NavajoEverclear

Innocent people being given the death sentence by mistake will always be a problem.........but do you not think that those who acctualy commit heinous crimes deserve to die ?

Is there no need to clense society of such people quickly and efficiently ?

Life imprisonment does seem (atleast to me like) as a let-off for people who have say murdered "innocent" people in cold blood.

my point exactly, except if i were to use the word deserve, i would use it without any emotional connotations.

The purpose of their death has nothing to do with making them pay. God will take care of that. Kind of like you said, they should just be elliminated as quickly as possible, without any crap about making them suffer for the crime. Their suffering serves noone anything but unnessisary pain, waste of energy focussing on 'giving them what they deserve', when such is impossible. Allowing them to live just stretches that out even more. THAT is morally wrong. Execution is a simple procedure to bypass all that.

Please don't take that out of context, yes execution is evil if the individual doesn't deserve it, i am assuming that is not the case. But the real system wont be based on assumptions, and absolute certainty of justice will be high priority over the execution.

Hmmm i was hoping there was miraculous way you could read like lightening and absorb it as well, guess the brain doesn't really work like that, unless your a genius. Thanks for your input tho, it helps. Guess all you can do is practice reading in blocks like Nisou say, until it works pretty well, and then dont do it that way if ya dont have to. Also--- maybe your right about reading slow, i do remember things a lot better, and like you said i can usually remember what the page of the text looked like--- makes going back to look for a certain part easier if you know the exact area to look in, instead of having to skim it all. If you think about its more efficient to read that way at least once, so relocation for refreshing the memory is easier to do. Might take longer, but it stays.

Still gonna practice figuring a way to read faster, but at least i realize there is a benefit to doing things the longer way.

Again thanks for the info, now i can stop wasting time trying to find some holy grail breakthrough. If find one by chance I'll tell ya! Many breakthroughs come through from a simple alteration to the existing system discovered by a revolutionary thinker---- which will be me

Err haven't seen that one, you might want to check out some of his other roles. What about it annoys you before you really know anything about it? Well thats ok. I want you to not like it. I support opposition, even if it opposes something i support. Is that oximoronic? I have a very dichotomous (sp?) mind.

I read quite slow on average. I haven't figured out my wpm, but i know that if i look at a clock i am always surprised at how little progress i've made over so much time. So i was assuming someone at these forums knows how to speed read, and hoping they will tell me how. I searched for other threads on the subject and found one that was a novel on how photo-reading cant work, which I'm not sure if is entirely true.

What are methods i can use to improve my reading speed, or even the way i read---- i know you can read in bigger blocks than taking it word by word. If i had the time maybe i'd sit down for a few hours and days until i figured it out. But it would be much more efficient if somebody who has already aquired this knowledge shares it with me.

Well its just a matter of electricity. If they have neurons which they use to respond to stimuli, they think to a degree. This evolves and they devolop more complex adaptations to do more complicated tasks. But yeah, animals dont think the same as humans. Not necissarily saying they are stupider, because in some tasks an animal is probably faster and more adapt at responding than humans are. That makes me curious, has anyone ever done research into which animal has the fastest working brain? But not ALL animals think. Sponges and Jellyfish don't have brains. Tho jellyfish do have nerve systems. Hey that makes me wonder something else, how comprehensive are the nerve systems? could they actually be a form of a brain, even tho they aren't centralized? For metaphor--- a computer can do lots of things, a calculator (or any other electronic device) cant do so many things, but still uses the same technology. The electronic devices however mostly have one function, and one program.

Do jellyfish have programing in their nerves? i donno, swim program, catch food program, eat food program, attack program, mate program--- actually they might not do either of the last two on that list . . . .

However sponges most certainly have no thoughts whatsoever, and they are animals.

You dont Have to [/i'] but in reality people choose cloning embryos and getting stem cells from there, and killing the cloned embryo in the process, rather than bone marrow, because its cheaper. Thats what i have a problem with.

thats where the controversy is. As far as cloning an entire human, our own laws (tho very imperfect, they do provide basic protection) wont ALLOW it to be abused, so the technicality of where the DNA came from doesn't really matter.

But stem cell is where killing IS allowed. Especially if they do it just for it being cheaper that is disgusting and should be made illegal---- actually i thought it had been made illegal, i know Bush wanted it to be (Bush isn't ALL bad). There must be some newspaper headline i missed or forgot.

i'm not going to read that whole thread. Fill me in on the highlights. Just to comment on the subject--- your intelligence i think is most directly related(besides genetically) to the quality stimulus you recieve during imprinting years, so do your parenting duty! Therefore, it doesn't take a genius to make a genius, you just have to provide the child with the right love and opportunities.

Yeah they were engaged, i think they would have made a great couple. Maybe it wasn't meant to be though (whatever determines that). Makes sense--- cant make the best love story without real love

I think killing is wrong and bad.There should be a new stronger word for killing like bad-wrong, or badong; Yes, killing is badong and from now on i will stand for the opposite of killing, gnodab.

hah that's a really cool word, i'm going start using that. Hopefully it will become popular slang, and eventually entered into websters. Anyway though, you've already established that you think killing is badong, which i agree, but please read my last post and address my point. Why is killing wrong? There must be a reason you think so. I've explained my reason for my opinion had nothing to do with hate or vengence. Just the simple fact that if we've already decided they aren't ever going to be free in society, what is the point in keeping them around. Furthermore the death should be quick and painless. Theres absolutely no purpose for pain here. So you see my idea is about minimum suffering, because suffering wastes time and energy, and in this case it's obviously not helping anyone grow.

I'm going to admit my original idea is was very wrong--- because the justice system is very corrupt, very many mistakes happen, and there are many questionable cases where the killer killed out of need, instead of hate, but if the killer was the attacker and cant be directly linked to self-defense by the legally accepted definition . . . or similar motives that can be rehabilited of (serial killers would never fit into this catagory). And even if the system was decent and unbiased, there would still be mistakes. So the capital punishement is reserved only for cases of absolute certainty. Only there is my opinion applicable.

YT's idea is absolutely brilliant. The not-so-certainly murderers, if physically elligible, are harvested for blood donations, liver fragments (as the liver regenerates), and maybe kidneys. The certainly killers are taken from life painlessly and ALL their organs are put to good use.

And if you understand psychology, you know that one can even be confused about what is or isn't their choice. Thus the misunderstanding that if someone SAYS they had no choice, does not mean it couldn't have been different.

obviously babies and children aren't able to comprehend the notion of sexuality.

i remember my childhood (my memories start about age 3), and thats not true. Maybe i didn't understand intercourse yet, but i had a concept on sexuality, and had attractions and such.

So, is it true to say you are heterosexual by choice? Do you find members of the same sex attractive, but deliberately choose to have sex only with members of the opposite sex?

Yes it is a choice, it's a choice of natures. It comes natural, and you'd have to do a lot of work to change your nature, but why would you want to? Thats why it never happens.

I say this with a little bit of evidence-- myself. I know if i wanted to be i could be homosexual. In the name of science I'll admit i had one instance of homosexual curiosity/attraction in my early adolescence. But i am far more attracted to females, and now that that confusion is over I have no desire to go back to it. So maybe that means i'm bisexual naturally and heterosexual by choice, but i don't believe that. I believe it's all psychological, and evolutionary. To put it ungracefully we all have evolved the drive to hump, if our ancesters hadn't humped, we wouldn't be there. Sometimes the hump drive gets its target confused when it needs to express itself but the correct medium is not in access.

I think this enforced in watching animal behavior. My dog finds a stuffed animal to hump whenever she's in heat. That does not mean my dog was born stuffedanimalo-sexual. She's rarely had contact with a mateable partner, so when hormones activate her hump program, she runs it on whatever is available.

So that's why animals show homosexual behavior. Is there any case of an animal that will ONLY try to mate with its own sex? Maybe noone has ever followed an animal to find out. Otherwise, INSTANCES where the animal resorts to humping another that is procreatively incompadible, does not make it naturally homosexual. It is the natural, normally heterosexual, drive to hump working with whatever it has.

how do you know exactly what makes people homosexual? have you ever spoken with someone like that and actually asked them? I doubt it, judging by the biased and stupid way you're talking about this. Well I have, and the person I was speaking with couldn't exactly tell me why he found himself attracted to men, and not women, but he was, and I asked that SAME STUPID QUESTION if there was something that happened to him earlier in life to change him

he said "no, I've been this way pretty much all my life, before I even had a chance to like girls"

I've admitted before there different cases of homosexuality, with different causes, therefore different levels. I still think it's psychological. How do you explain my condition?

And i have one other story to aid my point. I have a friend who was getting tired of her boyfriend, she took a break from him and had a homosexual relationship with a girl who has been lesbian since 9th grade. The relationship only lasted a few weeks cause the lesbian (sorry that sounds disrespectful, but i promise its not, the lesbian is also a friend of mine) graduated highschool and went to massage school in arizona. The girl made up with her boyfriend (who still loved her) and they got back together.

Is she bisexual? For you who say its inborn, is there a seperate gene for bisexuality, or is it a waterdown version of the gay gene? It seems all really inconsitant.

In the name of science i'll confess even more-- that if i look back, i could justify homosexuality as being natural with several cases of attraction, that you could say were suppressed by cultural pressure. But since i haven't chosen that, i don't look back at that, i'm just saying, i could, and then you'd say i was born to be gay, but i just told you that for me its a choice.

Just to end, incase you dont know me, i am in no way anti-gay. If the drive is to strong for the possibility of making a rational effort to reverse, i don't think God will condemn you. But i am saying that its not as clear-cut as either being gay or being straight. Maybe some cases its less of a choice, but in many, maybe most cases, i think it is.

My evidence--- my own experience. How do you argue that?

pulkit, you really from India? how is that country doing by the way? looks pretty impovershed from the national geographic mags . . .

Yeah the Canadian girl (Stacey Farber) rocked very much, but it was time for change. Winona was very hot in this movie tho. Haven't heard of it?! Everyone in the world should have heard of it! Well if you wanted to check it out, its normally called Edward Scissorhands, unless you want to watch it in spanish. Dude you should really check it out, it rocks! You've heard of Johnny Depp tho right? Captain Jack Sparrow? He's Edward, it was one of his first movies. He refuses to do non-totally-brilliant charachter roles, so you that should be enough credentials to convice you.

yay i was compared to a prostitute today! My goal is fulfilled.

is there anything more excellent? I love this movie. My favorite romance. The end scared me when i was a kid (but i liked the rest of it). Noone can say i love it just because i'm 'gothic', i've been into 'dark' stuff since i was little. Beetlejuice was my favorite movie in first grade.

Anyway I rediscovered Ed about a month ago, it was just on satellite so i watched it with my brother.

apparently you haven't seen the states

Amen

is Ender's Shadow anything to do with Ender's Game?

Yes, its a parellel novel, mostly from the point of view of Bean. I cant remember Enders Game real well (except the main plot), but this is as good or better.

Finishing Ender's Shadow, Then gonna read Speaker for the Dead and Shadow Puppets.

Got a few evolution books from the library, mostly just started all of them. I'm farthest in one called Quantum Evolution, by some guy with an M in his name. Supposed to be some breakthrough, but i haven't been interested yet. Likely a waste of time on some well written bull. Oh well, we may learn something. A few Dawkins books, River out of Eden i started, really interesting. Come to think of it i think i should ditch the other book and read that one.

I also intend to read some Gandhi books i've had for two years, and only read bits and pieces of so far. One is his autobiography

No Dave, in fact i just about hate anime. I think it's incredibly stupid and uncreative. Few acceptions. I've watched very little cowboy bebop, it hasn't really interested me.

good point tho jakiri. sometimes we're (including me) just blind to the idiocy particular styles we do support for some reason. Maybe i'll give more consideration to anime someday. It's not a priority though.

No i saw those ones too. I don't mind if she goes topsless, this other one was pretty nasty. I'd just rather forget.

I want to make sure you don't think my story about my cousin contradicts my orginal point. My cousin has been a drug offender, not a murderer, that's a big difference. And i already identified that i realize if philophy were made policy, some people would use it to be more stupid and rush into killing people. There would have to be more policies therefore to make sure that capital punishement is not abused.

Thank God i'm not the one in charge of all of this anyway.

If you don't place a greater value on life than those on death row, then what is the difference between you and them?

The difference is my motive. With few exceptions none of those people will ever safe in society again. It has nothing to do with vengence and hate. In many cases it is mercy. Are you trying to tell me that any prisoner is gratefull to be allowed his imprisonment over termination of his miserable life? OK i'm beginnning to accept there a few exceptions, but not many. And my philosphy would not apply to the mentally ill.

budullewraagh has the only good case against the death penality. Except that ISN'T being done, and in lots of cases i don't know if it's possible.

I thought thats what the point of going to jail is.

Holy hell, have you even known anyone that has gone through the 'justice' system? A lot of my relatives have, and it only makes their lives more messed up. It's just a mass of abuse by authorities and those imprisoned against each other.

For instance i was in California just last week, and my Cousin was just getting out of jail. She was falsly imprisoned for a two year old warrent that came up on the cops computer when he pulled her over for a speeding violation. She had just finished a rehab center and been off of drugs for the longest time she has in years (this was the first time i've seen her in seven years), she got a good job as Taxi driver, and hopefully that isn't screwed up because she was absent from work for a week because of a glitch in the system. She's been rearrested for this same warrent three other times, at the end of each time they figure out that it is an old warrent and there is no reason for her to be arrested. And yet they don't bother to do what they have to take it out of the computer so it doesn't happen again.

The justice system is a piece of shit that has nothing to do with rehabilitation. The problem is that most of the officers in the system are so bent on punishing, without caring to investigate if people deserve it first.

My reason for supporting the death penalty has nothing to do with wanting punishment. I've already explained my purpose

OK for the sake of not making him a marter, i agree with you. But what other purpose is there really to keep him alive? I can see my point is not being well recieved, so maybe i should rethink my view, but let me try to clarify one time. My reason for thinking he should die has nothing do with an eye for an eye. If you want to keep him alive to see him suffer doesn't that make YOU a supporter of the eye for the eye idea? MY reason for wanting him dead is the simple reason that i see no purpose in letting him live. His life wouldn't be a life, it would be just letting him finish out his chemical reactions in a confined place. Waste of time if you ask me. NOW on the otherhand if you want to keep him alive to study his psyche to discover ways to prevent men like him rising again-- that would be a purpose.

Interesting . . . .

By the way there are a lot of people here that I like, it's not really that small of an area, its just dominated by one religion that is centered around Salt Lake City. 11 million members worldwide, not too small. Anyway though, yeah it does result into a lot of fanatics which kinda sucks. But i can always keep hoping people will stop being stupid.

actually my reply was to 5605, he asked if anyone agreed with it being unethical, which probably means he thinks it is. I do agree with you though sayin if we aren't sure, no reason to screw up someones life (the clone) if it messes up. Just sayin if the risk by is taken and it works then we must accept it---- which nobody was arguing actually at it so my post is kinda obsolete in purpose. apologies