zapatos

You may be trying to think of it in a logical manner, but it is not scientific.

Please tell me the name of the Theory that describes how the universe began. No, I am aware there is a difference between Evolution and the origin of the universe. Unfortunately you failed to quote my entire sentence. Here it is: "In my experience, religious people are not what I would call anti-science." What's with the hostile attitude? Can we do this without the petty insults? Those are really two different things. I'm against GMOs, but that doesn't mean I'm against science. Again? Please be civil. You seem to be begging the question. A desire for one thing does not necessarily equate to an active stance against another. I strive to stay off social media, but I am not anti-internet, or even anti-social media. It's just not for me. I think my generalization is a lot closer to the mark than your generalization that religious people DO attack science and scientists.

Can you please define what you mean by anti-science? Maybe some examples? In my experience, religious people are not what I would call anti-science. They are not against it. They still get their kids vaccinated, fly in planes, and want people to do research. On the other hand, the religious people don't always believe what they are told about science, but to me that seems a more neutral position. The reason for their stance seems quite simple. They are told conflicting things and must make a choice, not really being in a position to verify either for themselves.

Well, there are of course many more claims made about gods, but that doesn't make my statement any less true. Yes, science does have something to say about that. Science can explain the universe without god, but it cannot disprove god.

Science has something to say about how the universe evolved, not about how it came to be.

To reduce the risk of people dying from alligator attacks. The same reason people are warned when sharks are known to be near beaches, when road hazards are ahead, and when food contains peanuts.

In the larger article, the author makes the point that there is a lack of legal precedent which seems to lead to his qualification of whether or not this is legal. The article though seems to make a well reasoned case for why it is legal, even if the courts have not yet confirmed. http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/students/publications/llj/pdfs/cantor.pdf I read that paragraph the same way I read a lot of things in science; "The universe works like this. (Well, probably. That's what the evidence is telling us but it is always possible we have a mistake in there)".

Um, no. "Legal in a few states (West coast and Vermont), and you have to be of sound mind to do it in Oregon and Washington." http://law.bepress.com/rutgersnewarklwps/art27/

No, I'm not. Quit putting words in my mouth. This is twice now that I've told you I am not making that argument. Please pay attention. Give me a break Ten oz. You said "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." THAT IS INCORRECT. I gave you an example. swansont gave you an example. StringJunky talked about it happening in the UK. Instead of admitting your mistake, you are trying to tap dance your way around it by harping on the part of your statement that I stated was correct, and making vague references to past statements. Is it really so hard for you to admit that you are not always correct? I CONCEDED YOUR FIRST SENTENCE WAS TRUE! Why do you do this? Since you are having trouble reading what I've written, I'll put it here again for you: "Your first sentence was technically right. Your second sentence was inaccurate."

I made no argument other than the one to show you were wrong. Your first sentence was technically right. Your second sentence was inaccurate. Nothing contradictory there at all.

That is simply not true. While medically assisted death may technically be illegal, it is widely practiced in this country. While you cannot walk into a hospital and ask for help dying, if you are in the hospital and suffering, clearly dying, it is quite common for a doctor to knowingly provide a level of pain relief whose outcome will result in death. This type of 'specific killing' may not be debated in Congress or on the internet, but in hospital rooms with the family involved it quietly occurs, is accepted, and is, IMHO, the right thing to do.

So? I also cannot 'truly quantify' the statement that 'some people like vanilla ice cream'. Doesn't make it any less true. I find it amusing that you criticize my nebulous statement by making one of your own. Well, then it is fortunate for me I was not trying to justify the killing of people. If you'll read the post over again you'll see I was answering the question "In what way does the additional death toll from killing killers make the world a better place?" Again, fortunately for me, that is not what I was doing. Nice bit of misdirection.

It makes some people feel better. It increases the average 'goodness' of the human race. It imposes a penalty that people find appropriate for the crime. It sends a message, whether received or not. It ensures fairness for the person wronged. I am not the one who made the claim that there is 'no good reason'. I stated there was no consensus on what constitutes a good reason. If you think there is consensus then by all means present your evidence here.

That could be, although I don't really think that is anyone's aim. The Constitution allows rights to be taken away as long as we follow due process. Saying the death penalty deprives and extra right for no good reason, begs the question. As has been stated several times, some people feel there is a good reason. I think one of the issues here is that there is no consensus on what constitutes 'a good reason'.

Fine. Call it a reason instead of a benefit. Are you conceding all the other points I made? Well, not in the US anyway. If we didn't agree to the extra cost to reduce the risk of killing an innocent person, it could be more cost effective to kill them. But who cares? If I can come up with a benefit, that doesn't mean we should allow execution.

While not having plastic bags at all is an option, it is not an either/or situation. Just as we could makes tires that are safer if they fail, we could makes plastic bags safer than they currently are. But we don't. We accept there is a level of risk that we accept to keep costs down. The obvious benefit of executing a prison inmate is that he will then be dead, which is the penalty society has assigned to the crime he committed. No point in assigning a penalty if you are not going to apply it. The point of my post was that all actions carry a risk. You cannot deny the death penalty just because it carries the risk of an innocent person being punished any more than you can deny a 15 year prison sentence, as that also carries the risk of an innocent person being punished. Because we live in a society governed by law. You could just as easily ask, if it is not justifiable for some citizen to take a person off the street and lock them away for 10 years, then why is justifiable for our government to take a person off the street and lock them away for 10 years? The government is granted the option of doing to its citizens what they are not allowed to do to each other, otherwise we will have anarchy. You'll have to explain to me how the government does not hold the high ground over Timothy McVeigh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh

In 2015, 144 people not on death row were exonerated after spending an average of 15 years in prison. How many innocent people would you be okay with locking up like lab rats? People die unfairly in every endeavors humans take on. We know up front that some number of children will suffocate if we make plastic bags, but we do so anyway. People die from Viagra. We can make car tires better but instead accept that some people will die because doing otherwise would bite into profit. Nothing we do is risk free. Expecting it to be is a fools errand. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jailed-innocent-record-number-people-exonerated-2015-n510196

Wait. What?

I think the problem is that you are not making a very good point. When Bundy was in jail he was serving 1 - 15 years for a kidnapping in which the victim escaped from his car while he was trying to restrain her. She was not physically injured. It was while serving this sentence that he escaped. To suggest that he should have been put to death for such a crime seems unethical.

The point I was trying to make was, given that a criminal will never benefit by anything he's learned during a life sentence, should a life sentence also be considered vengeance?

Yes, that's a good point. I can see where it might be important for the person to learn and grow, but what good is it if they never get to act on this new knowledge? Let's say instead of the death penalty they receive live in prison. In one case you cannot learn or grow (because you are dead) and in the other your possible growth can't lead to much of anything (because you are in prison). I don't really see where society benefits by going the extra mile to ensure a convicted felon gets to learn about himself simply because it is a good in and of itself. In this case, is life in prison significantly better than death?

I didn't realize you were talking about the death penalty when you said "They may accept their punishment as just at a later time."

They may even accept it is just at the time it is imposed. That doesn't necessarily mean they feel you have 'done something for them'. I once received a ticket for traveling five miles per hour over the speed limit. I feel the punishment was just (the law is the law, and I know why they enforce it), but it didn't do anything for me. I was happy to speed then and I often travel over the speed limit now. I would have much preferred to not be punished at all.

I'm not too sure you could convince many of the punished that you are doing something for them. I doubt the people in jail for marihuana will be thanking your for showing them the error of their ways. Punishment does nothing for the person who is happy for what they did and would do it again.