The Death Penalty - Page 16

Liebling:-))) · 05-08-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiro123

USA Population: 304 million
Germany Population: 82 million

(population of more than 100,000)
# of cities in USA: 251
# of cities in Germany: 82

(population of more than 8 million)
# of Major Cities in USA : 8
# of Major Cities in Germany: 4

(0.00 means perfectly homogeneous country and 1 is perfectly heterogeneous)
Diversity Index of USA Population: 0.49
Diversity Index of Germany Population: 0.15
(cannot find official data but according to CIA World Factbook, Germany is 91.5% germans and 8.5% foreigners so it's based on my rough calculation with Gibbs & Martin's index of diversity formula

HMMMMM....... I see...... I see..... now that explains why USA have more crimes than Germany.... apple and orange.... makes me wonder if you ever seen a group of at least 10 black people at any time in Germany.

common sense? sorry friend, no I use facts and numbers. common sense plays a funny trick on us. numbers don't lie. You know what's funny? My friends in Korea and other country were afraid to visit NYC. why? because they said - "ooohhh so many black people! lot of mafia! many murders!!" so funny.....

I can see that you only calcalate % population between America and Germany, not calcalate % crime rate per population.

There´re many high and low population in the world... but you need to calcalate how many % crime rate per capita per population they have, to compare America with Germany or other countries...

Do your homework

Really, interesting to know that your Korean friends thought negative about NYC but we Europeans thought positive about NYC. I would love to visit NYC...

Liebling:-))) · 05-08-2008, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiro123

and I also choose to not take your concern seriously unless you did have child who is a serial killer/rapist. It shows your misplaced sympathy toward to murderous criminals who will kill you and me for no reason - maybe just cuz we look at him funny.

*shake my head quietly*

What KarissaMann05 said after your post is correct.

Liebling:-))) · 05-08-2008, 12:01 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiro123

Oh is there a class to learn how to be a parent? Just because Leibling or anybody who delivered a baby automatically makes her qualified of knowledge and expertise? I can show you other moms who have completely opposite view of Leibling's. so let's just leave at that....

*raise my hand* Do you mean that other moms´s opinoin is the same as yours? If yes, then please tell me or any sources to support your claim. The reason I am asking because it´s hard to beleive that other mothers have same reactions as you. I would love to hear because I am interesting...

Liebling:-))) · 05-08-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarnetTigerMom

you could be righ might be genetic, but it also could be bad exposure from watching to many violances on t.v. or movies and go to their heads or make friends with the wrong crowds to join their group to get attention all for the wrong way or possiblity bad influence by a cults. It could be many numbers of a person go wrong to take the wrong dark path.

Well, it´s parent´s responsible to limit children what they allow to watch or not and watch child´s movement. It´s parent´s responsible to help child to positive path. Educate them in positive way...

If parent neglect/abuse their child a lot to lead her/him to wrong path.......

It doesn´t mean that we are prefect parents but we tried our best what we can as responsible parents.

Yes I aware that we can´t be here and there for 24/7 days to be with our child or watch our child´s movement... It could be happened sometimes... when we are not there or here... but we can tell their odd movement and then do something...

Liebling:-))) · 05-08-2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiro123

One more thing, Leibling - I do NOT mean to say you are a bad mom or that your parental skill is flawed. I'm just merely saying shit can happens beyond your control. I'm pretty damn sure you're a great mom!

Okay and

for nice thoughtful post.

Liebling:-))) · 05-08-2008, 12:21 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

I'm sorry, I must say that I disagree with you, because from reading jiro123's posts, he/she made a lot of good points.

Do you as mother would do like what she/he suggest?

Quote:

I'm kind of appalled at your reasoning. For me - if my child was a serial killer, he is dead to me. I'll disavow him and let the court judges his fate. I will have to spend rest of my life thinking about he has done to victims and victims' families. If he got a life sentence, I'm not even going to visit him once.

Yes I have a strong ethic in preserving a life at all cost but there is a line. For example, if this armed robber was robbing me and I caught him with my gun, I will not shoot to kill unless he shoots first or poses extreme danger to my family. I exercise my rights to shoot with extreme hesitance.

Quote:

Then you should be in prison too for raising a killing machine. I would arrest you and charge you with criminally negligent manslaughter for knowingly raising a killing machine that is a danger to public but self-denying it. If it's your fault for exposing him/her into serial killer, then you should be in jail. Hell - we should arrest punk friends of murderer for exposing him to criminal elements!! Let's arrest owners of strip club for exposing such filth to men who became rapists!!!

Bullshit. Everyone is responsible for their own action - nobody else unless you brainwashed him as your drone and he does everything at your command like a robot.

Quote:

People do have secrets, they're not an open book, the only way you'll know is to get inside their minds.

Take Scott Peterson for an example, his parents thought he was all-loving son, generous, hard-working man, but he had his secrets, that his parents never knew, a son that is be a cold-blood murder. Some people still think he is innocent, but I don't think he is, he wouldn't lie so much, where nobody would want to believe him anymore.

Exactly, you have my point, not him/her.

And they are against death penalty for their son.

They are heartbreaking and never thought what and how he did to his wife and unborn child. They agree that he deserves to stay in jail, not death penalty.

Why should we punish the parents of serial killer? We should punish serial killer only, not punish their parents for sentence her or him to death.

Liebling:-))) · 05-08-2008, 12:27 PM

Cheri,

for share the link... It´s very sad to read it... It hurt me... he look innoncent and do for his sister...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiro123

yea thanks god he wasn't wrongfully-executed! After all, abolitionists have nothing to worry about! Justice System prevails!! So far, 0 has been wrongfully-executed!

Simple is they can´t sentence him to death because of minor accord the law. They sure would sentence him to death if he is not minor... His sister aviod death penalty and use him and thought it´s easy because of his age... but it´s not easy what she thought...

I personally disagree justice system to sentence him to life accord his age and good background or sentence him to death accord his good past background.

Liebling:-))) · 05-08-2008, 12:29 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiro123

Referring to Liebling's posting - Myths about the death penalty

This is link, I provided is an accurate.

Quote:

Looks like I got mixed up Liebling with Jillio! Silly me

Liebling:-))) · 05-08-2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarissaMann05

Whoa... Yes, please. I like to read yours because I don't read yours yet. Where is it?

Okay, you will have it later.

Liebling:-))) · 05-08-2008, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarissaMann05

I hate to say it.

That's so bullshit. I was taught by my ex HS that execution can take innocents and I got a few stories from people I barely know. I am so surprise that post claimed there is no wrongfully executed innocents, well, I respectfully disagreed. YES, it does happen. So, I have nothing to say. =/

Yes, me too. It´s hard to beleive that there´re no wrongfully executed innocents... I already posted the link of executed innoncnets somewhere...

Cheri · 05-08-2008, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

Do you as mother would do like what she/he suggest?

He is entitle to his opinion and if he says he would disown his own child, that's his call, He said "If" it's your fault for exposing him/her into serial killer, then you should be in jail and I agree, because everyone is responsible for their own actions, and if you lead him to be a killing machine then you should be responsible too, that's what he means.

jillio · 05-08-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Yes, it is.

unambiguously - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Okay, it was used incorrectly.

jiro123 · 05-08-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Yes, and have already done so. You cannot be absolutely certain that everyone put to death in the justice system has been guilty of the crime for which they died UNLESS YOU RUN DNA FROM THE CRIME SCENE. Since that has not been done, and they have failed to exhume any executed individual in order to ascertain this, then you DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN that each person put to death was unequivocally guilty. And given the people who have been released from lengthy prison sentences in the lighjt of new DNA evidence proving their innocence and wrongful conviction, it is quite evident that our criminal justice system makes grave errors. If we have made such errors in non-death penalty cases, resulting in people being incarcerated for 26 or more years wrongfully, then the chances are great that at some point over the last 108 years that you have cited, at least one innocent person has been put to death that could have been exonerated by additional evidence. To believe that the possiblity is not real is to be nothing more than naive. To refuse to believe it in light of the facts of recent exonerations and errors that have come to light is to choose to remain ignorant. The fact of the matter is, our criminal justice system is capable or error, and therefore, there is always the risk of executing an innocent person any time the death penalty is resorted to as a form of punishment. No amount of naivete can get rid of that risk. It is ever present, because it is inherehnt in a system that is subject to error.

and it is quite evident that our way of life is troubling when our divorce rate in USA is approximately 40-50% (or 0.38% divorces per capita)... we ought to ban marriage! It is quite evident that our education system is useless, according to National Geographic Society and Roper Organization survey found that 83% of Americans aged 18-24 could not find Afghanistan on map, we ought to ban schools! OH! OH! It is evident that our driving skill SUCKS! that 42,642 died in 2006 due to vehicle accidents, we ought to ban vehicles! PLEASE stop that ultra-liberalism crap. It makes me think you're tree-hugger, whale-hugger, anti-abortion, anti-corporation, anti-gun, anti-anti-anti. The world ain't fair and we just try to balance it the best we can. Remember - there are handful of criminals on death penalty row or life imprisonment who will kill you for your nice shoes you're wearing. Hell! they'll even kill you for sympathizing them. They don't care about your sympathy. we all make mistakes but thing is - Nowaday, the chance of wrongfully-executing somebody is very improbable. If you recall - I stated that our success rate was 96% and growing lot higher. That's why I collected some stats from anti-death penalty sites which was ACLU to make it fair for you. However - officially, 0 has been wrongfully-executed since 1900. If you want to argue about technicality of "in the light of DNA evidence" and such... bring it up to them and correct it. I'm just seeing what I see on statistic report.

It's not the naivete but our beloved Constitution and legal system allowed the criminals to appeal which drastically reduce that risk of wrongful execution. Thanks God for that! At least it's not like China! and thanks God that we continue to improve our technology rapidly such as DNA testing. We made mistakes long long time ago and it was in "new" at that time. We pretty much fixed bunch of kinks (and still improving) and now... I repeat - the chance of wrongfully-executing somebody is very improbable.

Maybe you should be a pro-bono lawyer for them! Since you have a strong view on such issue, have you done anything for it? did you write letter to your congressman/woman? did you participate at public forum?

Quote:

Evidently, you have a very lax criteria for what you consider to be "proof". You continue to claim proof when you haven't even managed to support well, let alone "prove" anything. If you are capable of making such errors,and use such a lax crierion for deciding that which is proof of fact, then God help anyone on whose jury you should serve. Your inability to see the holes in your own logic is simply more evidence of the flaws within our justice system as juries are made of individuals such as yourself. To think that a man's life could rest with someone who cannot even adequately define proof is frightening indeed, and does nothing but support my position that errors are made on a daily basis, and the risk of an error being made in a death penalty case is ever present.

Evidently, you should not be on jury. You fail to be impartial and you let your emotion clouds your judgment even though truth is there. God help victims if you were to acquit the killer just because you did not want death penalty. If you recall - I exercise extreme hesitance to shoot to kill when defending myself and my family. I don't take elimination of life lightly but mistakes do happen but that doesn't mean we should ban my gun or anything.

Funny thing is you claim that I fail to to support the proof when I have already shown you statistics, graph, and studies. 16 pages of this forum and you have YET given me 0 proof. I'm really enjoying your obfuscation.

Quote:

BTW, started on those articles that you demanded yet?

again - nope!

Quote:

Now who wants their homework done for them? If you had kept up with your studies all along, you wouldn't need to cram at the last minute in order to pass a final exam. You get no sympathy from me on that one. I work 2 jobs, am in the middle of a dissertation, and teach 2 classes.

maybe you should pay attention to that!

Quote:

I managed to look the articles up and provide you with formated citations. All you have to do is go to the library and read them. I've already made it easier for you than I would make it for one of my students. Show some responsibility for your own education.

Because of my responsibility for my education, maybe I'll read your cites after the finals.

on the last note - I have repeatedly stated my position. If the errors outweigh the benefits, then I will stand by you to abolish the death penalty. All you have done for me is dismissing the graph/statistics/reports that I have given you and you still have not convinced me any single bit. CONVINCE ME! CONVINCE US ALL!

Oh by the way - I believe death penalty should be reserve for serial killer/rapist/etc. and hardened merciless bloodthirsty dangerous criminals. Murdering 1 person does not qualify for it unless it's like Scott Peterson.

jiro123 · 05-08-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Okay, it was used incorrectly.

not really. If it was "ambiguously," that implies Judge Scalia is against death penalty. If it was "unambiguously," that implies he is NOT against death penalty.

1. Washington, DC - "You want to have a fair death penalty?" U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia asked an audience of nearly 500 academics and others at a January 25 conference on religion and the death penalty. "You kill; you die. That's fair."

2. "The legal issue for me as a judge is whether the death penalty, as it is administered, violates the Eighth Amendment," he said. "Does it constitute cruel and unusual punishment? The answer is no."

3. As a Roman Catholic, Scalia disagrees with the recent teaching of the Catholic catechism and Evangelium Vitae "that the death penalty can only be imposed to protect rather than avenge," and therefore is almost always wrong.

need any more clarification on Judge Scalia's position on death penalty? I think we both know what side of fence he is on.

Reba · 05-08-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Okay, it was used incorrectly.

jillio · 05-08-2008, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiro123

and it is quite evident that our way of life is troubling when our divorce rate in USA is approximately 40-50% (or 0.38% divorces per capita)... we ought to ban marriage! It is quite evident that our education system is useless, according to National Geographic Society and Roper Organization survey found that 83% of Americans aged 18-24 could not find Afghanistan on map, we ought to ban schools! OH! OH! It is evident that our driving skill SUCKS! that 42,642 died in 2006 due to vehicle accidents, we ought to ban vehicles! PLEASE stop that ultra-liberalism crap. It makes me think you're tree-hugger, whale-hugger, anti-abortion, anti-corporation, anti-gun, anti-anti-anti. The world ain't fair and we just try to balance it the best we can. Remember - there are handful of criminals on death penalty row or life imprisonment who will kill you for your nice shoes you're wearing. Hell! they'll even kill you for sympathizing them. They don't care about your sympathy. we all make mistakes but thing is - Nowaday, the chance of wrongfully-executing somebody is very improbable. If you recall - I stated that our success rate was 96% and growing lot higher. That's why I collected some stats from anti-death penalty sites which was ACLU to make it fair for you. However - officially, 0 has been wrongfully-executed since 1900. If you want to argue about technicality of "in the light of DNA evidence" and such... bring it up to them and correct it. I'm just seeing what I see on statistic report.

[color="Red"]The divorce rate, the educational system, and car accidents are not the topic of discussion. The death penalty is the topic of offer proof of discussion. Your argruments are completely fallicious. And you keep claiming proof of something that can on;ly be assumed, not proven. I have already explained to you why it cannot be proven, and it light of the number of wrongful convictions that have been overturned since the use of DNA evidence, it is highly unlikely that your claim would ever play out as factual. You statistics and graphs offer proof of nothing, because there is inofrmation missing that could very well change the entire nature of those statistics and graphs. Therefore, they can only be used to support your position, not as absolute proof[/COLOR]. It would appear that the college from which are going to graduate has failed to teach you critical thinking skills.

It's not the naivete but our beloved Constitution and legal system allowed the criminals to appeal which drastically reduce that risk of wrongful execution. Thanks God for that! At least it's not like China! and thanks God that we continue to improve our technology rapidly such as DNA testing. We made mistakes long long time ago and it was in "new" at that time. We pretty much fixed bunch of kinks (and still improving) and now... I repeat - the chance of wrongfully-executing somebody is very improbable.

[color="Red"]Again, you need to read a bit more c arefully. You seem to read the words, but totally lack comprehension of the meaning. No one ever said that the constitution was naive. I said you were naive. And jsut because a chance is improbable does not mean it is [b]nonexistent.[/[/B And that is the whole point. The risk exists that an innocent person could be executed, which make the death penaly no more than legally sanctioned murder.COLOR]

Maybe you should be a pro-bono lawyer for them! Since you have a strong view on such issue, have you done anything for it? did you write letter to your congressman/woman? did you participate at public forum?

I actively advocate for everything in which I strongly believe. It is called living by one's ethics. Perhaps you will develop that much of a principled existence. Obviously, you haven't arrived there yet.

Evidently, you should not be on jury. You fail to be impartial. If I were on jury and if I was shown sufficient evidence and testimony beyond reasonable doubt, yes I will vote guilty (no matter what the punishment is). If you recall - I exercise extreme hesitance to shoot to kill when defending myself and my family. I don't take elimination of life lightly but mistakes do happen but that doesn't mean we should ban my gun or anything.

Once again, stick to the topic. We are not discussing the concept of guiilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We are discussing the death penalty. Nor are we discussing the banning of guns. I have served on several juries in my time. How many have you served on?

Funny thing is you claim that I fail to to support the proof when I have already shown you statistics, graph, and studies. 16 pages of this forum and you have YET given me 0 proof. I'm really enjoying your obfuscation.

And, as I said, and have explained numerous times, but which you seem to be incapable of comprehending, statisitics and graph do not constitute proof. And support for my side has been provided. You have simply failed to take the time to read it. You have chosen to remain ingnorant.

again - nope!

You demand support, and then you fail to utilize that which has been provided. Like I said, you have made a choice to remain ignorant.

maybe you should pay attention to that!
Pay attention to what, exactly?

I managed to look the articles up and provide you with formated citations. All you have to do is go to the library and read them. I've already made it easier for you than I would make it for one of my students. Show some responsibility for your own education.

hmm 3.45 GPA with honors and resume as long as your arm... yea i'm doing quite fine. I guess your psychology degree isn't doing great for your assessment on me. Because of my responsibility for my education, maybe I'll read your cites after the finals.

Funny, with a 3.5 GPA, you should have opted out of your finals. No, sweetie, my psychology degree has enabled me to assess you quite accurately. You are naive, inexperienced, and overly confident in your knowledege. And that is not a clinical diagnosis. It is simply what you have made apparent from your posts.

Maybe you will read them. Oh, yeah, that shows a great deal of responsibility for your education!

Like I said, the choice to remain ignorant is yours.

on the last note - I have repeatedly stated my position. If the errors outweigh the benefits, then I will stand by you to abolish the death penalty. All you have done for me is dismissing the graph/statistics/reports that I have given you and you still have not convinced me any single bit. CONVINCE ME! CONVINCE US ALL!

One can not convince one whose mind is closed. Ignorance is a choice.

Oh by the way - I believe death penalty should be reserve for serial killer/rapist/etc. and hardened merciless bloodthirsty dangerous criminals. Murdering 1 person does not qualify for it unless it's like Scott Peterson.[/quote]

There are your inconsistencies again. I believe in ONLY, and then you turn right around and say UNLESS. No courage of your convictions, and not sure what you truly believe, obviously. Perhaps when you become as learned as you believe you are now, you will actually be capable of deciding what it is you believe, and sticking to it.

Liebling:-))) · 05-08-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheri

He is entitle to his opinion and if he says he would disown his own child, that's his call, He said "If" it's your fault for exposing him/her into serial killer, then you should be in jail and I agree, because everyone is responsible for their own actions, and if you lead him to be a killing machine then you should be responsible too, that's what he means.

You do not need to coninvce me because I already understood his/her post... I pasted both of his/her posts and ASKED you as mother: Would you do like that what he/she suggest...?

jiro123 · 05-08-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I have served on several juries in my time.

Really? lemme guess - petty stuff like assault, robbery, and such. Any murder-related trial?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Once again, stick to the topic. We are not discussing the concept of guiilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We are discussing the death penalty. Nor are we discussing the banning of guns.

I merely corrected your assumption that I do not care for life being executed. I used the concept of banning gun just because it kills people is silly just as much as banning death penalty just because of risk of executing innocents when there has been 0 wrongfully-executed since 1900s (or 96% success rate based on ACLU statistic). I'm sorry but the law doesn't mostly operate on emotions. We need hard facts, hard statistic, hard studies to decide on laws that is fair for all. You certainly don't want right-wingers to make laws for all. I certainly don't want left-wingers to make laws for all either!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

No, sweetie, my psychology degree has enabled me to assess you quite accurately. You are naive, inexperienced, and overly confident in your knowledege. And that is not a clinical diagnosis. It is simply what you have made apparent from your posts.

Interesting... But I'm sorry to say it's not the assessment you're making. It's the judgment. I think your professor would scold you for that. I believe I stated previously in #366 that my life experience and knowledge have taught me to be strong and have common sense with logic. I've seen all ugly stuff that no child should witness.

and yes I am overly confident in my knowledge that I am open to all and will agree with any argument that makes most sense to me. At first long time ago, I believed gay life is morally wrong but as I listened and talked with gay people, I quickly accepted them. I support them in every way - gay marriage rights, legal rights, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Maybe you will read them. Oh, yeah, that shows a great deal of responsibility for your education! Like I said, the choice to remain ignorant is yours.

hmmmm..... Judge Scalia (Harvard Law School and Roman Catholic), Reba, and I have exactly same view. Considering Judge Scalia has far more experience and qualification in this matter than both of you and I combined... and yet he has same view as Reba and mine. Interesting... Interesting... so you're saying we're dumbass and ignorant? and that our ethics are of sub-human? and you basically believe you're on high horse following behind God on Crusader Mission? and you believe you are right in every way? I don't know about you but I think anybody with psychology degree would believe you are delusional and have a distorted view of the world.

Do you know why I am flexible in what I believe in? Think about back in 1900s where white people STRONGLY believed black people were TRULY inferior - scientifically and genetically. and they strongly believed blacks were Devil's creatures out to rape their women and eat them. Think about back in 1500s where Europeans strongly believed it was God's duty to colonize the world and to enslave the inferior natives. Heck! in old time, they believed women should be a GOOD WIFE and stay in kitchen and bed which you would be doing if Women's Rights weren't recognized! Boy! were they so wrong!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I actively advocate for everything in which I strongly believe. It is called living by one's ethics. Perhaps you will develop that much of a principled existence. Obviously, you haven't arrived there yet.

Are you saying your ethics are better than us - or in fact you are closer to God? In my opinion, I think my ethic makes better sense than yours.

Scenario 1
"Oh no.... poor deer... laying on the street, all messed up from getting hit by a car, dying. What should I do? What should I do?"
your "ethic" - you call 911 and hope for best even though deer is FUBAR
my "ethic" - I mercifully end his agony and let the God takes care of him and scoot him over to forest (been there twice

)

Scenario 2
"A dying patient with terminal cancer is in extreme agony and no amount of morphine can relieve him of pain. He begged you to end his life because he can't take the pain anymore."
your "ethic" - no! don't take easy way out! duke it out!
my "ethic" - may the God be with you and I mercifully end his agony

Scenario 3
"John Doe was charged with brutally raping and murdering 2 women. He escaped the prison and killed 1 person to take his car. Now he got caught and he's back on trial again for that person he recently murdered."
your "ethic" - Not Guilty because I do not believe in death penalty
my "ethic" - GUILTY! GUILTY!

I am done with Jillio. 16 pages so far and still no statistic/studies/etc. Only your "principle" and "ethics." I'll resume debate once you have given me that.

I suppose you're one of those people with such silly rigid view. Maybe you should stop being over-educated behind papers & books and start being over-experienced with the world?

well I'm going to take your advice to go to library (not to read your cites

) so I can finally start studying for my final exam

BTW - Jillio, I don't hate you but I enjoy debating and exchanging our ideals/beliefs/etc to hopefully come to mutual agreement. My family gets sick of debating convo so I guess that's why I have my own dinner table....

j/k

jillio · 05-08-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiro123

Really? lemme guess - petty stuff like assault, robbery, and such. Any murder-related trial?

I merely corrected your assumption that I do not care for life being executed. I used the concept of banning gun just because it kills people is silly just as much as banning death penalty just because of risk of executing innocents when there has been 0 wrongfully-executed since 1900s (or 96% success rate based on ACLU statistic). I'm sorry but the law doesn't mostly operate on emotions. We need hard facts, hard statistic, hard studies to decide on laws that is fair for all. You certainly don't want right-wingers to make laws for all. I certainly don't want left-wingers to make laws for all either!

Interesting... But I'm sorry to say it's not the assessment you're making. It's the judgment. I think your professor would scold you for that. I believe I stated previously in #366 that my life experience and knowledge have taught me to be strong and have common sense with logic. I've seen all ugly stuff that no child should witness.

and yes I am overly confident in my knowledge that I am open to all and will agree with any argument that makes most sense to me. At first long time ago, I believed gay life is morally wrong but as I listened and talked with gay people, I quickly accepted them. I support them in every way - gay marriage rights, legal rights, etc.

hmmmm..... Judge Scalia (Harvard Law School and Roman Catholic), Reba, and I have exactly same view. Considering Judge Scalia has far more experience and qualification in this matter than both of you and I combined... and yet he has same view as Reba and mine. Interesting... Interesting... so you're saying we're dumbass and ignorant? and that our ethics are of sub-human? and you basically believe you're on high horse following behind God on Crusader Mission? and you believe you are right in every way? I don't know about you but I think anybody with psychology degree would believe you are delusional and have a distorted view of the world.

Do you know why I am flexible in what I believe in? Think about back in 1900s where white people STRONGLY believed black people were TRULY inferior - scientifically and genetically. and they strongly believed blacks were Devil's creatures out to rape their women and eat them. Think about back in 1500s where Europeans strongly believed it was God's duty to colonize the world and to enslave the inferior natives. Heck! in old time, they believed women should be a GOOD WIFE and stay in kitchen and bed which you would be doing if Women's Rights weren't recognized! Boy! were they so wrong!!!

Are you saying your ethics are better than us - or in fact you are closer to God? In my opinion, I think my ethic makes better sense than yours.

Scenario 1
"Oh no.... poor deer... laying on the street, all messed up from getting hit by a car, dying. What should I do? What should I do?"
your "ethic" - you call 911 and

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com