Ten oz

Maintained by the govt yet untouched by politics, that is a tough one. It many ways it is an ethical reflection of a government. I wish I knew of a way research and science could be protected during our current political climate. Perhaps appointments to key scientific agencies like EPA, NASA, NOAA should not be made by the White House but rather by a committee of agencies peers?

The Trump admin has their own agenda and facts get in the way. They are interested is the progress of oil pipelines and deregulation of industry to increase profits. The Trump admin doesn't appear interested in running govt based on what is best for people and progress of humanity overall but rather have a list of things they want for themselves and friendly businesses.

Punishment in western society is generally intended to be corrective. An adult puts a child on time out, a Highway Patrol officer issues a ticket, and so on with the intentions of correction. The hope is that the child will correct their behavior, grow up, and flourish in society. Same for the ticteted motorist, they will improve how they drive making our roads safer. Life in prison vs death is such a often debated topic because the correction aspect of either punishment seems ambiguous. If a person is in prison for life and never getting out their is clearly no hope for corrected behavior that enables one to flourish in society. The degree of any punishment is seldom agreed on by all. Some parents find time outs laughable and perfer to physically strike their children with belts, sticks, or whatever. Some states have more stricked laws on a variety of crimes which in others states are not viewed as serious. In some cases it is merely a matter of degree which is required to best cause correction. Some people simply feel a greater degree of punishment is required. In other cases however I think the concept of discipline/correction simply isn't reasoned out and the result is something more insidious. Some people want to punish others purely out of emotional reflex with the intention of hurting them. Punishment without corrective motive is abuse/torture. Some people just want to hurt others to make themselves feel gratified. I think society boardly agrees hurting someone for self gratification is wrong. So with no corrective goal for the punishment (life in prison vs death) what is the purpose? I believe it is protect society. Someone who is a threat to society is removed from society in the name of safety. That can be accomplished by life in prison. It seems to me that all justifications for taking the aditional step of execution all have some form of self gratification (revenge being the most often one expressed) attached which in my opinion makes it abusive. That is why when we look around the world and throughout history the death penalty has so often been used abusively. Used to kill people based on sexual identity, race, religion, and etc. What people want vengance for or want to hurt someone for comes in nurmerous levels of emotional nuance. For the sake of this debate those who argue for the use of the death penalty are doing so from the position of optimal standards; person being put to death is without question guilty, convicted by an honest and unbias system, of a heinous crime like the rape and murder of children. However the history and use of the death penalty worldwide is not one of optimal situations. Far more people have been to to death for self gratifying reasons than for those of public safety.

The question is a philosophical one as ethics are not natural laws but merely concepts that govern individual (groups or persons) behavior. That said ethics can still be contradicted. I think we all agree it is wrong for an inidividual to make the choice to kill someone out of revenge, hatred, jealousy, or etc. If it is self defense I think the majority of society understands choice doesn't apply as one is forced to act, needs to act, in order to preserve themselves or others. With that basic ethical understanding, it is wrong for someone to kill purely by choice rather than need, we have accept soldiers killing combatants, Law Enforcement killing dangerous criminals, citizens killing would be buglars, rapists, and etc. All the acceptable ways a person kills is founded in need. The Death Penalty doesn't follow that. Now, one may argue that they agree with the death penalty as an expection but what exactly is the exception for? Is it for heinous crimes: the exception is granted based on the crime? If that is the case why can't a father kill a man who raped and murdered his daughter, a soldier in theater kill prisoners they know to have killed, a policeman kill a serial murderer who turns themselves in, and etc? The exception isn't actually attached to the crime specifically. There are cases where killing such heinous people wouldn't be allowed. Because of that in my opinion the Death Penalty is a contradiction to the basic ethical standard most all of us share. Maybe you are fine with that. Maybe you don't mind the contradiction. Being okay with it doesn't realy explain why it isn't unethical, doesn't really answer the question this thread asks. And if what makes it ethical is your opinion is the process itself, judge/jury, than "dragging in the flaws" of the unethical ways the process is used around the world become relevant. 1 - Prisons contain many murderers. Obviously murderers can be "dealt with by prison time" too considering it is already happening. You ask what is unreasonable about applying it just for murderers but didn't state any reason for it. 2 - No system of law enforcement that has ever existed, to my knowledge, has been perfect. Proven and undeniable acts are few and far between. Eye witness testimony is imperfect, confessions sometimes given out of fear or mental disorder, investigators can be bias, juries currupted, and etc, etc, etc. Innocent people are abused by their govt's legal systems around the world daily.

Some people deserve to be disposed of you say. Who do you feel comfortable making the determination for whom should be disposed of? Do you think that determination is made appropriately in Saudi Arabia? Do you trust any randomly assembled jury? I don't think most people who oppose the death penalty do so on the grounds that no one is dangerous and a threat to society.

Change the word "kill" to Rape and that same sentence would probably read more self explanatory. We don't punsh rapists by in turn raping them just as we don't punsh drug dealers by forcing them to purchase and use drugs. The idea of punishing a criminal with the same method of action they were arrested for is something we only seem to find logical for murderers. However if it were truly a logical way to deal with crime don't you think it should work for all or at least more types of crime than murder?. Arresting, putting on trial, imprisoning, and etc work for all crime. As for the cost it does cost more money to execute someone. That is just a fact. A simply web search could provide you the numbers. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2014/05/01/considering-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/#1de62e4617f0

@ MigL, not everyone who wants to vote is able to. Numerous obstacles are intentionally put in place and it isn't the same throughout the country. Simple saying everyone who didn't vote didn't care isn't accurate.

I don't see this as being something Trump has brought. Lets not forget that the Republican Party tried to make Sarah Palin Vice President 8yrs ago. Not forget the Tea Party rallies of 09' and 10' where sign of President Obama depicted as a monkey were numerous. 2016's chants of "lock her up" were terrible yet not surprising coming from the same group of people that claimed President Obama was a secret Muslim. The difference with Trump is that he didn't ask them to tone it down. McCain corrected the record when they called President Obama a Muslim, Romney acknowledge that President Obama was an American citizen, but Trump was willing to wade into the filth. To me calling Trump a magnet excuse conservatives, lets them off the hook. Implies they have been fooled or mislead and I don't believe that is the case. Trump is a reflection of the politics they have been promoting. People like tar are not taken in by Trump, haven't been tricked, this is who they are and I hope progressive learn that. It is conservatives broadly and not merely Trump that is the problem.

Perhaps you feel Hillary Clinton winning 3 million more votes is insuffcient evidence but what does it say about Trump? Your arguing that Hillary Clinton wasn't trusted and that is the reason for her only winning 3 million more votes yetdon't apply that same logic imply to Trump? From the link you provided you are seem to be arguing that the candidate with less votes was more trusted. In itself I don't really care whom you think was broadly trusted however you're implying it is the reason Trump is president today which is a notion I object to. You're saying foriegn gov't manipulation, last minute FBI investigation, voter supression, and etc are disposable and ultimately people just don't trust Hillary Clinton. It is unprecedented for a candidate to get 3 million more inidividual votes and lose. It is unprecedented for a rival candidate and themedia to openly use material stolen in a propaganda effort by a foriegn country. It is unprecedented for the FBI to announce investigations into a Presidential front runner a week before an election just to conclude with nothing several days later. This was the first general election held since the Holder vs Shelby County decision stripped the voting rights act which allow 14 states to change their voter registration laws. A lot went on in this past election. I don't believe history books will put this off on voters distrusting Hillary Clinton. New Voting restrictions in place 2016: http://www.brennancenter.org/voting-restrictions-first-time-2016

You have greatly moved the goal posts on what you're claiming about third parties. I am not even sure how your new claim directly supports your claim, "higher than average" isn't unprecendented. I think it is debatable that it is even unusual. We had Wallace in the 60's, Anderson in the 80's, and Perot in the 90's who did larger numbers than all the 3rd party candidates did this year combined. We also had Ralph Nader in 00' who as a percentage of the vote did good as any specific 3rd party candidate this year. So this year saw higher than average 3rd party numbers historically but nothing unusual in the modern era. As for those who didn't vote I don't see how it supports anything specific about Hillary Clinton considering it was well within normal margins?

Both assertions are false. The examples you have used to bolster your position are provably wrong so I recommend you rethink your position. "Unprecedented" by definition means never done before. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein combined for 6 millions votes in 2016. All third party candidates in 2016 (including McMullin and Castie) made about 5% of the total vote. Ross Perot won 18 million or 19% of the total vote in 92' and 8 million or 8% of the total vote in 96'. John B. Anderson won 5.7 million or 6.6% of the vote in 1980. George Wallace won 9.9 million votes or 13.5% of the popular vote in 1968 including 46 electoral votes. There are more examples but the multiple I provided is adequate to prove your claim wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third_party_performances_in_United_States_presidential_elections Your reference to those who "abstained" is quantified by turnout. Turnout this year was not substantially different/lower than previous years.

The majority of energy companies (profit and output not total number of independents) receive various forms of subsidies. Ended subsidies to profitable energy companies would basically force public control as the private sector would not long consider it worthwhile without the subsidies. A perfect example of this public/private relationship is Rex Tillerson nominee for Sec. of State. Working for Exxon is considered qualification for the State Dept..

We have seen it here in the forum from those who supported Trump. An easy example is tar, he spent the primary talking about pagmatism, acknowledging Trump was racist, denying he himself (tar) was a racist, and claiming to support candidates like Kasich and even Sanders. Come crunch time he threw in with Trump. In retrospect Trump's daily lies only seem to echo the daily lies his supporters tell. Birds of a feather! Ultimately they voted for the liar because they all felt that they were in on the lie.

Yes, this subject typically goes in circles. The death penalty is something that many countries use and for which there is strong support for. However it cannot empirically be proven beneficial for any society that uses it. In my opinion there is more evidence that suggests it is bad for society however every society is its own microcosm so endless debate can be drawn since the variables between societies are many. Ultimately some people supporty it and other do not. Those who dosupport it tend to argue from an emotional positions claiming the death penalty provides families with a sense of justice, is a deterrent, or otherwise deserved. Those who do not support it argue the contradiction of killing someone because killing is wrong and the ethics of empowering ones gov't to kills people who are detained.

Whether it is using the military in conflicts to protect fossil fuel positions, giving up public lands for Nuclear waste disposal, the use of eminent domain to wrestle away land, the money spend on infastructure, and etc I think it is fair to say that the public is already floating many of the associated bills. Considering the amount of public resources involved I think it should be treated asan essential service that should be in the public's control. The way it currently stands the public is being made to pay for it twice; through their tax dollars and then again when they pay their/our utility bill.

A quick look as the various nations around the world with the Death Penalty vs one without show that the death penalty doesn't reduce crime. The only measurable benefit of it is in the gratification it provides those who support it. Executions, top ten countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United States, Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Vietnam,and Lybia.

Voter turnout is never 100% of eligible voters. It would be get if it were but it never is. I think it is also a well known that Republicans work to keep town out low as possible by limiting the days of early voting, limiting polling locations, putting voting ID laws in place that complicate voter registration, and etc.. None of that has anything to do with whether or not the Women who participated in the March on Washington voted or not. That was your initial complaint, that somehow they should not be protesting because they didn't vote. The facts are that if we are talking about votes, one person one vote, Hillary Clinton won 3 million more of them and did nearly 10 points better than Donald Trump amongst women. 3 million is greater than the population of the following individual states: Mississipi, Arkansas, Utah, Kansas, Neveda, New Mexico, Nebraska, West Virgina, Idaho, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, District of Columbia, and Wyoming. 3 million is a lot of people. Trump lost the vote. He won because votes as a total number don't decide the election. The Electoral College system is no more specific to the Constitution than is the First Admendment. People have a right to speak up whether or not you believe they voted. Typical conservative move, prevent things from happening and then complain they didn't happen. I don't recall ever specifically posting about the Ayatollahs of Iran or Kim Jung-un and Saddam Hussein was already dead when I joined this site. It appears you are just trying to create distractions at this point because you can't support your assertions about the women who participated in the March on Washington. Nothing I have ever posted about Iran, North Korea, or Iraq (have no idea what specific posts you are referring to) impacts the right those who protested have to protest.

1 - A party nomination is just that, a party nomination. One doesn't have to be a member of a major party to run for office. Sanders has held elected office as an Idependent for decades. He, Sanders (an Independent), chose to run for the Democrartic nomination well aware of the rules regarding super delegates. I don't see evidence of a major conspiracy in the fact that as a party the DNC had a preference for a Democrat to win. Had such rules been in place for the Republican Party we probably would have ended up with a far less divisive and more well vetted Republican nominee. The systems are not perfect but all candidates entered understanding the rules. Sanders could have ran his own campaign as Jill Stein and Gary Johnson did and avoided the DNC all together. 2 - Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes! More people voted for her than for Trump. She also won womens votes by about 10 points. So it is fair to assume most of the women who marched on Washington did vote.

And yet Clinton received 3 million more votes. Any narrative that attempt to imply people broadly distrusted Hillary Clinton is thwarted by the fact that she received 3 million more individual votes than her nearest opponent. More people wanted her to be President than any other candidate.

Who is Julian Assange accountable to? It is intellectually upside down to champion unaccountable and unknown sources in the name of openness and transparency. As an organization we do not know who is part of Wikileaks, their finiancials, sources, motives, or etc. We literally just had an election where one candidate released years of tax records, a tens of thousands of emails, went before Congressional hearings, was investigated by the FBI, and additionally had members of her campaigned hacked and thousnads of more emails realesed and somewhere that candidate of said to lack transparency. That candidate was attacked by an anonymous group accountable to one and a rival candidate who released no tax records, no emails, wasn't investigated, and whom willifully assisted in misdirecting the U.S. electorate byblaming China, without reason for the hacks. The whole situation is preposterous.

Admitting that sexism exists doesn't mean all men are evil. Acknowledging that western civilization has a violent history of racial bias that has produced the dichotomy that currently exists doesn't make any specific western country a "worse" place to live. Of course someone living someplace poor would prefer to live someplace rich. Of course people without opportunity will risk things to obtain opportunity. Saying western civilization has a political bias towards vetting the arguments of white ahead of others doesn't change the fact western civilization is wealthy and contains more opportunity. We can admit to not being perfect without resorting to self hatred.

This is an under addressed aspect to this election. The VRA was gutted in 2013. This was the first general election since. Nurmerous voting laws were changed in serveral keys states. In discussing the data (percentage of voter turnout, demographics, education, etc) there tend to be broad positions taken about how people overall voted. However it really varies state by state. Some states saw increases in voter turnout while other states saw a drop in turnout. No simple narrative about which groups voted and why is accurate to all states. What does seem more clear is that states which were targeted with new voting laws had lower turnout and it appears to have been by designed. In terms of data collection though numbers are still coming in so I suppose we will know a lot more in a few months. I am a little familiar with these views but do not agree with them. Western Society for all its good is also predominantly white and initially earned its position in the world through violence and not merely philosophy. White in Western culture there are those who believe Western Culture (white judeo-christian) is simply better than all other cultures on earth. Those who feel that way seem to reflexively reject those living in Islamic nations as savages (terrorists) and don't view the emerging markets like China and India to be suitable cultures which they such have to compete globally with. Clearly that attitude doesn't represent a majority. I believe most are oblivious to it. As a children in grade school I was taught that the United States was not only the greatest country on earth but was more or less the only free country on earth. The implication being that we were better and everyone wishes they could be here. As I grew up I came to realize how ignorant that view of the world was. Not everyone grow up to realize it isn't true. Now and adult I know people here in the States who regularly mischaracterize other cultures and refuse to travel outside the country for free that every place that isn't the U.S. is a dangerous place. Western civilization is majority white. Always has been. As a result the views of whites is never ignored. So if that group I mention above, the ones who do not view other cultures as equal, cry wolf about economic motivators rather than racial ones they will be heard. They arguments addressed. The world is not a perfect place. They are and will always be legitimate arguments to be made about trade, taxes, employment, and etc. Which also means there will also be cover for those who have racial agendas but are looking to mask them is a more legit debate.

It is hard for people to reject manipulation and advantages that benefits them directly. In a more generalized way it is the same reason so many males have a hard time acknowledging sexism in society or white male acknowledging level of privilege. People want to believe everything they have was earned on a totally equal playing field. It is why we (society broadly) tolerates people like Trump, Romney, Bush (any of them), and etc who inherited great wealth and advantage carry on about how hard they worked in life and how smart they had to be to make it. To acknowledge inequality or manipulation demands something be done about it. Those who want Trump as President simply don't want anything done about the myriad of attacks on democracy that has allowed us to reach this point.

Your feedom to post your views and how those views are individually received are separate issues. Your initial complaint was that the mods unfairly censored posts you felt were should not have been per the site's rules. This thread has not been censored, you havecomplained about the mods, they (the mods) have bothered to address your complaints specifically, and yet you are still dissatisfied. Is this about your freedom to post or do you feel mods must agree with you? Rather than raising any real point about censorship or freedom of speech you basically are just complaining to a level that rivals insult here. That basically mods owed more than critiques of the flaws and they are dishonest for not providing it. None of the mods on this site, which we use for free, owe us anything. It is not a function of their job/role to "disprove" every flawed post made. It is our job as posters to support and prove what we post and not vice versa. The mods role here is to keep this site authentic to its design. To that end some topics simply do not belong. I once started a sports related thread in the lounge. No one responded. At the time I was a little surprised no one was interested but in retrospect I think the thread was probably a bad fit for the site. Had it been successful and drawn in a bunch of sports fans from various other sports themed sites the lounge could've potentially filled up with sports themed threads and that is ultimately not its purpose. So while my thread wasn't censored I am sure that there is a limit to how many sports related threads the mods would have allowed. A sports thread doesn't violate any rules yet the mods role here mean they don't just sit back and allow sections of the site to become something other than what they are meant to be. How they control that is subjective.

What the voting demographics were this year isn't totally clear yet. The data is still being collected. I have seen a lot of different numbers on a few different site which are typically reliable. That said it what we do have indicates Trump did much better with key what voting demographics than previous Republican candidates. "Trump’s margin among whites without a college degree is the largest among any candidate in exit polls since 1980. Two-thirds (67%) of non-college whites backed Trump, compared with just 28% who supported Clinton, resulting in a 39-point advantage for Trump among this group." http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/ In my post you responded to I also mentioned the Tea Party movement and the shift in the Republican Party following the 1960's. This trend has been a long time forming.