blike

BWAHAHAH ::runs away laughing::

I got an iPod last Christmas. I love it to death. I use it in the car and to study with. The only complaint I have with it is the battery life. However, the battery life can be extended by creating and using playlists. I use playlists when I'm alone, but I always have people in the car who are fascinated with it and so the hard drive is constantly spinning up loading different songs (people never want to hear a whole song when there are a thousand or so at your fingertips). Playlists are simple to make. You can use iTunes to create it or you can create them on-the-go very easily. It's also insanely easy and fast to load songs onto it (if you have a firewire port). It usually takes about half a second per song, so if you're looking to throw a bunch of songs on it, it won't take that long. The biggest hassle is ripping all your CDs, but if you have a fast drive it shouldn't be that bad. My CD-ROM is embarassingly slow, as is my computer (takes them forever to encode). If you use iTunes to purchase music, which I've started doing, you'll save yourself a bunch of time and money. I just buy the singles I like and they go straight to my iPod (as well as to my computer). Right now I have close to 1,400 songs on it. The interface is easy to use. You can find any song you want within 10 seconds if you know the artist or title. You can sort by genre, year, album, song name, or artist. You can also shuffle songs, either within playlists or within the whole iPod itself. Besides all that, it just looks SO SEXY!

I vote EXTREEEMMEEEE, in that I definitely want to err on the side of caution, but there's no need to go overboard.

I will attempt to clarify. First, I did not mention your name explicitely in the stated post. I did this to avoid any resemblence of a personal attack against you. Although now that you mention the blurred face thing, it does seem a bit...useless. You said it though, and whether or not you were being sarcastic with "puncture the little guys head" you said that by default PBA is moral. Second, the post was unrelated to our discussion but was related to another member's post. I did imply that your ideas are hypocritical, or at least dichotomous. This, however, is directly addressing the arguments you are presenting. I was not passing judgement on you or judging your character, because we all have conflicting ideas whether we know it or not. It seems that you have taken offense with at least some portion of what I have said, but you have not offered clarification. The statement I made was based on 3 assumptions. 1) You are completely pro-abortion, even in the case of PBA, which you stated here and here. If this assumption is wrong, please state so. 2) You are completely against capital punishment on all accounts which you clearly stated here. If this assumption is wrong, please state so. 3) You make your decisions based on what you feel is morally correct [i.e. ethical] and/or just. If this assumption is wrong, please state so. It follows from 1, 2, and 3 that you feel it is ethical, morally correct, or justified to murder (abort, kill, execute, whatever fancies you) a half-born baby, but you do not feel that it is justifiable or ethical to murder a serial killer. I suspect you will have an issue with 3, and that is fine. However, don't contest 3 and then tell me you don't support capital punishment because it's not morally correct or ethical. I simply asked how one could approach this in their mind. I have not ignored your posts. I am addressing them in order of their posting. I skipped over JaKiri's yesterday, and so I responded to them today.

I don't think this is speaking to capital punishment. The writers lived in a society in which capital punishment was routine. Do you think they would write this and then turn around and implement capital punishment if they felt the two were contradictory?

What moral issues? The right to life? You submit this to the government just as you submit your right to freedom and the persuit of happiness, which are also basic human rights. It is suspended in certain states because of the ambiguity with which it is executed and a small but significant number of those exhonerated post-mortem, as well as constitutionality issues. I completely agree with this. The supreme court must again rule whether or not the death penalty is constitutional (they will likely rule in favor). There also must be federally enforced guidelines (i.e. when to use it, what sort of proof must be present, etc.) This is the beauty of our state system. States have the freedom, within the bounds of the federal government, to do what is best for it's own people. If a state does not feel justice is being properly executed in the manner in which they are implementing capital punishment, then they are free to stop using it. The federal government makes provisions for the use of capital punishment. The supreme law of the land states that the death penalty is moral. No, the "Law of God" forbids murder. It does not forbid capital punishment. Somebody quoted exodus ealier which I found quite humerous. "Thou shalt not kill". Exodus 2112: He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. Deuteronomy 19:11-12: But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. The only one completely disregarding life is the murderer (both his own and his victims). As I said before, the purpose of the justice system is to execute justice. If a system truely regards life as invaluable, then it must act in accordance with that belief by acting justly. Furthermore, your sentence could just as easily read: There is no balance between respecting the right to freedom on one hand above all other things, and completly disregarding the right to freedom of another.

In my case the state defines both. Nonetheless, by having citizenship in a society one succumbs to their social justice system, whether they agree with it or not. By existing in our society, people submit their fundamental rights (such as the right to life) to the state. In return, the state promises to defend those rights to the fullest against criminals and against enemies. And thus, a social contract is born. The state, which defines the freedom to live as the law of God and nature, shows its citizens that there is nothing as sacred as human life by implementing capital punishment. If a state is to call itself a truly just state, in life and in death, then no time spent in jail and no amount of money can ever balance the taking of a human life. Capital punishment speaks to the victims of murder as well as society by declaring that the loss of a human life is the most reprehensible and vile thing on this planet, and that the state, through a jury of your peers, will seek retribution for your loss. This is the agreement you enter into by entering the United States of America. The society of this country has a social contract with the state that says "life is sacred. Nothing ever shall impenge on the right to live except society itself, acting in response to a wrongful death through a jury of our peers."

JaKiri, I saw that at the store. The title suprised me, I thought they were implying he was wrong. Definitely got my attention, which is probably what it was meant to do.

rofl

I don't know what someone's intentions are for breaking into my house when I'm home, but I would automatically assume they want to harm me or my family. Thus, if I were sleeping at night and someone broke in, I'd probably shoot them. That's a risk I'm not willing to take. Obviously I'd shout threats first to give him a chance. But if that fails there's no doubt in my mind I'd open fire. Many of you will say "minimum necessary", but that tends to change in the heat of the moment. Now, if I came home and there was a burglar in my house, and he tried to run (no obvious intention of harming ME), then I'd let him run and I'd call the police.

You guys have E? Our grading scale is ABCDF F = fail, D = basically failed, C = pass, B = ok, A = good

Just a few quick things. I'll respond to your post later this afternoon Rakasha. That's not an ad hominem, that's stating your positions. Is it not correct? I didn't make any judgements about that position (other than that I believe it is hypocritical), or any judgements about your character. I did make the assumption that you judge according to what you feel is justifiable and morally correct, is that not correct? Yes, I will respond to it later this afternoon or early this evening. Sorry I missed it earlier. I have physics for medicine final in 2 hours

Agreed.

Could you clarify? Idealist! That's not the primary purpose of any justice system. Most systems do try and include some sort of rehabilitation, but mostly unsuccessfully. No social justice system was ever formed on the basis of rehablitation. I was stating that laws are based on what is deemed just [aka fair]. This is evidenced by the fact that punishments fit the crime. The point still remains that punishment increases with the severity of the crime. No, the state must do certain things to execute justice. it doesn't matter if a message was sent or not. The arguments are the essence of justice, and you haven't constructed a valid argument to state otherwise. It's hard to quantify that statement, but as I've mentioned, if it saves on innocent person then it has served a valid and worthy purpose.

The answer is no, I am mostly against abortions and always against late term abortions. Regardless, this is not hypocritical because a baby is innocent and a murderer is not. The reverse also applies and is a tad more hypocritical if taken to the extreme. For example: I do not quite understand how one approaches this dichotomy in their own mind. In this member's mind, it is completely justifiable and morally correct to murder an unborn child (partial birth, half-in, half-out) and yet it is completely unjustifiable and immoral to murder a serial killer.

The same reason the state has a right to put you in prison for the rest of your life, but individual citizens have no right to detain and imprison each other. [copied and modified from the other capital punishment thread] Justice is defined as "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments." First and formost, the purpose of any justice system is to execute justice; not to rehabilitate, not to isolate. Secondary purposes, such as isolating criminals from the general population and rehabilitating criminals do not constitute the foundation of any justice system. In short, a justice system exists to render each man what he is due, according to the law. As such, the primary purpose of any punishment is to execute justice. They do not exist merely to serve as deterrents. This is evidenced by the fact that the punishment for any crime generally increases in severity with the harm it causes. Surely we would all cry foul if our car was stolen and the judge only sentenced the criminal to an overnight stay in prison. But why? Because the criminal has not been punished in accordance with the severity of personal harm he has caused us. That is why lady justice carries a scale. It becomes necessary for societies and governments to quantify the destructiveness or harm caused by a crime, and then agree on punishments which are befitting of the crime. We cannot simply steal a thiefs car or kill a murderer's family and call it justice (though societies in the past have found this acceptable). In the case of a murder, anything less than executing the murderer is reducing the value of human life. That is, if you do not execute the murderer, you are quantifying the victims life in terms of nights spent in prison. What is a person worth? Capital punishment is an effective way of confirming that it's citizens lives are invaluable. Is not the respect for human life the mark of a civilized country? Capital punishment also ensures that the perpetrator will not ever harm anyone again. Life in prison cannot guarantee this for a number of reasons. Capital punishment, in rare cases, can also serve as a deterrent. I believe that if one innocent person is saved by capital punishment, then it has served a valid and worthy purpose as a deterrent. The job of the justice system is not to be or act as a morally superior entity. It's purpose is to render each his due. Furthermore, the argument you have presented can also be applied to life in prison, and even short-term imprisonment. You cannot give a man his life back; neither can you give him days of his life back. Anyone who agrees with any form of rendering of justice must accept that there undoubtedly will be innocent people wrongly judged. Thus, we may call the justice system an imprisoner, a thief, a murderer, etc, but to what effect? We all agree that imprisonment or isolation is necessary, even if it means falsely imprisoning someone, and I charge that the death penalty is worthy and necessary even though it may do the same. This does not mean I am not for reforming the system. In an ideal world, the death penalty would only be applied to situations in which there was absolutely no doubt. I think strong and giant strides must be taken in that direction, even if it means suspending the death penalty in questionable situations. Let's assume we have video evidence and a sworn confession to a murder. Now what? Do you support capital punishment in this case? I understand that many of you are against the death penalty because it can be wrongly applied, but I find it incredulous that many of you are against the death penalty in absolutely every conceivable situation.

The fact of the matter is making the argument that innocent people will be executed is quite possibly the weakest and most ill-conceived argument that can be made against the death penalty. There have indeed been cases when innocent people have been executed, but that doesn't make the death penalty any more right or wrong. Justice is not executed when the death penalty is not applied to first-degree muderers. It's really quite simple.

Labelling criminals as an ethnic group is a dangerously thin line to walk, because then putting people in jail starts to become a form of ethnic cleansing when you do that.

About one-third of all persons arrested for a violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, assault) are already on probation, parole or pretrial release. More than 90 percent of state prisoners have committed one or more violent crimes or served a previous sentence to incarceration or probation. Three of four inmates are in prison for a current violent crime conviction. Most inmates in prison for a current non-violent crime had previously committed a violent crime. About 91 percent of inmates had a current or prior adult or juvenile conviction for a violent crime. http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/hotlines/juvcrm/eocp2.html

You can also convict an innocent man of murder and sentence him to a life in prison. The result, from the perspective of that argument, is the same: an innocent person's life is thrown away by society. "An innocent person might die" is an argument for improving the court system, not against capital punishment. Perhaps we should make criminals to work off the cost of their own execution. I would likely be in favor of that. But I agree, the death penalty should be a wham, bam, thank you ma'am kind of thing in my opinion. In the past, they would just line them up and hang several of them at once. I understand the proper appeals must be allowed to play out, though.

I really like this one

Although its an ad hominem, its also making a valid observation that at least warrants consideration. Calling a liar a liar is an ad hominem, but it still may be true. Nonetheless, suicide rates in right wing governments are up because liberals, fearing capitalism and the concept of self-reliance, self-control, hard work, and personal responsibility, just can't figure out what to do with themselves. ::ducks:: But seriously, interesting article, but nothing other than "suicides are up 17% during right-wing terms" can be inferred. Maybe the weather was bad those years.

How do you differentiate which neurons are involved with negative feelings and which ones are involved in positive feelings?

Indeed, I admit I heard a well versed defense Order! We ACQUIT!

Inspired by the NewScientist article of 100 scientific things to do before you die, I want to see what you all come up with.