DD Social Thread (v1)

[Beverleyh]

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

The original announcement thread has been split to keep the announcement itself on topic. The discussion that followed is below.

Original thread: http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/showthread.php?71417-Three-new-moderators-join-the-team!

Note 2: This has now been converted to our first "Social Thread". Discuss!




Good on you chaps!

Does this mean I can't call traq 'traqypoos' anymore? ;)

Or maybe if I use 'Mr traqypoos' instead?

[djr33]

I believe 'Mr. Moderator Traqypoos' would be appropriate.

[Beverleyh]

Perfect! Much more austere - ha, ha

[jscheuer1]

Is it his avatar?

[bernie1227]

Well, congratulations to all of them, especially keyboard, who I didn't think would ever get mod :p another thing that's interesting, the highest post count on a non-mod is now about 10,000

[bernie1227]

Is it his avatar?

I found the picture his avatar was from the other day, it's a picture of all the browsers as kids, and chrome and Firefox fighting away, while ie is eating glue

[Beverleyh]

Is it his avatar?
Like the ie kid eating glue is Pooh bear eating honey? I actually never thought of it that way but it does seem a pretty likely thought process to get from that to 'traqypoos' :)

No, much less logic goes into it I'm afraid - I just give pet names to people I like. Traqypoos, Johnnykins, Dannyboy - more will emerge - I just haven't got around to 'voicing' them all yet. ha, ha.

[bernie1227]

Permission to call keyboard 'keebs' ma'am?

[jscheuer1]

Well, now that mystery is solved, yes - welcome aboard new mods!

[bernie1227]

Goal achieved: have a higher post per day than three of the mods :p
New goal: get more posts than one of the mods :p

[Beverleyh]

'Keebs' it is!

[keyboard]

oh yay *sarcastically*

[bernie1227]

We all know you like it keebs :p

[jscheuer1]

Keebs who? - I like the new avatar.

[keyboard]

OMG I just got the joke ^


We all know you like it keebs
Actually, I kindof do... :D

Another thread that has somehow been diverted from it's orginal purpose...

[bernie1227]

I think Beverly is bringing out the comedian in john

[ajfmrf]

Congrats to all three of you

james438, traq and keyboard1333

[keyboard]

Thanks!

[traq]

Thank you to everyone.

And I've said it in the mod forum, but congrats again to James and "keebs" as well! :)


I believe 'Mr. Moderator Traqypoos' would be appropriate.

fine by me, Beverly. though I don't think anyone else could get away with it. :)


I found the picture his avatar was from the other day, it's a picture of all the browsers as kids, and chrome and Firefox fighting away, while ie is eating glue

yeah, I thought that was hilarious.

[keyboard]

We need a name for james!!!!

On a random note - I find it funny that there are more moderators online then there are members (for the entire day)

[Beverleyh]

fine by me, Beverly. though I don't think anyone else could get away with it. That's precisely why I love working in IT - I can get away with loads more with those amusing IT boys than I can in any catty female dominated workplace :) I know of very few other professions where its acceptable, nay, obligatory to have transforming robots, clockwork zimmer racing grandmas or fluffy blue aliens on your desk! More acceptance and less claws I say!

[Beverleyh]

Ps - will think of a suitable James related nickname over breakfast

[djr33]

Beverley, linguists are a pretty weird group too. But in that case, sometimes you might finding yourself in a race to be the weirdest. Needless to say, linguistics parties are strange places.

[bernie1227]

We need a name for james!!!!

On a random note - I find it funny that there are more moderators online then there are members (for the entire day)

Yeah? Well while you moderator flapjacks sit there with your comfy mcp, Beverly and I are answering threads, and occasionally helping people, unlike you guys (with exception) who just answer questions correctly! I mean, what's the fun in that?

[Beverleyh]

Beverley, linguists are a pretty weird group too. But in that case, sometimes you might finding yourself in a race to be the weirdest. Needless to say, linguistics parties are strange places. I think I would need a dictionary to keep up!

"flapjacks"!! Ha, ha - that'll be with me all day :) *wipes tear from eye*

[jscheuer1]

Would an example of that weirdness be, as Moneypenny said to James Bond in one of the films:

"I always knew you were a cunning linguist."

?

[bernie1227]

I thought flapjacks seemed like an appropriate insult that wouldn't get me banned :p

[Beverleyh]

Would an example of that weirdness be, as Moneypenny said to James Bond in one of the films:

"I always knew you were a cunning linguist."

?* slams dictionary shut and blushes profusely *

Surely not! Daniel is far too sweet and innocent for all that kind of word play! :p
(maybe not the most appropriate smiley)

[djr33]

You see, John, that's one of about 2 jokes in all of linguistics, and the other one is pointing out that we only have 2 jokes...

[bernie1227]

The past the present and the future walked into a bar. It was tense.

[jscheuer1]

I think you closed the book too soon on the linguist's jokes. I liked the smiley though. Bernie's is pretty good. And most jokes are nothing but words, even more are nothing without words. And if you count puns, any field of study, linguistics included, must have a ton of possibilities based upon its jargon alone.

[keyboard]

Just a random question John, "4 More Years, Vote!" ?

[djr33]

Oh, I'm not saying we don't try. We have plenty of jokes. Most people just don't get them. We do like borrowing jokes from others though-- and yes, they are in language, so we can call them our own! Victory!

And yes, Bernie, that's a good one. Hadn't heard that one before.

[bernie1227]

Q) why did the subjunctive get in a fight?


A) because it was moody

[jscheuer1]

Just a random question John, "4 More Years, Vote!" ?

There is a presidential election coming up in the US. I think it's important enough to lend my title to it for now.

[bernie1227]

Mitt Romney or Barack Obama? What's the general consensus here?

[jscheuer1]

Let's see, should we go back to the Republican party that almost completely ruined the country, or let Obama continue fixing things?

After George Bush ruined the Texas Rangers, it took 8 years and Nolan Ryan to get them back into winning form. I think Obama needs at least as much time.

[james438]

I am in the ultra rare position (at least for me and especially this late in the game) where I am undecided. I've really been struggling with this one.

[jscheuer1]

Iowa's a swing state, though with only 6 electoral votes it's probably not so important.

And since were both mods now I can no longer tell you how to vote :)

So I'm curious - What are the key differences you're aware of that you're having trouble deciding upon?

[james438]

That's a difficult question to answer. I want to be careful how I answer, because religion and politics are the number one and two topics that are most likely to start arguments and it is something many people like to argue about. It could potentially draw debaters in like flies.

Still, I am Christian and have been since 16. Christian is a broad term, but I am against abortion and am for the death penalty. I am against defining marriage as something other than one man and one woman. I am a solid Republican in so far as it stays true to biblical values. Still, I do like how President Obama stays true to the Democratic party platform. Mitt Romney I don't trust. His position seems to change too easily.

I'm being a little vague on purpose and probably not vague enough!

No matter who wins or how good or bad our elected officials are we (Christians) are commanded to pray for the well being and wisdom of our elected officials because they have ultimately been placed there by God.

For those who want to know where a politician stands on any given issue I have found http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm to be very useful.

I will probably be more reserved in my responses on this, because for most people this is a touchy issue and I do not believe that heated debates really help to sway people one way or the other.

[jscheuer1]

I think you meant rarely help . . . not really help . . . to sway . . .

I don't think you can hold back the tide on gay marriage regardless of who you vote for. Delay it perhaps. It's basic civil rights. At one time interracial marriage was viewed the same way, as well as interfaith. No church can be required to sanction a gay marriage though. That's also a part of our constitution, as are the basic principals of civil rights. And no one is going to force you to marry a man.

On abortion I wonder what gives you the right to choose for the woman? It's her body, and her life. If we have all these babies, which party is more likely to help look after them? And if it's the sanctity of life that concerns you, why is the death penalty such a good thing?

Again, on the governmental level these are civil issues - women's rights and the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There's reasonable debate about when life begins, but there's little or no debate about the fact that the death penalty ends life.

You can slow down the march of freedom and other basic human rights, even turn back the clock, but you'll never in the end stem the tide.

At the same time you are more than welcome to your views and beliefs in our great country. That will never change because of the outcome of this election. That's why I think the choice is clear between a Republican party that wants to reinstate the policies that drove us near to economic depression, and a Democratic party that wants to continue the recovery.

[molendijk]

John, you cannot change the beliefs of a believer. You cannot take away his/her beliefs because without it he/she doesn't know how to manage ideas on questions of life. Believers need the security that they don't have by themselves. For Christians, it's the Bible, for muslims, it's the Koran etc., regardless of what is written in those 'sacred books'. Biblical values? God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, on Mount Moriah? Do we want that? That's much more insane than a man marrying another man. By the way, I'm 1000 percent hetero.
---
Arie, christian by education, agnostic by nature.

[molendijk]

Q) why did the subjunctive get in a fight? A) because it was moody

The past the present and the future walked into a bar. It was tense.
Bernie, I like them, although they aren't true. In a language like French, the subjunctive is alive and kicking. The rules change, but the subjunctive itself is in very good health, even in a bar. As for tense, you are mistaking it with time. In everybody's brain, their's a notion of past/present/future. In the linguistic morphological expression of time (=tense), their's often just present and / or past, like in certain African languages (only present) or in a language like Dutch, which often uses the present to refer to the future. In English, that happens less frequently, but this language (like Dutch) does not have a specific morphological form for the future (it uses 'will' or 'shall' etc. for it). By the way, this comment shows that linguistics isn't jazzy, and that it has no future. So be it. Astronomy isn't 'jokey' either. But both are infinitely interesting.
Arie.

[djr33]

John, I have to say that's a very well written post. We seem to share the same perspective on much of that.

I'm not particularly political; that is, I find problems with both parties and don't really see one as being a good answer; rather, I choose to vote to avoid certain things.

On the topic of gay marriage, I completely agree with John. I think opposition to gay marriage is absurd because in 20-40 years we'll look back at this situation as exactly the same thing as the Civil Rights Movement, or women's right to vote. Racism is now considered inappropriate in the country, but 50 years ago it was the norm. In 20-40 years, I simply can't imagine anything but homosexuality being considered acceptable and protected in the same way that racism is considered incorrect now.

James, I say this in absolutely the most respectful way, I don't really care what your views are-- they're your views. You're welcome to them. The next logical step would be to say "let's agree to disagree" (which sounds fine to me). But the problem with the republican stance on such things is that it's not "agree to disagree", but rather "we'll force our opinion on you", which I oppose in principle. Allowing gay marriage is something that doesn't affect me at all-- I see no reason to stop it. I'm not going to participate in it (I'm happily married to a woman), but I don't mind if others do. And I just don't see whatever my opinion is having any relevance to what they do-- that should be based on their opinions.

In the case of abortion, the situation is a lot trickier. My position (if you haven't guessed already) is freedom of choice-- the individuals affected can choose what to do. But the counterargument is that it's murder. This is hard to refute. If you believe that abortion is murder, then it's hard to make the claim that "ok, but it's an acceptable kind". I can understand that argument. The trouble is that not everyone holds that position based on assumptions not shared by everyone.
The real problem I have with it is the correlation of things like not using birth control and not having abortions. If someone supports birth control and disapproves of abortion, I can see the logic in that. But too often the two line up in a way that just makes no sense to me. If it's really an issue of murder itself, then birth control is the obvious solution. That doesn't mean that people are expected to have sex, just that if they choose to, birth control is clearly a better option than an abortion, under those assumptions.
The polarity of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" has always seemed absurd to me. It's not "pro-life" and "pro-death" as opposites-- it's "pro-choice" in the middle.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on the death penalty. I don't really oppose it. I do find "pro-life"+"pro-death penalty" to be a contradiction and confusing, but that's perhaps beside the point. I think there are so many practical problems with the death penalty that it's probably not worth it-- the potential for killing of an innocent person, the fact that it costs more to execute someone than keep them in prison for life, and a number of other odd things (I once heard that a doctor must declare a prisoner to be healthy before an execution is carried out; if that's true, that's bizarre). I suppose my lack of a strong opinion comes from the fact that I see life in prison and execution as nearly equivalent; I'd only accept the death penalty for someone who would otherwise never rejoin society anyway, so it's unclear that life in prison is really better-- in fact, some people might prefer the death penalty (eg, those who would commit suicide in prison).
But in short, there's no literal advantage to the death penalty, so considering the complications, I don't see that much reason to keep it around; but I disagree with anyone who is strictly against the death penalty simply because it's "bad".

Economically, the democrats are going to have to do more than they are to turn the situation around; and the republications simply have no chance; but it also comes down to a lot of external factors such as financial institutions, businesses, the political image of the country and a few other things. Things are certainly going to change one way or another, and already are in some ways.



(I hesitated to post this because the goal here should not be to start a big debate, I agree.)



Arie, although you potentially have a point, it is phrased more critically than John's post, which is why I like his better-- less likely to bring about an heavily emotional/philosophical argument.
I certainly see a paradox, though. I can see a rational argument that anyone who has "faith" must then be 100% unwaveringly committed to it without questioning it and to believe that everyone else is wrong. That position seems bizarre to me, but it's equally bizarre to think of someone who "kind of believes" something.
I've never liked the terms "atheist" or "agnostic" because they don't seem to properly describe me. "Not religious" seems to classify me in a strange way (in the same sense as I heard a comedian describing problems with the term "non-smoker"). I don't hold a position of God not existing; rather, I simply don't believe in the concept that "God exists", which to me is underdefined and uncertain. To believe that God doesn't exist implies a lot more information about God than seems coherent to me for anyone who would hold that position. "Agnostic" also sounds odd to me because it's also a negation-- not-knowing. I don't think I'm not knowing. In some sense, I do. But I don't think my position is founded on "I dunno", but rather on what I do know. *shrug*

[djr33]

Bernie, I like them, although they aren't true. In a language like French, the subjunctive is alive and kicking. The rules change, but the subjunctive itself is in very good health, even in a bar. As for tense, you are mistaking it with time. In everybody's brain, their's a notion of past/present/future. In the linguistic morphological expression of time (=tense), their's often just present and / or past, like in certain African languages (only present) or in a language like Dutch, which often uses the present to refer to the future. In English, that happens less frequently, but this language (like Dutch) does not have a specific morphological form for the future (it uses 'will' or 'shall' etc. for it). By the way, this comment shows that linguistics isn't jazzy, and that it has no future. So be it. Astronomy isn't 'jokey' either. But both are infinitely interesting.I think you missed the jokes here.

1) The subjunctive is defined as a grammatical mood. It's a simple play on words, and somewhat amusing too.
(A mood, within the concept of modality as a whole, talks about how verbs apply to information, such as the conditional being considered a mood in some languages. This is in contrast to the indicative that is used in non-subjunctive contexts, at least that's generally how it's described for most European languages.)
The use of the term comes out of the traditions in Latin grammar-- back when the subjunctive was certainly alive and well, and of utmost important to the writers of that time. It's still around in many languages (although it fades from others too). But it's a mood, regardless of the rest :)

2) The names for these tenses are "present", "past" and "future". That's all. Open any language textbook if you disagree. Perhaps the joke is on them because that analysis is wrong (I wrote a long essay on this topic last year-- looking at it, not necessarily that they're wrong), but that's it. They're just labels.


I found both jokes quite amusing.
However, there's this other thing about linguistics-- we don't really tend to have jokes. Instead, we do have lots of puns. But perhaps only a linguist would care about that distinction.

[jscheuer1]

I'd just like to add to the death penalty thing that Daniel's right, innocent people are killed by it. That should be reason enough to abandon it. The fact that it's also true that innocent or not, the wealthy are much less likely to be put to death under it, and you can begin to see more of how draconian it is. It might be great if only the guilty were put to death and that there were no favoritism based on wealth, class or race, but that simply isn't the case, and isn't likely to be in the foreseeable future. In the justice system we do our best, but there are plenty of errors and injustices and will continue to be. If someone is in prison for any period of time, even for life, they can always get out early if it's later proven that they're innocent. Once you kill them it's too late.

Back to the jokes - puns are jokes, it's just that while a well crafted joke is a gem of wit, even the best pun is still only a germ of wit.

[djr33]

Yes, and linguists are very good at very bad puns. :p

[bernie1227]

Arie, although you potentially have a point, it is phrased more critically than John's post, which is why I like his better-- less likely to bring about an heavily emotional/philosophical argument.
I certainly see a paradox, though. I can see a rational argument that anyone who has "faith" must then be 100% unwaveringly committed to it without questioning it and to believe that everyone else is wrong. That position seems bizarre to me, but it's equally bizarre to think of someone who "kind of believes" something.
I've never liked the terms "atheist" or "agnostic" because they don't seem to properly describe me. "Not religious" seems to classify me in a strange way (in the same sense as I heard a comedian describing problems with the term "non-smoker"). I don't hold a position of God not existing; rather, I simply don't believe in the concept that "God exists", which to me is underdefined and uncertain. To believe that God doesn't exist implies a lot more information about God than seems coherent to me for anyone who would hold that position. "Agnostic" also sounds odd to me because it's also a negation-- not-knowing. I don't think I'm not knowing. In some sense, I do. But I don't think my position is founded on "I dunno", but rather on what I do know. *shrug*

This is an interesting point that my chaplain was talking about a few weeks ago. He used the analogy of being someone who doesn't smoke and being a non-smoker, there is a greater significance in being a non-smoker, in that it infers that the person had smoked at one point and doesn't anymore. Back on topic, the meaning of the term agnostic, is basically meaning undecided, as to whether god is real or not, atheism is being definite there is no god. In that case you can class yourself as agnostic the sense that you don't know, or you could simply say that you are non-religious, in the sense that that you are indifferent, however, non-religious Also tends to imply atheism. Anyway, I'm no expert, just repeating what I've heard.

As to Arie, Daniel gets the jokes, I was reffering to past/present/future as you see them just about everywhere, and as average Joe sees them. As to the subjunctive, I don't think you're getting the crux of the joke. I mean the subjunctive as the subjunctive mood. Basically, I agree with Daniel, and as you may have guessed, most of my grammar knowledge comes from studies of Latin.

[djr33]

He used the analogy of being someone who doesn't smoke and being a non-smoker, there is a greater significance in being a non-smoker, in that it infers that the person had smoked at one point and doesn't anymore. That's a weird explanation. I've never smoked, wouldn't consider smoking, and I think I'm a non-smoker. Right? Perhaps the term means something different to you.


Back on topic, the meaning of the term agnostic, is basically meaning undecided,...It means a-gnost-ic, "not-know-ing" (more or less in English like that). But people do use it to mean undecided. But that's also problematic-- I'm not undecided. I have decided. (Perhaps some information in the future could make me make a new decision, but that's not relevant to the moment.) I'm not in the middle of a decision. Either way, weird term.

Yes, I prefer "non-religious", or better yet, just "not religious". As I said, saying something like "I believe that god does not exist" makes no sense to me.
(On a more logical level on the whole thing, my argument would be that if god were to exist, it would be in such a state that we could not perceive of it; essentially for me in my small position in the universe and reality, god would not exist. But who knows if that's relevant.)


...most of my grammar knowledge comes from studies of Latin.Didn't know you studied Latin. SALVE? QVID NOVI?
(That's all I can say, after having studied it for 2 years in college a couple years ago. I can read it if I have a dictionary and a lot of time.)

[james438]

What I said was actually quite brief, but you can see the responses it has generated. It was as if I were trolling the forums to get a lot of responses. I have heard all of these arguments before and know that it won't do any good to debate it. I will say that jscheuer1 was correct when he said I meant "rarely" as opposed to "really" and it was not a typo on my part. jscheuer1 was merely articulating correctly what I actually meant. I believe that God can and does redeem hearts and minds.

I have read many debates by people on these issues and hypothetically if I have an air tight case that proves divorce (as a random example) is always wrong, dangerous, impractical, grossly hurts society as a whole both in the short term and in the long term and I used reasoning that was very clear I still won't convince anyone to believe that any part of what I said was true no matter what evidence I use. Unless a person believes they are a sinner and evil through and through and that they need Jesus as their savior to atone for their sins and bear the punishment that those sins deserve and to repent of his sins and to rely on the saving power of Christ for salvation from the wrath of God on man for those sins then all of the effort I put forth to convince someone that abortion is wrong or that marriage should not be redefined to mean two people as opposed to two people that love each other or that the death penalty is good is all really a waste of effort at best.

Whew that was a long sentence. Anyway, I am merely stating very simply what I believe and where I stand on those issues and was using as few words as I can to do that. Debating the logic of my positions is something that I can discuss if it were in its own thread and not this one :).

I hope you can see now how extremely easy it is to get into a very lengthy discussion about what I believe and why I am very reluctant to do so in this thread. I admit that I am a Christian and that my positions are not always very well liked. I don't want to be "in your face" about what I believe either.

I'm willing to talk about what I believe if anyone wants to know more. As far as practicality goes I would suggest that it be given its own separate thread so that it doesn't hijack this one or others.

[bernie1227]

The thing with the smoking is the context, for example if your talking to a person, and they bring up the fact that they are a non-smoker as one of their traits, it would seem likely that they had given up smoking, where as someone who didn't smoke and would never consider smoking, such as you or I, probably wouldn't think to mention it. At least I think that's what he means :p

You could always say that your not religious and leave it at that, I'm not knowledgable enough to knowledgable enough to figure out what to call you :p

Well translating Latin becomes too easy when you have a dictionary :p

[james438]

As far as this election goes I don't plan to vote for a president if I can't figure out who to vote for. This will be a first for me and I wish it were not the case.

[djr33]

James, you're welcome to those opinions. I don't fault you for what you believe. (We could discuss that and see if we could find a way to agree on certain things, but I agree with you-- it's hard to change someone's mind, and that's not my intent at all.) At the moment I think the discussion is fine. It shouldn't become too intense or drawn out, but at the moment it's not a problem, right?

I do think gay marriage will eventually become a normal part of society, just as interracial marriage and so forth did. We'll see, I suppose. And I don't mean to imply that everyone who opposes it is evil or anything like that. Nor I do I think that all people who opposed interracial marriage or the Civil Rights Movement, or who owned slaves were necessarily evil-- the times just change and society's perspective shifts. And the range of what is considered appropriate shifts with it. I imagine soon that gay rights will simply be a normal part of everyday life and nothing to talk about (in the same way that interracial marriage isn't very interesting at the moment!). And certainly some people may in the future still have a strong opinion one way or the other, but on average it will just be a non-issue.

[djr33]

The thing with the smoking is the context, for example if your talking to a person, and they bring up the fact that they are a non-smoker as one of their traits, it would seem likely that they had given up smoking, where as someone who didn't smoke and would never consider smoking, such as you or I, probably wouldn't think to mention it. At least I think that's what he means Perhaps. What I was referencing was more about the separation of sections at restaurants or hotel rooms smoking vs non-smoking, smokers vs non-smokers. "Are you a non-smoker?" Odd question... ha.


Well translating Latin becomes too easy when you have a dictionaryDoes it? Then you must understand the grammar really well. It's hard for a lot of people. I don't find it too bad, although some of the style still confuses me (and I'm completely out of practice at the moment).

[james438]

It isn't a problem, but I'm aware of the danger.

You may remember that we discussed these issues waaaayy back when and it didn't stay as tame of a discussion as I would have hoped ;). It was my fault back then. I was the one that brought up the issue. I think it was same sex marriage. I was a little bit more naive back then too.

[bernie1227]

Once you've got the grammar down, it's pretty good, the main thing with Latin to English translation is a good grip on recognising tenses, moods, and obviously vocab, English to Latin, is much harder, as you have to not only be able to recognise the cases and moods in English, but then form the cases and conjugate in Latin.

[bernie1227]

It isn't a problem, but I'm more aware of the danger.

You may remember that we discussed these issues waaaayy back when and it didn't stay as tame of a discussion as I would have hoped ;). It was my fault back then. I was the one that brought up the issue. I think it was same sex marriage. I was a little bit more naive back then too.

I agree with Daniel on this, it will eventually happen, but it's just a matter of when.
Just as a question, I thought that in the American electoral system, you had to vote for someone? Or do you mean by not voting for someone, that you'll go for a third party? (Like the greens in Australia)

[james438]

We are allowed to vote. Felons can lose the right to vote while others may choose not to vote at all.

[bernie1227]

Interesting, in Australia, voting is compulsory

[djr33]

Hm? Americans certainly do NOT have to vote-- the turnout is surprisingly low, in fact, something like 50%. It varies. And for less important elections it's probably much smaller. (You also don't need to select an item for every measure-- you can leave some blank and fill in others.)
You can also vote for a third party which is effectively like throwing your vote away or not voting. Perhaps it's good for some moral/theoretical reason, but it's completely ineffective-- America is completely caught up in the democrat/republican thing, for better or worse. Personally I think it makes no sense. I think that if that hadn't been the case in 2008, for example, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would have been fighting for the presidency (maybe I'm exaggerating). Of course I guess that they could have knocked each other out of the race, but there are times when it seems like it's not clearly one party vs. another party. This time around is potentially another example, where the republications were really scrambling to find another even slightly worth putting into the final race, but of course the democrats already had Obama so there wasn't much of a chance of another democrat even being considered.
Hm. I'm rambling. Probably mostly unimportant anyway. But, no, there's no requirement to vote.

Now, if you're asking about the electoral college, that's a really weird system that makes no sense at all (there should be no people in it, even if it works out mathematically that way). The population votes, divided by region (by state, also by other districts) and then all 535(?) members of the congress get together to "vote" based on what the population did for their district. But really what's the point, since they don't actually decide anything?
(I'm not positive on this, but I believe that those people can actually choose to vote another way and it would technically count; but they don't. I'm not sure what stops them. Or why they exist.)
Basically it's just an odd way of averaging things. And maybe they are required to vote; I certainly assume they all would anyway-- or they wouldn't have that position (not sure how they're selected either).
The math is a way to distribute the votes fairly (well, kinda), and I suppose that's fine, but the actual process is strange.
Well, here you are, more info on that:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html


Also, Bernie, interesting about you learning Latin. By the way you describe it, you clearly do know a lot about it-- that doesn't come easily to most. Perhaps it has something to do with your interest in logic/coding in general-- it does in many ways easily transfer to Latin (especially how it is traditionally taught).

[keyboard]

I'd just like to add that in my opinion the death penalty is wrong.
As most murders are crimes of passion (normally not pre-planned), the death-penalty does not stop people from comitting homicde.
The whole principal is an eye for an eye... if someone broke into your house, does that give you the right to break into their's?
America is one of the only countries with the death penalty and still has one of the highest murder rates.

[bernie1227]

That brought to mind a simpsons episode in which Bill Clinton and Bob Dole are replaced by aliens, and when the people find out, the following ensues:
aliens: 'It's a two party system you have to vote for one of us!'
some guy: 'what if I vote for a third party?'
aliens: 'and throw your vote away? I don't think so.'
people (murmuring): 'he's right!'

[djr33]

Keyboard, that all makes sense to me. There are certainly some logical issues with it.
One point you're missing, though, is that a lot of death penalty sentences are for repeated offenses such as for serial killers. Not crimes of passion. Perhaps there should be a distinction.

[bernie1227]

that could work, what would be the cutoff though? 'If you've killed more than three people, please step into the death penalty line!'
but seriously, that's why the life sentence is there, when it comes to crimes of passion.
As Daniel said however, mass murder should result in the death penalty.

[djr33]

In reality, it's all very hard to deal with. If that means the death penalty is impractical, I don't mind not having it. But in principle, it doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
As for serial killers, it's all fairly straightforward. If someone has a pattern of killing people, that counts (I'm not intending any psychological/legal definition here, just mine). If someone happens to be involved in two crimes of passion, perhaps it really is just chance; if it's more than that (sure, let's say three), surely they could be aware enough to stop themselves. I'd even say that if someone drinks and drives three times, killing people each time, that could count-- at some point it's actually their fault for being in the situation. (But I'm not entirely committed to the details here, just the idea.)

(The other side of this is that serial killers have different psychological profiles than others; does that mean they're insane? Should they be treated? Considered normal enough to be evil? That's a complicated one, something left for someone else to figure out. I'm not convinced that all serial killers are necessarily socio/psychopathic. Instead, I think some people just kill. Others certainly may be crazy, though.)

[keyboard]

Actually, I should point out that U.S law already works like that (at least I think).
If the murder was pre-planned, they recieve the death penalty
If it wasn't, something else happens, but I'm a bit sketchy...

[bernie1227]

well the problem that comes from that is that any murderer with a half-decent lawyer will plead insanity

[djr33]

I believe John mentioned that-- money = avoid death penalty. That is indeed a problem.
The law is complicated. Premeditated murder is worse than other kinds; but the determination of what counts as what is very fuzzy and up to the jury often. So does purchasing a gun count as planning a murder (a year before? a week before? a day before?)? Or does killing your spouse the second time you see them cheating count as "passion"?
In theory, it's all fine in my opinion. In practice, it's a mess.
The biggest mess is that it costs more money to execute someone than to keep them in prison for the rest of their life. That's ridiculous. In fact, I'd see a good argument for the death penalty in that it could keep costs down. But then legal fees, dealing with protestors, waiting 10 years, and all of that adds up-- and it's actually more expensive. :confused:

[bernie1227]

well, the world runs on money Daniel.

[molendijk]

1) The subjunctive is defined as etc.
2) The names for these tenses are "present", "past" and "future" etc.
I know I know... (I wrote a book on tense and mood).
Arie.

[bernie1227]

then you get the joke? :p

[molendijk]

then you get the joke? :p
Sure, it's a very good one.
Arie.

[bernie1227]

thanks, it's a bernie original :p

[bernie1227]

seeing how off topic this thread already is, I just thought you guys might appreciate this:
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://dynamicdrive.com/forums
it's dynamic drive forums back in time :) (click in the dates to see)

[jscheuer1]

Some of this talk on the death penalty is more speculative than it may seem. There just aren't that many serial killers, and all of those are insane. But perhaps not legally insane, there's a big difference. And the insanity defense itself is rarely tried unless there's nothing else, and it's track record is very poor, less than 30% successful I believe. It's brought up in the news a lot because it captures the public's imagination. In actual practice it's more often used as a bargaining chip by defense lawyers looking to cop their client to a lesser charge, even then any decent prosecutor will know right away that it's usually a red herring. But they have to investigate it. It slows things down - almost always a good thing from the accused's lawyer's point of view. The longer things are drawn out, the harder it is to retain witnesses to the crime and the easier it is to question the veracity of their testimony. Even evidence can be lost or contaminated the longer things get drawn out. And in the meantime the accused is often free on bail, or at the very least, still alive.

But none of that changes the fundamental unfairness with which the death penalty is applied. That alone is reason to at least suspend it, and in fact is the reason often cited by state governors who do so, even conservative governors have done this.

[djr33]

I'm not being speculative. I'm talking about serial killers to the extent that they exist. I'm not claiming anything about frequency or how many people should/would be executed-- just that saying "well some of them aren't that bad" (eg crimes of passion) isn't a good reason to also eliminate the death penalty for other offenders.
That's one definition of insane. I am not convinced by it-- I don't think someone must be insane to kill a lot of people. (Technically they may not be a "serial killer" then, just a mass murderer.) It's a tricky issue, but to the extent that there are people out there like that, I don't see the problem in executing them-- in fact, aside from self preservation, it seems like it would make sense to them.

Again, this is nothing about frequency, what I said earlier. But on that same note, it is central to this discussion to mention something: very very few people are actually executed. It's always publicized and a big deal so it seems like it's more frequent than it is. I'm not sure on any numbers, but a large percentage of potential executions are also stopped somewhere along the way-- a plea bargain, a judge overruling it, a legal defense/excuse (cruel and unusual punishment? insanity? remorse? old age?), or a last minute decision by the governor. So after 10 or 12 years of waiting, it's very rare. I think last time I saw any numbers it was significantly fewer than one person per year (I think this was just for California).

Right, the insanity defense issue is complicated.

I agree on a practical level that it should be applied fairly. But that doesn't convince me that the death penalty itself is wrong; it's just being used badly. The same could be said about something like money in the current economic situation.
Again, I'm not attached to it in any way-- if they're doing a bad job of using it, then suspend/remove it. But I stand by it being, in theory, something that doesn't seem inherently wrong just because of what it is.

[jscheuer1]

Yep, it's CA only. CA is one of the more enlightened states in this regard. They go through a lot more in places like TX, MS and AL:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/number-executions-state-and-region-1976

That's since 1976, and they break down the more recent years as well.

[djr33]

There's also the question of population. So executions based on population might be equivalent for Idaho and California, for example.

But... wow... Texas.... crazy Texas. That's just unbelievable, either in how many people are being executed or in how many people are doing things that result in death penalty sentences.

I don't see those numbers as necessarily suggesting that the death penalty is wrong, although it's good to know them. They're relevant. (It might be nice to have some statistics on the crimes that resulted in the sentences though.)

But if we take one of the middle states. Let's say Arizona, with just below 1 execution per year. Is that really so bad, in what you wanted to claim? Perhaps if Arizona (or Idaho or Pennsylvania?) were the model for the death penalty, would that improve it in your mind?

It wouldn't take much to convince me that Texas (and maybe the states in the low 100s) are doing something wrong. But does that still mean to you that the death penalty itself is wrong?

My perspective is from California, so that changes things a bit for me (just the facts, not really my position). But let's do that thought experiment-- is California reasonable? Or just less terrible and still terrible?

[bernie1227]

For me, the crux of the issue is more about people who should have received the death sentence, if having dodged it by good lawyers, or simply living in a country with no death sentence. A good example of this is Anders Breivik, for those who don't know, he committed a massacre in Norway, killing 77 people, and then confessing to it, specifically saying that he was sane, saying that being classed as nine would be as bad as death. Anders Bevik got away with a life sentence (22 years I believe), which means he may be out of jail before he dies. This man should have gotten a death sentence, and there is no possible defence which could save him.

There aren't a lot of criminals proportionally that receive the death sentence, but some criminals should not be excused from it. Sure, Texas may be a little trigger-happy on the death sentence, but that doesn't mean the death sentence shouldn't be given.

[jscheuer1]

Your buddy Anders sounds like a good candidate for life without possibility of parole. How old would he be in 22 years though?

Still, he doesn't sound to me like someone I would want let out at all, but killing him seems hardly necessary. Who knows? he might make a significant contribution of some sort.

And there just aren't many folks like Anders. I would guess that most people that are put to death allegedly killed just one person, and that there probably were extenuating circumstances not allowed in the sentencing phase.

I say allegedly because even after conviction there's no 100% certainty you have the right person. I say extenuating circumstances because killing is so extreme that almost anyone who resorts to it must have been under extraordinary internal and/or external stress. Life is precious. A human life can yield so much richness not just to the individual living it, but to civilization as a whole. Snuffing one out without ever knowing, and one never can, if that life might make a valuable contribution is at least as insane as the murder the person is accused of in the first place.

[bernie1227]

In my mind, there is Anders most definitely should receive the death sentence, if killing 77 innocents to keep Norway 'pure' isn't enough to get the death sentence, I don't know what is.

[james438]

From your perspective what common reasons do conservatives have for the death penalty? It is interesting reading the reasons why people do not like the death penalty.

EDIT: I spend a lot of time listening to reasons for the death penalty and conservative positions on the other issues that I forget how the other side sees these issues.

[jscheuer1]

In my mind, there is Anders most definitely should receive the death sentence, if killing 77 innocents to keep Norway 'pure' isn't enough to get the death sentence, I don't know what is.

Nothing from my point of view. It harms no one to keep him in jail until he dies.

If you feel that no matter what a person's possible potential for good, if they violate the rules they should be punished in the most extreme way possible . . . well, and this has no bearing on your personal beliefs in this matter, I just hope no one, not even you are ever held to that standard for their own transgressions.

[bernie1227]

Well if he's going to die in jail, he might as well die directly, with no chance of release. By law, he has to be released after 22 years. And in my opinion, no person who kills 77 people for their own misguided beliefs should be allowed to walk free.

I'm not planning on killing anyone John.

[jscheuer1]

From your perspective what common reasons do conservatives have for the death penalty? It is interesting reading the reasons why people do not like the death penalty.

They have the reasons that they have. Fear is often the root motivation for the desire to have someone put to death.

[keyboard]

They have the reasons that they have. Fear is often the root motivation for the desire to have someone put to death.
I disagree. I believe it's more about revenge...

[bernie1227]

eye for an eye, or in anders case, 77 eyes.

on a lighter and entirely unrelated note, I just downloaded opera ^o^

[keyboard]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
how could you???

[keyboard]

^It was supposed to all be capslocked.... *curses*

[djr33]

Who knows? he might make a significant contribution of some sort.I don't like this argument. I've heard it, and it's reasonable. I just don't personally like it. Everyone might contribute, including the people he killed. Perhaps he needs to be given a paintbrush to create wonderful paintings, or let out of jail to run for president. That's rational too. But few people would agree with it. There are already so many people on this planet (and lots of "what ifs" beyond that-- I find the argument against abstinence-- "what about all of the potential people"-- to be just about as rational as this one).
What reason is there to believe that a death row or life-in-prison prisoner is specifically going to be the only person who can contribute something? If they, let's say, cure cancer, why would they be the only ones to be able to do that?


And there just aren't many folks like Anders. I would guess that most people that are put to death allegedly killed just one person, and that there probably were extenuating circumstances not allowed in the sentencing phase.That's fine. I agree that the reasons for the death penalty (in specific cases) need to be worked out in detail and that it must be only the extreme cases. But in itself that's not a reason to not consider it as an option. Why should it be removed as a possibility rather than considered a very very rare lasts resort for extreme cases?
For example, here's a hypothetical prisoner-- he has killed a handful of people without remorse and is guilty-- in fact, he killed someone else inside prison; no, let's say he killed three other people at different times, including a guard; then he found a way to escape and he killed more people. In fact, clearly he's simply too smart to be contained by the system-- he'll escape again. Is the death penalty then acceptable?
All of your objections are fair, and I would be perfectly happy with some sort of ethics board that oversees all of these decisions to make sure that everything is beyond "beyond a reasonable doubt" and so forth. But none of this convinces me even slightly that the concept is inappropriate or should be completely unavailable in the extreme cases.


... Life is precious. A human life can yield so much richness not just to the individual living it, but to civilization as a whole. Snuffing one out without ever knowing, and one never can, if that life might make a valuable contribution is at least as insane as the murder the person is accused of in the first place.There is one huge flaw in your argument-- "life is precious"-- there certainly must be some prisoners who are sentenced to death who do not believe life is precious. Not all-- I'm sure some understand it or perhaps learn it in prison. But to the extent that there are prisoners who completely fall outside the scope of this perspective, I really don't see why it would make any sense.



There is another crucial point to be brought up about Texas, though. Although that website didn't have very clear statistics for every year, it's clear to me that what they're doing isn't working. They didn't succeed in scaring anyone away from committing crimes. They're just executing people at a constant rate. There's no argument then that their policy is at all relevant beyond each individual case-- there should be less crime in Texas than other states if that were the case, and it's not.

[bernie1227]

download opera? <yoda>opera hate you have?</yoda>

[keyboard]

<yoda>Opera, dislike I do</yoda>

[djr33]

John (and Bernie and James), the question of reasons for the death penalty is a good one to bring up.

That's why earlier I said I'm not anti-death penalty, but at the same time I wouldn't really consider myself pro-death penalty in any strong sense. If it were replaced by a literal rest-of-life-in-prison sentence, it would have about the same effect for me. (In some sense, I'm not sure that's fair, though, that the state would actively protect and preserve their lives including things like food and potentially expensive medical care, when other people don't have that-- if anyone is starving, then why should life-in-prison prisoners be fed? Or perhaps it has something to do with the difficulty in distribution of services, so that in theory everyone could be fed but some people just can't actually receive the food; ok if so. But if it's not, if there's ever a case where someone innocent doesn't receive food and a for-life prisoner does, that's crazy.)

The reasons of "fear" and "revenge" don't convince me. Neither one seems like a reasonable motivating factor. There are three reasons I see for it:
1) It's practical. This may sound like an incredibly cold thing to say, but it seems reasonable to me. If it is more efficient to execute someone than keep them in jail for the rest of their life, and if it is guaranteed that they are guilty and so forth, this seems like a reason that can be defended.
2) There's something simply fair about it. I don't like "eye for an eye", but there's a point where someone has done so much damage that maybe "1 eye for 10 eyes" starts to look a lot more reasonable. These would need to be for the significantly extreme cases.
3) I'm unconvinced by the reasons against it. Therefore, it's an option, and as much as (1) and (2) apply, it seems that the death penalty could or perhaps should.

My position is obviously quite moderate on this. I think that anyone with a stronger position than mine probably is motivated by something stronger, such as fear or revenge or perhaps literal "eye for an eye", or (misguided) ideas of it being a deterrent.

If "lock them up and throw away the key"* and execution are the two options, I don't seen any practical difference between them. But I also don't see why either is necessarily better than the other. And anything weaker than a death penalty position opens the door to lighter and lighter sentences. Norway giving a mass murderer only 22 years seems crazy to me (regardless of how old he is).

(*Obviously there would be an exception for anyone later proven innocent. But I'd like to hope, even if it's completely unreasonable, that these cases have sufficient evidence. The extent to which the evidence is uncertain, manipulated or anything else is also reason for me to consider, in those cases, allowing parole, lighter sentences, etc. But for those to which that does not apply in any sense, I'd stand by this.)

[james438]

djr33 seems to have a pretty good understanding of why I am for the death penalty. Simply put, the death penalty serves as punishment and to protect society. I base my position on the Bible as much as I can. It is not about revenge or fear or as a deterrent.

[jscheuer1]

eye for an eye, or in anders case, 77 eyes.

Closer to 154 eyes. So revenge is your idea of a good outcome. I think that speaks for itself.

[jscheuer1]

Simply put, the death penalty serves as punishment and to protect society. I base my position on the Bible as much as I can. It is not about revenge or fear or as a deterrent.

Full 180 there.

As a Christian what method of execution do you think Jesus would recommend? Electrocution, lethal injection, something else perhaps?

[james438]

I'm not trying to defend my position, just very briefly explain it or, more accurately, state it.

To answer your question I doubt Jesus would recommend any of those, but would refer the answer to the government. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. The same goes here. Christians are commanded to obey the government so far as it doesn't violate scripture.

[traq]

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
harboring vengeance is like drinking poison and expecting the other man to die.

revenge, and by extension, punishment, is not a valid motivation. Rehabilitation or repentance are (not that I'm suggesting that either of those are accomplished, or even seriously addressed, by our justice system). And yes, protection of the society must be the primary concern. At the same time, how does it make sense to imprison someone for life? Obviously, you are unconvinced that they will rehabilitate, and you are convinced that it is unsafe to release them. I don't approve of killing as punishment, but I also don't think it's moral to keep anyone locked in a room for twenty, thirty, sixty years.

capital punishment or not, the most serious shortcoming our justice system holds is the lack of healing and closure. Watching someone be put to death brings closure? No. It's another traumatic experience. Forgiveness brings closure. And it's far more important to the victims [loved ones] than to the perpetrator of the crime.

------------------
I had refrained from participating in this discussion, until now, because I didn't want to spark any arguments, and I was concerned that the conversation might devolve. I know we're all mature adults, here, but these are passionate topics. Those are some of my views. Thanks for sharing yours, everyone.

------------------
James: I understand your point, though I don't agree with your reasoning. Caesar's image was on a coin, not a sword.

[james438]

Traq, are you saying that punishment is an extension of revenge? If so I want to add that I don't see it that way or believe that is the case.

Yes, these are passionate topics, which is why it is very important to me to be very careful what I say. These viewpoints won't upset me, but my viewpoints can easily upset others and I wouldn't want anyone to lose any friendships over this. That may sound extreme, but I think caution is warranted here.

[djr33]

djr33 seems to have a pretty good understanding of why I am for the death penalty. Simply put, the death penalty serves as punishment and to protect society. I base my position on the Bible as much as I can. It is not about revenge or fear or as a deterrent. Interestingly, my stance has nothing to do with the bible, but does seem similar. The one point I'm not sure about is "punishment". That's not really how I see it. It's more practical than that-- in terms of fairness/justice, it's not about revenge/punishment for what they did but instead a reaction to how they have essentially forfeited their membership into society as it is organized, done something so wrong that it is considered inexcusable. So it's not that the execution should be bad for them, but rather that anything else seems too generous. And as I said before, there's also something about feeding/caring for someone in prison (sentenced to life without parole) that seems contradictory to me*. There's no problem with that if everyone else already has everything they need but the budgets/resources for prisons are extreme. Something is wrong with America anyway, though, because of how many criminals/prisoners/prisons we have! Perhaps fixing that would make the rest of it a non-issue.


(*There may be some prisoners for whom life in prison without parole is exactly right-- I'm talking about the cases where that seems too light. I have no problem, in theory, with someone receiving a sentence of life in prison without parole, given that, for whatever reasons, the sentence fits the crime. I don't mean to conflate the two, but rather to focus on the extreme/bad cases.)


Full 180 there.Not as I read it-- if "protect society" simply means eliminate offenders, then that's compatible with execution without any necessary intent to deter others from doing the same thing. (It would still function in that sense if the executions were confidential and not known to the public.)



None of this strikes me as too complicated for religion/Jesus-- if war can be justified to Christians, then I see no inherent reason why execution can't be. If someone wants to take a completely pacifist stance, then that's fine as well, but not in any way a necessary part of Christianity as far as I know.



capital punishment or not, the most serious shortcoming our justice system holds is the lack of healing and closure. Watching someone be put to death brings closure? No. It's another traumatic experience. Forgiveness brings closure. And it's far more important to the victims [loved ones] than to the perpetrator of the crime.Really good points, and none of those reasons are ones I would use to defend the death penalty. In fact, the spectacle of it (and the executions themselves) seems completely bizarre to me. The arguably necessary execution is enough in itself; watching it is something else, something I'd consider problematic/wrong. (Except to the extent that "seeing is believing", wanting proof. But if we can't trust the government to actually carry out the executions when they say they do, then the whole system is messed up enough we shouldn't be allowing them to execute anyone anyway.)



I had refrained from participating in this discussion, until now, because I didn't want to spark any arguments, and I was concerned that the conversation might devolve. I know we're all mature adults, here, but these are passionate topics. Those are some of my views. Thanks for sharing yours, everyone.I absolutely agree and this is an interesting topic; so far the posts have been completely acceptable, on topic and not personal, as far as I can see. If anyone feels differently, feel free to say that, and we can cut this conversation off.



Traq, are you saying that punishment is an extension of revenge? If so I want to add that I don't see it that way or believe that is the case.Hm, that's similar to how I read your earlier post as well. Perhaps you mean something closer to my (vague) phrasing above? Perhaps "logical consequence" rather than anything implying an intentionally negative 'punishment'? Or forfeiture of rights/respect-- by not respecting something (eg, life) it seems that one has forfeited some rights of protection related to it-- in the same sense that the theft of a car thief's car doesn't bother me too much. I'm not saying it should happen; I'm saying that if it does, it doesn't warrant much support from society for it.

[james438]

fairness/justice is an appropriate definition for punishment and how I understand it and am using it here.

As far as the rest of what you have said djr33, I'd say that so far our views are closer to identical than similar. I wonder if the correct phrase here is amazing coincidence.

EDIT: Sadly I must go to sleep :(.

[djr33]

I have to say, it's nice that in this thread I (we?) have found agreement with some on some topics and with others on other topics. That rarely happens in debates like this.

[bernie1227]

@John, his death would be justice, to the families of the people he killed if not to the whole of norway. If those people think he deserves death, then I can do naught but agree with them.

[jscheuer1]

OK, I think I've got it now.

Even though it's no deterrent, you have to kill people to protect society, leaving them in jail won't take care of that.

Killing people though inherently unfair as it's carried out in the justice system is OK even though it's more expensive than life in prison because the Bible tells us so and besides, they had it coming.

If you look at it that way, It all makes perfect sense. Hey, I guess I agree with you guys too.

"We just want justice." is often heard from the victim's family, meaning they want the person in custody (who very often at that point hasn't been convicted of anything) killed. When I hear that on TV I cringe. I don't believe it. I believe they may think that's what they want. I'm with traq on this one. It will not bring back their loved one, and will not make them happy. The perpetrator's execution is just more death and more trauma in the end.

Losing a loved one is never easy. I've had my share of it and seen many others go through it. I'm not particularly good at it. I have known some who appear to be. They're able to hold on to the good things and their love for the person, while at the same time letting the person go. They forgave them for leaving and forgave themselves for all those things that survivors often feel guilty about.

I've never known anyone who murdered anyone, nor anyone whose loved one was murdered. Even so I am certain, as certain as James seems to be that everything is answered in the Bible, that those who are bereaved in that manner do best if they are able to forgive the murderer.

[bernie1227]

Do I detect a hint of cynicism there?

[jscheuer1]

Do I detect a hint of cynicism there?

In what way?

[bernie1227]

Simply the way it was phrased makes me think you have a hint of cynicism, however I cannot judge the nuances of speech from text.

[jscheuer1]

I'm realistic.

[bernie1227]

So you're a bit of cynic then.

Edit: cynisim != realism

[djr33]

John, I'll respond in detail to your post. From your tone, it's hard to tell whether you're using sarcasm as a rhetorical tactic or if you're upset by this-- if the latter, just say so and there's no need to continue. I'll assume the former.


Overall, and I can only speak for myself, I don't see this in an absolute sense at all. I think it's in reality imperfect and could be improved. That said...

Even though it's no deterrent, you have to kill people to protect society, leaving them in jail won't take care of that.One aspect here is that I don't really mind the idea of as I said "locking them up and throwing away the key". But that has its own problems (money, arguably cruel treatment, and the problem of parole being given perhaps too easily or being earned-- I don't know all of the details on that one). So if they're really equivalent (either dead or alive, the prisoner never leaves jail) your point here is fine.


Killing people though inherently unfair as it's carried out in the justice system is OK even though it's more expensive than life in prison because the Bible tells us so and besides, they had it coming.1) "inherently unfair" is only your opinion-- I don't see it as inherently unfair. I see it as being implemented in that way. Perhaps you're arguing it can't even in theory be fair-- if that's the case, then the same can be said about parking tickets. I don't see why that means we can't have parking tickets.
2) The expense issue is ridiculous; I'm against the death penalty as it is because of that-- if it's actually more expensive to bother executing something, then don't bother-- that's simple math. But I think that's a contradiction and should be fixed. It shouldn't be more expensive. That's a flaw in the system, not a reason to abandon it.
3) the "Bible" argument is irrelevant to me; and for those who believe what the Bible says, we can say that at least generally it is because they like the perspective it has to offer and agree with the foundations-- at least I hope that religious people are rational in that way (it would be strange to disagree with the Bible but follow it anyway). So the source may be the Bible or our own opinions, but either way they're our opinions, no? (I personally dislike using the Bible as an excuse; but that doesn't mean it can't be a source of perspective, as long as you agree with what it says.)
4) "they had it coming"-- no, not really. They just didn't respect the system so they don't get the benefits of the system. Imagine a slave-- someone who should be protected and freed by the system, no? But then imagine that same slave owning slaves. Is that really the same to you? Does that slave-owning slave deserve to be freed just as much as other slaves? In a system setup based on arbitrary morals (I fully believe everything is arbitrary-- even, for example, that killing is bad-- this is something cultural not an inherent truth-- except inasmuch as it makes things problematic for a society, so it's a useful rule and obviously convenient in that we're not always in danger of immediate death from everyone around us-- I think it's a good part of culture), it is the case that if someone is breaking the rules, then it doesn't seem they also need to be protected by them. Maybe that's not enough of a reason to execute them (for committing murder) but it certainly makes me less concerned with their welfare if they don't respect that same right for others.


"We just want justice." is often heard from the victim's family, meaning they want the person in custody (who very often at that point hasn't been convicted of anything) killed. When I hear that on TV I cringe. I don't believe it. I believe they may think that's what they want. I'm with traq on this one. It will not bring back their loved one, and will not make them happy. The perpetrator's execution is just more death and more trauma in the end.Indeed. That's a problem, it's based on a very biased perspective clouded by strong emotion and is unproductive beyond the victims (=families) feeling some sort of power/revenge. But try not to conflate all of these arguments together-- it's not a simple issue of yes/no on everything all at once, but the individual points.
Others in this thread do seem to hold that position, though. To some extent I can see some reasoning in it-- should the victims' families wish to forgive the prisoner and allow them to go free, that seems a lot more acceptable (would you agree John?), so I can see that it should go both ways. It's not revenge exactly, but the idea is simply that the fate of the prisoner could be decided by those affected-- in a perfect world that might make sense. On a practical level, I still don't agree with this and especially not with watching the execution as a spectacle.


I've never known anyone who murdered anyone, nor anyone whose loved one was murdered. Even so I am certain, as certain as James seems to be that everything is answered in the Bible, that those who are bereaved in that manner do best if they are able to forgive the murderer.I'm not entirely certain that it's necessary to forgive them. I actually have difficulty understanding this (frequent) usage of the word "forgive", or perhaps in the phrase "forgive but never forget"-- to me, it's fine to hold someone accountable and believe they are accountable. But to the extent that emotions are involved, it's important to let those go. But this is more because focusing on the murderer isn't healthy/helpful, and they should be focusing on both the memories of the loved one and moving on with life. Acceptance and forgiveness are not the same to me; here, acceptance is the one that matters. (And certainly not in the sense of welcoming/adjusting to the murderer's perspective, just accepting that it happened and so forth.)



In summary, these are all very valid points about the problems involved in the implementation of the death penalty. But they are not necessarily reasons to not have it as an option, at least in an absolute/inherent sense assuming it were implemented better. Do you agree with that, John?

[bernie1227]

two quick things here:
1) nothing puts the fear of god in a man like threat of death.
2) another point is that 22 years is not necessaries long enough for someone to die, therefore life sentence != death and as such is not on the same level when it comes to punishment.

[jscheuer1]

I think they're not equal. One could say I'm cynical about the ability of the justice system to mete out the death penalty fairly. Or that I'm realistic about it. Either way the facts remain the same. Poor people are put to death, rich people are not. More blacks than whites are put to death. Are these groups somehow more deserving of the death penalty? But that's only part of my reasoning on why the death penalty is a bad idea. Unless you have some need to see people put to death, it's sufficient in itself though.

[bernie1227]

And that is more encroaching onto the issue of equality in the court system than the argument about whether or not the death penalty is right.

[jscheuer1]

So let's keep killing people in the meantime.

[keyboard]

1) nothing puts the fear of god in a man like threat of death.

But why kill them in the first place?
Is it to punish them? Which is more of a punishment, being put in prison for decades or dying?
Is it to prevent murders? As I said before, a majority of all murders aren't pre-meditated, so this doesn't help.

If an innocent person is put into prison, they can be compensated and released.
If an innocent person is killed, what do you do then?

[bernie1227]

Because they have killed multiple people.
To the second part however, this argument is more about the death sentence for pre-meditated murders, hence your argument there is invalid.

[keyboard]

You're focusing on an eye for an eye, look at my sub points.
Someone can be wrongly accused for pre-meditated murder just as much as other murder, so it isn't invalid.

[jscheuer1]

Really, that fear of God statement is just an old saw. There's a grain of truth to it, but it doesn't hold true in all situations. Sometimes the threat of death brings one closer to God. Not in fear but in the knowledge that you are in fact getting closer to God. To others it's a challenge. It obviously doesn't work to prevent murders.

[bernie1227]

Really, that fear of God statement is just an old saw. There's a grain of truth to it, but it doesn't hold true in all situations. Sometimes the threat of death brings one closer to God. Not in fear but in the knowledge that you are in fact getting closer to God. To others it's a challenge. It obviously doesn't work to prevent murders.
I am using the phrase fear of god here, not necessarily in relation to god, but to their lives. It is more of a punishment to know that you are going to die than that your just going to sit in prison for a couple of decades.


You're focusing on an eye for an eye, look at my sub points.
Someone can be wrongly accused for pre-meditated murder just as much as other murder, so it isn't invalid.
The point here is that we are focusing on people who are guilty of pre-mediated murder and whether they should get the death sentence.

[keyboard]

And I'm saying that you have to factor in that people might be wrongly accused.

I ask you this;
When you say people should recieve the death penalty for pre-meditated murder, is it because you don't want them to kill anyone else or because they should be punished for killing?

[djr33]

And that is more encroaching onto the issue of equality in the court system than the argument about whether or not the death penalty is right.Yes, that's what we're getting into. And although I'm open to anyone disagreeing, I do hope that we can all agree on this-- the court systems are far from perfect. (Not to say that they don't have some positive attributes as well and aren't better than anarchy, or anything like that.)


So let's keep killing people in the meantime.That's a valid point (well, what you mean, not your words here). I'll give you that, and I'll agree-- the death penalty is being used badly. Until such time as it is worked out better, it probably should be stopped (or at least limited to the very worst cases).


I think they're not equal. One could say I'm cynical about the ability of the justice system to mete out the death penalty fairly. Or that I'm realistic about it. Either way the facts remain the same. Poor people are put to death, rich people are not. More blacks than whites are put to death. Are these groups somehow more deserving of the death penalty?Again, entirely valid and it speaks to the implementation, not the idea. But--

...But that's only part of my reasoning on why the death penalty is a bad idea.That doesn't follow logically for me. The idea of communism seems like a good one to me, and the implementation is almost always (maybe always) awful. But that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Or does it? Are you suggesting it does, that it's too hard to implement or something?



two quick things here:
1) nothing puts the fear of god in a man like threat of death.That's not a strong argument for what you're concluding. There are (at least) two reasons:
1) Yes, it's powerful. But that doesn't mean that this method is effective in conveying it. They may think "that doesn't apply to me" or the threat may be too distant. They may also find the threat of life in jail to be just as bad, so it doesn't change anything for them to have that added threat.
2) The people that kill in the worst ways may really not be afraid of death, for various reasons-- insanity, something more troubling to them than death, a desire for thrill-seeking and trying to evade consequences (just like extreme sports enthusiasts, just in a more problematic way).

2) another point is that 22 years is not necessaries long enough for someone to die, therefore life sentence != death and as such is not on the same level when it comes to punishment.I agree. But that is a problem with the implementation of "life in jail" not with the idea of "life in jail". I believe that (at least in some cases!) the meaning of "life in jail" should be quite literal. 22 years isn't that; I don't care what they call it-- that's not life. That's not what it means. Norway may have very loose laws on that and have moved from not even having the death penalty to not even having life in jail-- I don't know. But none of that means that life in jail can't work-- it means it isn't being implemented properly in that case.

[bernie1227]

And I'm saying that this is a hypothetical in which the person is rightfully accused, IE Anders Brevic
Both.

[bernie1227]

I agree. But that is a problem with the implementation of "life in jail" not with the idea of "life in jail". I believe that (at least in some cases!) the meaning of "life in jail" should be quite literal. 22 years isn't that; I don't care what they call it-- that's not life. That's not what it means. Norway may have very loose laws on that and have moved from not even having the death penalty to not even having life in jail-- I don't know. But none of that means that life in jail can't work-- it means it isn't being implemented properly in that case.
life sentence != life in jail in many countries in the world, I'm saying that via this limitation, the death sentence comes over as a much greater punishment.

[keyboard]

I accept your point, but it can't be applied in real life. You can't be 100% sure that someone did what they're charged of.

Which is a worse punishment? Death, or Life in Jail?
People can't kill other people when they're in jail (with exceptions).

With your point about life doesn't mean a lifetime in jail, which is worse, death or 22 years in jail?

[djr33]

As I said before, a majority of all murders aren't pre-meditated, so this doesn't help.What about my response? This doesn't make the death penalty wrong; it means that it should only be applied rarely! I don't disagree with you at all.


If an innocent person is put into prison, they can be compensated and released.
If an innocent person is killed, what do you do then?You avoid this situation. If that's impossible, then perhaps that's the answer-- we can't implement it well, so we shouldn't have it. Ok, fine. But it doesn't follow that it's just inherently wrong then. That just means we don't use it because it's better than using it badly.


---

life sentence != life in jail in many countries in the world, I'm saying that via this limitation, the death sentence comes over as a much greater punishment.
That's the implementation! Not the foundational issue. A country that has no true "life in prison" sentence is crazy in my mind. How often or to whom they should apply it is another issue, but having at least that seems necessary for any rational system of government in which the prison system is intended to maintain order. I'm not sure what those things are, but they do exist in principle.
So you need to reconsider your argument here-- would true "life in prison" have been effective? If so, then the point is irrelevant; if not, then that's what's being discussed, not how Norway dealt with this.

[bernie1227]

I accept your point, but it can't be applied in real life. You can't be 100% sure that someone did what they're charged of.

Which is a worse punishment? Death, or Life in Jail?
People can't kill other people when they're in jail (with exceptions).

With your point about life doesn't mean a lifetime in jail, which is worse, death or 22 years in jail?

Once again, it can be applied in real life: Anders Breivic
I addressed this in an earlier post.

[keyboard]

One quick thing, are we discussing whether the death penalty is wrong, or the death penalty shouldn't be used?
For the latter, I definetely think no for all the reasons stated.
For the former, I still think no, but only for the reason that I think it is wrong to take someone's life.
I'm not saying that if there was a terrorist and the only way to stop them was to kill them that they shouldn't do it, I'm saying that when there is an alternative, I think it should be taken.


We're not talking about Anders Breivic, we're talking about murderers (or people accused of murder) in general.

[bernie1227]

That's the implementation! Not the foundational issue. A country that has no true "life in prison" sentence is crazy in my mind. How often or to whom they should apply it is another issue, but having at least that seems necessary for any rational system of government in which the prison system is intended to maintain order. I'm not sure what those things are, but they do exist in principle.
So you need to reconsider your argument here-- would true "life in prison" have been effective? If so, then the point is irrelevant; if not, then that's what's being discussed, not how Norway dealt with this.

if anything, life in prison would be more effective than the death sentence OR 22 years in jail.

[djr33]

I accept your point, but it can't be applied in real life. You can't be 100% sure that someone did what they're charged of.You can in some cases. Those are the ones where I'd support the death penalty (or at least not have any intention to stop it). In a case where it's not entirely clear (even if it's "beyond a reasonable doubt") I see a strong argument. But there simply are cases where people are caught in the middle of a crime and are very clearly guilty and also not remorseful or insane. Those cases, then ones where the offenders even continue trying to kill in prison, are the ones where I think the death penalty pretty clearly fits (although again I don't mind life in prison instead). If there is any chance of uncertainty, any chance of a misleading trial or evidence, then sure, use that as reason enough to let them live in a cell for the rest of their lives-- doesn't bother me.



Which is a worse punishment? Death, or Life in Jail?Can't be answered for everyone; it varies by person. Some might use the time constructively and others might hate it; the fact that some prisoners commit suicide shows clearly that there's no obvious answer. So if that's the case, and you seem to be supporting it, then in fact you're arguing for the death penalty.
Or, perhaps, there's a choice-- the prisoner is allowed to choose between literal 'life in jail' or death penalty. Is that better then?


People can't kill other people when they're in jail (with exceptions).Right. Exceptions. If someone kills another inmate every year, at what point should they be put to death? Or should the prison system be redesigned around people like that so that it effectively controls them? Same with escape attempts.


With your point about life doesn't mean a lifetime in jail, which is worse, death or 22 years in jail?Again, unclear. But there are other factors at play there (such as releasing someone back into society or not).



----
Something that no one has mentioned that may be relevant is the potential for a government to collapse. What if for-life prisoners got out of jail after a country changed governments? Or is they were traded for political reasons. Or any other number of similar things. There's something final about the death penalty that simply can't be final about anything else. That is, I think, why a lot of people hold the position of defending it, along with other more problematic things like revenge.


----

We're not talking about Anders Breivic, we're talking about murderers (or people accused of murder) in general.But we are talking about him, to the extent that he's the absolute worst example we can think of. If you can imagine a worse case, go for it. I'm ignoring the specifics because I don't know much about that case and that example isn't important to me. But we are talking about the worst cases and whether the death penalty should be implemented at all. Not how much. Another topic would be how much it should be implemented and it sounds like what we've all said would support it being implemented less, but there's disagreement on whether just "less" is enough or if it needs to be "never". (And some people out there in the world clearly believe that it should be implemented this much or perhaps more. But as far as I can tell, they're not debating at the moment here.)

[bernie1227]

We're not talking about Anders Breivic, we're talking about murderers (or people accused of murder) in general.

Anders Breivic is the ideal case study for this.

[djr33]

I don't think that's necessarily true; but something along those lines is fine. The question isn't whether any particular person should be executed; it's whether anyone ever should be executed if it came to that, and whether that should be an option at all. Maybe even he isn't bad enough to warrant it; but someone else could be. Essentially, is there a limit at which the death penalty applies? I think that's the fundamental (and first) question to determine, and also the one around which we seem most divided. On a lot of the rest we agree.

[bernie1227]

Well, via te fact of whether an individual should be executed, we see whether anyone should be executed.

[jscheuer1]

John, I'll respond in detail to your post. From your tone, it's hard to tell whether you're using sarcasm as a rhetorical tactic or if you're upset by this-- if the latter, just say so and there's no need to continue. I'll assume the former.

I guess I am getting a little frustrated. Like when I'm trying to help someone with a script. I can only explain it so many ways. Usually they get it the first or second time. If not I'll give up after 4 or 5 tries.

Really parking tickets? You can bounce back from a parking ticket. Get real. You're a fine debater but it's not always sufficient to pick away at the edges of things hoping they'll collapse. I just don't see how you can justify unfairness when the penalty is irreversible and it's been demonstrated time again that innocents are put to death. You even state that it's inefficient, not a deterrent and not cost effective. It's almost as though you're making my case for me. It's just that there's some part of you that seems to want or need to hold onto the death penalty. Like it's sexy, or exciting to you in some way. Regardless of all the logic and good morals you have against her, she's still so much more fun to be with than that dull life in prison chick.

Whatever the case may be though, I probably should bow out of the discussion. I think your 4 o 5 tries at understanding are up for now.

[djr33]

Bernie,
If yes, then that means the death penalty is useful.
If no, then that means we don't know-- maybe someone could be worse.

[djr33]

John,

I guess I am getting a little frustrated. Like when I'm trying to help someone with a script. I can only explain it so many ways. Usually they get it the first or second time. If not I'll give up after 4 or 5 tries.The difference between this and a script is that these are all opinions; a script is usually more or less a right-or-wrong situation, with one answer that works.
By that I mean to emphasize that just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand or don't respect your opinion.


Really parking tickets? You can bounce back from a parking ticket.The point I was making was that your argument against the death penalty applied to parking tickets as well. Your reaction to my comment shows clearly that your argument against the death penalty [that one] isn't the real reason-- it's because the death penalty is such a big thing, final and so forth. If that's the reason, that's fine. But that's exactly what I was trying to clarify before.


I just don't see how you can justify unfairness when the penalty is irreversible and it's been demonstrated time again that innocents are put to death.I've said I agree with you that it's implemented badly-- I wouldn't oppose suspending it as you suggested a while ago. Indefinitely probably.


You even state that it's inefficient, not a deterrent and not cost effective.Yes. We agree on this as well.


It's just that there's some part of you that seems to want or need to hold onto the death penalty. Like it's sexy, or exciting to you in some way. Regardless of all the logic and good morals you have against her, she's still so much more fun to be with than that dull life in prison chick.I'm more interested in working out the details of the argument and finding the position that makes the most sense than to advocate one position or another. As far as I can tell, my position is that I don't find enough evidence against the death penalty to eliminate it-- suspend for practical reasons, yes, but not to eliminate it entirely as an option. I don't even think it needs to be used "sometimes" for some vague reason-- if it's never used that's fine. But to eliminate it as an option doesn't make sense to me. So the "sexy chick" metaphor doesn't apply to me (not sure about the others, but I think you're addressing only me here).


Whatever the case may be though, I probably should bow out of the discussion. I think your 4 o 5 tries at understanding are up for now.That's fine if you don't want to discuss it, and you're welcome to your opinion. I disagree with your implication, though, that there's some reason it's my job to understand your opinion (and accept it?)-- in fact, I do understand it and have from the beginning (although perhaps not in some details-- and thanks for clarifying), but I still have objections to it. I don't take your objections to my points to show that you don't understand mine, but rather that you disagree with them; the same is true for me for your points. I don't intend at all to suggest that you should chance your views to match mine, especially if I'm not convincing to you.

I'll admit that my perspectives tend to be highly theoretical rather than effectively practical-- I have no problem with literally everything you've said as purely a practical reaction to the problems in the system. I just don't stretch that to mean that then the idea is a bad idea in itself or that it could never be useful. I hope that makes sense.

[bernie1227]

I think the murder of 77 innocents for misguided gains deserves the death sentence.

I think that we should close the thread, as John doesn't seem to be comfortable with the topic.

[djr33]

I think the murder of 77 innocents for misguided gains deserves the death sentence.Ok, I can certainly accept that as your opinion, and in many ways I'd probably agree. I'd never to review the evidence before making any commitment to that, but, sure, that's as good a case as any I think. And no question on your point about it being life in prison instead of 22 years.


I think that we should close the thread, as John doesn't seem to be comfortable with the topic.John, if you want to close this thread feel free to do so. But I'll let you do that rather than deciding for you. I don't mind leaving it open. However, we do seem to have reached a potential stopping point.

[bernie1227]

Ok, I can certainly accept that as your opinion, and in many ways I'd probably agree. I'd never to review the evidence before making any commitment to that, but, sure, that's as good a case as any I think. And no question on your point about it being life in prison instead of 22 years.


One last clarification, that conclusion is assuming that the alternative is 22 years in jail.

[djr33]

That's a crucial distinction then. So you'd find it acceptable to have a literal "life in prison" sentence instead? I have to say I generally agree there-- it's hard to see any big downside to that.

[bernie1227]

See with actual life in prison, you see the arguments of John and Keyboard come into play, they have all the punishment of a long stint in prison, as well as, eventually, death.

[jscheuer1]

There's less opinion involved here than you make out.

Facts:

When you kill someone they're dead, period.
You are killing innocent people.
It's not helping anybody or anything.

Reactionaries often want to make you think things are a matter of opinion when they're not. Don't be fooled. A civil society that respects human rights will evolve to a point where the death penalty is seen for what it is, a brutal and ineffectual means of dealing with crime.

In that way it's no different than freedom for slaves, a woman's right to vote, etc.

[bernie1227]

I disagree here, in my opinion:
1) is obviously a fact
2) false, I wouldn't call someone who kills 77 innocents innocent. What leads you to believe that they are?
3) false, it's ridding our society of people who can cause such harm to it

[jscheuer1]

Just because you kill one murderer, doesn't mean that you're not also killing innocent people. It's well documented that the innocent have often been put to death only later to be found innocent of the crimes of which they were accused.

We can rid society of people without killing them.

[bernie1227]

I'm not saying that that e death sentence is the best course of action, far from it, an actual life sentence would be a much better punishment, however in a hypothetical in which the person is definitely guilty, and there is a choice between death sentence or 22 years inprisonment, I choose death sentence.

[jscheuer1]

I agree that 22 years seems short for a life sentence. However, where is that again? I forgot. But I'm pretty sure they have it worked out in their minds there how that's appropriate and workable in that person's case, or you may have misunderstood the true length of his incarceration. Or they may be kidding themselves. How old is he? How old would he be if he survived the 22 years?

[bernie1227]

He's only 33 and he has a minimum sentence of 10 years, so if he is let out after that, he wil only be 43, the maximum his sentence has been set as is actually 21, so by the time he's most likely to be let out, he'll be 54, a couple of decades off the life expectancy.

[the cute]

congratulations to all

[traq]

Traq, are you saying that punishment is an extension of revenge?

lots of conversation since I went to bed last night...

I know the thread has moved past this, but since you asked:

No, not in general. Capital punishment, however, is a different matter. What is the point of punishment, if not revenge (inflicting pain / taking out your anger on someone)? I've always believed that punishment has only one legitimate motive: To correct behavior. Why do you spank a child? It serves as a concrete reminder that a behavior is unacceptable. (I'm not trying to start a debate on spanking, here. Other forms of punishment are based on the same idea.) The child remembers. An executed prisoner cannot remember, and cannot change their behavior.

[jscheuer1]

And, about this Biblical business of an eye for an eye:


Matthew 5:38, 5:39
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

So get over thinking the Bible tells us to execute people.

[james438]

traq, I just read your recently updated post from 5 pages ago!. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's applies to taxes and whether it is morally right to do so. It had to do with money, but it can also be applied to services such as military service or the law. It is Caesar that spends the money or our services. If I am told I must work on the Lord's day or pray to another god than I must respectfully disobey. We are to obey the laws of man.

jscheuer1, that verse is talking about revenge and taking the law into your own hands.

traq, revenge, discipline, and punishment are three different things.

Revenge is retaliating against a person for wrongs done to them. He hit me so I will hit him back. Vengeance is mine, says the Lord. Most likely you have heard that line before.

Punishment is the just (law approved) response/penalty to a wrong. It is not emotionally motivated, but done in an orderly fashion for the protection of society and as an appropriate response to a wrong committed. Justice (punishment) should never be emotionally motivated. That is what the law and legal system is for.

Discipline is specifically used to produce moral and mental improvement, self-control. Capital Punishment won't do that nor is it designed to; neither for society nor for the individual.

I am still attempting to stay out of this thread as much as I can, but I wanted to clarify a few things.

[djr33]

John, this is an opinion. Certainly there are facts involved. The summary of the facts is this: the death penalty has problems in its implementation. The opinions are as follows:
1. The death penalty should be eliminated. These problems are too big to deal with.
2. The death penalty is fine in itself, but the implementation needs to be fixed and can be fixed.

You're clearly at (1), and I'm closer to (2) at least in theory; however, we live in the real world, so I'm happy enough to go with (1) because although my opinion hasn't changed, you're right that it certainly isn't gaining very much. I'm not saying it's gaining nothing, but I am agreeing that whatever it gains is relatively insignificant next to the problems it causes. In short, sure, let's go with a suspension of it until the system is fixed, even if that never happens.

However, none of this means either 1) the death penalty is in theory wrong/bad/etc. in theory; or 2) it couldn't ever be used well. That would be another discussion. (And perhaps not an important one.)


The trouble with this point is that in a political election, voters get to vote for or against a position, not for it with modifications, and the same applies to the candidates-- we don't get to vote for one partially and partially for the other. So if the decision is between "death penalty yes" and "death penalty no", neither one seems like the perfect answer. For me, it would be "death penalty only after the implementation is fixed".




Regarding the latest posts, it's absurd to think of the death penalty within the "correctional system" as anything to do with "correction". However, I agree with James on this that it isn't intended in any sense for correction. But more generally the prison system is awful in terms of correction. The "correctional system" is a misnomer and doesn't actually attempt that, at least not as its broadest goal. That could and should be improved; the repeat offender rate is too high and makes the prison system inefficient and congested.

[jscheuer1]

To more or less dismiss that verse as about revenge is a little disingenuous.

The death penalty is a mixture of revenge and a misguided ineffectual attempt at justice.

I'm a bit concerned though about what Bernie has been mentioning about that mass murderer getting out so soon. How can they tell that 22 years or less will be enough to prevent him from harming others again? I don't know anything about the case other than what Bernie has relayed, but if he has the facts right it's pretty amazing, and I don't mean in a good way.

[james438]

I know and knew that you see capital punishment that way and I obviously disagree. Is it safe to say that you see punishment and revenge as different things with the obvious exception of capital punishment and maybe one or two other things?

[djr33]

In terms of revenge and punishment, I see the following two situations very differently:

"X" is a convicted mass murderer (with 20 victims) who is obviously guilty (caught on tape, confessed and proud of it, still violent as much as possible within prison).

1. X is executed without a spectacle.

2. X is sentenced to the death penalty for the first 3 murders (as could be a potentially reasonable limit) and then to 17 acts of torture for the remaining 17 murders. Additionally, the execution is carried out publicly for emotional and political reasons.


(1) and (2) are wholly different to me. (2) is unreasonable in every way. (1) is a lot more reasonable.

We may still disagree on whether (1) is a good situation, but I doubt we disagree on whether (2) is worse than (1). Ok... why?


To me, (1) is about removing a person from life and perhaps denying any future life; but it's not about making it actively bad for them-- it's not about torture. Nor is it meant to correct them or scare them. There are two potential justifications:
1) this person does not belong; having violated society's laws and violated life, they no longer can be part of it; they forfeit the right to live and be cared for, to be protected, etc.
2) they do not deserve to live-- life should be taken from them, because they are bad.

These are very subtly different, and in an important way. (2) is the stronger stance. I think it's something that could be objected to. But (1) is a practical position that has nothing to do with torture.

[jscheuer1]

Daniel, the fact is that innocents are put to death. That alone should be enough. You're never going to fix that. People make mistakes. It can take years for the truth to come to light.

I agree with what you're saying about corrections. If we stopped wasting so much money, time and energy on the endless appeals and other aspects of administering the death penalty, and devoted a fraction of that effort toward improving the justice system, including corrections, then we would have something.

[bernie1227]

Daniel, the fact is that innocents are put to death. That alone should be enough. You're never going to fix that. People make mistakes. It can take years for the truth to come to light.

That is a flaw if the death penalty is used to easily, however when we are certain that the person is guilty ie, 1, or Anders Breivik, is the death penalty right or not?

[jscheuer1]

From Wikipedia:


Two teams of court-appointed psychiatrists examined Breivik prior to his trial; in the first report Breivik was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and a second evaluation was commissioned following widespread criticism of the first report . . .

On 24 August 2012, Oslo District Court found Breivik sane and guilty of murdering 77 people. He was sentenced to preventive detention, a special form of prison sentence, with a term of 21 years and a minimum of 10 years, with the possibility of extension for as long as he is deemed a danger to society; the media have noted that he is unlikely to be released until much later than 21 years, and will probably remain in prison for life. This is the maximum penalty in Norway.

I think that's reasonable. Something told me the facts in this case had to be a little different than Bernie was relaying.

So it's a done deal, he killed those people. He was first diagnosed as insane, but due to public outcry he was later ruled sane. That seems fair, so now that he's sane we can kill him. Except Norway, I think wisely doesn't do that.

The problem with making an exception for someone like Breivik and killing him is, where do you stop? Governments don't work like that. There either is a death penalty or there isn't. Once there is, anyone can potentially get it.

In Breivik's case it's very possible he is insane and that the public's collective sense of revenge demanded that he not get off on that. Though there's little difference. Insanity for that is likely a life sentence as well. You can't trust someone like that to stay on his meds, and the consequences if he doesn't are too horrible to contemplate.

[djr33]

John (post 1): Yes, I agree on all of that. As I've said, for practical reasons, it's fine to suspend it. But none of that means it couldn't, in theory, be fixed.

John/Bernie: indeed the facts here are crucial, which is why I've hesitated to specifically use that example. I agree with John that the sentence, including all of the details, is reasonable. I'm a little uncertain about how they can know for sure whether if he got out he'd be dangerous again, but I suppose they'll just be cautious rather than lenient on that.

[djr33]

Welcome to the official Social Thread (v1) for Dynamic Drive!

We (the moderators) have decided to make this (and future threads like it) an official discussion for just whatever is going on every day for us, and to discuss various topics, whatever comes up.

Please keep in mind that the goal is to have fun and get to know each other a bit, but not to cause any problems. So as always flaming, spamming or anything else against the rules won't be allowed. Generally there's no official "topic" for this so nothing is "off topic" either, but try to keep things reasonable and fun!

As time goes on we'll retire the current version of the Social Thread and replace it with a new one as needed.

[jscheuer1]

Daniel, I don't see how you are ever going to fix the death penalty when it's always possible that you will kill an innocent person. Man is not all seeing and all knowing. When one or more egregious murders occur emotions run high. It's always possible that the wrong person will be swept up in the investigation and put to death. It might be many many years later that the truth comes out. As long as you haven't killed them, well it's still a horrible nightmare for them, but at least they're still alive to enjoy what's left of their life. And with the better state of affairs we both envision for corrections as a result of the end of the death penalty, they may have had at least more of an opportunity to learn and grow while in prison than under the current system.

[traq]

traq, I just read your recently updated post from 5 pages ago!.
Yeah, sorry - I didn't expect that to be buried so quickly. In fact, it was buried by the time I finished editing, but I didn't click the refresh button to check.


Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's applies to taxes and whether it is morally right to do so. It had to do with money, but it can also be applied to services such as military service or the law. It is Caesar that spends the money or our services. If I am told I must work on the Lord's day or pray to another god than I must respectfully disobey. We are to obey the laws of man.
That's exactly where I disagree. The other half of that sentence is "give to God what is God's." Money is printed and owned by the government, and in this lesson represents earthly laws, as opposed to the laws of heaven. It was Paul who [later] expanded that lesson to apply to all aspects of governmental authority (by declaring that "there is no authority except from God" (though I think this is also often interpreted too widely)).

Being commanded to work on the Lord's day is much, much different than putting a man to death. Being commanded to worship another god (and I intend no sacrilege here) is also incomparable: worship has no meaning if it is not "in your heart," whereas a man is dead if he is put to death, and it doesn't matter one bit if anyone really thought it was right or wrong.

I suppose we're differing mainly on where to "draw the line": what we should leave to the government, and what we cannot excuse ourselves of.


Punishment is the just (law approved) response/penalty to a wrong. It is not emotionally motivated, but done in an orderly fashion for the protection of society and as an appropriate response to a wrong committed. Justice (punishment) should never be emotionally motivated. That is what the law and legal system is for.
yes, that's what the law is for. But is that what the law accomplishes?
From this definition, it seems that you're equating "justice" with "legal sanction." If I misinterpreted that, I apologize. I could not agree less - Laws confer no moral authority. What is just must also be fair and morally correct - it must be "the right thing to do." Ideally, justice and the law would always be in union, but that does not mean that one defines the other.

That's what our discussion revolves around, is it not? No one disagrees about the Law, just about whether it is Right. If the law were to be changed (say, in the next four years, capital punishment is outlawed everywhere on Earth), would that have any affect on whether it is Right or Wrong to put someone to death? No. Only on the acceptability of doing so.

[djr33]

Reasonable points traq.

John, that's a convincing stance; it is difficult to imagine a solution. As an attempt at one I'd propose limiting the death penalty to cases where there isn't any room for doubt-- not that people are convinced, but there isn't even a potential counterargument.

As an example, let's take the details of the Colorado theater shooting a few months ago. In that case, there was absolutely no question about 1) whether the act was committed; or 2) who did it. The who was known, and the what was known. Absolutely no question there.

To me, a case like that (ignoring the insanity issue) is the type that would be eligible for the death penalty. There's no doubt to any degree that this person is not innocent-- they did the crime and the crime was bad enough

(In reality, there is the question of insanity and that's perfectly reasonable! I'm intentionally ignoring that detail here, and would not apply my reasoning here literally to that case. I'm just talking about the evidence.)

[bernie1227]

Another question here is that you're argument is that Breivik was insane, but does that excuse him? I doesn't excuse him in any way in my mind, I'm not even convinced he was insane, the killings were meticulously planned, in no way the work of a madman. So there is the question, that if you are considered insane because you committed mass-murder, does that make it alright?

[jscheuer1]

Once you setup criteria that makes the death penalty acceptable in certain cases, someone more zealous than you can come along and bend that standard. Also, owing to the intense emotions that swirl around many of these cases, one might think the evidence air tight when it is not. Or it might in fact appear to be airtight to any reasonable person only to prove not to be the case later when more information surfaces. There's just too much margin for error once you start opening that door.

I was concerned about the Norway case until I looked it up. I like what they did and believe they walked a thin yet appropriate line. The man is probably insane, but since that didn't really matter in the final disposition of the case, the justice system responded to public outcry and declared him sane. They didn't want to further incite an understandably distraught populace. That might have spawned other violent acts. And though the numbers look incredibly lenient on the surface, the article notes that he will probably serve life in prison. They would not have had such leeway, at least not in as good conscience had they had the death penalty in the mix.

Insanity doesn't make murder OK, it does mitigate the circumstances, it makes the crime a little less heinous. In Breivik's case, in Norway there, it really doesn't make that much difference. Life in prison either way. But were the death penalty even a possibility, insanity should be looked upon as a reason not to execute.

Planning is no evidence of sanity. It's only evidence of an organized mind.

[bernie1227]

I am of the opinion, that in countries that do have the death penalty, Breivik would have received it. Quite rightfully too. But I am of the opinion, that the best punishment for that mind of horrible crime, is actuall life in prison, and with that kind of punishment, if even if the person is fond to be innocent, they can be pulled out of jail.

[djr33]

Another question here is that you're argument is that Breivik was insane, but does that excuse him? I doesn't excuse him in any way in my mind, I'm not even convinced he was insane, the killings were meticulously planned, in no way the work of a madman. So there is the question, that if you are considered insane because you committed mass-murder, does that make it alright?The argument isn't that he's insane because he did that; the argument is that he's schizophrenic, which is a disorder that causes delusions and paranoia, not necessarily any inability to function meticulously.
I agree with you that committing murder does not mean someone is insane; but if they commit the murder because they are insane, that's a different issue.


I am of the opinion, that in countries that do have the death penalty, Breivik would have received it. Quite rightfully too. But I am of the opinion, that the best punishment for that mind of horrible crime, is actuall life in prison, and with that kind of punishment, if even if the person is fond to be innocent, they can be pulled out of jail..1) He did receive life in prison. It just is phrased a little differently. It can be extended as needed; I assume it will be extended and will be needed.
2) This is an argument against the death penalty, especially considering the fact that it does look like he was insane; if he had received the death penalty in another country, that seems reasonably (according to the past couple posts) that it would have been a mistake.

[bernie1227]

The argument isn't that he's insane because he did that; the argument is that he's schizophrenic, which is a disorder that causes delusions and paranoia, not necessarily any inability to function meticulously.
I agree with you that committing murder does not mean someone is insane; but if they commit the murder because they are insane, that's a different issue.

I know what schizophrenia is, I'm just saying, I don't believe he was a schizophrenic, nor does the Oslo regional court.


1) He did receive life in prison. It just is phrased a little differently. It can be extended as needed; I assume it will be extended and will be needed.

I know that, and that wasn't what I was talking about.


2) This is an argument against the death penalty, especially considering the fact that it does look like he was insane; if he had received the death penalty in another country, that seems reasonably (according to the past couple posts) that it would have been a mistake.
My post is saying that there are better punishments than the death penalty, not that it is wrong.

[djr33]

Life in prison is better because it's worse than the death penalty? Hm. Interesting. And perhaps true, at least for some people.



So... has anyone else seen The Neighbors? It was the big surprise for me for the start of this season's TV shows-- I didn't know anything about it until I started watching it and then I thought it was wonderful. If you haven't seen it, check it out. I'll give you a hint-- the opening shot is in outer space!

[bernie1227]

Well you get a long time in prison, and an effective death sentence.

Anyways, just saw the latest dr. Who, and it's really not that scary.
Oh dear.... This thread is turning into twitter

[jscheuer1]

Anyways, just saw the latest dr. Who, and it's really not that scary.

I just DVRed it. My space is getting low, should I delete it without watching it?

[molendijk]

As to Arie, Daniel gets the jokes, I was reffering to past/present/future as you see them just about everywhere, and as average Joe sees them. As to the subjunctive, I don't think you're getting the crux of the joke. I mean the subjunctive as the subjunctive mood. Basically, I agree with Daniel, and as you may have guessed, most of my grammar knowledge comes from studies of Latin.
O yes, I got the crux. But it's not important, and I won't go into this any further, because I'm in a very bad mood now (more precisely: because I lost my wallet with everything in it).
Adrianus.

[molendijk]

I've just returned from a llong weekend without a computer and I'm surprised about the enormous quantity of posts about the death penalty.
I really cannot understand why anyone would not agree with John's line of reasoning.
Note that I would most certainly kill the murderer of my wife and / or children if I had the chance (believe me!). But my understandable act doesn't have any legal justification. The law is there to allow a society to protect itself against evil in a civilized way. At the same time, the law is not perfect, nore are the people whose jobs are to execute or maintain it. The death penalty ignores this fact.
As for basing one's judgments about legal questions on biblical grounds: that's not far away from introducing a biblical sharia.
Arie.

[bernie1227]

I just DVRed it. My space is getting low, should I delete it without watching it?

You might as well watch it, they finally get rid of Amy and Rory, which is nice, the new companion is going to be Oswin Oswald (also known as the Dalek in denial), but as far as weeping angel episodes go, it could've been much better (they do something really cheesy with the Statue of Liberty)

[bernie1227]

I've just returned from a llong weekend without a computer and I'm surprised about the enormous quantity of posts about the death penalty.
I really cannot understand why anyone would not agree with John's line of reasoning.
Note that I would most certainly kill the murderer of my wife and / or children if I had the chance (believe me!). But my understandable act doesn't have any legal justification. The law is there to allow a society to protect itself against evil in a civilized way. At the same time, the law is not perfect, nore are the people whose jobs are to execute or maintain it. The death penalty ignores this fact.
As for basing one's judgments about legal questions on biblical grounds: that's not far away from introducing a biblical sharia.
Arie.

We've basically decided that the best punishment is life in jail. The person has the knowledge that if they are innocent, they can be pulled out of jail, and if they are guilty then the families are safe in the knowledge that the killer will die.

[traq]

We've basically decided ...

I found the conversation very fulfilling, but I was not looking to come to a consensus, nor to convince or be convinced by anyone else. In fact, I don't personally think that life in prison is a good solution; and not necessarily the "best" solution (and certainly not "good enough" that I think it should be settled upon, in the long run).

One person's position can sometimes be completely unfathomable to another; likewise, one can understand another's position without agreeing with it. I am glad to have heard and discussed everyone's views, and to have shared my own, in such an open conversation. Conversations where everybody listens are always more productive, in every way, then those where everyone is trying to convince everyone else.


Note that I would most certainly kill the murderer of my wife and / or children if I had the chance (believe me!). But my understandable act doesn't have any legal justification. The law is there to allow a society to protect itself against evil in a civilized way. At the same time, the law is not perfect, nore are the people whose jobs are to execute or maintain it. The death penalty ignores this fact.
As for basing one's judgments about legal questions on biblical grounds: that's not far away from introducing a biblical sharia.

I think that's a point no one really touched upon yet, at least not in so personal a context. You would want revenge, but also (and from the comfort of a more objective viewpoint) you would want society to keep you from it.

Something I always try to keep in mind about the bible is that it is not an instruction manual: it's a collection of lessons. Lessons are not meant to be taken literally; they are meant to be learned from. Jesus didn't command anyone to mind their p's and q's so that, one day, they could have the honor of being chosen by God to bean someone in the head. His point was that you shouldn't be throwing rocks.

[djr33]

I think that's a point no one really touched upon yet, at least not in so personal a context. You would want revenge, but also (and from the comfort of a more objective viewpoint) you would want society to keep you from it.There is another (potential) argument that is the inverse of this-- in extreme cases, perhaps it is best if the government executes a criminal to avoid unrest and assassination or a revenge killing from one of the victims.
I'm certainly not convinced by the argument, but it is another perspective no one has mentioned and it seems somewhat relevant. If executions are reserved for the government, then that may lessen the threat of individuals trying to take revenge, or in the extreme cases the masses.

[bernie1227]

I found the conversation very fulfilling, but I was not looking to come to a consensus, nor to convince or be convinced by anyone else. In fact, I don't personally think that life in prison is a good solution; and not necessarily the "best" solution (and certainly not "good enough" that I think it should be settled upon, in the long run).

So what do of think is the best punishment traq?

[keyboard]

Just watched the latest DW episode... it was a bit dissapointing...

[Beverleyh]

I half watched it while I was playing with my new toy - I'm going to watch it properly on iPlayer later in the week.

'New toy' = white iPhone 4S running iOS6. My first Apple product! It's taking a bit of getting used to but I'm thoroughly enjoying it :)

[bernie1227]

What didn't you get the iphone 5?

[djr33]

I find the iPhone to be incredibly unintuitive at first, but then once you learn it, you'll think it's completely logical. Apple... ;)

[bernie1227]

Any thoughts on iPhone 5? 20% longer, 18% thinner

[Beverleyh]

Money. We've only had my wage coming into the household for the last couple of years and I'd have been paying more than double for the 5.

[bernie1227]

4s is still pretty sweet, better than anything I've got, but the back cracks easily (it's glass, 5 is aluminium)

[Beverleyh]

I find the iPhone to be incredibly unintuitive at first, but then once you learn it, you'll think it's completely logical. Apple... ;)I've only really used Apple (iPad/MacBook) briefly at work/college before now to check websites but its finally nice to play with something that's actually mine - play vs work, without the sensible, troubleshooting head on :)

BTW the post before was in reply to Bernie but I forgot to reply with the quote.

[jscheuer1]

So what do of think is the best punishment traq?

I can't speak for Adrian (traq), but the best punishment is the one that fits the crime. Because of this, the death penalty is very tempting in cases of murder. It just cannot be on the table though because of the reasons already mentioned. Each case is different, some murders really are 'justifiable homicide', or committed 'to prevent a greater harm' or 'in self defense'. It needs to be determined if the murder is one of those. They should be treated differently than an insane act, which should be dealt with differently depending upon a number of things including whether or not the perpetrator was in fact insane. There's 1st and 2nd degree murder, negligent homicide, other types I'm sure. I'm no expert on the crime of murder and the categories are defined differently in different jurisdictions, not to mention a whole host of crimes that don't result in murder. Each crime should be judged on its own set of circumstances. And as we perhaps saw in the Norway case, the public mood may need to be considered.

[Beverleyh]

I would have loved the 5, especially with 4G being rolled out now with Orange/T-Mobile in the UK, but I'll settle with my 4S for now. Settle isn't the right word really as I'm very happy with what I have - *more* than happy (stroke it gently and give it an adoring little kiss).

I didn't realise the back is glass. Now you mention it, it did sound a bit 'clinky' when I put it down the other day, but I've got a nice leather case that fully protects it now :) happy, happy

[djr33]

I still have the 3GS, but I'm happy with it. No intent to upgrade at the moment. It does the internet and calls... that's what I want. Glad you're enjoying the new phone!


And as we perhaps saw in the Norway case, the public mood may need to be considered. Oddly enough, this seems to be the main reason to support the death penalty-- 'murderers are bad, so it's good to kill them.' -- That's usually a wide public opinion rather than any individual justifying it or applying logic. Right?

[bernie1227]

I would have loved the 5, especially with 4G being rolled out now with Orange/T-Mobile in the UK, but I'll settle with my 4S for now. Settle isn't the right word really as I'm very happy with what I have - *more* than happy (stroke it gently and give it an adoring little kiss).


LTE chip in iPhone 5, I have an old Samsung, so not a scratch on even daniel's iPhone 3GS

[jscheuer1]

Oddly enough, this seems to be the main reason to support the death penalty-- 'murderers are bad, so it's good to kill them.' -- That's usually a wide public opinion rather than any individual justifying it or applying logic. Right?

The government should not allow the blood lust of the populace to influence its decision to that degree. Once the death penalty is on the table, innocents will be put to death.

[djr33]

I'm not saying I support that-- I'm saying the same logic applies. So I find it equally problematic that there may have been some influence in the question of sanity on the court's ruling based on public opinion.

[Beverleyh]

A few years ago I had a Samsung omnia - one of the early touch screens. Horrible experience, and that put me off the touch screens until now. I've been favouring blackberry bold until very recently as we've been rolling out a 'bring your own device' program in the school where I work so we've had loads of students bringing in iPads and other tablets to use on the school network. It's really made me sit up and take notice of how far the touch screen technologies have come. I may be a bit late to the party but now I plan to boogie with the best of them :)

[jscheuer1]

I'm not saying I support that-- I'm saying the same logic applies. So I find it equally problematic that there may have been some influence in the question of sanity on the court's ruling based on public opinion.

There it was more or less a wash. The man wasn't ever getting out either way. The public perception however must have been that to classify him as insane was somehow making it a lesser offense, which in a way it would. But the state determined that it didn't matter. Because the death penalty wasn't on the table, they could afford to in good conscience assuage the public to that degree.

And that's all speculation on my part. It could have gone down that way. But perhaps the facts on the ground were really something else.

[keyboard]

As to phones; get a nokia.
If an Iphone is a Ferrari, a Nokia is an armoured tank.

[djr33]

There it was more or less a wash. The man wasn't ever getting out either way. The public perception however must have been that to classify him as insane was somehow making it a lesser offense, which in a way it would. But the state determined that it didn't matter. Because the death penalty wasn't on the table, they could afford to in good conscience assuage the public to that degree.But there's a difference in how he is treated, no, and where he does his time? The question is between treatment and imprisonment.





Nokia? I guess I still associate that with my flip phone from about 10 years ago-- perhaps they've improved since then. But in my mind the proper association is "If an iphone is a ferrari, a nokia is a motorized scooter."

[jscheuer1]

But there's a difference in how he is treated, no, and where he does his time? The question is between treatment and imprisonment.

I doubt there would be much difference in this case in that locale. There could be though. It's reported that he said he wasn't going to appeal because he doesn't recognize the court's authority. With that attitude it might be difficult for them to treat him regardless of how he's classified. However, treatment is probably the best way to prevent him from being disruptive and/or dangerous.

[djr33]

Or simply to isolate him. Treatment doesn't necessarily involve change, but it can also involve simply not allowing socialization in prison or allowing socialization only under appropriate (structured/supervised) circumstances.

[jscheuer1]

Right, considering his apparent attitude, that might be their best recourse regardless of his classification.

[djr33]

From the minimal amount I know of the case, I'm not sure it's an "attitude". I think it's potentially a belief caused by paranoia, which is relevantly different. Secondly, I meant it as much for his protection (from the angry mobs of prison-- he's famous now, right?) as for the protection of others.

[jscheuer1]

Nothing there I don't agree with. But it makes me wonder. Perhaps that's the difference in the classification. As a sane person, it's an attitude. If he were classified as insane, it could be a symptom.

[djr33]

Right-- that would be exactly what the different classifications would entail.

[bernie1227]

Nokia? I guess I still associate that with my flip phone from about 10 years ago-- perhaps they've improved since then. But in my mind the proper association is "If an iphone is a ferrari, a nokia is a motorized scooter."
the nokia lumia 920 is actually very very nice, windows phone 8, 4.5", 32GB storage, gorilla glass, and basically indestructible.

[bernie1227]

Any one up for a monthly dynamic drive debate? I've been looking at some of the old threads (ie, the days of they, tech_support, the_testing_site, pcbrainbuster, jack, techno_race etc.), and I realised how great some of the members are at debating.
I nominate for the debating teams:
Daniel
John
Traq
Molendijk

(Teams will be three people each, and the topic will be chosen ten minutes before the allotted debating time by the adjudicator)

[djr33]

I think organizing debates intentionally may just be asking for arguments to start-- as they come up it's fine to discuss things, but that should be enough.
(I've also personally never liked arguing for a point I don't agree with. I'm guessing that would be necessary, at least sometimes, in the format you suggested.)

[bernie1227]

No debate it is then

[djr33]

But I'm sure we'll have a lot to discuss as interesting topics come up. Whatever catches our attention will be the topic, which is a good thing anyway :)

[bernie1227]

awwwww well, we still have iphones to talk about :p

[keyboard]

Bit of randomness - Which is better? Brie or Camembert?

[bernie1227]

Neither

[keyboard]

That isn't an acceptable answer to the question.
You could say "I hate both" but seeing as that wasn't one of the answers, you wouldn't be answering the question, invalidating your response.

[traq]

Bit of randomness - Which is better? Brie or Camembert?

which is further from me?

kidding; Brie. But in general, soft cheeses aren't my favorites.

Also, I don't think Bernie's answer is invalid; it just means he has no preference. he could hate them both, or love them both.
For all we know he could be swimming in a vat of equal parts Brie + Camembert right now.

[bernie1227]

To quote the manual of darkness:


It does not matter, they are all god's children




For all we know he could be swimming in a vat of equal parts Brie + Camembert right now.
You got me :p

[djr33]

Brie, I suppose, considering I can't remember ever trying Camembert. Alternatively it's possible I didn't know the difference, in which case I'd have to agree with "neither".
Out of curiosity, would "cheddar" be an acceptable answer?


In other news, the other day I had to buy cheese for a barbeque and in addition to other cheeses, I purchased 10 slices of "American cheese" for $.99-- even according to the label it wasn't cheese-- something like "cheese food product", and I'm uncertain about the "food" part. I've never understood American cheese...

[jscheuer1]

I vote for not swimming in vats of cheese.

I don't think I've had either in a while, Camembert probably in a longer time than Brie. Due to allergies I prefer goat and sheep cheeses to cow, and I'm sure there are versions of these fine cheeses made from the milk of those animals. I can eat cow cheeses, I just have to be careful not to have too much over a given period of time. Good cheeses are my favorite milk product regardless of the animal whose milk is used.

An interesting thing about cheese though is that even within a given variety there can be great variation. So I may prefer one or the other in general, but prefer a particular one of the other type better than all of the ones I generally prefer.

Well made cheese is so distinctive that you might prefer one variety until you tire of it, switch your preference only later to find you begin to like the first one again, or yet another.

I often say that my favorite cheese is probably the one I haven't tried yet.

[keyboard]

Personally, I'm a fan of Camembert...
As to your response traq, it wasn't a free response, it was a multiple choice were the choices were Brie or Camembert. There was no option of neither (or both for that matter).
So yes, Bernie can say that he dislikes them both, but that isn't an answer to the question...


I often say that my favorite cheese is probably the one I haven't tried yet.
Brave brave person...

[bernie1227]

I don't eat much cheese, and since you just said it was a choice between two options, and then offered a third option, I'm pretty sure I can bend the rules on this one.

[bernie1227]

<unrelated>
<twitter>
@traq just installed #ubuntu on #vmware
</twitter>
</unrelated>

[keyboard]

What's that got to do with twitter?

[bernie1227]

the format

[traq]

@traq just installed #ubuntu on #vmware

no I didn't

:p

[bernie1227]

@traq [I] just installed #ubuntu on #vmware

[bernie1227]

there was an inferred 'I' :p

[traq]

Or maybe deferred "I". :)

[bernie1227]

Nope, inferred :p

[djr33]

It wasn't inferred by traq; it was implied by you.

[bernie1227]

He could have deduced the I from the wording :)

[traq]

no, from the context.

yes, I could have. I might have.

[bernie1227]

Implied I's be darned, I'm going back to my subjunctives :p

[bernie1227]

Well that's rather depressing, I got up early to watch dr. Who this-morning, and it turns out that only 6 episodes (including chistmas special) are getting aired this year!, it'd better be a very good Christmas special.

[james438]

I am definitely looking forward to this upcoming Christmas special. I won't say exactly why for mild spoiler reasons. I think the reason they do so few and occasionally take a year off is to keep the market from being over saturated with Doctor Who and if that keeps Doctor Who alive and healthy with quality stories then by all means take a year off now and again :).

Just for fun there are many great Dr. Who sites out there, but my favorite is a rather simple one: http://www.shannonsullivan.com/drwho/11doc.html

I've been watching Dr. Who pretty regularly for the last 30+ years and I daresay that this revival series of Doctor Who is in many ways much better than the original series I grew up on, especially since Steven Moffat took over.

[bernie1227]

I definately agree there, I remember when daleks could be foiled by putting a cloth over the eyestalk :)
I find the Steven Moffat thing interesting though, In my opinion, he's written some of the weakest plots, as well as my favorite episodes of all dr. Who (namely, 'Blink').


That site has some good potential, css is a bit weak though.

[james438]

True about the site, but as far as content it gives me exactly what I'm looking for :). There are many other encyclopedic Doctor Who websites out there and they can be good as reference sites, but I have seen every episode a great many times. They are useful to me if I want to learn about the audio dramas of the show or comic books or novels.

How are you familiar with the original series of Doctor Who? For the average person it is rather difficult to get into most of those episodes, especially the early B&W ones.

[bernie1227]

as far as content goes, I'll be sure to refer to that site now :)
It reminds me a little bit of the BBC doctor who site (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006q2x0), although, for some reason, the BBC one only does Matt Smith's series? Or is that just my bad website navigating skills?

I just like the older series' better really (I'm not the biggest fan of Matt Smith, (to which Keebs will of course protest)).

[keyboard]

PROTEST!!!

Kidding... my favourite is Tennant, but I've never really watched any of the older doctors (I've got a couple of episodes at home that I should watch).

[bernie1227]

what are we classifying as older here, pre-eccleston?

[james438]

Try looking here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006q2x0/episodes/guide for a more complete listing of Dr. Who episodes.

Older is anything pre-Eccleston.

The BBC site you are referring to has been revamped many times. I hope they settle on one version some time. The BBC site is also good as far as official Dr. Who info, history and trivia. There is a wealth of information there if you know how to navigate the site. Unfortunately it is not always the easiest to navigate.

[bernie1227]

So it was just my terrible site navigation then :p

[djr33]

<complaining style="state:tired;project:incomplete;">
Does anyone else have a bad habit of getting into ridiculously complicated math to solve what should (maybe) be something fairly simple to program? I find myself doing it a lot.

At the moment I'm in the middle of building a PHP+HTML graphing utility for some data analysis I'm doing and figuring out some of the logic behind it is driving me insane. Actually, I'm not even really focusing on math at the moment, just 3-layer loops for collecting the data and so forth.
</complaining>

[jscheuer1]

I just set up a couple of complicated timeout loops for some created jQuery methods to handle problems in IE 8 and 7 that I then immediately discovered could be handled with css and markup that other browsers like just fine. To make matters worse, the most complicated one wasn't needed at all. Not sure how I missed that initially on that one. The other was because I was trying to find css and markup that would be functional regardless of whether one or the other or both weren't used. So I settled on a compromise - both or neither. Really simplifies the code.

But typing this, I may go part way back, just in case someone tries the same css/markup I initially did.

[keyboard]

To join in the complaining, I made a very nice complicated always on top script, before Bernie pointed out that you could achieve the same effect with about 2 lines of CSS :(

And Daniel, once I started making a php script to calculate someones age from their date of birth. I wrote out all the math ( it still would not work ) before traq pointed out that there was a built in function in php to do that >:(

[bernie1227]

To join in the complaining, I made a very nice complicated always on top script, before Bernie pointed out that you could achieve the same effect with about 2 lines of CSS :(



#always_ontop {
position: fixed;
Bottom: 0px;
}


@daniel, I've had my fair share of doing that kind of thing, namely tracking, incrementing and de-incrementing at the appropriate time inside a dynamic width area..... In python.

[djr33]

I wrote out all the math ( it still would not work ) before traq pointed out that there was a built in function in php to do that >Haha, I do that sort of thing all the time!


@daniel, I've had my fair share of doing that kind of thing, namely tracking, incrementing and de-incrementing at the appropriate time inside a dynamic width area..... In python. That actually sounds a lot like part of what I was dealing with, trying to set up a multi-level div layout for a graph (not using tables!! but it's harder, haha).


Alright, back to it. I hope to finish this part of the project today. And maybe later I'll tackle adding the lines connecting the dots on the graph, all in pure HTML...

[bernie1227]

a four year old with a crayon can go a long way with connect the dots Daniel :p

[djr33]

But a crayon made of HTML?!
(As the day goes on, my thoughts are becoming less and less coherent. Back to debugging...)


Edit: now I just changed a few things that weren't working, then they didn't work, so I changed them back. And now it works.... wonderful! And just as confusing as before. But it works (part of it anyway). I might have changed a <= to a < or something like that. Alright...

[bernie1227]

I can do you a css crayon? :p

[djr33]

<crayon style="sky blue" />

The new way for kids to learn HTML... think of the potential!

[bernie1227]

toys r us bring out their new range of html editors!

[keyboard]

Can anyone actually make a crayon with css? (it has to have stripes and be pointy).

[bernie1227]

read the thread about diagonal lines :P

[djr33]

My random thought of the day: web design is so much easier with the web. That is, when I'm doing any kind of web design, I'm always using the web to research it and look up new techniques/functions/etc. If we were to be doing web design without the web (I have no idea why we would be) it would be much harder.... haha :)
It's like circular logic! But the good kind.


I guess there is a real-life example, though-- anyone who was a programmer in the '80s-- trying to write code without any way to talk to others about what's going on or to look up similar problems others have had. Your best tool would be a couple books. Scary thought!

Sounds like being asked to write code with a pencil and paper with no notes!
(If any programming instructors are reading this thread, I forbid you to use that idea on your students!!)