John Cuthber

Other decent brands are available. The moral here is that you usually get what you pay for.

What it has to do with it is that it#s a comment on majority opinion which at least some people here consider to be the basis of morality. Which is clearly more to do with this than homosexuality.

Is the definition of "a decent violin" anything other than circular? How should it sound? Is it just a matter of what you are used to?

Have you read Orwell's 1984? Their dystopian society suppresses opposition by removing the words needed to express that dissatisfaction. As a result I think your suggestion is double plus crimethink.

Have you heard of litmus paper, or a pH probe. But that's beside the point. If the stuff was a solution of eosin in dilute acid, adding a base wouldn't have changed the colour. Also, using a very concentrated alkali would sometimes give misleading results. For example, the heat of reaction with water might boil some volatile solvent off, giving the false impression of gas release. Such a strong alkali wouldn't, for example, make phenolphthalien turn pink. So you exposed yourself to a smal, but unnecessary risk for nothing.

It is a plot device powered by the suspension of disbelief and special effects.

Sorry, I assumed that you knew that salt would dissolve in water and that the heavy ice (which you saw sink in that video) would sink. Sometimes it's difficult to know what level to pitch an explanation.

"Also, you say that anyone who takes the view I did is a villain." No I didn't say that. Is it that you can't read, or that you can't stop lying, or what that makes you say that sort of thing? I think I see what your confusion is caused by; you have forgotten that the rest of the world exists. It takes a special kind of stupid to do that. Whatever the stats say in the US (broken down by political groups or not), the Western world has overwhelmingly rejected capital punishment.

Are you actually trying to recruit for ISIS? Because that's the sort of bewilderingly stupid comment that will help them.

I don't know if it's a lie (I doubt it) but this "What gives the few the right to decide what's wrong for the many?" makes no sense because in most cases the majority view rules. The US just needs to catch up with the rest of the West.

"Where did I go wrong in this logic?" Here "Nobody loses any closure if the murderer is executed." for two reason I lose closure because I see it as another pointless death. And at least some villains will take the same view you did- it's OK to kill those who kill. and since society kills it's ok to kill society. Your last line seems to be arguing against your position.The majority (at least in the Western world where they get to decide) has decided against capital punishment.

It's really very sad. So much hate for no reason. However, I wonder if the NRA are now fighting with themselves about saying " What we need to do is give all the gays and lesbians guns!".

I thought I'd made it quite well enough, back in post 3.

The melting point of salt is about 800 degrees above that of water. By your logic, salt won't dissolve in water. Would you like to try again?

In the civilised world, the consensus is that there should be no death penalty.

Really? Where?

No metal oxide will dissolve in water to form ions because oxide ions are not stable in water. They react instantly to form hydroxide ions. For example, CaO + H2O -> Ca++ + 2 OH- As far as I know, the only oxide ions in solutions are dissolved in molten salts.

Second helping of word salad.

When what someone currently believe is a fallacy of logic then it isn't "tricking" them to convince them otherwise, it's education. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right "Wait, so if a couple of victims families didn't want to seek the death penalty then none of them do? " Strawman- nobody said that did they? However just one person in that position and with that view voids your tacit assertion that we should kill for the benefit of the bereaved. Also, not all murderers are sociopaths so that part of your post is unsupported. "And I would say yes. Nobody loses any closer from kill the murderer. " I'm sure you would say that; it doesn't make sense. Can I see the evidence for this claim please? "They have more closure in Texas." or is it something you just made up? It's an issue you have been picked up on before.

If I pick the right wax, in both cases it will not float. (See String junky's vid) But, in the long run, the heavy ice will dissolve. Your statement is meaningful- but wrong. Does that make it better or worse than mine?

Icebergs are are a danger to shipping while they are melting. So what? At 3 degrees the heavy ice will dissolve. If I put some wax (which melts at 50C) in some boiling water at 100 C what will happen? If I put some heavy ice (which melts at 3.81C) in some water at at 0C what will happen? The difference is that the molten wax won't mix with the water.

OK, so we need to teach the populous that vengeance and justice are different words- because they are different things. Perhaps we should get parents and teachers to explain it to children. We would need some sort of short, snappy slogan. Perhaps something like "Two wrongs don't make a right" would work. If only there were some way to get lots of people to say that to the kids.

Well, the first grammatical and logical errors occur in the first sentence "WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist." Pronouns referring to God take capital letters in English so if God does anything then He does it rather than he does. And, since God is omniscient, He won't find anything- he already knew it, and that's before you get to the issue of the fact that, logically, he already knew that we do exist. The first factual error I spotted was here "While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God" and that's just the third sentence. So, what we have here is an example of stuff that's just plain wrong. If this line " Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone. " popped up on Wiki, it wouldn't belong before someone pointed out that it's so "weasel worded" as to be meaningless, and, as far as it does say anything, it's plainly wrong since people change their faith.

The first part is clearly an opinion. But "It doesn't actually make the world a better place." is open to a degree of objectivity. In what way does it make the world a better place if you kill people that you don't need to kill? My word you are good at missing the point. "Oh ok. It was my belief that murders weren't innocent. My bad. " Yes, the murderers are not innocent. But our justice system can not reliably distinguish between those who are murderers and those who are innocent. So, by having the death penalty "We accrue the risk of killing innocent for no tangible reason. " as 10 Oz said. I'd want to know why they did it.But I wouldn't want them killed- what would that achieve? If I was in that position and someone asked me if I wanted the murderer killed I'd say no- and if anyone asked why not my answer would be simple. One killer is 1 too many. Adding to the number of killers is not a good thing. The points you have missed here are that we jail people as punishment, not for punishment; and that keeping order in jails is easier for the guards if the prisoners are occupied doing something. As for "Let's jam 10 people into a single cell. I mean, they're there for life right? " Again, you seem to want to sink to their level as quickly as possible; why is that? Lol How do we deal with inconsiderate criminals who don't provide obliging evidence? Are you going to have two levels of justice? The man who almost certainly killed a hundred people in a hospital shooting spree doesn't get hanged, but the man who clearly killed one deadbeat junkie gets the death penalty because he wasn't clever enough to make sure there were no witnesses. It doesn't "beg the question", it invites one. If you believe that the death penalty does not lead to killing for no reason, then you ought to be able to show what that reason is. In what way does the additional death toll from killing killers make the world a better place?

"he 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." Thank you for that heartfelt plea for better education. I don't see what it has to do with the death penalty. "They deserve it. " Nobody does. Killing for no reason is not better than killing. It is sinking to their level and it does lose the high ground.