Ten oz

The collaspe of the pound and overall negative reaction from global markets is not a positive economic indicator. If this vote was about the economy and jobs many voted wrong. From the outside it seems like real policy took a back seat to the venting of fustration.

Trump isn't going to win the general. If the give him the nomination or fight him and lose either way the the outcome in the general would be the same. At least by standing up to Trump many establishment Republicans can keep various relationships entacted by being able to go back to their districts and saying they tried to stop Trump. That may help some in local races with women's, immigrant, minority, law enforcment, and extra groups. Trump is sinking. May be better for many to cut themselves loose.

Your example was people subverting the law and Swansont's was other countries (my comments were about law in the U.S.). Perhaps your argument should be that "wrong" should have read illegal, not allowed, or something to that effect. In context it is the same. This thread is about what it is ethical for the U.S. Govt to do. Law is the determining factor in what our Govt does and doesn't do, allows and doesn't allow. If the word you feel the word "wrong" has too many other possible implications that you can't ignore please replace it will "not allowed" and then we can move on. Of course, by conversation I meant "this debate about my comment". A specific comment I made about U.S. law was the topic of the post I was responding to.

The context if this conversation is capital punishment in the United States. If we include the world than nothing is off the table. In some countries it is okay to kill gays, daughters that refuse to marry who their fathers want, and etc. In the United States it is illegal to kill outside of self defense with the exception of the death penalty. I am not assuming legal equals popular or the will of the people. Rather I am just pointing out that it is the standard. Can that change, should that change, of course isn't that what this thread is about? Death Penalty is legal and we are discussing whether or not it should be. Medical assisted suicide, abortion, and many other things are debated along the same lines. However, currently, the standard is Death penalty legal and medical assisted suicide illegal. That is just a simple dry fact. If you say millions in the U.S. are okay with medical assisted suicide or that many doctors will do it that doesn't change anything anymore than if I say millions are in the U.S. are aginst the death penalty. What is law is still law and obviously no law is followed and supported by all.

There are facts and then there are opinions. There aren't any facts you have listed that I have dismissed. What facts do you feel you listed where I focused on "minor" details? Calling something that is against the law illegal is a statement of fact and not an opinion where the right or wrong of that opinion is up for discussion.

No, it is against the law in more states that have the death penalty. Doctors have been arrested. You are simply trying to say that common is somehow equal to legal and that is nonsense. Last 3 presidents of the United States admit to drug use, drug use is common, it is still accurate to say drugs are illegal. "Medical assisted suicide is illegal (true) and suicide is considered an act performed by those with mental health issues (true)." Neither statement is wrong. Laws are on the books with regards to assisted suicide. Meanwhile suicide itself is seen as a menatl heath issue. It you go into work tomorrow and tell your boss you are feeling suicidal what do you thing would happen? Would you be assisted is suicided or treated by mental health experts? There simply are no real facts to support any of the arguments you've made so you are resorting to a tit for tat style of posting where everything, even things you conceded are "technically" correct are up for debate. You seek to chip away at arguments rather than present clear and tangible ones of you own.

I think it could be. It is most definitely done as a way to disrespect her. I can't think of many politicians that are called by their first names respectfully. Perhaps "Teddy" for Ted Kennedy but that was seldom respectfully.

Carefully thought out policy proposals are frozen at the gate by the ad idem argument that guns equal freedom and it is tyranny to even ponder otherwise. Be simply refusing to even be party to a discussion about approaches that can be taken pro gun advocates win and no amount of mass shootings, dead children, or anything matters. Their motto is literally "from our cold dead hands". Which violent stubbornness ensure many cold dead hands will follow as their sense of personal freedom trumps the lives of others. Reason is being held hostage, at gun point, in the the U.S.. it is sad and frustrating that simply repeating key words constitution, tyranny, freedom, founding fathers, etc beats back any and all reasoned discussion. Doesn't matter the environmental changes or anything. Nothing that has happened or could happens matters. We simply must live with this and that is that.....pathetic.

Of that I suppose I am guilty as well. You're right.

Hillary has been put to the test by multiple Congressional hearings. Enormous amounts of our governments money and time has been spent trying to out any and all potential lies. To the point where which system she used to telecommute is treated with the lawyerly scrutiny of the highest order. Meanwhile Trump won't release tax returns. Maybe it is sexist maybe it isn't but there is a clear double standard. Hillary must justify all she says and does while Trump is accountable for nothing.

Murder is common on a relative level too. Commonality is not a good argument. Every law gets broken or ignored to some level. More states have laws against assisted suicide than do perform capital punishment. Saying that my comment was both "technically" right but "inaccurate" is contradictory.

Medical assisted suicide is illegal and suicide is considered an act performed by those with mental health issues. In all areas of society other than the death penalty specifically killing people for any reason other than defense, even ones own self, is wrong. Every excuse/justification for the death penalty be a special exception is based in ethical relativism.

My comments are not directed at church goers specifically. You and I seem to be having separate conversations.

To your point both the San Bernardino shooter (the male) and the Orlando shooter were born and raised in the United States.

Nope, my point about your argument working equally the opposite way was to illustrate what a week argument is was. That is was an equally untrue as it was possibly true. And we know that it also DOESN'T for help families. We know that there are families against it and studies that shows it can prolong closure You cannot prove that it helps to any messure that would be superior to the exact opposite. The argument is weak and anecdotal at best. *Citations that families are against and studies showing it prolongs closure for some has already been provided. Do you have any agruments that arent as equally false as they are true? Are there any real facts on your side or is it all just anecdotal thoughts about how you assume people feel? Provably true: -Innocent people (hundreds) have been sent to death row. -execution is more expensive -doesn't lower crime I provided stats for the United States showing how divided we are on the issue. John Cuthber referenced the "western world". Both John's statement and my stats are true.

These are all strawman arguments. You can't prove capital punishment is a benefit to families of victims. It Capital punishment is worthwhile than where are the tangible arguments for it? Saying that it might help some people somehwere find some amount of closure isn't a tangible justification. What can be proven: -it is more expensive -it doesn't lower the murder rate (not a proven deterrent) -our trail system is not perfect and innocent people do get sentence to die The only justifications I have seen so far: -it might help some people find closure (we don't know though) -most people approve (not most of minorities or democrats) -it is current the law

And I showed you that it is a partisan political issue that also is divided across racial lines. "Overall morality of society" doesn't accurate summarize how we in the United States feel about it.

That is a nebulous statememnt which you have no way of truly quantifying. The exact opposite is equally as true; it make some people feel worse. We could state a new thread and debate whether or not revenge has a positive or negative impact of people emotionally. Such an emotionally plea, which is not even commonly shared and the consequence of are not known, simply isn't adequate to justify allowing the for the killing of people. Arguing that because it is the law of the land it is appropriate by popular demand is a flawed argument. Are you telling me you support all laws and aren't for any being changed provided the law has support? Black people sitting in the back of the back was the law, Gays getting dishonorably discharged for being who they are was the law of the land, and so on. I know from reading your post in other threads that you are more than intelligent enough to know that just because something is the law doesn't mean it should be. "A Pew Research Center poll finds that 56% favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder, while 38% oppose it. But support is as low as it’s been in 40 years. Much of the decline in support over the past two decades has come among Democrats. Currently, just 40% of Democrats favor the death penalty, while 56% are opposed. Republican support for the death penalty (77%) has changed less dramatically." http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/28/5-facts-about-the-death-penalty/ From the same link: "About six-in-ten whites (63%) favor the death penalty, compared with 34% of blacks and 45% of Hispanics. There are also disagreements along racial lines about which groups are most likely to get the death penalty." I think you are over stating the strength of that majority. It is ideological than you choose to admit. Which is why it is such a regional issue with states in the South so strongly for and states in the Northest are against. The Death Penalty is not law of the land in all 50 states. 19 states plus the District of Columbia do not have the Death Penalty. And while capital punishment if federal legal there has been zero military execution since the moratorium on the death penalty ended in 1977 and there has only been 3 federal executions which were all authorized under the same President (Bush 43 former Texas Gov.). Side Not; of the 537 inamates executed in Texas since 1977 a record 152 were executed under George W Bush. The most ever by under any governor until Rick Perry beat the record in 2015. Considering it is a partisan issue with majority democrats against it, considering it has a racial divide with the majority of Blacks and Latinos against it, I think the "pagmatic" position would be to weigh the merits rather than just broadly claim majority rules.

That isn't what I said at all. My point is that one cannot hide behind victims families as a means of justifying how they feel. All families are not universally for the death penalty. You cannot support any claim that the death penalty helps families find closure!! As I ask; are murder victim families better off in Texas or Vermont? For that matter Texas or England? You answered yes but are purely speculating. So unless you can produce some citation how about you leave families out of it.

Benefits of allowing people to smoke is freedom of choice. Smoking is a personal choice one makes. This is a free country and we can choose to be healthy or not. Law does attempt to prevent individual choices from hurting others which is why there are laws in place that prevent individuals from smoking on planes, in federal buildings, in schools, etc, etc, etc. Rehabilitation for inmates make sense because prison is a large community that needs to be managed. When the atmoshere is a prison is bad it is much harder and more dangerous to manage. Guards get assualted, other inmates who will eventually re-entry society get assualted, and so on. Providing amentities and resources to inmates is an important tool. Do I have a loved one? See post #97.

The parents of an 8yrs girl killed by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wrote a letter to the court asking they not seek the Death Penalty. Today Tsarnaev sits on Death Row. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/16/end-anguish-drop-death-penalty/ocQLejp8H2vesDavItHIEN/story.html There are family members of murder victims who become activists against capital punishment. http://www.vcstar.com/news/marching-against-states-death-penalty-ep-374903874-352772261.html Many argue that capital punishment only prolongs the suffering of families. http://deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=56 Implying that a pro death penalty position is automatically the default position of families is inaccurate and in my opinion uses those them as a prop. No one in the discussion speaks for victims families. To argue that it is for them is a divisive one that cannot be supported. Do murder victims families in Texas where they execute regularly have more closure than families in Vermont where they do not perform executtions?

Tough to get over it when drone are blowing up parts of your neighborhood and killing people you know. We need to accept that the outcome matters far more to them than us since they are the ones there. We keep trying to decide for them how this should end. We need to take step back and accept how it ends isn't our choice. I think we should pressure other countries in the region to get involved will our only insistance being peace. Then whatever the region decides to do, provided there isn't genocide involved, we have to live with. No reading the tea leaves on how Russia or China make out better or whatever.

That is the point of doing it and not a benefit. You cannot think of a real benefit because there is not one. It serves no purpose beyond satisfying the urge to do it. It doesn't make society safer, doesn't save money, and doesn't bring a murdered victim back to life. If we stopped doing it today there wpould be no negative consequences, none. Same is not true for plastic bags. There are risks vs benefits associated with not producing plastic bags. With the Death Penalty there are no benefits and as such no risk vs benefits. We accrue the risk of killing innocent for no tangible reason.

It is also important to recognize that a hundred years of our (western world) interfering with sovereignty has helped create the state of affairs we are currently in.

@ Zapatos, we generally endeveavor to make things safe as possible. Our governments tend to stop when become counter productiveor they is no clear benefit. Risk that a child will suffocate if we make plastic bags vs having no plastic bags at all. Pastic bags are water resistant and flexible. They are ideal for containing food, body, hazmat, or other types of waste. There flexibilty allows superior access in a wider range of locations and envornments. They are more convenient and hygenic than alternatives. There are obvious benefits to plastic bags and an argument can be made that not having them could result is more fatalities than having them causes. What is the obvious benefit of executing a prison inmate? How would not doing so be as potentially deadly as doing so?