Raider5678

Ok..... Now think about this. If everything was free would you still work? Or would you just provided for your family and live life happy go lucky?

Right wing terrorist attack definition? Everybody(most people) on either side of the gun argument have their facts wrong.For gun owners, they aren't trying to take away your guns(some are). For anti gun owners, we aren't saying give guns to everyone without any background checks what so ever.(once again, some are). For the most part, these statements are true. Now where ever you learned that that NRA wants to give away guns unfettered?

If what you said is true, then my statement makes sense. If your a liar and ten oz is telling the truth, then that makes my sentence not make sense and you a liar.P.S. by liar I mean that as a singular lie or mistake. As in one of you lied, and one didn't, or at least one of the posts are true and one isn't. For two reasons.I'm so sorry that your precious feeling get hurt when they execute someone. Also, you say that anyone who takes the view I did is a villain. Update:Hillary's a villain! And since society kills its ok to kill society? That doesn't make sense.

Actually I was talking about my neighbor......

I never said that.

One second, your accusing me of strawmanning myself? Wow. That's a first. It DOES help some people find closure. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/05/16/measure-of-relief.html Ok then. Which post is a lie and which isn't?

This said, I still think ISIS should be eradicated. Of course, since fighting them is a bad idea according to some.... Extremist Muslims. It's getting tiring. Why can't they be like the rest of the Muslim populace? P.S. I don't know enough about fighting terrorists, I have no clue why its a bad idea to not fight terrorist but I'm pretty sure there's some logic behind it.

Ok then how about this. "Nobody loses any closure if the murderer is executed. Perhaps it doesn't give closure to everyone, but it does give closure to some. People in Texas who want the death penalty and get it, I'm sure find closure. People in Vermont who want the death penalty and can't get it, I'm sure they believe they aren't getting as much closure as they would like." Where did I go wrong in this logic? Another question, who decided what's wrong and what's right? You? Me? Is it the general consensus? What gives the few the right to decide what's wrong for the many? Also, if all murderers arent sciopaths, then why were you arguing that before? Make up your mind. Edit: Memammal was claiming it, not you. My bad.

Try tricking the parents to teach something against their own values. Maybe brainwashing. O.O Wait, so if a couple of victims families didn't want to seek the death penalty then none of them do? How about we reeducate the ones that think the murderers will suffer more. As you stated earlier, most murderers aren't right in the head. The degree required of mental instability to kill someone is when you reach the level sociopath. Sociopaths cant feel remorse or empathy. In other words they won't feel bad. Which means they won't suffer from guilt as most people think. Also, your a hypocrite if you say no one knows what the victims family's actually want, then proceed to explain what they want....And I would say yes. Nobody loses any closer from kill the murderer. Some people in Vermont I'm sure want the death penalty. Therefore, yes. They have more closure in Texas. Don't hospitals have security cameras? Security guards? The gun have finger prints? Powder residue on the killers hands? There's a lot more evidence that could be found.And, is it worth the cost of ALL those extras just to make prisoners happy? Seems like a pretty lame excuse. Once again, for the final time. The moral high ground isn't a good argument. Nobody agrees what's right and what's wrong. You also keep phrasing it wrong. We are killing a murderer. Not murdering a killer. What they did was wrong. What we do is punish them for that wrong. The benefit? Makes people happy. They get a sense of justice. Of course, you want the prisoners to be happy. You can't argue one point without arguing the other point. Its like your trying to say the absolute value of 12 is different from the absolute value of -12!

For the most part our justice system is pretty accurate at undeniable evidence. Its when they're convicted without undeniable evidence that things go wrong.

Oh ok. It was my belief that murders weren't innocent. My bad. I have a question, do you have kids? A loved one? If they were murdered, what would you want? The death penalty? Jail? What's the benefit of keeping cigarettes? What's the benefit of having rehabilitation centers for people serving life? I mean, why not just feed them and let them rot in jail? That's not a financially smart idea! Neither are gyms, 5 star cafeterias, college, internet, TV. It's jail. Not a hotel. Say, neither are large prison cells. Let's jam 10 people into a single cell. I mean, they're there for life right? And if its financially beneficial let's do it. According to you that might as well be a great plan! No benefit, let's get rid of it eh? We could get rid of half the people on the planet with that logic.

The problem with this is your looking at it from a 100% logical view. What percentage of people FEEL safer because of the death penalty? Whether it makes them safer or not doesn't matter to them, they believe it does. And when you can say with 100% certainty that taking away the death penalty won't result in ANY deaths, people still won't believe you. Also, its not sinking down to their level if you kill them. What they did was kill someone who didn't deserve it. They deserve it. That means you didn't leave the moral high ground.

We already know the trial costs a lot more. And we already said that the moral high ground depends on what you believe the high ground is.

This should give you an outlook for murderers release:https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+murderers+kill+again&oq=how+many+murders+kill+a&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.14673j0j4&client=tablet-android-gigabyte&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#q=how+many+murderers+kill+again+after+prison 1\100 of murderers released kill again. Here's some statistics from the next link There are 4 homicides inside of prison per 100,000 There are 3 homicides inside of local jails per 100,000 Here's the link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/shsplj.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiqjZO_qp3NAhWDPD4KHXxXDXwQFggrMAU&usg=AFQjCNH9319X9tfaNuyzMVKq6D4OjAvfaw&sig2=5eL4X13Ahlas4imxiIM95w Obviously not all of there murders are done by previous murders, but we can run the numbers with how many prisoners are murderers, which sadly I couldn't find the numbers for that. If you don't keep the deathrow inmate in jail for the next 25 years,I'm pretty sure it'll be a lot less costly. The cost of a death penalty case is Average Death penalty 1.26 million Non death penalty 740,000 Now a life sentence? 1.598 million If you don't keep them on death row for too long, it should be cheaper.

I had realised later on that ted Bundy wasn't a very good example, but there are quite a few cases or murders being put in jail, and either escaping or killing fellow prisoners. And the same thing STILL applies, should others suffer for one mans inability to control himself? If you cant stop yourself from killing others, your basically try into argue that they should go free because WE do not have the right to judge them. In that case, what right do we have to judge the victims he/she might kill? Also, someone said about an extremist case. I'm pretty sure if they're even consider in the death penalty then the case was already extreme.

Just to be clear cosmic objects refer to galaxies or galaxy clusters right? Not smaller things like solar systems. Just wondering...

What is it with nobody getting the point. I must be really bad at this. The point is that should the death penalty been given, it would have saved a lot of lives. Thousands. Every year there's a murderer convicted of death, who either escapes or kills fellow prisoners. Its financially a bad idea. The ethical argument cancels itself out because ethics are in the eye of the beholder. Just because someone bad does something doesn't makes it bad, and you other arguments? Please present them. Also, memmal, (I don't think I got your name right...) Your simply stating the same thing over and over again, as per your custom. I ask you the same question I asked john. Present your argument.

Killing them guarantees they can't kill anyone else. It was very clearly put, as it was the entire point of the post. Anyways, I asked you a question and you dodged answering it, so let me try and make you go though a tiny thought process. this may be a little disturbing, but its a true thing that happened when a mentally insane person wasn't killed. Ted Bundy was arrested 3 times, and was never put to death. twice he managed to get out, and as a result over 30 people died in extremely horrific ways. It didn't stop until he was put to death. Now the innocent people who were subjected to extreme pain, the families of the loved ones, they ALL suffered at the sake of not ending this mans life. If they never did, hundreds more would have probably died. Your looking at it from a curved view. theres a point when ethics reach the highest, before they start to curve again resulting it in being too twisted to be recognized as ethical. If your willing to sacrifice hundreds, in an attempt of not killing someone, I am quite willing to say your insane. Its about the greater good. And the death of those who he did kill, resulted in deep pain of hundreds.

Eating a little machine that takes pictures of my insides to determine if I'm healthy or not. What could go wrong? In all honesty I don't think it would cost very much, maybe a few hundred dollars. I bet it feels better then a colonoscopy.

I see so many people claiming that a good food diet is a cure for cancer. Honestly, I can't seem to make the connection. Good food destroys rouge cells who's mitosis process is flawed... hmm. Jupiters gonna have a baby before I can make the connection.

Could you send me a How-To on that? Yeah, physics can be pretty interesting. Sadly, I don't know a lot of physics experiments. One suggestion I would provide though would be to use ferro fluid, and explain why it acts the way it does when in the presence of a powerful magnet.

That refers to the case, otherwise the trial. In reality, when your not tricking people into thinking it costs more to kill someone then to supply all the basic needs for the next 50+ years, it costs 1.5 million if you clock in at about 30k per year per prisoner. That's assuming they only live in jail for 50 years, and that they have far below average cost per prisoner. That's quite large. The lethal injection costs? $86.08 Now, it still costs some more to house the prisoner until hes executed, but if we didn't take 5 years to kill them, it would cost a lot less. So your saying it would be ethical to lock him/her up for life? Or ethical to release a dangerous person just because you cant blame him? Or locking him in a straight jacket for the rest of his life would solve the problem? Mentally insane people, are insane. its very simple. Whether you can blame them or not doesn't matter, should others suffer because of it? Already someone has if your even thinking about punishing them. Also, when your mentally insane, your quite often tortured mentally. Should you put them in jail so that's the ONLY thing they can think about? And I already explained why simply putting them in jail doesn't effectively remove them from the equation, reread my post.

Killing them would effectively remove them from the equation. In oblder times, if a city was about to fall from enemy forces, they would kill all enemy prisoners if the enemy didnt allow anyone to survive. In doing this they guaranteed they weren't going to join the enemy again and help conquer another city. Now is this logical, and is this ethical? They knew for a FACT they were the enemy. No innocents here, and they also gave them the death penalty without a trial. You decide.

Not to go against the moderator note, I'll let this go undefended. I agree with zapatos on the ethics part, it depends how you look at it. There was someone on science forums saying it was un ethical to eat animals.

And Im a christian, and according to the bible, aka my culture, the death penalty is wrong. No argument, its wrong according to it. Now personally, I don't really know. Maybe ethically its wrong, but then again it depends on what your ethics are. If you think that killing someone in cold blood, in a horrific way, deserves death, then your ethics are fine with it.