's the first step from your previous position where you made up statistics out of thin air and presented them as proof of your position.

5.See point 4. We are talking about those who escape from death row, not those who have been released. Unless you come up with a link, then I will assume the total is zero or very close to it.

Until you prove that an innocent man has been killed on death row than I must return your decision back to you...what? You mean you haven't presented any proof either...well I'm sure the difference is that you were planning on doing this some time in the future. I am.....http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/escape.htm.

6. Given your wildly false and contradictory points so far I'll have to see where you are getting this information from. Besides, If you're the one being killed one mistake is one too many.

Again, from this logic...if ONE person is sent to life in prison without the possibility of parole is innocent, than NOBODY should ever be sent to prison for life without possibility of parole.

[AmScray 355]

-That blacks in other cultures have much smaller IQ gaps than in the US.

Gaps nevertheless- across a range of different operating environs. No one is arguing that environment isn't a relevant factor. What seems to be quite clear is that it isn't *the only* factor and that indeed, in spite of the equality impulse, mother nature might play a larger role in IQ than the egalitarians would like to admit and further, per all plainly apparent evidence, it breaks cleanly along racial lines. This has a clear implication, whether you like it or not.

-That there doesn't seem to be an IQ gradient in mixed "race" people.

-That it is difficult to come up with any sort of clear race divisions based on skin color.

Give the field of genetics a bit of time to catch up, then wait a bit longer for a 'rogue academic' to break away from the company line and start applying it to race. We're in a brave new world here that is expanding at light speed. I know what outcome I'm betting on.

-That current blacks have the same IQ as white southerners in the 1940s.

It would be interesting to see the data for this one. I don't know from where it originates, but intuitively, I'd be willing to wager that it employs similar methods that the very same people who oppose "The Bell Curve" rail against. FWIW, this is quite possibly true.

-That IQ seems to be increasing generally(Flynn effect). This shouldn't be possible if IQ is as fixed as you act like.

Struggling with logic?No one is saying IQ is "fixed". We're saying that IQ is relative and unequal amongst races. It's entirely possible for IQ to increase at different rates amongst different races given different factors. If you think that one through and avoid lying to yourself, you'll eventually arrive at the conclusion that this one supports my position much more than it does yours.

-That education seems to influence IQ scores in various ways.

-That the IQ gap gets larger from early childhood to adulthood- exactly what you would expect if the gap were caused by environmental factors.

Again, you're tilting at windmills. We both agree that environment can play a role in IQ, but it's pretty clearly not the sole determining factor. That there may be a 'genetic median', which statistically explains the inordinate presence of top % genius amongst Jews and an equally disparate weighting of retards amongst blacks on the upslope of that same curve. Historical natural selection is pretty heavily biased in certain cultures to favor certain intelligence types. This may explain why rural Chinese may be poor and have limited access to resources, yet in spite of being educated in dirt floor school houses, in spite of a history of tribal warfare and colonialism, don't have the same "IQ issues" as Africans, even though the very same reasons the apologists cite to explain lower African IQ apply to many other peoples who do not share a similar 'low intelligence' outcome.

But even if you could miraculously prove that there was definitely a real racial gap, then we would have to proceed to the next question-How would society be any different? What policy implications should there be if we knew there was a definable group that was likely to achieve less? We already do not even remotely believe in equality of outcome so there would clearly be no difference there. Race based quotas would be out, but I don't believe in these and most people don't either. Would the small group difference be enough to stop treating each person as an individual? Obviously not. Should we stop trying to help someone because they were somewhat less likely to be able to take advantage of it? I think the differences between our current society and this one would be very small.

Noting 'miraculous' involved here. It's been proven.How would society be any different? Well, if we were to be fair in acknowleding this, it would beg some questions that have painful answers. If you actually lived in an area with lots of blacks (like, not "in the town over", but your neighbors, walking the streets in front of your home), those questions would be obvious to you already.

[Balloon guy 158]

This is funny. Salesmen are good at taking farmers' money, not saving them money. And that what their research is based on.

Most salesmen have products that benefit the person buying it. They are educating about new technology.Some salesmen are crooks sure, but most have to deliver.Unlike liberals who NEVER deliver on their promises ( lowering unemployment, lowering crime, lowering poverty numbers, having an open administration, not using tax dollars to buy votes etc. )

[AmScray 355]

Most salesmen have products that benefit the person buying it. They are educating about new technology.Some salesmen are crooks sure, but most have to deliver.

This isn't true.Some salesmen do, but some sell stuff that only exists to be sold and has little (or even, no) net benefit to the buyer, either directly or cost/benefit adjusted. An awful lot of products are like this.

[Balloon guy 158]

This isn't true.Some salesmen do, but some sell stuff that only exists to be sold and has little (or even, no) net benefit to the buyer, either directly or cost/benefit adjusted. An awful lot of products are like this.

I think the person's proclivity to pessimism or optimism will result in our sides being viewed as right or wrong.I am more optimistic in general, and I admit that I will be duped more than someone who is more pessimistic, but I like being this way and am willing to trade the chance for being duped by trusting my fellow man.It is probably very important of course that I am in a wealthy community and not an inner city or a trailer park and am freer to maintain this position.But I also trust farmers to generally be smart enough not to be duped, since most farmers I know are pretty down to earth and not easily fooled by normal salesmen spiels crafted towards fooling the unwitting ( liberals )

[AmScray 355]

Farmers are smarter than most people, this is true, but still, this doesn't mean that most products being sold have merit. "Marketing" is basically Snake Oil; 101.

[Balloon guy 158]

Farmers are smarter than most people, this is true, but still, this doesn't mean that most products being sold have merit. "Marketing" is basically Snake Oil; 101.

I'm not arguing most products being sold have merit, I am arguing that most products farmer's actually buy have merit, based on their being smarter than most people.No reason for salesmen to try to fool the intelligent while there are so many democrats/Canadians around giving them easy targets.

[speedz99 145]

Nobody is arguing if people sentenced to life in prison are innocent or not, because there is no argument to change that. For you to bring it up while discussing the death penalty proves one of two points, one that you have to muddy the waters because you have nothing, or two you are a liberal who thinks that catch phrases give you credibility irregardless of their irrelevance.I'm going to go with C, a hybrid of A and B.

None of this makes any sense. I'm talking about why life in prison makes more sense as a punishment than the death penalty. What about that don't you understand? And, once again, your dependence on ranting about "liberal catch phrases" just makes your arguments sound silly.

But since you are under some delusion that you have made some point, please supply proof that thousands of people are serving time for life that are innocent.

You...you're really questioning whether, over the lifespan of our criminal justice system, there have been thousands of people wrongly convicted who are either in prison now or ended up dying there? Really? You need me to prove that to you?

I'm just saying it's an arrogant and naive thing to say.

Most farmers are feeding what has traditionally worked well for them, not the rations worked out in a research setting. Scram's argument would seem to assert that the farmer must be feeding the right stuff, but I'd argue that in many cases it would turn out that the maximum efficiency in cases like this is better worked out in an academic setting than solely through experience. That doesn't mean a feeds researcher could run a farm better than a farmer, but it's just one example of where hand-on and academic professionals can help each other out instead of simply saying one is better than the other.

You have to be kidding.EDIT: I've worked with farmers all my life aside from actively farming for a decent portion of it. I've also worked for a large commodity association. The great majority of farmers who are farming full time are not only well-educated, but hold degrees in crop sciences and related areas of study. They operate multi-million dollar businesses with razor-thin margins. The days of Ma and Pa Kettle or Green Acres or whatever you're thinking of ... long gone my friend.

I think you've confused my responses to scram as some kind of assertion that farmers are idiots. I said pretty clearly that you'd have to assume the rancher in his scenario is educated in his profession, aggie schooling in particular. I'm sure that there are plenty of farmers who hold advanced degrees, but it is most certainly not "the great majority" of farmers. I'm not sure who you worked for, but there are still many more small/medium sized farms than large scale operations in this country*. The total number of cattle is skewed towards the big operations (which may very well have maximized things like feed efficiency), but we're talking about farmers themselves, the actual business owners, and there are still a lot of those who are pretty old school, not that there's anything wrong with that. In my example of how many farmers aren't feeding 100% effectively, the farmer pulling in sales of $50k on a small farm in Western Massachusetts counts just as much as the farmer pulling in sales of $500k with his operation in Iowa. And there's a lot more of the small guys...you could argue that "retirement" and "lifestyle" farms shouldn't count, but those are (usually) still people who are around their cattle just as much as any other farmer, so they're just as qualified to be the rancher in scram's example of hand-on versus academic experience.Anyway, I've been on farms and talked to the farmers who run those multi-million dollar operations with razor thin margins that in many cases can so heavily depend on the current market that it's scary to even think about, and I've got a hell of a lot of respect for them in many ways, so I don't think that I could just walk onto every farm out there and tell the farmer how to run his business. Sorry if you misunderstood what I was getting at. With all of that said...yes, after my two credit course, I could make positive changes in the feed ratios on many farms out there. Not the big operations that have already paid someone to regularly make those changes (or are run by someone with the necessary knowledge/education base), but the majority of the smaller/medium sized ones, which as the link below shows, is the majority of farms out there today. *Farm Demographics

[speedz99 145]

I'm not exactly sure what you guys think should happen in terms of sales and marketing. You sound like a bunch of old ladies complaining about being hoodwinked by the door to door vacuum salesman in the fancy suit.

Unlike liberals who NEVER deliver on their promises ( lowering unemployment, lowering crime, lowering poverty numbers, having an open administration, not using tax dollars to buy votes etc. )

Read my lips...