New Mars Forums

Capital punishment?

Always morally wrong. Always.

I disagree. In appropriate cases, I argue that it is morally wrong NOT to use capital punishment. As I pointed out in a previous post which I don't have time to go back to at the moment on this library computer, NOT having capital punishment for serial killers who are certainly guilty is a horrible moral contradiction from an evolutionary perspective as the human rights of the killer are placed above those of the victims. This CAN'T be right in any theory of morality above the level of social Darwinism. Certainly is fails both Jesus' and Kant's reciprocity tests.

Sometimes necessary due to a society's failure to plan ahead sufficiently to either educate its people to avoid egregious criminality or to take other steps to assure the safety of its citizens through non-lethal means.

To advocate capital punishment as policy is a powerful confession of one's own weakness.

You are right. It is a confession of our intrinsic "weakness", if "weakness" it be. We simply DO NOT KNOW HOW TO EDUCATE ALL PEOPLE AGAINST CRIMINALITY. This is one example of the basic flaw in the "liberal" perspective. Liberal descriptions of social problems are often very accurate and should be regarded with careful attention. Liberal proposals for solutions to the problems are almost always either totally ineffective or have, at best, limited effectiveness. This is because the liberal believes in social cause and effect far beyond the level to which is really applies. We respond to many social influences, both relatively overt and relatively subtle. However, due to the fact that humans possess free will the liberal assumption of social causation (thus allowing us to educate all people against criminality, for example) is fundamentally flawed. There is a huge difference between social influence and social causation.

We do not have, and in my opinion should not want, the ability to control others behavior (though we may very justifiably want to hone our persuasive skills to the very highest level).

To revel in or relish the death of any criminal (no matter how heinous his crimes) is itself one epitome of evil.

True, but what does that have to do with the administration of justice?

P.S. For those who might be interested, my mother has been discharged from the hospital and may be allowed to put full weight on her hip after her X-rays a week from Friday. In the meantime I am logging on from a library computer with a maximum of 30 minutes use time if anyone is waiting. Thus I can't respond to those issues requiring more detail.

Moreover, their response to the challenge of building the CEV seems remarkably timid, considering their experience.

"The truth is that I don't think any single company or NASA can truly staff or execute something this large and this complex," Allen said. "It's going to take a whole lot more capability than I think resides in any one corporate or government entity."

Such timidity is particularly worrisome for NASA, considering how big government contractors such as these already had spent nearly $5 billion in government money trying -- and failing -- in the last two decades to build a variety of shuttle replacements.

Ethics in journalism died when the GOP purchased their own network - - FOX;

That recently, eh? All was fine, upstanding objective reporting before then with no slant whatsoever?

:laugh:

Bill:
Yup. To defend freedom we must burn the First Amendment.

*Sorry Bill, that seems uncharacteristically unfair of you (and yes, I know that comment was not directed at me).  Does the media have "the right" to embellish, distort, manipulate and exaggerate?  You're not concerned about ethics in journalism?

Why are the Red Staters still angry?

*I thought you didn't believe in the "us vs them" mindset?  ???

It seems you are now encouraging "us vs them" by buying into the "Red States vs Blue States" thing - ?

What about the Democratic voters in the "Red States"?  What about the Republican voters in the "Blue States"?

What's up with this, Bill?  If you're opposed to "us vs them" doesn't that include your own nation as well? 

--Cindy

In my opinion, a much closer approximation to a "two-front war" would have to be Coalition troops fighting against terrorists in Iraq, while simultaneously fighting against treacherous propaganda by left-wing journalists at home.

The pen is mightier than the sword. Fancy that.  :laugh:

As a Luthern

Quote 
Doonsebury has been discontinued by a lot of various papers because of complaints...

So then they are being silenced.

It's a business decision. Newspaper publishers aren't out to inform the public or provide social commentary, first and foremost they're out to make money. If a segment of the paper's readership wants them to pull Doonesbury, and they're the only ones the publisher hears from, Doonesbury is gone.

Hey, i don't make the talking points...

Look, I told you all this was coming. "Moon Base? Clark is crazy." 

I'm inclined to agree, but the troll in me has to disagree. 

It's not a major issue if we can shoot down everything. And unless we know who you are, and you have our permission, we will shoot you down.

Once again we play chess, when the game at hand is Go.

Good chess players tend to be good at go and visa versa. Anyway metaphors aside the only way to maintain dominance now is to move into space. More and more nations are catching up. As far as go goes maybe the satellites could target an individual person instead of a missile. Place some ground cameras and GPS then give the Iraqi police space cover. This would allow the US to spend more time in bases and less time on the streets.