zapatos

I can fold my thumb into my palm without moving the other fingers.

I was a programmer back in the 1980's and we were using programs that wrote programs back then.

They are Marketing terms used to convey a subtly different message to the target audience.

I just got up to date on the thread "Why is the female crowd not attracted to STEM fields?" in the Politics section. While I enjoy the science sections I find that some of the best discussions take place in the non-science sections. The STEM debate has been passionate, well argued, polite, and full of the scientific approach to discussion I enjoy so much. If this site wasn't free I'd pay for a subscription!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pudding

And to take it a step further that map you showed indicated that the North side of the city was poorer, not the East side. The city of St. Louis is on the East side of that map. On the west side of the map you are seeing St. Louis County, Jefferson County, and the rest of the St. Louis Metropolitan area. If you concentrate on the right half of the map you'll see that the North side of the city is the poorer side.

iNow was referring to confirmation bias, not racial bias. Confirmation bias can apply equally to both sides of the debate.

Since they are having trouble articulating what they think, how could you possibly know they think it is cruel and gratuitous? I already told you what I thought cruelty was but you didn't accept my answer. Since I believe the death penalty as we practice it is cruel, I would not be a good person to explain why it is not.

I gave you the negative rep on your last post on Polar Bears. It was for the following comment, although I admit to having grown weary of your attitude throughout that thread: "And if you can find anything I've mentioned in the above that contradicts anything I really said in my previous posts, instead rather than what you, in your narrow-minded, reflexive attitude against those who disagree with you, who can think for themselves, thought I said, please tell me, and I'll publicly apologize to you in this thread."

It's cruel and gratuitous. Maybe other reasons as well but those quickly comes to mind.

Yes, that seems rather obvious. But it in no way addresses my question as to 'why they draw the line at the death penalty'. I explained that I would be willing to draw the line where the death penalty would be allowed if we could address issues such as the cruelty of being on death row. Others oppose the death penalty due to the fact that mistakes can be made. Some people though draw the line at the death penalty but don't seem to be able to articulate why other than saying because 'we shouldn't take a life'. It is those people I am trying to understand. Have someone articulate all the reasons they oppose the death penalty, then propose scenarios where all of those reasons for opposition are eliminated. The people who still oppose the death penalty, even though all their concerns have been addressed, are the ones I'm interested in. No one ever says "I am okay with a 20 year prison sentence but not a 21 year prison sentence". But people will say they are okay with locking up an 18 year old and throwing away the key, but not a quiet, painless death after sentencing. What is going on in people's minds that they cannot cross that barrier? People die every day. They die because people want to buy a watch instead of feeding the poor guy on the street. They die because we send people to war. Even the guy we decided it was not right to execute is going to die. So why do some people feel we cannot hurry that process along, no matter the horrors that person has inflicted on the human race?

Yes, but why should we do everything in our power to keep from causing it prematurely? We certainly don't seem to mind degrading a human life. We take people away from their families, lock them in dark rooms, and keep them confined for decades at a time in relatively harsh conditions. We degrade human life significantly. Why stop prior to the degradation being complete? Why do we have the right to degrade human life, but we cannot cross the line where life ends? Why don't we have the right to cross that line? So propose something. I pulled my definition of 'cruelty' off the internet.

I propose "callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering". Does that work for you?

No, your described punishment would not be acceptable to me. As I stated earlier one of my objections to the death penalty is the cruelty of the execution process. So increasing/modified cruelty would not be acceptable to me. However, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to something harsher than the death penalty, such as adding in the forfeiture of property from the criminal's estate.

Um, I guess I would consider that to be a greater punishment than execution.

What is it about 'preciousness' that makes life untouchable? Is it a spiritual thing? Is there some sort of objective quality you can assign to it?

I do maintain that perspective even after factoring in the costs. Everything costs money, some things more than others. It costs more to incarcerate for twenty years than for one year, but if we deem the crime requires a penalty 20x greater then we bear the cost. And 'no innocents' being executed would certainly greatly reduce the number of executions possible although I'm not sure it would eliminate them altogether (e.g. I don't know all the details of the case and thus if this example would apply, but Timothy McVeigh clearly seems to have been guilty including his own admission and desire to be executed). But those are practical matters and kind of get away from the question I was raising. I agree that all of these factors should be considered when deciding whether or not to execute people. But I think all of these factors should also be considered when deciding whether or not in incarcerate someone for 20 years, or to fine them $10,000, or to impose any other punishment on them. What I don't understand is the apparent position of some that regardless of how well we can address cost, risk, abuse of power, or any other factor, that the death penalty is still an option that is verboten. It almost feels like a position taken from religion, that life is 'precious' or a 'gift' that we have no right to take.

Those are of course all good reasons why we should not have the death penalty, and I would add to that list, a run up to the actual execution that to most objective observers would appear to be state sanctioned torture. I think where I differ from some on this site is that if we could eliminate concerns such as the risk to the innocent, the cruel process, and the abuse by authority, that I would no longer find that I had an objective reason to oppose the death penalty.

Grabbing someone off the street and locking them in a room against their will is illegal because society considers it wrong and has codified it as such. How do we avoid hypocrisy if we allow the state to act on that agreement by grabbing someone off the street and locking them in a room against their will? What we choose to be illegal are those types of things that are detrimental to the victim of the crime. Any type of punishment is also going to be detrimental to the person being punished. It is not possible to punish a criminal if we cannot do to them what we have determined cannot be done legally by them to others. We generally try to ensure the punishment fits the crime. If you cheat on your taxes and steal money from the government, you will likely have the government take money away from you. If you kidnap someone, you will likely be incarcerated yourself.

Why is it that the use of the death penalty crosses the line of acceptable punishment? I have no objection to society drawing the line wherever they wish, but I don't understand why people feel so strongly that the death penalty is somehow a punishment that no 'seemingly sentient' person would even consider, or how the death penalty is so outrageous that its mere consideration is laughable. Society has decided that people should be punished for their crimes, and the level of punishment can fall anywhere on a continuum depending upon the severity of the crime. The more egregious the crime, the more severe the punishment. Few people seem to have a problem with punishing a bank robber more severely than a bicycle thief. Punishment generally takes something away from the criminal. Either money in the form of fines for smaller crimes, or freedom for more serious crimes. Punishment generally increases in step with the severity of the crime. While people generally do not see anything wrong with minimal punishment for minimal crimes, and medium punishment for medium crimes, many people do not accept the idea of the maximum punishment (which I suppose is death) for the maximum crime. I understand that people are generally afraid of wrongly putting someone to death for a crime they did not commit, and it is not that attitude I am questioning. What I don't understand is why some people feel it is simply something beyond the bounds of what can even be considered. Why should the death penalty be strictly off the table, but locking someone up in a 10x6 cell for 60 years is not off the table? Why is the maximum penalty for the maximum crime unacceptable?

I appreciate the effort you put into those calculations, but unless I'm mistaken you have shown that 'planting more plants' is not a solution to the growing problem of climate change, much less an easy one.

How many plants are part of this easy solution?

You are right that life on this planet will make adjustments. The issue I think is that we are doing it to ourselves, we know better (well, some of us), and if we acted collectively we could take care of the issue before it became a bigger problem than it already is. If you accidentally started a small fire in your kitchen you wouldn't say "No problem, there have been fires for millions of years. We'll adjust." Instead you would make an effort to put the fire out and minimize the damage. Why not deal with a smaller problem now than a bigger problem later?

Sorry that you feel I am attacking or mocking or misquoting you, but I really don't think I am. I don't know how to read your comment any other way. Doesn't matter if there is or not. You don't wish to answer the question. I'll drop it.

Interesting perspective. Locking up someone for something they might do in the future. Great! So back to my previous question. Assuming we had a full proof method, if someone who robbed or killed is no longer a threat to do so again, do you believe they should not be punished?