John Cuthber

Would it matter? What has been checked very carefully is the overall death rate with and without flu shots. Even if it marginally raises the risk of some conditions- for example, coronary disease, the overall effect is beneficial so the benefits must outweigh that increase. Having said that, I suspect that the data is there somewhere as part of the studies into vaccinations.. Indeed, a bit of googling gave me this http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/267777.php which says "As the flu season is fast approaching, a timely study links receiving a flu vaccination with a lower risk of serious cardiovascular events, including heart failure or heart attack. And researchers say patients who have experienced recent acute coronary syndrome see the greatest effect."

I doubt that we are evolving out of this trait. The only human data I have heard about it are stories of mothers waking up because they heard the baby's breathing pattern change. That's potentially a matter of enormous benefit to the baby and, since we all start out as babies, it's a benefit to the species as a whole. Do you have any actual support for your suggestion that "humans in general, are evolving out of many of there animal instincts"? It would be odd- we haven't been around for very long in evolutionary terms.

I agree that it is unscientific; you should never have introduced it, but I don't think it's a clever argument at all. It fails as I showed. Meanwhile, back at the topic. If God wrote the Bible He messed up http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html Those contradictions are exactly the sort of errors you would expect people to make.

Well, since you insist I will answer your irrelevant question. I would do the same as David did (or something like it- depending on circumstances: I'm not sure about the castration. If I had a gun I would shoot to maim, rather than shoot to kill) Now, will you answer my point about the difference between killing in cold blood as you advocate and killing as the only way to stop a bad situation getting worse. Do you understand that there's a difference? Do you understand that one of them has nothing to do with capital punishment? Also my point about spelling was not to illustrate that you can't spell- who cares- as you say, I worked out what you meant. However I raised the point that you hadn't bothered to check what you were saying. (if you had done so you would have got the right word). Why do you post opinion as fact? Oh, BTW, this " I don't need to go and research "Closure" I would get immediate closure, while you would be out somewhere researching it." Is nonsense as you well know. I wasn't suggesting that someone who comes home to a disaster at home did the research. I was suggesting that you should find out what you are talking about.

Presumably, if you do all those things "as a scientist" you have evidence for them all. Please cite it.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wanamaker A popular saying illustrating how difficult it was to reach potential customers using traditional advertising is attributed to John Wanamaker: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." Good money is, indeed paid for studies of product layout. And the results of those studies are reasonably consistent- for example items placed on the ends of aisles are more likely to be noticed. However I don't think there is no scientific theory behind the results. No psychologist, as far as I know, could a priori predict what would be a good place for some product any better than a layman who thought about it for a bit.

If it is the word of God then He really ought to make His mind up about stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RB3g6mXLEKk#t=86 Also, we know it's the work of men. We know when it was rewritten, where, and by whom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea And Popcorn's "argument" is nonsense. It suggests that anything said by anyone is the word of God. So, imagine I make up some word like webzootlefningywhatsit and I say it, then it's the Word of God, but I'm the only one who has ever said it. So I must be God. Popcorn, you really should think things through a bit more carefully before posting.

"What would you do?" Who cares? Are you unable to distinguish killing someone in those circumstances from trying them, convicting them and then killing them in cold blood? Re." They never get closer as long as the murderer remains alive. " etc. I suspect that you are basing your ideas on guesswork. I'm making that assumption on the basis that, is you had done any research on "closure", you would, at least, know how to spell it. So, do you have any actual evidence?

The very first thing you need to do is understand the current theory you wish to challenge.

I know. That's why I said "about the same". Did you have a point?

Everyone who commits a capital offence makes that bet, and there are enough of them to prove my point. Re. "One thing about the death penalty: it sure cuts down on repeat offenders." It has about the same success rate as life imprisonment.

Are you in favour of killing al those with mental illness, or just those who you consider to be a threat? Alan, pointing out that you are wrong, or, at least, that you have provided no evidence to support your idea is not " some inane remark to side step the issue";. It is the issue

"Fun. So the "nascent hydrogen" was just an electron transfer... Not a good explanation for graphene, " Odd. I thought that graphene (or its oxide)- as a conductor, in contact with the zinc- was rather well placed to pick up electrons released from the zinc and, accordingly, be reduced to some (notionally free-radical) species that could then react with, for example, water to produce the sorts of things listed as products. Meh. Perhaps I will okok again when I sober up

So, it's just as well that nobody did that . Check again. Nobody said that, did they? However suggesting that there's a causal link between the abolition of the death penalty and the rise in crime is a fallacy. And, here's where you suggested such a link " in my country of South Africa where the death penalty's been abolished from law crime is now rampant and risen to unimaginable heights" and again "my country has discontinued with capital punishment against the wishes of the majority and crime has worsened unimaginably. " and again "the banning of capital punishment in South Africa appears to have a clear correlation with increased crime, but one must have some idea of what this correlation is before one could sanction its reinstatement" http://xkcd.com/552/

The fact that someone can seriously suggest that the correct answer is "too clever by half" is all the proof that we need that we are not in a scientocracy.

in 1950 they didn't have a lot of evidence on the matter, by 1970, they had lots of evidence. They probably didn't have 14000 papers demonstrating i, so, according to your approach, they still shouldn't have believed in tectonics. I wonder if there are 14000 papers on the subject even today. If not, to be consistent, you ought to disregard plate tectonics too. Does that seem sensible?

If all the evidence showed that the Earth was flat, and none contradicted it, would you disagree with all the evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nascent_hydrogen

"So you think my statement about rampant crime in SA is a fallacy, call it what you like come and visit us and the reality of it might hit you very hard South Africa has become a place where both black and white citizens have erected huge up to 9 foot walls, with electrified razor wire like a maximum security prison .This is not a philosophical topic but an awful reality that my family and I have had to live through." Did you deliberately miss the point? Saying "something happened after something else" doesn't prove it was caused by it. So, the increased violence and crime in SA isn't necessarily caused by (or even related to) the abolition of the death penalty. BTW, I have family in Jo'burg and near Durban. I know what the place is like. it's just that I know better than to blame it on the lack of capital punishment.

Those 14000 reports were all based on studies. How many more studies would it take to convince you?

Through what plausible mechanism?

If that's what the data showed, what would you expect them to report?

I know this is simplistic but... There are 3 groups of people who commit serious crimes- let's stick with murder as that's the crime most often associated with capital punishment. 1 Those who do it in the heat of the moment. These people are not considering the next two minutes of their lives, never mind anything else. No potential punishment will affect them because they don't stop to consider it. 2 Those who carefully plan their crime in order to avoid detection or prosecution. These people don't expect to get caught- so any potential punishment won't seem relevant to them. 3 those who don't fall into either of those groups- they plan to commit the crime, but accept that they are likely to get caught. These people are already on a hiding to nothing- if the thought of life imprisonment doesn't deter them then the death penalty probably won't either. So, why do people think that the death penalty has a deterrent effect? Which group do the think will be deterred by it? Also, you say "This is an ongoing subject but in my country of South Africa where the death penalty's been abolished from law crime is now rampant and risen to unimaginable heights" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc There are of course other issues- I'd prefer not to be seen as a killer- even by proxy (if I support a legislature that kills then I support killing) and how do you deal with the cases where someone is cleared? With life in prison, at least you can release them. How do you revoke a death sentence? And, there's the idea that you might be judged by the company you keep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country

" I am trying to figure how to attack this. " You have been told how; provide that algorithm.

Yes, he's not looking for a test that his idea will fail. He's just looking for confirmation. Unfortunately, he's not got a hope unless he explains what he's doing, and shows that it is general.