Edit:  forgot link:  http://washingtonvotes.org/2006-SB-6613

No I don't really believe this is a conservative problem, rather, this is another sign of our acceptance of fascism.  In Washington State, they introduced a bill that would make it a Class C felony to knowingly transmit or receive wagers or other gambling information on the internet.  Now here's the part that should scare you in how people think:  "Although the head of the state Gambling Commission says it is unlikely that individual online gamblers will be targeted for arrest, the new law carries stiff penalties: as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.'"  (Slashdot.org)

I'm not arguing whether this should be law, what disturbs me is how they create a law they tell people they do not intend to use.  If they don't intend to use it on individuals, they should not make a law prohibiting individuals from participating in said behavior.  So this suggests they intend to use it, and are lying to you so that you will be ok with passing the law.

I say fascism because the government is attempting to dictate how you can spend your time and money, in fact even how you can gamble.  Reading the text of the bill it seems the even buying a lottery ticket would be a Class C felony, because that is an electronic gambling device that accepts a wager transaction.  Of course I expect the Washington State lottery will be exempt, thus more fascism -- you can gamble, but you can only give us the money.

Like many things, this disturbs me on deep levels.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

http://www1.leg.wa.gov/senate/prentice/
[quote]Introduced by Sen. Margarita Prentice on January 17, 2006[/quote]
Democrat!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!


The title of this thread now makes me giggle.  Laughing too hard to read the article right now, maybe I'll look later

ANYWAY, this would only be neo-conism, not traditional.


EDIT:
I've stopped laughing & read more...its sad, passed senate 44-0 :(
Gambling can be bad/addicting, but COME ON!  (this is a liberal idea, the state trying to protect you from yourself)........how ridiculous

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153541#msg153541 date=1149123218]I've stopped laughing & read more...its sad, passed senate 44-0 :(
Gambling can be bad/addicting, but COME ON!  (this is a liberal idea, the state trying to protect you from yourself)........how ridiculous
[/quote]

Wrong.  It's the state trying to say "we will make it illegal for you to gamble except by spending money in our state".  Washington has all sorts of gambling, and gets a cut of it all.  They don't get a cut of internet gambling, and you can bet that's why this was created.  They don't care whether you're addicted to gambling or that gambling is bad, or they'd ban all their own forms of gambling.  By the way, all the state-run gambling takes a much bigger portion of the wager off the top than the internet-run sites.  The lottery takes 50% off the top, for example.

Follow the buck, that's what it is about.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=15102.msg153544#msg153544 date=1149124142]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153541#msg153541 date=1149123218]I've stopped laughing & read more...its sad, passed senate 44-0 :(
Gambling can be bad/addicting, but COME ON!  (this is a liberal idea, the state trying to protect you from yourself)........how ridiculous
[/quote]

Wrong.  It's the state trying to say "we will make it illegal for you to gamble except by spending money in our state".  Washington has all sorts of gambling, and gets a cut of it all.  They don't get a cut of internet gambling, and you can bet that's why this was created.  They don't care whether you're addicted to gambling or that gambling is bad, or they'd ban all their own forms of gambling.  By the way, all the state-run gambling takes a much bigger portion of the wager off the top than the internet-run sites.  The lottery takes 50% off the top, for example.

Follow the buck, that's what it is about.
[/quote]
I think there is a bit of truth about both I think...yeah, mostly the cash I agree.

Clearly, Crazed doesn't understand liberalism. "The state trying to protect you from yourself", eg, the "nanny state", is the antithesis of the liberal ideal!

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153541#msg153541 date=1149123218]
Gambling can be bad/addicting, but COME ON!  (this is a liberal idea, the state trying to protect you from yourself)........how ridiculous
[/quote]

Someone doesn't understand the definition of liberal apparently, let me enlighten you:
[quote]
# Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
# Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
[/quote]
From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal

This means that us democrats, liberals, whatever you want to call us, are open to new ideas, changes, reforms in the government system, letting the people do whatever is in their benefit with the help from the government system. Equal opportunity and rights for everyone under the law of the land. Conservatives amaze me it's kind of like this:

Question: "Are you pro-choice or pro-life?"
Conservative: "Pro-life."
Question: "Do you support the death penalty?"
Conservative: "Yes."

Hypocrisy? I think so.

Hmm, I think it's more hypocritical to be completely for legislating against abortion (despite the conspicuous public indecision on the matter), yet maintain that legislation should be made with the intention of reducing government intervention.

Although I think it's interesting that Invert tried to demonize liberals by claiming that allowing people (with questionable stances on sex laws) to voice their opinions was a liberal notion, yet in this thread people are trying to claim that restricting freedom is a liberal idea.  Perhaps if we thought of the word "liberal" to have the meaning it is given in the dictionary, and not as a pejorative, there wouldn't be such inconsistencies in the hard-lined right winged arguments where anything undesirable is the result of "liberal" thinking.  Notice that those on the left generally don't use the word "conservative" as an insult -- it would be just as meaningless as using "liberal" as an insult; fight your conditioning, and attack ideas, not political alignment.

America was born through liberal thinking.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153563#msg153563 date=1149141403]
Hmm, I think it's more hypocritical to be completely for legislating against abortion (despite the conspicuous public indecision on the matter), yet maintain that legislation should be made with the intention of reducing government intervention.
[/quote]
*But*, what did we design government to do?

Protect the rights of those who cannot protect themselves.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153557#msg153557 date=1149135910]
Clearly, Crazed doesn't understand liberalism. "The state trying to protect you from yourself", eg, the "nanny state", is the antithesis of the liberal ideal!
[/quote]Classical liberalism, yes, not what liberalism today is.

Classical liberalism became conservativism, I don't know where today's liberalism & neo-conservativism have come from.
Classical liberalism/conservativism is the small government ideology, current liberalism is for the government trying to give people more chances & help in life.


[quote author=Shadow]Question: "Are you pro-choice or pro-life?"
Conservative: "Pro-life."
Question: "Do you support the death penalty?"
Conservative: "Yes."[/quote]
Why doesn't that make sense?  The thing about pro-life is that everyone should have a chance to live & experience life.  Abortion judges the child before the child has a chance to make anything of themself....execution punishes the man who did something wrong.

The REAL hypocrisy is in the liberal idea of abortion/execution.  Liberals kill a baby because they dont want it or it is deformed, they dont give it a chance........with anti-execution they just give the person a free ride until they die (or get released since our prison system is jacked).
SO, liberals kill the innocent & support the corrupt while conservatives protect the innocent & punish the corrupt....HMMM
(NOTE: I support abortion)

Maybe conservative isnt an insult because traditional conservativism (not neo-conism)/classical liberalism makes sense while modern day liberalism is just a giant welfare cess pool?

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153570#msg153570 date=1149146991]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153563#msg153563 date=1149141403]
Hmm, I think it's more hypocritical to be completely for legislating against abortion (despite the conspicuous public indecision on the matter), yet maintain that legislation should be made with the intention of reducing government intervention.
[/quote]
*But*, what did we design government to do?

Protect the rights of those who cannot protect themselves.
[/quote]

I'm not sure if the intention was that specific. I'm sure one of the obvious motivations for government is to protect the rights of citizens.  Should the right for a citizen to choose on such a matter be taken away?  What rights should a fertilized egg have?  All "pro-life" arguments boil down to one of two points: "it's wrong," or "it's wrong  to take away human life".  Of course, the former can't be exemplified because we then have to consider whether this point would apply to other intelligent animals, in which case most "pro-lifers" would be hypocritical.  Likewise, the latter argument is not one based on logic but on subjective, and I think arbitrarily applied morality: at what point do we consider something human life?  Or more practically, at what point does human life become important?  To legislate based on a moral argument that society is undecided upon, would be to support government intervention in a case when it is not established that it is either warranted or that citizens want the government to take away their rights on this matter.  This seems against the so-called conservative ideals, and therefore a "pro-life" conservative is acting hypocritically.

To be honest, I think those who abort for some reasons are disgustingly self-centred.  However, whether or not we should legislate on that judgement is something I have to think about more carefully and not base on a gut reaction.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153575#msg153575 date=1149149155]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153557#msg153557 date=1149135910]
Clearly, Crazed doesn't understand liberalism. "The state trying to protect you from yourself", eg, the "nanny state", is the antithesis of the liberal ideal!
[/quote]Classical liberalism, yes, not what liberalism today is.

Classical liberalism became conservativism, I don't know where today's liberalism & neo-conservativism have come from.
Classical liberalism/conservativism is the small government ideology, current liberalism is for the government trying to give people more chances & help in life.


[quote author=Shadow]Question: "Are you pro-choice or pro-life?"
Conservative: "Pro-life."
Question: "Do you support the death penalty?"
Conservative: "Yes."[/quote]
Why doesn't that make sense?  The thing about pro-life is that everyone should have a chance to live & experience life.  Abortion judges the child before the child has a chance to make anything of themself....execution punishes the man who did something wrong.

The REAL hypocrisy is in the liberal idea of abortion/execution.  Liberals kill a baby because they dont want it or it is deformed, they dont give it a chance........with anti-execution they just give the person a free ride until they die (or get released since our prison system is jacked).
SO, liberals kill the innocent & support the corrupt while conservatives protect the innocent & punish the corrupt....HMMM
(NOTE: I support abortion)

Maybe conservative isnt an insult because traditional conservativism (not neo-conism)/classical liberalism makes sense while modern day liberalism is just a giant welfare cess pool?
[/quote]

See what most conservatives don't understand (and you see this a lot in pro-life rallyies) is that pro-choice does NOT mean pro-death. Pro-choice means letting the woman choose whether she is to carry out with the development of her child. If the woman, the family, whatever does not have the financial support to do this, is too young, whatever the case may be, abortion at least ensures that the child will not lead a miserable life and is likely to turn to drugs, thievery, commiting crimes.

Oh and liberals kill the innocent? Wait a minute, isn't there a thing called War in Iraq which takes innocent civilian lives every single day and the liberals strongly oppose it?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153575#msg153575 date=1149149155]
Classical liberalism, yes, not what liberalism today is.

Classical liberalism became conservativism, I don't know where today's liberalism & neo-conservativism have come from.
Classical liberalism/conservativism is the small government ideology, current liberalism is for the government trying to give people more chances & help in life.
[/quote]

Rubbish. You have been deceived by spin.

mmm, what is liberalism then Arta?






I don't believe in pro-choice, I think pro-choice is TOTAL bullshit...EVERY choice should be about the child & benefit the child most unless the woman is in a life or death situation.  Pro-choice, the choice to stop a life?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153584#msg153584 date=1149175106]
I don't believe in pro-choice, I think pro-choice is TOTAL bullshit...EVERY choice should be about the child & benefit the child most unless the woman is in a life or death situation.  Pro-choice, the choice to stop a life?
[/quote]

Pro-choice; the right to do the right thing. Pro-choice; the right to do what benefits the child the most. Pro-choice!

*rolls eyes*, the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are just platitudes used to influence someone's opinion.  Just let it be "for the right to choose abortion," or better yet "for the right to choose abortion in certain cases," and "against abortion."

And Crazed, I'm sorry to break it to you, but a fertilized egg isn't exactly a child.  It's almost as close to being a born child as a sperm is: neither will become a developed baby through some mostly self-sustaining process.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153582#msg153582 date=1149170422]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153575#msg153575 date=1149149155]
Classical liberalism, yes, not what liberalism today is.

Classical liberalism became conservativism, I don't know where today's liberalism & neo-conservativism have come from.
Classical liberalism/conservativism is the small government ideology, current liberalism is for the government trying to give people more chances & help in life.
[/quote]

Rubbish. You have been deceived by spin.
[/quote]
Unless it was my spin, I don't think he's been deceived.  He hit it fairly close to the mark.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153588#msg153588 date=1149177332]
And Crazed, I'm sorry to break it to you, but a fertilized egg isn't exactly a child.  It's almost as close to being a born child as a sperm is: neither will become a developed baby through some mostly self-sustaining process.
[/quote]
Let me put it this way:

If a woman does nothing (for example, she doesn't realize she's pregnant), and continues living her life as is normal, a child will develop and be born.

That will never happen with just a sperm.

So the two are incredibly distinct.  Your statement that "a fertilized egg isn't exactly a child" is really the matter of opinion that divides the two schools of thought.

[quote]
Question: "Are you pro-choice or pro-life?"
Conservative: "Pro-life."
Question: "Do you support the death penalty?"
Conservative: "Yes."

Hypocrisy? I think so.
[/quote]

This just shows how backwards liberals are. Even though I am for woman's right to choose up to a certain point but here goes...

Conservatives:
Save the baby.
Kill the criminal.

Liberals:
Kill the baby.
Save the criminal.

In my opinion most of you have no idea what you are talking about and are blindfolded.

Liberalism is ruining my country. My country is no longer a republic but a neo-socialist state. Just like Rome it will crumble from within because of the inability to support its own weight. Corrupt and money hungry politicians are ready to sell this country out for a dollar and some already have done so. The feminization of men and the umbilical cord children that still live at home with mommy and daddy at age 30. The corruption of our education system and the lack of standards for teachers that do not provide quality education for the future generation. Americans grow dumber and dumber every day. Liberalism is like a Prozac to all these problems, it will all be gone when we realize what we gave done to ourselves.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153588#msg153588 date=1149177332]
*rolls eyes*, the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are just platitudes used to influence someone's opinion.  Just let it be "for the right to choose abortion," or better yet "for the right to choose abortion in certain cases," and "against abortion."

And Crazed, I'm sorry to break it to you, but a fertilized egg isn't exactly a child.  It's almost as close to being a born child as a sperm is: neither will become a developed baby through some mostly self-sustaining process.

[/quote]uhm, then, since neither one is closer to being born than the other...how is it that alone that sperm will NEVER become a life & that the egg/sperm combo will most likely be born?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153592#msg153592 date=1149178875]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153588#msg153588 date=1149177332]
*rolls eyes*, the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are just platitudes used to influence someone's opinion.  Just let it be "for the right to choose abortion," or better yet "for the right to choose abortion in certain cases," and "against abortion."

And Crazed, I'm sorry to break it to you, but a fertilized egg isn't exactly a child.  It's almost as close to being a born child as a sperm is: neither will become a developed baby through some mostly self-sustaining process.

[/quote]uhm, then, since neither one is closer to being born than the other...how is it that alone that sperm will NEVER become a life & that the egg/sperm combo will most likely be born?
[/quote]
Uh... sometimes I really don't know why I bother with you.  I said that an egg/sperm combo will take a lot of intervention to be born, as will a sperm.

Further, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to consider the rights of something that "is born," rather than a chemical process that may lead to something that is possibly to be born?

Myndfyre: sex could be considered as much a part of ordinary life as eating.  kthanks. :P

Myndfyre already corrected you in saying that the growth of the egg was natural, an intervention would interrupt the birth/growth of the egg.
[quote]
If a woman does nothing (for example, she doesn't realize she's pregnant), and continues living her life as is normal, a child will develop and be born.[/quote]



As I see it the woman has no right to choose whether or not to stop the birth of a child into this world.  Why should she be allowed to stop a life (unless there is some major other circumstance)?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153597#msg153597 date=1149181350]
Myndfyre already corrected you in saying that the growth of the egg was natural, an intervention would interrupt the birth/growth of the egg.
[quote]
If a woman does nothing (for example, she doesn't realize she's pregnant), and continues living her life as is normal, a child will develop and be born.[/quote]
[/quote]
For crying out loud... I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.  I'm not going to bother after this, you're not worth it.

As I pointed out in my last post, is sex unnatural?  Ugh, just read the last post again.  Also, there are a lot of things the mother can do that will abort the fetus without intending to.  I think living life "as is normal," is a pretty big stretch.  Pregnant women are precluded from all sorts of "normal" activities. 

Hey, killing that algae over there could be interfering with a natural process that will lead to a more evolved species than ourselves.  Since when is interfering with nature "wrong"?  Is getting your tubes tied "wrong"?
Aside from that, I've pointed out repeatedly, we shouldn't be legislating on what a group of people think is "wrong", unless they are a distinct majority.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153599#msg153599 date=1149181735]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153597#msg153597 date=1149181350]
Myndfyre already corrected you in saying that the growth of the egg was natural, an intervention would interrupt the birth/growth of the egg.
[quote]
If a woman does nothing (for example, she doesn't realize she's pregnant), and continues living her life as is normal, a child will develop and be born.[/quote]
[/quote]
Aside from that, I've pointed out repeatedly, we shouldn't be legislating on what a group of people think is "wrong", unless they are a distinct majority.
[/quote]
http://www.gargaro.com/plmajority.html.  I think that the majority of people are pro-life.
[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153588#msg153588 date=1149177332]
And Crazed, I'm sorry to break it to you, but a fertilized egg isn't exactly a child.  It's almost as close to being a born child as a sperm is: neither will become a developed baby through some mostly self-sustaining process.
[/quote]
You're close to correct in saying that a fertilized egg isn't exactly a child (if by child you mean a born human being), but it is considered to be living and has far more potential of becoming a child compared to a sperm.  This website; http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm, helps explain the stages of development of a fertilized egg that you should probably read, Rule.

Your statement, "It's almost as close to being a born child as a sperm is" is completely wrong.  It is far more developed and advanced and far closer to becoming a child than a sperm.  As I stated above, read the information provided by that website.  It might clear up a few things.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153599#msg153599 date=1149181735]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153597#msg153597 date=1149181350]
Myndfyre already corrected you in saying that the growth of the egg was natural, an intervention would interrupt the birth/growth of the egg.
[quote]
If a woman does nothing (for example, she doesn't realize she's pregnant), and continues living her life as is normal, a child will develop and be born.[/quote]
[/quote]
For crying out loud... I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.  I'm not going to bother after this, you're not worth it.

As I pointed out in my last post, is sex unnatural?  Ugh, just read the last post again.  Also, there are a lot of things the mother can do that will abort the fetus without intending to.  I think living life "as is normal," is a pretty big stretch.  Pregnant women are precluded from all sorts of "normal" activities. 

Hey, killing that algae over there could be interfering with a natural process that will lead to a more evolved species than ourselves.  Since when is interfering with nature "wrong"?  Is getting your tubes tied "wrong"?
Aside from that, I've pointed out repeatedly, we shouldn't be legislating on what a group of people think is "wrong", unless they are a distinct majority.
[/quote]
Yes the woman can do things that would have a miscarriage, but she hurts herself when she does that. 

Evolution isnt birth, eveolution takes millions of year to go from algae to human (if even possible), the baby is more likely than not.

I support abortion, but not because its the woman's right to choose (it isnt), and I dont believe in abortion because I think the kid should have a chance...but this world is full of stupid people that make it crap & dont take care of themselves & such...I dont want a kid have to experience feeling unwanted & such.


& thank you AntiVirus for bringing in more common sense.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=15102.msg153590#msg153590 date=1149178745]
[quote]
Question: "Are you pro-choice or pro-life?"
Conservative: "Pro-life."
Question: "Do you support the death penalty?"
Conservative: "Yes."

Hypocrisy? I think so.
[/quote]

This just shows how backwards liberals are. Even though I am for woman's right to choose up to a certain point but here goes...

Conservatives:
Save the baby.
Kill the criminal.

Liberals:
Kill the baby.
Save the criminal.
[/quote]

Again as every other ignorant conservative you are misunderstanding what pro-choice means. Scroll up:
[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153581#msg153581 date=1149169993]
See what most conservatives don't understand (and you see this a lot in pro-life rallyies) is that pro-choice does NOT mean pro-death. Pro-choice means letting the woman choose whether she is to carry out with the development of her child. If the woman, the family, whatever does not have the financial support to do this, is too young, whatever the case may be, abortion at least ensures that the child will not lead a miserable life and is likely to turn to drugs, thievery, commiting crimes.

Oh and liberals kill the innocent? Wait a minute, isn't there a thing called War in Iraq which takes innocent civilian lives every single day and the liberals strongly oppose it?
[/quote]

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153581#msg153581 date=1149169993]
See what most conservatives don't understand (and you see this a lot in pro-life rallyies) is that pro-choice does NOT mean pro-death. Pro-choice means letting the woman choose whether she is to carry out with the development of her child. If the woman, the family, whatever does not have the financial support to do this, is too young, whatever the case may be, abortion at least ensures that the child will not lead a miserable life and is likely to turn to drugs, thievery, commiting crimes.
[/quote]
Well, why don't we just abort *every* child to be absolutely sure that there are no children who will lead miserable lives, who will drugs, thievery, or other crime?  Because everyone has the capacity for it.

Pro-choice means that you're in support of someone who may choose to kill a baby.  Yes, you're not actually killing the baby.  But you're making it legal.

[quote author=Mal Reynolds]
They'll come back to the belief that they can make people.....  better.  And I do not hold to that.
[/quote]

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153605#msg153605 I'date=1149190181]
[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153581#msg153581 date=1149169993]
See what most conservatives don't understand (and you see this a lot in pro-life rallyies) is that pro-choice does NOT mean pro-death. Pro-choice means letting the woman choose whether she is to carry out with the development of her child. If the woman, the family, whatever does not have the financial support to do this, is too young, whatever the case may be, abortion at least ensures that the child will not lead a miserable life and is likely to turn to drugs, thievery, commiting crimes.
[/quote]
Well, why don't we just abort *every* child to be absolutely sure that there are no children who will lead miserable lives, who will drugs, thievery, or other crime?  Because everyone has the capacity for it.

Pro-choice means that you're in support of someone who may choose to kill a baby.  Yes, you're not actually killing the baby.  But you're making it legal.

[quote author=Mal Reynolds]
They'll come back to the belief that they can make people.....  better.  And I do not hold to that.
[/quote]
[/quote]

No let's not abort every child. I'm talking about people in poverty, children being born to teenage mothers, children who probably would not do well because of no money, that's at least how U.S. works, money will get you places. Sure everyone has the capacity to commit crimes but there are people who choose to not commit crimes, myself included.  And yeah, I'd rather make it legal to kill a child then make it illegal and see it suffer his/her whole life.

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153603#msg153603 date=1149189667]
[quote author=Invert link=topic=15102.msg153590#msg153590 date=1149178745]
[quote]
Question: "Are you pro-choice or pro-life?"
Conservative: "Pro-life."
Question: "Do you support the death penalty?"
Conservative: "Yes."

Hypocrisy? I think so.
[/quote]

This just shows how backwards liberals are. Even though I am for woman's right to choose up to a certain point but here goes...

Conservatives:
Save the baby.
Kill the criminal.

Liberals:
Kill the baby.
Save the criminal.
[/quote]

Again as every other ignorant conservative you are misunderstanding what pro-choice means. Scroll up:
[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153581#msg153581 date=1149169993]
See what most conservatives don't understand (and you see this a lot in pro-life rallyies) is that pro-choice does NOT mean pro-death. Pro-choice means letting the woman choose whether she is to carry out with the development of her child. If the woman, the family, whatever does not have the financial support to do this, is too young, whatever the case may be, abortion at least ensures that the child will not lead a miserable life and is likely to turn to drugs, thievery, commiting crimes.

Oh and liberals kill the innocent? Wait a minute, isn't there a thing called War in Iraq which takes innocent civilian lives every single day and the liberals strongly oppose it?
[/quote]
[/quote]

You are the one that is ignorant just like the rest of the morons that look at the label "pro-choice" and think it's anything other than an option to kill the fetus.

The only thing that "pro-choice" (or a more correct label for it would be "pro-death") introduces to the equation is the option of the annihilation of the fetus, it has nothing to do with the option for life since that is pre-existent without what you call "pro-choice".

This is just more proof how stupid liberals are and how they twist and spin things.

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153609#msg153609 date=1149190927]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153605#msg153605 I'date=1149190181]
[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153581#msg153581 date=1149169993]
See what most conservatives don't understand (and you see this a lot in pro-life rallyies) is that pro-choice does NOT mean pro-death. Pro-choice means letting the woman choose whether she is to carry out with the development of her child. If the woman, the family, whatever does not have the financial support to do this, is too young, whatever the case may be, abortion at least ensures that the child will not lead a miserable life and is likely to turn to drugs, thievery, commiting crimes.
[/quote]
Well, why don't we just abort *every* child to be absolutely sure that there are no children who will lead miserable lives, who will drugs, thievery, or other crime?  Because everyone has the capacity for it.

Pro-choice means that you're in support of someone who may choose to kill a baby.  Yes, you're not actually killing the baby.  But you're making it legal.

[quote author=Mal Reynolds]
They'll come back to the belief that they can make people.....  better.  And I do not hold to that.
[/quote]
[/quote]

No let's not abort every child. I'm talking about people in poverty, children being born to teenage mothers, children who probably would not do well because of no money, that's at least how U.S. works, money will get you places. Sure everyone has the capacity to commit crimes but there are people who choose to not commit crimes, myself included.  And yeah, I'd rather make it legal to kill a child then make it illegal and see it suffer his/her whole life.
[/quote]

Umm guys, why are we starting to refer to a fertilized egg as a child? Also, AntiTrust, your biased site suggests that about 51-60% of people approve of having the right to abort taken away.  That's not an overwhelming majority.  Further, your other site that is supposed to "educate me" (note, I have an advanced undergraduate background (2-3 years) in evolutionary biology, genetics, and biophysics), couldn't possibly be more biased.  It's almost funny.

Also, please, when you use the word "kill" use it when you are referring to life.  Can you explain why human life is more valuable than animal life. If it's a "moral sense" you have (seems ridiculous to me), then you must be in favour of legislation to take away people's rights when a questionable number of people feel that an action is immoral. 

Basically most of those who are "pro-life" want to legislate their instinctual, illogical, primitive, moral objections.  There isn't much reasoning behind the position, only the idea that "it's wrong" (and it's pretty arbitrary where people have decided to draw the line at "what is wrong").  If we're going to make laws that take away rights based on subjective (and arbitrary) moral opinions, I should hope that an overwhelming majority of people agree to it.


P.S. I think it's revealing that a thread with the word "conservatives" in it (as a joke) has turned into a liberal vs conservative thread which then turned into a fight over abortion.

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153609#msg153609 date=1149190927]
No let's not abort every child. I'm talking about people in poverty, children being born to teenage mothers, children who probably would not do well because of no money, that's at least how U.S. works, money will get you places. Sure everyone has the capacity to commit crimes but there are people who choose to not commit crimes, myself included.  And yeah, I'd rather make it legal to kill a child then make it illegal and see it suffer his/her whole life.
[/quote]
Who is anyone to decide whether someone else lives or dies?

At least with the death penalty, the person dying knows that (s)he's done something so grievous, that it has the potential for him to be put to death, and did it anyway.

An unborn child has made no such choice.

That's not always the case.  There have been several people found innocent after being put to death, or after sitting on death row for a while.

It's also cruel and unusual punishment to tell someone they are going to be killed, and then tell them they get to dread the day for 15 years while they sit on death row.  It's stupid.

And as you said, "Who is anyone to decide whether someone else lives or dies?"  Most conservatives seem to think they are someone who decides who lives and dies.  If you think that, how can you support the death penalty?  THAT is hypocrisy.

Shadow already posted a good definition:

[quote]
# Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
# Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
[/quote]

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153609#msg153609 date=1149190927]


No let's not abort every child. I'm talking about people in poverty, children being born to teenage mothers, children who probably would not do well because of no money
[/quote]OOOH!  Lets kill all of the black babies!  Statistically speaking, aren't black people more likely to commit crimes?


[quote author=rabbit link=topic=15102.msg153618#msg153618 date=1149195834]
That's not always the case.  There have been several people found innocent after being put to death
[/quote]not once has that happened in US history...look, you wont find it.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153623#msg153623 date=1149205103]
[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153609#msg153609 date=1149190927]


No let's not abort every child. I'm talking about people in poverty, children being born to teenage mothers, children who probably would not do well because of no money
[/quote]OOOH!  Lets kill all of the black babies!  Statistically speaking, aren't black people more likely to commit crimes?


[quote author=rabbit link=topic=15102.msg153618#msg153618 date=1149195834]
That's not always the case.  There have been several people found innocent after being put to death
[/quote]not once has that happened in US history...look, you wont find it.
[/quote]

So you are racist too? Yes a lot of black people are much poorer than white people due to racist America and slavery till 1800s, however, that is not always the case.

As far as the people sentenced to death, perhaps there have been no people found but there is a lot of conspiracy and speculation over death cases. For example the Sacco-Vanzetti case (http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/sacvan.html)

No, I'm making sense out of what you said.  You said we should kill poor babies & stuff....I say we sohould kill black babies because most criminals are black.


There has been a big execution reform since then, what 1972?...anyways, thats what I meant

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153623#msg153623 date=1149205103]
Not once has that happened in US history...look, you wont find it.
[/quote]

It's impossible for you to know that for sure.

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153624#msg153624 date=1149205526]
So you are racist too? Yes a lot of black people are much poorer than white people due to racist America and slavery till 1800s, however, that is not always the case.

As far as the people sentenced to death, perhaps there have been no people found but there is a lot of conspiracy and speculation over death cases. For example the Sacco-Vanzetti case (http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/sacvan.html)
[/quote]
It's not a matter of racism.  It's a matter of statistics.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153635#msg153635 date=1149213226]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153623#msg153623 date=1149205103]
Not once has that happened in US history...look, you wont find it.
[/quote]

It's impossible for you to know that for sure.
[/quote]No it isn't.  rabbit just said that people have been found innocent after being put to death...and under our current execution laws there has not been anyone found innocent after being put to death.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153655#msg153655 date=1149231483]
[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153624#msg153624 date=1149205526]
So you are racist too? Yes a lot of black people are much poorer than white people due to racist America and slavery till 1800s, however, that is not always the case.

As far as the people sentenced to death, perhaps there have been no people found but there is a lot of conspiracy and speculation over death cases. For example the Sacco-Vanzetti case (http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/sacvan.html)
[/quote]
It's not a matter of racism.  It's a matter of statistics.
[/quote]

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153623#msg153623 date=1149205103]
OOOH! Lets kill all of the black babies! Statistically speaking, aren't black people more likely to commit crimes?
[/quote]

All blacks are not incapable to financially support themselves.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153656#msg153656 date=1149235281]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153635#msg153635 date=1149213226]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153623#msg153623 date=1149205103]
Not once has that happened in US history...look, you wont find it.
[/quote]

It's impossible for you to know that for sure.
[/quote]No it isn't.  rabbit just said that people have been found innocent after being put to death...and under our current execution laws there has not been anyone found innocent after being put to death.
[/quote]

Crazed is correct here.  There was recently a case in Virginia where a man was widely believed to have been innocent of a rape and murder of a young girl.  After his execution there were calls to have the DNA reexamined and as it turns out, it supported that he was the killer.  Death penalty opponents were quite sure this would be the first case of a man proven innocent after his execution.  It didn't go so well for them.

Point being, it's known and undisputed that nobody has been executed and then proven to be innocent, yet.

I think what Arta was mentioning was that it's impossible for us to know for sure whether they were all guilty (those sentenced to death) or not; not whether it was investigated and proven.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=15102.msg153671#msg153671 date=1149256168]
I think what Arta was mentioning was that it's impossible for us to know for sure whether they were all guilty (those sentenced to death) or not; not whether it was investigated and proven.
[/quote]
Which is completely irrelevant because we shouldn't change our laws based on speculation but on fact.

[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153661#msg153661 date=1149251705]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153655#msg153655 date=1149231483]
[quote author=l2k-Shadow link=topic=15102.msg153624#msg153624 date=1149205526]
So you are racist too? Yes a lot of black people are much poorer than white people due to racist America and slavery till 1800s, however, that is not always the case.

As far as the people sentenced to death, perhaps there have been no people found but there is a lot of conspiracy and speculation over death cases. For example the Sacco-Vanzetti case (http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/sacvan.html)
[/quote]
It's not a matter of racism.  It's a matter of statistics.
[/quote]

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153623#msg153623 date=1149205103]
OOOH! Lets kill all of the black babies! Statistically speaking, aren't black people more likely to commit crimes?
[/quote]

All blacks are not incapable to financially support themselves.
[/quote]
That's WAY besides the point.

Not all little kids are going to grow up poor & unwanted.  So either we can abort little babies cuz they're grow up in a bad world while also aborting black babies because they'll commit crimes or EVERYONE gets a chance to make something out of themselves.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153675#msg153675 date=1149259867]
[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=15102.msg153671#msg153671 date=1149256168]
I think what Arta was mentioning was that it's impossible for us to know for sure whether they were all guilty (those sentenced to death) or not; not whether it was investigated and proven.
[/quote]
Which is completely irrelevant because we shouldn't change our laws based on speculation but on fact.
[/quote]

::).  Isn't that somewhat counter to what you've been arguing in this thread the whole time?

[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153682#msg153682 date=1149266103]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153675#msg153675 date=1149259867]
[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=15102.msg153671#msg153671 date=1149256168]
I think what Arta was mentioning was that it's impossible for us to know for sure whether they were all guilty (those sentenced to death) or not; not whether it was investigated and proven.
[/quote]
Which is completely irrelevant because we shouldn't change our laws based on speculation but on fact.
[/quote]

::).  Isn't that somewhat counter to what you've been arguing in this thread the whole time?
[/quote]I believe MyndFyre is only going with the "kill black babies" thing to show Shadow that it doesnt make sense to do that.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153686#msg153686 date=1149266832]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153682#msg153682 date=1149266103]
[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153675#msg153675 date=1149259867]
[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=15102.msg153671#msg153671 date=1149256168]
I think what Arta was mentioning was that it's impossible for us to know for sure whether they were all guilty (those sentenced to death) or not; not whether it was investigated and proven.
[/quote]
Which is completely irrelevant because we shouldn't change our laws based on speculation but on fact.
[/quote]

::).  Isn't that somewhat counter to what you've been arguing in this thread the whole time?
[/quote]I believe MyndFyre is only going with the "kill black babies" thing to show Shadow that it doesnt make sense to do that.
[/quote]

I was talking about abortion; it's not a fact that aborting a fertilized egg is morally wrong.

It isnt fact either way, thats why we go with majority opinion

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153688#msg153688 date=1149267727]
It isnt fact either way, thats why we go with majority opinion
[/quote]


[quote author=Myndfyre]
Which is completely irrelevant because we shouldn't change our laws based on speculation but on fact.
[/quote]

[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153689#msg153689 date=1149267934]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153688#msg153688 date=1149267727]
It isnt fact either way, thats why we go with majority opinion
[/quote]


[quote author=Myndfyre]
Which is completely irrelevant because we shouldn't change our laws based on speculation but on fact.
[/quote]

[/quote]
But what do you go off of if there is no concrete fact?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153623#msg153623 date=1149205103]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=15102.msg153618#msg153618 date=1149195834]
That's not always the case.  There have been several people found innocent after being put to death
[/quote]not once has that happened in US history...look, you wont find it.
[/quote]Salem Witch Trials.

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=15102.msg153711#msg153711 date=1149285389]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153623#msg153623 date=1149205103]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=15102.msg153618#msg153618 date=1149195834]
That's not always the case.  There have been several people found innocent after being put to death
[/quote]not once has that happened in US history...look, you wont find it.
[/quote]Salem Witch Trials.
[/quote]
I corrected myself in my nexty post about that
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153627#msg153627 date=1149206376]
There has been a big execution reform since then, what 1972?...anyways, thats what I meant

[/quote]

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=15102.msg153711#msg153711 date=1149285389]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153623#msg153623 date=1149205103]
[quote author=rabbit link=topic=15102.msg153618#msg153618 date=1149195834]
That's not always the case.  There have been several people found innocent after being put to death
[/quote]not once has that happened in US history...look, you wont find it.
[/quote]Salem Witch Trials.
[/quote]

The Salem witch trials occured between 1692 and 1693, 84 years before the United States existed.

The colonization of the North American continent, specifically the 13 founding colonies, is a pretty big portion of US History.  You may want to pick up a textbook sometime.

Though it's not trial-by-jury, lynch mobs sentenced a lot of people to the death penalty throughout US history.

[quote author=rabbit link=topic=15102.msg153753#msg153753 date=1149358398]
Though it's not trial-by-jury, lynch mobs sentenced a lot of people to the death penalty throughout US history.
[/quote]

I don't understand -- our current system IS trial-by-jury, not mad witch hunts, so why are the Salem Witch Trials relevant at all?

Because they want to go way way out on a limb and stretch facts so that it's part of United States history; even though it wasn't, so they can say people were proven to be innocent after receiving the death penalty.

So I get to ask in an equally far stretch, how many of those were proven to be innocent after their executions?

We're talking about since the death penalty was resumed in what, 1970?  Since that time no person in the United States has been executed and later proven to be innocent.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=15102.msg153770#msg153770 date=1149376776]
Because they want to go way way out on a limb and stretch facts so that it's part of United States history; even though it wasn't, so they can say people were proven to be innocent after receiving the death penalty.

So I get to ask in an equally far stretch, how many of those were proven to be innocent after their executions?

We're talking about since the death penalty was resumed in what, 1970?  Since that time no person in the United States has been executed and later proven to be innocent.
[/quote]word.

......in real US history, I think black people lynches are as close to witch trials...but I think we just hung them for any crime...or just hung them 'cause they didnt obey

Fine.

[quote]Since 1973, 123 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.
The most recent exoneration is of John Ballard, No. 123, of Florida, on February 23, 2006. [/quote]
Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6

[quote]Death Penalty:
The death penalty is the greatest denial of civil liberties. Innocent people are being sentenced to death. In the past 30 years, 122 inmates were found to be innocent and released from death row. The ACLU is working toward a moratorium on the death penalty. Learn more about the issue and how you can get involved.[/quote]
Source: http://www.aclu.org/capital/index.html

[quote]RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: What we're talking about is you had 25 people on Illinois' death row, 13 of them, that is over half, 13 of them walked away from prison because they were innocent, and the other 12 were executed. You had a man on death row in Illinois come within two days of being executed who was later exonerated, meaning it wasn't that he was cleared on a technicality, it wasn't that didn't read him his Miranda rights, it's that he was innocent.[/quote]
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/11/smn.13.html

[quote]"I was in prison for a total of eight years, 11 months and 19 days for a crime I didn't commit," Kirk Bloodsworth told a Capitol Hill news conference this month. Bloodsworth was convicted for the 1984 rape and murder of a 9-year-old Maryland girl. Originally sentenced to death, he was serving a life sentence but was freed in 1993 after a laboratory tested a tiny spot of semen and found it was not his.

"In 1984, they had no DNA that could measure that type of thing," Bloodsworth recounted. "I simply had to wait till technology caught up with my case." [/quote]

Source: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/views/y/2000/02/bierbauer.scotusdeath.feb24/

Try a basic search and you'll find plenty about the people who have been put to death and proven innocent.

In which of your 4 quotations does it say that since the death penalty was reinstated that a person was executed and later proven to be innocent?

Good point.  It would seem I may be wrong, though I'll look into it more.  Although, my results do show that some people come closer to capitol punishment than they ever should.  Based on the numbers, about 14% of death row inmates since 1973 have been innocent, which isn't exactly definitive proof that our lawyers are completely adept at what they do.

Sorry, I should have been more precise.

I was indeed trying to express that it's impossible for anyone to know whether or not an innocent person has been executed in the US since 1976.

MF says that's irrelevant because we should base the law on facts and not speculation, and normally I would agree, but in this case I do not. It is precisely the absence of fact that makes the death penalty unsafe. I'm sure everyone here understands that courts do not require proof positive in order to convict, they require proof beyond reasonable doubt. That, in my opinion, is not a high enough standard of proof upon which to put someone to death. The death penalty leaves no space for the correction of errors. The justice system is not perfect, and as such, occasionally makes mistakes. Thus, irrespective of the facts to date, someone innocent will eventually be executed. It is merely a matter of time. That is not acceptable.

In addition, the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent, and does not confer greater safety upon the public than life imprisonment without parole.

In short, it is both ineffective and morally dubious. I have never encountered a cogent argument in favour of it.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153839#msg153839 date=1149516032]
Sorry, I should have been more precise.

I was indeed trying to express that it's impossible for anyone to know whether or not an innocent person has been executed in the US since 1976.

MF says that's irrelevant because we should base the law on facts and not speculation, and normally I would agree, but in this case I do not. It is precisely the absence of fact that makes the death penalty unsafe. I'm sure everyone here understands that courts do not require proof positive in order to convict, they require proof beyond reasonable doubt. That, in my opinion, is not a high enough standard of proof upon which to put someone to death. The death penalty leaves no space for the correction of errors. The justice system is not perfect, and as such, occasionally makes mistakes. Thus, irrespective of the facts to date, someone innocent will eventually be executed. It is merely a matter of time. That is not acceptable.

In addition, the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent, and does not confer greater safety upon the public than life imprisonment without parole.

In short, it is both ineffective and morally dubious. I have never encountered a cogent argument in favour of it.
[/quote]

QFT

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/php/article.php?scid=12&did=168

What are these non-death penalty states?  What if these states normally have a lower muder rate? 

Maybe the death penalty isnt being executed (hahaha!) correctly?  If the execution was public & brutal that might be a better deterrent.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153844#msg153844 date=1149519341]
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/php/article.php?scid=12&did=168

What are these non-death penalty states?  What if these states normally have a lower muder rate? 

Maybe the death penalty isnt being executed (hahaha!) correctly?  If the execution was public & brutal that might be a better deterrent.
[/quote]

I can see you bringing popcorn to public executions.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153839#msg153839 date=1149516032]
I have never encountered a cogent argument in favour of it.
[/quote]

While I tend to agree with your position on the death penalty, this particular statement took away from the credibility of your argument.  First, it suggests that since you have not "encountered a cogent argument...", one must conclude that no argument in favour of the death penality is intellectually appealing -- as though your experience is authoritative and exhaustive.  Of course this is a logical fallacy, and I have seen you express great frustration when an opponent uses this tactic  (e.g. Hazard/republicans never do anything wrong).  Further, it must be quite obvious to anyone who had put thought into this matter that there are logically appealing arguments in favour of the death penalty, not necessarily as a deterrent to crime but as an economical utility. 

After all, your argument rests on an opinion --

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153839#msg153839 date=1149516032]
That [proof beyond reasonable doubt], in my opinion, is not a high enough standard of proof upon which to put someone to death.
[/quote]

Is it not equally reasonable to assume that the space that would be saved in jail and the money that would be saved from not having to support convicted criminals is more important than the unreasonable doubt that whomever is being executed is not guilty of what they've been convicted for?

To make an effective argument in favour of the death penalty, we would have to go to more lengths to show that the money and space saved are considerable.  However, these are obvious practical benefits that could follow from a death penalty. Amongst intellectuals, one who chooses to favour a life sentence over the death penalty is similar to a boy who chooses to like lollipops over chocolate bars.  Both arguments have their logical appeal, but in the end one is favoured simply because of a personal taste. 

I am rather dissapointed that you were so dismissive of the other side.

A brutal punishment is, by definition, cruel. Or do you disagree with your own consitution?

I would agree with this deterrence argument if it was even vaguely sensible. Deterrence only works on rational people. If you instituted the death penalty for littering, I am pretty sure that would be a very effective deterrent indeed. That, however, would be completely disproportional.

I'm reasonably sure that murders either kill on impulse -- in which case, no deterrent will ever work -- or are cold and calculating, in which case they obviously feel they won't be caught, which renders moot any potential detterent effect.

As for the lower muder rates: I don't know. Perhaps they were. Perhaps you should dig up some data to see if you can show that the murder rate in those states was uninfluenced by abolition?

[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153848#msg153848 date=1149525049]
... this particular statement took away from the credibility of your argument. First, it suggests that since you have not "encountered a cogent argument...", one must conclude that no argument in favour of the death penality is intellectually appealing -- as though your experience is authoritative and exhaustive.
[/quote]

Not at all -- I didn't mean that. I think it's a leap to say that that statement dismissed any possibility of the existence of a cogent pro argument. I really did just mean that I haven't heard one yet. I'm open to the possibility :)


[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153848#msg153848 date=1149525049]
Is it not equally reasonable to assume that the space that would be saved in jail and the money that would be saved from not having to support convicted criminals is more important than the unreasonable doubt that whomever is being executed is not guilty of what they've been convicted for?
[/quote]

No. That argument would put a price on human life, which is equally as abhorrent as the death penalty. The value of life is incalculable; the standard of proof that should be required to end it is beyond the ability of the justice system to deliver. More opinion, I suppose, but c'eset la vie: these arguments often rest on opinion in the end.


[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153848#msg153848 date=1149525049]
To make an effective argument in favour of the death penalty, we would have to go to more lengths to show that the money and space saved are considerable. However, these are obvious practical benefits that could follow from a death penalty, and so I am rather dissapointed that you were so dismissive of the other side.
[/quote]

I'm not dismissive -- far from it. Feel free to present any argument you please; I'd enjoy hearing them.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153851#msg153851 date=1149526005]
No. That argument would put a price on human life, which is equally as abhorrent as the death penalty. The value of life is incalculable; the standard of proof that should be required to end it is beyond the ability of the justice system to deliver. More opinion, I suppose, but c'eset la vie: these arguments often rest on opinion in the end.
[/quote]

For the purposes of legislation, it is best then to consider whether your opinion on this matter coincides with the overall best interests of society.  For example, I can see the prospect that an innocent is among 1 in every 400 million executed (essentially an innocent will never have his life taken away unjustifiably) as less detrimental to society than the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars and necessary jail space to hold dangerous criminals.  Perhaps this is something we could agree on despite whether or not we feel that putting a price on human life is morally questionable.  Besides, sentencing one to a life in prison is very similar to executing him/her -- many would rather be executed, but are not given that option (or right).  It's puzzling that you could be completely in favour of one (under certain conditions), yet completely oppose the other (under the same conditions).

How economically damaging would it have been if the ~1000 or so criminals executed were sentenced to life in prison rather than executed?  I'm not mocking you, I'd just like to know for the sake of your economical argument.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=15102.msg153860#msg153860 date=1149539580]
How economically damaging would it have been if the ~1000 or so criminals executed were sentenced to life in prison rather than executed?  I'm not mocking you, I'd just like to know for the sake of your economical argument.
[/quote]

I'm not sure how many people have been executed, and I'm not sure how much money or space has been saved by their executions.  I'm saying that it's worth considering though: a logical argument could be made in favour of capital punishment on these grounds.  Or perhaps, one could change how capital punishment is presently implemented in order to make it an even more effective money and space saving tool?  ;D

Note:
[quote author=Rule]
To make an effective argument in favour of the death penalty, we would have to go to more lengths to show that the money and space saved are considerable.  However, these are obvious practical benefits that could follow from a death penalty. Amongst intellectuals, one who chooses to favour a life sentence over the death penalty is similar to a boy who chooses to like lollipops over chocolate bars.  Both arguments have their logical appeal, but in the end one is favoured simply because of a personal taste.
[/quote]

Popcorn, probably not, but maybe  :P

Maybe brutal is the wrong word, but punishment needs to be harsh & unpleasant.

I'm not sure if manslaughter(impulse killing) has a punishment of execution...
A harsh death for the cold blooded killer could deter, for example, his family from joinning gangs.  Death would also be 100% effective in stopping him from committing more crimes.


We cant put a price on the life of a criminal, but it is a woman's choice whether or not to allow her child to be born................................ :o
How does ANY of that make sense?

Manslaughter is accidental murder.  2nd degree murder is "impulse killing."

bum bum ba dum bee dum bum (I've been singing this little ditty in my head alot)

Manslaughter is made up of involuntary or voluntary.
Murder is mainly made up of 1st & 2nd degree.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153863#msg153863 date=1149542383]
We cant put a price on the life of a criminal, but it is a woman's choice whether or not to allow her child to be born................................ :o
How does ANY of that make sense?
[/quote]

Although I think it seems strange to put a price on the life of a "criminal," that's not what he was talking about.  He was talking about putting a price on innocent life, given that it's possible that an innocent could be executed under capital punishment.  The abortion argument is different; in the beginning stages of pregnancy, it is inaccurate to refer to the fertilized egg "as a child," as though it had already been born or significantly developed.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153853#msg153853 date=1149529998]
For example, I can see the prospect that an innocent is among 1 in every 400 million executed (essentially an innocent will never have his life taken away unjustifiably) as less detrimental to society than the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars and necessary jail space to hold dangerous criminals.
[/quote]
[quote][list][*]A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
          (December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)
[*]The estimated costs for the death penalty in New York since 1995 (when it was reinstated): $160 million, or approximately $23 million for each person sentenced to death. To date, no executions have been carried out.
          (The Times Union, Sept. 22, 2003)
[*]In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
          (2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)[/list][/quote]
Source: http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html

Usually a life sentence doesn't cost more than the death penalty.

[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153876#msg153876 date=1149551351]
in the beginning stages of pregnancy, it is inaccurate to refer to the fertilized egg "as a child," as though it had already been born or significantly developed.
[/quote]

Stop stating this as fact.  It is obviously a primary source of debate within this argument.  [u]Stop stating this as fact.[/u]  [size=5]Stop stating this as fact.[/size]

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=15102.msg153863#msg153863 date=1149542383]
Maybe brutal is the wrong word, but punishment needs to be harsh & unpleasant.

I'm not sure if manslaughter(impulse killing) has a punishment of execution...
A harsh death for the cold blooded killer could deter, for example, his family from joinning gangs.  Death would also be 100% effective in stopping him from committing more crimes.
[/quote]

This has been discussed at length in other threads.  Incarceration is a deterrent.  Death penalty is revenge.

Regarding your second argument, if we have a beef with someone's family, we should charge the family with a crime, or leave them the hell alone.  People should be left alone by government unless charges are going to be brought against them for some crime.  You don't deter an uncharged person by executing someone in their family.  What the heck are you smoking?

He likes drugs.  Anyway, a lot of people join gangs because they have to.  You're a WASP or Yuppy or of the sort, and you clearly don't understand how gangs work.  Execution of a gang member often leads to the gangs going after cops for a while, which is the exact opposite of deterring crime.

How is the death penalty revenge?  I'm sure we've put someone to death whose victim was totally alone in life, and besides, thats your opinion.

You're taking my gang example wrong.  Gang members get their families involved...if their older brother dies because he committed some haneous crime then I'd be willing to be his little brothers think twice before joinning...same if he dies in a gang related gang v. gang fight (although, they might just join to avenge his brother's death)

Sounds like you're arguing that criminals should be treated differently under the law if they are gang members, or that you're arguing the courts should practice gang-type retributions.  I hope neither or you're not considering the consequences on our justice system if the courts start doling out uneven punishments for equal crimes.

Where did I say that?  I just gave an example as to when the death penalty would be a deterent for someone...not revenge

[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153853#msg153853 date=1149529998]
For the purposes of legislation, it is best then to consider whether your opinion on this matter coincides with the overall best interests of society.  For example, I can see the prospect that an innocent is among 1 in every 400 million executed (essentially an innocent will never have his life taken away unjustifiably) as less detrimental to society than the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars and necessary jail space to hold dangerous criminals. 
[/quote]

This is still an economic argument. Firstly, 1 in 400m people is not no people: it is, quite clearly, 1 in 400m people. Thus, innocent people will be executed; it is merely a matter of time.


[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153853#msg153853 date=1149529998]
Besides, sentencing one to a life in prison is very similar to executing him/her -- many would rather be executed, but are not given that option (or right). 
[/quote]

The preference of the convicted is, of course, entirely irrelevant. In fact, if they would rather be executed, that's a somewhat good reason not to do it! Additionally, execution and incarceration are dissimilar. Incarceration provides the opportunity for miscarriages of justice to be at least partially corrected; execution does not. Incarceration provides the opportunity for rehabilitation (although probably not release in this case); execution does not. Incarceration is almost globally accepted as an acceptable means of punishment; execution is not: most of the countries in the world are abolitionist in law or practice.


[quote author=Grok link=topic=15102.msg153882#msg153882 date=1149556883]
This has been discussed at length in other threads.  Incarceration is a deterrent.  Death penalty is revenge.
[/quote]

QFT. Totally agree.


[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153876#msg153876 date=1149551351]
The abortion argument is different; in the beginning stages of pregnancy, it is inaccurate to refer to the fertilized egg "as a child," as though it had already been born or significantly developed.
[/quote]

I rather agree with MF. You're closing off a potential avenue of debate by stating this as fact, much as you accused me of doing earlier:

[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153848#msg153848 date=1149525049]
I am rather dissapointed that you were so dismissive of the other side.
[/quote]

:P

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153909#msg153909 date=1149607586]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153853#msg153853 date=1149529998]
For the purposes of legislation, it is best then to consider whether your opinion on this matter coincides with the overall best interests of society.  For example, I can see the prospect that an innocent is among 1 in every 400 million executed (essentially an innocent will never have his life taken away unjustifiably) as less detrimental to society than the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars and necessary jail space to hold dangerous criminals. 
[/quote]

This is still an economic argument. Firstly, 1 in 400m people is not no people: it is, quite clearly, 1 in 400m people. Thus, innocent people will be executed; it is merely a matter of time.
[/quote]

It is essentially no people, as it is probably more likely that the human race will no longer exist before 1 innocent is executed.  Of course it is an economic argument, and the axiom is that 1 innocent life may not be worth hundreds of millions of dollars and jail space.  That seems no less reasonable than your axiom that proof beyond reasonable doubt is insufficient for the death penalty (but is sufficient for life imprisonment).  The more successful argument should be the one that best aligns with the public interests of society, not the one that is more absolutely "morally" sound -- something that cannot be logically proven.  I don't know where you got the impression that I thought it wasn't an economic argument? Or does saying "it's economic" dismiss it, as though we both somehow have understood and acknowledged that an economic argument is unworthy of consideration? :P



[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153909#msg153909 date=1149607586]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153853#msg153853 date=1149529998]
Besides, sentencing one to a life in prison is very similar to executing him/her -- many would rather be executed, but are not given that option (or right). 
[/quote]

The preference of the convicted is, of course, entirely irrelevant. In fact, if they would rather be executed, that's a somewhat good reason not to do it! Additionally, execution and incarceration are dissimilar. Incarceration provides the opportunity for miscarriages of justice to be at least partially corrected; execution does not. Incarceration provides the opportunity for rehabilitation (although probably not release in this case); execution does not. Incarceration is almost globally accepted as an acceptable means of punishment; execution is not: most of the countries in the world are abolitionist in law or practice.
[/quote]

You cannot say that execution and life incarceration are dissimilar with a straight face.  They are both implemented with the idea that the criminal's life is being forfeited as justice for a life that has been lost.  At the core, they are essentially the same.  My point by explaining convict preference is to show you that incarceration can be more of a punishment than the death penalty -- so why be more extreme if you think there is a chance the convicted is innocent?  Sure, he may be released in 60 years or so when technology advances, but is that really any better than death?  Is it as practical as simply having a death penalty?


[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153909#msg153909 date=1149607586]
[quote author=Grok link=topic=15102.msg153882#msg153882 date=1149556883]
This has been discussed at length in other threads.  Incarceration is a deterrent.  Death penalty is revenge.
[/quote]

QFT. Totally agree. 
[/quote]

You poke at me for stating facts as fact, yet you praise this comment as truth, as though incarceration is absolutely never seen as revenge.  This behavior is transparently self-serving.

[quote author=MyndFyre[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153881#msg153881 date=1149556325]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153876#msg153876 date=1149551351]
in the beginning stages of pregnancy, it is inaccurate to refer to the fertilized egg "as a child," as though it had already been born or significantly developed.
[/quote]

Stop stating this as fact.  It is obviously a primary source of debate within this argument.  [u]Stop stating this as fact.[/u]  [size=5]Stop stating this as fact.[/size]
[/quote]

Control your emotions please.  You often state that a fertilized egg is a child and you often call abortion murder as a starting point in your arguments.  You push the other side onto the defensive by pulling out comments like "You value the choice of the mother, so you are willing to murder the child."  If these are not facts, you certaintly act as though they are, and it's an extremely pushy and cheap tactic.  Because moral arguments are hard to formulate, you take the easy route and just assume your morals are axioms: then the debate becomes about whether murdering a child is worth the choice of the mother.  That's just how you like it, but it's not going to have any logical appeal to someone who carefully reads your arguments.  Let unbiased logic choose your arguments, don't let your emotions lead you and then attack the other side with moral judgements dressed up as fact.  Actually, if I remember correctly, you even went so far as to claim that "pro-choicers" experience cognitive dissonance, because they are trying to justify "murder."  Either you don't understand what you said about "the central point of the argument," or you're just all too eager to push your judgements onto other people and argue "for the win," rather than to come to a mutual understanding.  That's because you're right, right?

Another [size=5]fact[/size] is that you cannot logically justify your idea that it's OK to kill intelligent animals but horrible murder to kill something that may eventually become human life (note: that something must be >= fertilized egg).



Further, what I said and you quoted is fact.  "It is inaccurate to refer to a fertilized egg as a "child," as though it had already been born or significantly developed".  That is fact.  [u]That is fact[/u].  [size=5]That is fact[/size].

It's fact just like it's fact that it would be inaccurate to refer to an 8 year old as a full grown man.  Are you going to acknowledge the facts though?  It seems that this is a completely different story...

Read it again.  You too Arta, since you seemed to be quite quick to get a shot in without really thinking about what I said.  This is something I also noticed in the marijuana thread.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=15102.msg153882#msg153882 date=1149556883]
This has been discussed at length in other threads.  Incarceration is a deterrent.  Death penalty is revenge.
[/quote]

The death penalty is guaranteed crime prevention. Incarceration is not guaranteed crime prevention and has never been a good deterrent. Criminals commit crimes inside jails all the time. Criminals escape from jails all the time.


[size=20pt]BLAH![/size]  I just wanted to use big bold font too since it will help make me right.  ::)

[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153913#msg153913 date=1149611477]
It is essentially no people, as it is probably more likely that the human race will no longer exist before 1 innocent is executed.
[/quote]

I think that is a grossly optimistic argument. This 1 in 400m number seems to me to be entirely without foundation. In fact, I can tell you with reasonable certainty that innocent people have been executed: read about Derek Bently.


[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153913#msg153913 date=1149611477]
Of course it is an economic argument, and the axiom is that 1 innocent life may not be worth hundreds of millions of dollars and jail space. 
[/quote]

What if it was your mother? Your sister? Your lover? You? I think the value of life is incalculable. You appear not to, so let's agree to disagree on that point and move on.


[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153913#msg153913 date=1149611477]
The more successful argument should be the one that best aligns with the public interests of society, not the one that is more absolutely "morally" sound -- something that cannot be logically proven.
[/quote]

The best interests of society are preserved by not allowing the state to murder its citizens.


[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153913#msg153913 date=1149611477]
You cannot say that execution and life incarceration are dissimilar with a straight face.  They are both implemented with the idea that the criminal's life is being forfeited as justice for a life that has been lost.  At the core, they are essentially the same. 
[/quote]

I most certainly can, for the reasons given above, and for this one: an incarcerated person still has their life.


[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153913#msg153913 date=1149611477]
You poke at me for stating facts as fact, yet you praise this comment as truth, as though incarceration is absolutely never seen as revenge.  This behavior is transparently self-serving.
[/quote]

I did not praise his comment as truth. I identified his comment as something I agree with. As I understand it, QFT is a measure intended to ensure that one's position is not altered by the editing of old posts after the event.

[quote author=Invert link=topic=15102.msg153916#msg153916 date=1149615814]
[quote author=Grok link=topic=15102.msg153882#msg153882 date=1149556883]
This has been discussed at length in other threads.  Incarceration is a deterrent.  Death penalty is revenge.
[/quote]

The death penalty is guaranteed crime prevention. Incarceration is not guaranteed crime prevention and has never been a good deterrent. Criminals commit crimes inside jails all the time. Criminals escape from jails all the time.
[/quote]
word.

.......I assume alot of people here object to the multiple child molestations resulting in execution, then?

[size=99pt]I Win.[/size]

Someone ought to split this thread up into a couple different threads with the appropriate topic. :P

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153919#msg153919 date=1149617147]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153913#msg153913 date=1149611477]
It is essentially no people, as it is probably more likely that the human race will no longer exist before 1 innocent is executed.
[/quote]

I think that is a grossly optimistic argument. This 1 in 400m number seems to me to be entirely without foundation. In fact, I can tell you with reasonable certainty that innocent people have been executed: read about Derek Bently.
[/quote]

I don't doubt that many innocents have been unrightfully executed under capital punishment.  The 1 in 400m is just a number I pulled out of nowhere for illustrative purposes.  However, if capital punishment were only used when DNA evidence is available, the incidence of an innocent being unjustly killed would probably be around 1 in 10000 million.  With these odds, don't you think it would be wise to consider the monetary and space benefits of capital punishment? 

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153919#msg153919 date=1149617147]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153913#msg153913 date=1149611477]
Of course it is an economic argument, and the axiom is that 1 innocent life may not be worth hundreds of millions of dollars and jail space. 
[/quote]

What if it was your mother? Your sister? Your lover? You? I think the value of life is incalculable. You appear not to, so let's agree to disagree on that point and move on.
[/quote]
That's fine, but [size=5]your[/size] perspective on this [size=5]isn't[/size] very [size=5]pragmatic[/size].  For example, is [size=5]one[/size] person's life worth more than a [size=5]million[/size] peoples happiness?  Is a [size=5]serial rapist's[/size] life worth the same as an innocent's life?  Aren't there cases when one's [size=5]death[/size] has [size=5]more value[/size] than one's [size=5]life[/size]?  Would most of society agree that "the value of life is incalculable"?  If [size=5]not[/size], perhaps we [size=5]shouldn't[/size] legislate on that [size=5]assumption[/size]?  After all, the laws should be made on what will benefit society most, where "benefit" is defined by [size=5]majority opinion[/size].

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=15102.msg153919#msg153919 date=1149617147]
[quote author=Rule link=topic=15102.msg153913#msg153913 date=1149611477]
The more successful argument should be the one that best aligns with the public interests of society, not the one that is more absolutely "morally" sound -- something that cannot be logically proven.
[/quote]

The best interests of society are preserved by not allowing the state to murder its citizens.
[/quote]
Perhaps that's something that you should argue instead of just state as truth.  Is that a general claim, or an [size=5]absolute rule[/size]?  Are there no cases in which the best interests of society are preserved by allowing the state to kill a citizen?  Don't you think "murder" is an [size=5]inappropriate word[/size] in the context you're using it?  Or are you using it because it's [size=5]loaded language[/size]?  Should the state not be allowed to kill someone who is obviously [size=5]dangerous[/size] and [size=5]will[/size] ("beyond reasonable doubt") cause [size=5]harm[/size] to another [size=5]unless[/size] he is put to death?  Is this not in the best interests of society?

Edit: [size=3]Changed words to different sizes so that my argument would be more[/size] [size=5]factual[/size], [size=3]and less[/size] [size=5]transparently[/size] [size=3]emotional and aggressive.  Thanks,[/size] [size=0]Myndfyre[/size][size=3]![/size]

I hope [size=40pt]you're[/size] going to respond maturely; to do anything else would be [size=40pt]wrong[/size] and childish.  [size=40pt]I'm[/size] sure we can both agree that this is the [size=40pt]right[/size] approach to ta[size=40pt]k[/size]e towards this argument-- [size=40pt]thanks[/size] in advance. 

Citizens of Wisconsin will soon be voting on if the death penalty should be legalized in the state, but only in cases where there is DNA evidence.

#1  this is getting hard to read
#2  cool, shout

This topic has degenerated far enough.  I am locking it.  Please be more specific and remain more on-topic on spin-off threads.  Thank you.