zapatos

Wait. What?

I think the problem is that you are not making a very good point. When Bundy was in jail he was serving 1 - 15 years for a kidnapping in which the victim escaped from his car while he was trying to restrain her. She was not physically injured. It was while serving this sentence that he escaped. To suggest that he should have been put to death for such a crime seems unethical.

The point I was trying to make was, given that a criminal will never benefit by anything he's learned during a life sentence, should a life sentence also be considered vengeance?

Yes, that's a good point. I can see where it might be important for the person to learn and grow, but what good is it if they never get to act on this new knowledge? Let's say instead of the death penalty they receive live in prison. In one case you cannot learn or grow (because you are dead) and in the other your possible growth can't lead to much of anything (because you are in prison). I don't really see where society benefits by going the extra mile to ensure a convicted felon gets to learn about himself simply because it is a good in and of itself. In this case, is life in prison significantly better than death?

I didn't realize you were talking about the death penalty when you said "They may accept their punishment as just at a later time."

They may even accept it is just at the time it is imposed. That doesn't necessarily mean they feel you have 'done something for them'. I once received a ticket for traveling five miles per hour over the speed limit. I feel the punishment was just (the law is the law, and I know why they enforce it), but it didn't do anything for me. I was happy to speed then and I often travel over the speed limit now. I would have much preferred to not be punished at all.

I'm not too sure you could convince many of the punished that you are doing something for them. I doubt the people in jail for marihuana will be thanking your for showing them the error of their ways. Punishment does nothing for the person who is happy for what they did and would do it again.

And that's the rub. While I don't have any problem saying I'm okay with the death penalty, I have a very difficult time defining under what circumstances I feel a specific person can be executed. From a personal standpoint, I don't even know if anyone at all would be executed if it were up to me, but I just don't feel that there are NO circumstances in which the death penalty would be warranted.

Punishment is also a penalty imposed on someone for some act deemed unacceptable. Generally we attempt to ensure the penalty is commensurate with the act. I don't find it unethical to impose a penalty as severe as death for a sufficiently severe act.

I agree. Unfortunately for those killed, not everyone agrees.

In principle I don't object to the death penalty as I feel that some crimes deserve this punishment. My primary concern with the death penalty is the manner in which it is used, at least in the United States. Ethics is in the eye of the beholder and changes as you change time and place. I also find most arguments against the death penalty to be rather weak. Someone bad does it, therefore it must be a bad idea? Can we assume that ALL their ideas are bad since we don't like them? You can't undo it? You also cannot undo the 10 years someone spent in prison for a robbery charge if they were actually innocent. You can never get back lost time. We shouldn't do it because we "don't know enough about the afterlife"? That's a non-starter IMO.

The violence doesn't surprise me terribly. It has been my experience that no matter the group, whether Democrats, Republicans, Priests, thieves, pre-teens, or auto mechanics, you will always find a mix of people who are good, bad, smart, dumb, mean, good looking, considerate, etc. On another note... http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/fence-protecting-usmexico-border-puts-golf-course-out-business

I wonder how the people who own that roughly 2000 square miles of land will feel about the government filling it with bamboo and thorn bushes.

Can you be more specific on what mistake you are talking about?

I thought this thread sounded familiar. We had a similar conversation in 2012. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64720-condensation-question/?hl=autistic Glad to see you have not given up on this rocksolid.

And you need to quit taking offense where none is given. I stand by everything I said.

+1 for having the good humor to include this one.

She accused people of "judging" her, calling her a "crappy parent", telling her how to "raise her kid", and then "schooling" her "about autism". No one here did any of that. All she had to do was give a short explanation like you did. And strangers didn't "step in", they were invited in.

But not everyone has the experience you and rocksolid have. I find it unacceptable to ask a stranger for advice, then criticize them because they do not have the background to give advice that is useful to you.

Lighten up Francis. No one is calling you a crappy parent and no one is doing anything other than trying to help. If you don't like the advice, better to just say 'thanks anyway' and move on. No need to be rude to those who cannot give you the exact advice you want on the first try.

Good post iNow. +1 Your post reminded me that my very blunt, direct speech has gotten me in trouble more than once as people often rightfully interpret it as aggression or in some other negative way. That is not my intent, but as the speaker the responsibility lies with me to be aware of the tone I am projecting. My apologies if that happened here and I offended anyone.

Can you please provide your justification for these assertions? Why? Can you please provide your justification for this assertion? Is there some sort of law that says 'any change to safety procedures in zoos must be matched on sidewalks near roads'? You keep making these assertions but have yet to provide any evidence that this is some sort of requirement. More important than keeping children from ending up in an enclosure with a gorilla? Was your experience viewing snakes and fish seriously reduced because you had to view them through glass? Sometimes accidents happen. Just because something bad happens does not mean someone is negligent. What you and Phi seem to not be acknowledging is that children lack impulse control. You may know your child best, and that child has no history of climbing over walls, and you tell you child the importance of staying away from the wall. And you watch them closely, but you are suddenly distracted as you try to catch your purse as it is knocked out of your hands by someone passing by, and at that very moment your child decides to climb the fence for some reason they only know. That happens. Kids do stupid things all the time, no matter how well you educate them. The parent can do the best they can to avoid tragedies like this, but ultimately, they cannot be held responsible for every tragedy which happens on their watch, unless they were negligent. Clearly the zoo did not do their best to avoid tragedies like this. They may have done what they felt was reasonable and required, but they certainly could have done more. Even the zoo acknowledged they will be reviewing their standards after this incident. I don't think anyone suggested businesses be held liable for risks that are impossible to eliminate. It's not a matter of all or nothing. Its a matter of degree. Just because you protect a child from a wild animal in a location that invites children to come, does not mean you have to protect a teenager in that same situation, or protect a child in a location where they are not typically found. Do you believe they don't need a wall at all, and just depend on the moat for protection? If having the wall is okay with you, then what is wrong with having a wall that cannot be so easily climbed?

Why? We put child safety caps on medicine bottles that others can breach. We put child locks on supply cabinets that others can breach. We put fences around swimming pools that others can climb. Zoos are child magnets. As I hear many here often say, don't fail to accept the 'good' just because you cannot achieve the 'perfect'. A barrier that a child cannot breach. How do you know that? Do you honestly believe that if a parent "makes it clear that humans always stay behind the guard rails when they visit animals at the zoo", then safety is assured? I think you are mistaken about the capabilities of children to reason and understand risk. No one does think that is too much to ask. Some of us just think that is not enough. Perhaps you should just make it clear to your child that he should not grab the skillet handle on the stove, and that way you won't ever have to turn the handles so he can't reach them.

The only time I have seen plastic surgery frowned upon is when the person looks worse after surgery than prior to surgery. Then all of the internet trolls come out with their 20/20 vision ridiculing the person's 'vanity'. I've known several women who have had breast implants. All have been very happy with themselves afterwards, and I never heard a single person say anything negative. People wear braces on their teeth, have Lasik eye surgery, get tattoos, and stick pieces of metal in their ears, tongues, lips, and belly buttons. I believe that nowadays in America plastic surgery is not generally frowned upon. There have been somewhere around 5 million cosmetic breast implant surgeries done in the US since 1997. IMO you should do it if it is what you want. I know that I would have plastic surgery if it is what I wanted.

While I don't disagree with the sentiments being expressed regarding the necessity of parental control over a child, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the mother from a single event. Children are by definition immature and it is unrealistic to assume that had only the child been trained correctly this kind of thing would not have happened. It is also impossible for a parent to be 100% focused on their child. Things are happening around them and they will on occasion focus on other things, no matter how short the duration. On occasion a parent will be distracted at that very instant their child does something risky. Those are simply accidents and will happen once in a while. If when it happens someone dies, it is tragic and makes the news. It is not difficult to construct a barrier that a three year old cannot breach. It is my opinion that a zoo shares in the responsibility for thwarting inquisitive children.