Phi for All

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that... ... man shares a common ancestry with apes!

Of all the anti-evolution arguments, this one has got to be the worst. Since evolution tells the YECs that 6000 years isn't enough they attempt to make waves at the other end using flawed logic and bad data. Just more of the ID "create-controversy-and-then-point-to-it" tactics.

Eating continuously is why Atkins is in business in the first place.

May the ice cream forever fall from their cone.

May diarrhea coupled with sneezing fits accompany them for the rest of their days.

I hate the word promiscuous. Firstly because it's hard to spell. Secondly because most people apply it differently to men and women. And thirdly because most people think it means you like to hump with many people when it really means you make relatively unselective, casual and indiscriminate choices. It doesn't mean you hump a lot, it means you're not choosy about those with whom you hump.

This is usually what I suggest to people having mouse problems. Fine debris from pads, dust and hand lotions / soaps can combine to create quite a buildup on the rollers and wheels the ball uses to track with. I've never heard of it being so bad it shut down applications but four year's worth of buildup might do just that. Doubt this is the problem since it seems to get fixed using control-alt-delete but this could be a combination problem.

Thanks for the great curse ideas, but what does this one do? Is it just loud or do you get some other evil benefit that would make my nipples hard?

I don't think it's just the DP that makes us numb to lives taken. I don't think it's just Hollywood's casual treatment of killing and guns and violence. I don't think it's just shoot-em-up video games where killing let's you win points. I don't think it's just political prioritizing that emphasizes Christian values like heterosexual union over somebody else's problem like genocide. I don't think it's just gigabytes of photos of mass graves and video footage of casual killings that are available to any young person with Internet access. I think all these things together in a major country that has more access to guns than any other, that has a news media that salivates over gruesome killings, AND that has a legal system where the ultimate justice is more killing could possibly point to the reason why people like Underwood come to be. We'll never catch guys like him before they kill with the present system. My reference to history was to point out that the past should show that executing murderers hasn't done much to stop murder. Perhaps I should have said "the past" earlier so your mind didn't immediately jump to "war" when I said "history". Given what I'm arguing about, I can certainly see why your mind would make that leap. I was trying to show that killing is viewed as the ultimate deterrent to unwanted behavior, but history the past shows that's not true. The more numb we become to killing the less importance life has for the individual who may just pick up a gun to solve his disputes tomorrow. I don't like the war analogy because, as I said, some killing IS justified, like in war where defense is paramount and killing an enemy means saving lives on your side. I don't see how war is a good argument for supporting the DP. Are we executing captured prisoners of war now? The concept I'm addressing is becoming numb to killing, not just violence. Many people have been violent and still maintain the restraint to stop short of taking a life. Rules of conduct change in war and most military procedures, like continuing to shoot a wounded enemy soldier until he's dead, would land a civilian in jail. War is not an apt analogy for the DP. Soldiers were horrified by seeing prisoners that had been executed. This is a good reason to support executing prisoners because...?

I was hoping you would get tired of using war as a strawman for your arguments in favor of the death penalty. Since I see a very large difference between kill-or-be-killed situations like war and executing a prisoner in custody like the DP does, I would appreciate it if you could drop this particular fallacy.

Are you waiting for someone else to discover the really good activities so you can follow along? That's what got us all into work, relationships, kids, religion, etc. Most artists who feel the way you do wouldn't be happy with anyone else's world no matter how much anyone else cared about it. You need to make it happen for yourself, make something that's yours, or you're just going to go around knocking everybody else's thang. Get your own thang.

When I see a dead human body it diminishes me, I really hate it. Some people don't care, they say, "I'm not squeamish, I can handle seeing dead bodies!" To them, facing that without flinching, without feeling bad about it, is a sign of strength. They then equate that strength to being equally blasé about killing. They become numb to death, whether natural or unnatural I'm not trying to hide from death, but killing is something that usually doesn't have to happen. It's tragic when anyone dies leaving their potential behind. It's horrible when anyone removes that potential from the world by killing. But more killing is not going to make us revere life the way we need to. History is teaching us every day that killing killers isn't preventing more killers. I maintain that it's part of what is making us numb to killing, why millions can be ethnically cleansed around the world and rate only headlines and head-shaking from us. Executing Mr. Woodward will give closure to an issue that shouldn't be closed. I think it would be better to figure out why the US has triple the number of murders per capita than any other major nation and is also the only one with a death penalty.

Some killing really is unavoidable. Protecting your country, protecting your family, protecting yourself. If it comes down to kill or be killed we all have decisions to make and consequences to bear and in those situations stopping to weigh moral justifications can be detrimental because hesitation can take those decisions out of our hands. Capital punishment is not one of those unavoidable, crisis-time, heartbeat decisions. Or, I would never kill merely to appear strong. I would, instead, appear strong to avoid killing. But when the ultimate appearance of strength is the willingness to kill to deal with a problem, it becomes more easily justifiable for the individual. When the individual witnesses the state executing a prisoner in custody who poses no immediate threat when life imprisonment is a viable option, the justification to use deadly force becomes even more morally justifiable. I have no problem with strength and it's importance. My wish is that killing weren't glorified as the ultimate in strength. Why can't strength in physical power be superceded by strength of character? If it's so heinous to kill a little girl, why isn't it just as heinous to kill a policeman? A convenience store clerk? A street junkie? A murderer? Is my life's value measured by what I do for you?

Relatively new fields won't get their own forum until they become at least moderately popular fields. Start some threads about it and when we have a preponderance we will most surely start a sub-forum.

You've done no speculating. Even your title says, "This is the way it is, there's no room for error or speculation, this is the TRUTH!"

Many people feel executing heinous criminals sends a "strong" message about how society feels about this type of crime. When we go to war we appear "strong" when we kill our enemies. The message that killing is "strength" pervades our society, it's glorified in games and entertainment and has become a symbol of the ultimate defense. We all strive to be strong and retribution through execution has made brutal killers out of too many. This is what I see as wrong, and the fact that it's part of a state supported system gives it even more legitimacy. I think we need to emphasize how wrong it is to snuff out a human life, and this emphasis should start early, when we're young. It's hard to send that kind of message when kids see adults trading life for life like baseball cards.

Because everything is satellite tracked these days. FEDEX and UPS can tell me where my aunt's fruitcake is as it comes my way (I have to deal with a lot of fruitcakes, you see).

Strawman:You come up against an argument you can't knock down, so you bring in another argument, usually as an analogy or example (the man stuffed with straw), that is much easier to knock down. Analogies and examples can be a great thing to help you prove your point, but when you stop trying to knock down the original argument and use the easier argument to prove you're right, THAT'S strawmanning. It's fallacious logic.

OK, now I'll moderate. Last couple of pages were nothing but recriminations. If there is nothing of substance left to discuss I'm going to close the thread. I actually love stuff like this when evidence can be laid out objectively and discussed without jumping to conclusions really early on. It's when people make up their minds and refuse to be objective that I can't trust the process anymore. I really don't like the fact that the FBI didn't release the security camera footage they confiscated from the hotel and the convenience store. I can see why the Pentagon might not like for people to know where their surveillance cameras are located but the hotel and the convenience store cameras aren't detrimental to national security. If the footage shows nothing, you release them. If you wait five years and release them and they show nothing then many people will believe they were doctored in the interim. On the other hand I have never heard of anyone who questioned the employees at the hotel who supposedly viewed their tape several times before the FBI confiscated it. What do they say it showed? Are they allowed to tell? Have they told and claimed it was a 757, which would be as interesting to a conspiracy theorist putting together loaded information? I couldn't find that out.

Strawmanning and spamming have nothing to do with honesty. Using JFK as an example is a logical fallacy and doesn't help prove corruption in the 9/11 case. Taking your own thread off-topic by bringing in the JFK pic as an example doesn't help either, but pointing that out is not saying you are dishonest and deceitful. It's just saying your tactics don't support your argument. Yes. It was an example. I got it. It was a mistake. Stick to your topic, which shouldn't be ALL conspiracies. It should be the specifics of what bothers you about 9/11 Have I tried to moderate this thread? I thought I was posting as an interested member. When I said I wanted to "step in", it was to post my hopeful resolution to the extremist crisis I saw developing.

And, of course, I was referring to Murder One. I don't follow you here. I was trying to say that a bit more time spent as children learning to value life might make for fewer people who see murder as a means to an end. And perhaps not in Mr. Underwood's case. Some people may be completely incorrigible. For them, life with no hope of parole seems actually more fitting and may help deter others. I don't need to see them dead to give me a sense of justice and killing them just shows others that killing solves your problems. I agree with all the above except the punishment. I don't consider executing a prisoner a "kill or be killed" situation.

Under the current system, in a state with the death penalty it may be apples and oranges. I don't think capital punishment sends the message we want it to send, the message we think it should send. Law abiding citizens think it's justice to kill a killer. The killers obviously couldn't care less. He's a murderer. Calling him a monster just makes it more justifiable to kill him. Do you assign some kind of point system in your mind for murderers and say, "Murderer A just pointed a gun and took a life. Murderer B raped and tortured before he killed so he's a monster and deserves to be killed more"? I think if all life were considered more precious we wouldn't have as many murderers. Under the current legal and societal system he is personally responsible. I simply don't think the DP works the way we think it should, and it sends a message about the value of a human life that isn't consistent with what I believe. Yeah, I think you have some interesting images in mind about psychological screening. It doesn't have to be "thought police". Perhaps catching a tendency towards certain behavior could lead to some special classes or training. I think a nudge earlier is better than a shove later. I'm more of an early prevention as opposed to deterrant kind of person. Tough to see how prison is a deterrant for anyone except honest people. I think the lesson that everyone needs to learn is that a human life is worth more than everyone thinks it is.

The death penalty is just plain wrong. What this human being did to another human being is absolutely terrible, and we would just be compounding what he did by killing him. You can call him a monster to make yourself feel better about killing him but ultimately it's still shifting responsibility for whatever our society did or did not do to create someone so sick. Perhaps we need psychological screening to catch this type of person earlier. It will be costly in the beginning but what if it eventually made a good portion of the penal system unnecessary? The DP is not a deterrant. It just teaches us that it's OK to solve your problems by killing someone.