zapatos

And that's the rub. While I don't have any problem saying I'm okay with the death penalty, I have a very difficult time defining under what circumstances I feel a specific person can be executed. From a personal standpoint, I don't even know if anyone at all would be executed if it were up to me, but I just don't feel that there are NO circumstances in which the death penalty would be warranted.

Punishment is also a penalty imposed on someone for some act deemed unacceptable. Generally we attempt to ensure the penalty is commensurate with the act. I don't find it unethical to impose a penalty as severe as death for a sufficiently severe act.

I agree. Unfortunately for those killed, not everyone agrees.

In principle I don't object to the death penalty as I feel that some crimes deserve this punishment. My primary concern with the death penalty is the manner in which it is used, at least in the United States. Ethics is in the eye of the beholder and changes as you change time and place. I also find most arguments against the death penalty to be rather weak. Someone bad does it, therefore it must be a bad idea? Can we assume that ALL their ideas are bad since we don't like them? You can't undo it? You also cannot undo the 10 years someone spent in prison for a robbery charge if they were actually innocent. You can never get back lost time. We shouldn't do it because we "don't know enough about the afterlife"? That's a non-starter IMO.

The violence doesn't surprise me terribly. It has been my experience that no matter the group, whether Democrats, Republicans, Priests, thieves, pre-teens, or auto mechanics, you will always find a mix of people who are good, bad, smart, dumb, mean, good looking, considerate, etc. On another note... http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/fence-protecting-usmexico-border-puts-golf-course-out-business

I wonder how the people who own that roughly 2000 square miles of land will feel about the government filling it with bamboo and thorn bushes.

Can you be more specific on what mistake you are talking about?

I thought this thread sounded familiar. We had a similar conversation in 2012. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64720-condensation-question/?hl=autistic Glad to see you have not given up on this rocksolid.

And you need to quit taking offense where none is given. I stand by everything I said.

+1 for having the good humor to include this one.

She accused people of "judging" her, calling her a "crappy parent", telling her how to "raise her kid", and then "schooling" her "about autism". No one here did any of that. All she had to do was give a short explanation like you did. And strangers didn't "step in", they were invited in.

But not everyone has the experience you and rocksolid have. I find it unacceptable to ask a stranger for advice, then criticize them because they do not have the background to give advice that is useful to you.

Lighten up Francis. No one is calling you a crappy parent and no one is doing anything other than trying to help. If you don't like the advice, better to just say 'thanks anyway' and move on. No need to be rude to those who cannot give you the exact advice you want on the first try.

Good post iNow. +1 Your post reminded me that my very blunt, direct speech has gotten me in trouble more than once as people often rightfully interpret it as aggression or in some other negative way. That is not my intent, but as the speaker the responsibility lies with me to be aware of the tone I am projecting. My apologies if that happened here and I offended anyone.

Can you please provide your justification for these assertions? Why? Can you please provide your justification for this assertion? Is there some sort of law that says 'any change to safety procedures in zoos must be matched on sidewalks near roads'? You keep making these assertions but have yet to provide any evidence that this is some sort of requirement. More important than keeping children from ending up in an enclosure with a gorilla? Was your experience viewing snakes and fish seriously reduced because you had to view them through glass? Sometimes accidents happen. Just because something bad happens does not mean someone is negligent. What you and Phi seem to not be acknowledging is that children lack impulse control. You may know your child best, and that child has no history of climbing over walls, and you tell you child the importance of staying away from the wall. And you watch them closely, but you are suddenly distracted as you try to catch your purse as it is knocked out of your hands by someone passing by, and at that very moment your child decides to climb the fence for some reason they only know. That happens. Kids do stupid things all the time, no matter how well you educate them. The parent can do the best they can to avoid tragedies like this, but ultimately, they cannot be held responsible for every tragedy which happens on their watch, unless they were negligent. Clearly the zoo did not do their best to avoid tragedies like this. They may have done what they felt was reasonable and required, but they certainly could have done more. Even the zoo acknowledged they will be reviewing their standards after this incident. I don't think anyone suggested businesses be held liable for risks that are impossible to eliminate. It's not a matter of all or nothing. Its a matter of degree. Just because you protect a child from a wild animal in a location that invites children to come, does not mean you have to protect a teenager in that same situation, or protect a child in a location where they are not typically found. Do you believe they don't need a wall at all, and just depend on the moat for protection? If having the wall is okay with you, then what is wrong with having a wall that cannot be so easily climbed?

Why? We put child safety caps on medicine bottles that others can breach. We put child locks on supply cabinets that others can breach. We put fences around swimming pools that others can climb. Zoos are child magnets. As I hear many here often say, don't fail to accept the 'good' just because you cannot achieve the 'perfect'. A barrier that a child cannot breach. How do you know that? Do you honestly believe that if a parent "makes it clear that humans always stay behind the guard rails when they visit animals at the zoo", then safety is assured? I think you are mistaken about the capabilities of children to reason and understand risk. No one does think that is too much to ask. Some of us just think that is not enough. Perhaps you should just make it clear to your child that he should not grab the skillet handle on the stove, and that way you won't ever have to turn the handles so he can't reach them.

The only time I have seen plastic surgery frowned upon is when the person looks worse after surgery than prior to surgery. Then all of the internet trolls come out with their 20/20 vision ridiculing the person's 'vanity'. I've known several women who have had breast implants. All have been very happy with themselves afterwards, and I never heard a single person say anything negative. People wear braces on their teeth, have Lasik eye surgery, get tattoos, and stick pieces of metal in their ears, tongues, lips, and belly buttons. I believe that nowadays in America plastic surgery is not generally frowned upon. There have been somewhere around 5 million cosmetic breast implant surgeries done in the US since 1997. IMO you should do it if it is what you want. I know that I would have plastic surgery if it is what I wanted.

While I don't disagree with the sentiments being expressed regarding the necessity of parental control over a child, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the mother from a single event. Children are by definition immature and it is unrealistic to assume that had only the child been trained correctly this kind of thing would not have happened. It is also impossible for a parent to be 100% focused on their child. Things are happening around them and they will on occasion focus on other things, no matter how short the duration. On occasion a parent will be distracted at that very instant their child does something risky. Those are simply accidents and will happen once in a while. If when it happens someone dies, it is tragic and makes the news. It is not difficult to construct a barrier that a three year old cannot breach. It is my opinion that a zoo shares in the responsibility for thwarting inquisitive children.

I agree that a three year old should not be able to enter the enclosure of a dangerous animal. If a child can get into my yard to play with my dog and he gets bitten, I am liable. Adults are different though. A 'reasonable' adult would know better. A 'reasonable' child would not.

Your argument is analogous to saying that things have been getting better in Detroit since its inception, and your proof is to show me the yard of a home that had an unruly lawn on Friday, and a neatly cut lawn on Monday. You cannot pick such a minuscule place and time as the earth, and reasonably argue that it is representative of the universe as a whole. I could just as easily point to a place and time that was once 'better' and is now a dying ember.

It is my understanding that from your perspective they are approaching each other at faster than c. Since noTHING is moving faster than c, no laws have been been violated.

Unfortunately each family's 'family space' can be quite large, 1000 square miles or more in the case of gray wolves. It feels like you are looking to animals for an example but then abandoning the details to arbitrarily choose the size of a family space that sounds good to you. If animals can choose to be live alone, with a nuclear family, or in herds of millions, why shouldn't humans do the same? Why limit human packs to single digits? http://www.wolf.org/wolf-info/basic-wolf-info/wolf-faqs/#h

Are you comfortable with people having free access to your house? Taking food from your pantry? After all, your front door is simply a border crossing on a smaller scale.

That doesn't sound right. If someone shoots at me I can shoot back, and me shooting back surely puts people at risk. It's a matter of degree. While I probably cannot open up on someone with an Uzi in a movie theater to protect myself, I can shoot at an intruder in my home. Both actions put people at risk, but one would be lawful and the other would not.

JohnSSM - It might be better to look at it as matter curving space-time, not gravity curving space-time. Then that curvature of space-time caused by matter is what we call gravity; that is, the curvature of space-time is what is responsible for orbits and why time is viewed differently near a large mass. Keep in mind that 'curved space-time' is a description from a model that accurately describes what happens around the presence of matter. No one has ever seen curved space-time; it is just that objects near matter behave as if space-time is curved as described in the model.