People all over the world are taking other peoples lives so they should be punished and have to go through the trauma their victims did! Why do people think it's acceptable to murder someone? I only think the death penalty should be brought on the worst crimes such as murder. If a man has taken the life of another man then he deserves death.
What about medical malpractice or medical error even? Do you think the person who mistakenly took someone's life still deserves the death penalty? What about road traffic accidents? Does a policeman or a sooldier deserves the death penalty if he took a life? This is a very complex question and I voted NO, because I think it is better to let a murderer to live in some cases than occasionally kill innocent people. Don't immediately turn off your mind because I mention "Bible," but the solution in the Old Testament was to have several cities that were designated for people to be sent to if they had committed accidental death of someone. They were not allowed to leave the city for an average of 25 years. The cities were not prisons. They were entirely free within the city walls. But certainly the regular people within those cities were prepared to test out any newcomers to find out if those newcomers were really murderers, or if they were simply victims of circumstance.  Great idea. You never cease to amaze me. Let's do this  And why in Earth would they stay in this city? |
|
|
|
No he's greatest sin was probably to plan and conduct the genocide of some of the tribes he was supposed to lead.
I'm just answering the guy saying that "he was a great man" cause no he was not a great man! He was an horrible dictator. But not more horrible than most of middle East and African dictator I agree.
And Saddam had no nuke at all. Only the USA pretended he had nuke. The most dangerous thing he had were ak 47.
AFAIK the west was OK with that allegedly planned genocide. Turning to a gold-bug and promoting that idea between other oil producers was what blown the fuse . Well, it appears being "the strong man of whatevershithole" or "the horrible whatevershitholian dictator" entirely depends on given bloke's allegiance to certain powers. It's different, you're talking about he perception of Western countries, which, I agree, totally depends on what you have to offer them. I'm talking on a more objective point of view, he was not "a great man". |
|
|
|
All you have to do is look at the definition of religion and the things that make up atheism to see that atheism is a religion.
AMEN! Science proves the existence of God!!!! Just.. Why no one thought about that before? Quick! Give a Nobel to this man xD Well, they did think of that before. In fact, almost 2,000 years ago Saint Paul wrote in the Bible that people intentionally avoid knowing about God from nature, just so that they have an excuse to do evil. In addition, you can look all over the Internet and you will find loads of scientific proof for the existence of God. In addition, you will find that close to 100% of science that suggests something other than God is either theory (actual or potential fiction), or else they are saying God without using the word "God," or they are formally detracting from the idea of God, all the while their words in essence actually shout GOD. You have simply been talked into believing that God doesn't exist, and that's why you are having such a hard time of seeing that He does exist. Investigate. Think about it deeply. You will see that science and nature show that God exists, except if you don't WANT to see it, and force your mind to avoid the truth. HEre we are! You're just a religious stupid asshole. Like every religious freak you think a fucking book written by peasants 2 000 years ago has the truth xD Well go on with your god, I'll go on with my science. Just don't try to prove God with science. And if God exists, he's either a complete asshole, or doesn't care about us. Just a question, everything in the Bible is true then? |
|
|
|
|
After proving the existence of God in 3 lines, now you proved that Justice can be easily made nearly perfect!
Go on man, why don't you try to run as a president? I mean it seems to you that you have the answers to questions that Humanity never managed to answer, so go on xD
OR MAYBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE maybe question yourself a bit. Just a bit. Just enough to understand that Justice is not mislead by "enforcement and attorneys withhold evidence or construe evidence in ways that mislead". And anyway how would you prove they're doing this on purpose? How can you know it's not just an accident? And how do you define "misleading"? Cause an attorney job is to use everything to help his client, so where is the limit between misleading and just doing its job?
|
|
|
|
All you have to do is apply the 3 points of science that I have mentioned to see that science proves that God exists.
AMEN! Science proves the existence of God!!!! Just.. Why no one thought about that before? Quick! Give a Nobel to this man xD And you proved the existence of God in only 3 points! Incredible don't you think so? xD |
|
|
|
Yeah cause it happens everyday. And guns are used only that way. The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns only concern people that violently entered houses to loot people. Not at all kids, stupid neighbors problems or anything else.
#1 Your statistics likely include: -Justified use of police force -Justified use of defensive force -Suicides -Mostly gang activity #2 The question is not just how many deaths are caused by guns, but also how many deaths are PREVENTED by legal gun owners. Of course gun owners protecting peoples lives and property without ever firing a shot is never covered in the media, but statistics clearly show legal gun ownership prevents more violence and crime in general than it causes. I don't know if you have heard but criminals don't give a shit about laws. Making more laws about guns does nothing to prevent them from acquiring and using firearms illegally, and this is a fact. If you wish to dispute this fact please attempt to use your "logic" to demonstrate to me how penalties after the fact prevent criminals from harming others. The television is not an educational tool, stop getting your "facts" from media bought and paid for by the same people that want the population unarmed so they can be more easily robbed and exterminated with the least amount of resistance. Since you like TV so much here are a couple videos for you to watch, not that your cognitive dissonance will allow you to watch them all the way thru before you get nauseous from exposure to reality. The imaginary utopia you claim exists in other parts of the world is a much more comfortable delusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaaJr8mJbRohttp://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense"A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy." Wow, so if there was gun control it would mean "tens of thousands" of people would be killed? Well if that's the case your country is the shit of the world xD I just know I live in a country with gun control, really strong one, and you know what? I'm 50 times less likely to be killed by firearm than you  But if you're ok with that, just go on. Please point to the logic in your statement. Looks like your opinion to me. Sorry but your opinion doesn't count as fact. By the way did you know that people who own automobiles are hundreds of times more likely to be killed in automobile accidents? Clearly the need to travel is invalidated by this fact just as the need to be able to defend one's self is by your logic. P.S. Way to completely skip over the evidence and discussion presented. Cognitive dissonance FTW. Exposure to reality is too painful for you to bare apparently. No it's just that I don't really trust videos in general. It's a very biased media and I clearly prefer text elements that you can discuss more easily. Add to that the fact that I don't consider your limited intelligence deserve the hour of my time of your video. The logic of my statement: No gun -> less violence -> no need to defend yourself, police is enough. Easy enough no? My proof/fact? Well the whole Europe works that way with rather good results. Lower crime rates than the USA, less shootings since the invention of gun than in the USA in the last 10 years. Sounds like some proof to me, or at least less than just my opinion! PS: if you feel the need to defend yourself... Well maybe you have others problems than jsut gun control. I don't feel I need that, police is here for the citizens in my country :/ |
|
|
|
That's the stupidest thing I've heard today. Do you think the Chinese lives by that rules? They have a lot of visitors and they strictly respect their Language. But they also accept others who speak English live in their country and work. A restriction on language shouldn't be applied by any Country's Government cause it's peoples willingness to communicate in the language they desire.
I disagree, it's important to be able to talk the language of the country you emmigrate too. Doesn't mean you shouldn't talk your native language, but it's important to know the one of your new home. Simply because it helps on everything, integration, administrative papers, education of next generations... But this is a stupid idea to impose it. How do you even measure the level of English after 2.5 years? And what is the correct level? What if some English people don't have this level?  |
|
|
|
I don't see the death penalty as punishment. Taking away someone's freedom, that's punishment.
I know that in some prison it's not even punishment anymore, I wish for this to change as well.
Practically speaking, if someone murders, how can we ever be sure that he will not do it again? We can't even be sure that a non-murderer will not become a murderer. Why make society pay to keep the murderer in prison through taxation? Get rid of him, and make society free from both, his murderous activity, and free from paying to support him. Yeah get rid of it. Doesn't matter that there is at least 5% chance that he's innocent. It's ok to kill few innocents if on a whole you kill guilty ones. When we enact the required death penalty law for those who intentionally cause innocent people to be executed, the innocently executed rate will fall way down to near zero. Dude... How should it make it smaller? Currently the 5% correspond to innocent people wrongly accused! Justice mistakes! It always happens, it's part of the system. It's why most civilized countries stopped death penalty. You have an idea to make justice so perfect it won't do any mistakes? Well great but please share it! Cause we don't! |
|
|
|
Why would they accept working 20h a day then? Oo
Why in the Earth would the continue this way and stoped migrating illegaly or creating terrorist channels???
because we have the ability to keep the immigrants out and kill the terrorists, only we don't do anything about it because our leaders are pussies, that changes when the americans elect trump No we don't. Not a single country in the world or in Mankind history managed to do it. What do you want to do? Build a giant wall to keep immigrants at bay? xD |
|
|
|
Organofcorti, BADecker is either a troll or one of the most stupid beings I ever saw, don't try to argue with him he refuses logic and reason ^^
Thanks, m0gliE. Why would I thank you? Because all one need do is look at my logic to see that it is about as close to "right on" as one can get. And once they see that, they won't have any reason to look at you any longer. Well at least you're right on this. Whoever agrees with you as a "logic" far too different from mine to get in touch with me. But I'm afraid the word "logic" doesn't describe your kind of reasoning. Except for one little point. Nobody can refute my logic... or at least they haven't so far. The closes they have come is to play with words... semantics and such. The next best is that they have ignored it. This is completely okay. They simply confirm my logic by such activity. We did. At least four times. But you don't want to read. You ignore the part that trouble you. |
|
|
|
This might be true, at least partly: I think that all the politicians are only looking for voters. On the other hand when they are trying to attract more voters they are doing good things to society too. And that's a good thing that people who don't know English will be able to learn it with the support from the Government.
totally, but the fact that it's just a political move make me doubt it will be put in place in the right way. But the principle is good, it's just totally stupid and unfair to promote it only to "muslim women" |
|
|
|
Yeah cause it happens everyday. And guns are used only that way. The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns only concern people that violently entered houses to loot people. Not at all kids, stupid neighbors problems or anything else.
#1 Your statistics likely include: -Justified use of police force -Justified use of defensive force -Suicides -Mostly gang activity #2 The question is not just how many deaths are caused by guns, but also how many deaths are PREVENTED by legal gun owners. Of course gun owners protecting peoples lives and property without ever firing a shot is never covered in the media, but statistics clearly show legal gun ownership prevents more violence and crime in general than it causes. I don't know if you have heard but criminals don't give a shit about laws. Making more laws about guns does nothing to prevent them from acquiring and using firearms illegally, and this is a fact. If you wish to dispute this fact please attempt to use your "logic" to demonstrate to me how penalties after the fact prevent criminals from harming others. The television is not an educational tool, stop getting your "facts" from media bought and paid for by the same people that want the population unarmed so they can be more easily robbed and exterminated with the least amount of resistance. Since you like TV so much here are a couple videos for you to watch, not that your cognitive dissonance will allow you to watch them all the way thru before you get nauseous from exposure to reality. The imaginary utopia you claim exists in other parts of the world is a much more comfortable delusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFMUeUErYVghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaaJr8mJbRohttp://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense"A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy." Wow, so if there was gun control it would mean "tens of thousands" of people would be killed? Well if that's the case your country is the shit of the world xD I just know I live in a country with gun control, really strong one, and you know what? I'm 50 times less likely to be killed by firearm than you But if you're ok with that, just go on. |
|
|
|
...
let's just take whatever part suits your beliefs and reject the others. Isn't that just how science work? xD
It's not a matter of belief, but where the facts and logic leads one. Do you know what a scientific hypothesis is? Yes and every facts I saw everywhere lead to the conclusion that CO2, sea level, warming and human activities are linked, including the documents you added on the table. But I never saw any scientific work establishing the contrary. And you didn't show me any. ...
And by the way, I read the parts concerning extreme weather, and they absolutely don't refute any links between CO2 and the rise of extreme weather...
It's not necessary to "refute links." What is required is to establish a relationship between a cause, and an effect. That hasn't been done. That's the different between asserting A could cause B, and A certainly causes B. The party making the claim is the one that must substantiate the claim. Here that is you, making the claim that CO2 increases increase extreme weather. As an example, suppose Al Gore made a claim. You believed it. Then I suggest that the scientific literature does not support the claim. You say "But it doesn't REFUTE the claim!" That's nonsense. Do you know how to read? I said "they explain data are so hard to compile that it's impossible to be sure, so they can say they're medium certain of the link." don't just cut half of my sentence so it doesn't make any sense. Of course if you cut what I say in two it's less logical... They're not 100% sure of the link. And I have no problem with you saying "we're not sure", I've a problem with you saying "we know it's false". But they do establish a correlation, they're just not totally sure it's right. If you're waiting for 100% sure results... Well you gonna wait long, cause it's impossible with something so complex such as weather. |
|
|
|
Organofcorti, BADecker is either a troll or one of the most stupid beings I ever saw, don't try to argue with him he refuses logic and reason ^^
Thanks, m0gliE. Why would I thank you? Because all one need do is look at my logic to see that it is about as close to "right on" as one can get. And once they see that, they won't have any reason to look at you any longer. Well at least you're right on this. Whoever agrees with you as a "logic" far too different from mine to get in touch with me. But I'm afraid the word "logic" doesn't describe your kind of reasoning. |
|
|
|
|
Organofcorti, BADecker is either a troll or one of the most stupid beings I ever saw, don't try to argue with him he refuses logic and reason ^^
|
|
|
|
Well, let's examine this.
First you try to tell me I have to cite scientific references before you'll entertain an argument. Or actual references to something like Trenberth's misrepresentations. So then you got them. Then I gave you references that refute your claim to "extreme weather."
Then you would like to claim that every answer to everything is in a 1000 page reference document. Which IS WRITTEN FOR POLITICIANS. And it explicitly says that - it's not me saying that. You are looking at the "Summary for Policy Makers."
I certainly can use one section of the full report to refute your claim about "extreme weather," but disagree with another section of it. Otherwise, you would be claiming that somehow the document represented Settled Science, and that any deviation was impossible. But science is always evolving.
Except in the fantasy world of Reddit Climate, of course. Where any claim made that Man's Carbon Dioxide Pollution is Bad cannot be allowed to be criticized, debated or, worst of all, refuted.
Here, your arguments have been refuted. Go deal with it. No reason to get mad at me.
Sure xD let's just take whatever part suits your beliefs and reject the others. Isn't that just how science work? xD And by the way, I read the parts concerning extreme weather, and they absolutely don't refute any links between CO2 and the rise of extreme weather, they explain data are so hard to compile that it's impossible to be sure, so they can say they're medium certain of the link. "Except in the fantasy world of Reddit Climate, of course. Where any claim made that Man's Carbon Dioxide Pollution is Bad cannot be allowed to be criticized, debated or, worst of all, refuted." Of course you can! With pleasure! You can discuss all you want if you bring any kind of start of proof =) |
|
|
|
|
I've got a question for you all gun owners. Did you already happen to be in a situation where your gun could have saved your life? Cause I never had a situation in which a gun would have been useful, and I don't know ANYONE who had been in a situation like this...
So maybe you've got a problem of criminality more than a problem of guns...
|
|
|
|
By these guys logic we should ban anyone who has ever drank alcohol from getting a driver's license, since they might get drunk and cause an accident.
By these guy logic, you should take example on all the civilized countries that have lower crimes rates, lower deaths by firearms and lower mass shootings (never in fact) Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_%28Europe%29Thanks for that data. To be honest it's so rare that we're not really aware of it! So I learned something here. Could we still agree on the fact that USA, with half European population, had 200 mass shootings in last decades, which is more than the double of all mass shootings in the whole Europe EVER? So I'd say it's still really low rate compared to yours. Though you did well to remind me they exist. and understand that if anyone have a gun, it's not safer that if no one have a gun, except a few violents criminals that don't use it cause they know they'll get found easily if they do. And yes, criminals don't use their guns 99% of the time, at least in Europe, maybe we don't have the same criminals. And maybe it's because it's legal to have an ak47 in the USA. Well, maybe you don't have the same criminals... Then again, I am certain there are areas of Dublin, or Sarajevo, or Glasgow, or Moscova, or Tirana, that you would not be safe to go into unarmed. Or Napoli, Belgrade, Sophia, Nottingham, or Limerick. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't feel any safer armed... What would I do? Show my gun to scare them? |
|
|
|
I don't see the death penalty as punishment. Taking away someone's freedom, that's punishment.
I know that in some prison it's not even punishment anymore, I wish for this to change as well.
Practically speaking, if someone murders, how can we ever be sure that he will not do it again? We can't even be sure that a non-murderer will not become a murderer. Why make society pay to keep the murderer in prison through taxation? Get rid of him, and make society free from both, his murderous activity, and free from paying to support him. Yeah get rid of it. Doesn't matter that there is at least 5% chance that he's innocent. It's ok to kill few innocents if on a whole you kill guilty ones. |
|
|
|
By these guys logic we should ban anyone who has ever drank alcohol from getting a driver's license, since they might get drunk and cause an accident.
By these guy logic, you should take example on all the civilized countries that have lower crimes rates, lower deaths by firearms and lower mass shootings (never in fact) and understand that if anyone have a gun, it's not safer that if no one have a gun, except a few violents criminals that don't use it cause they know they'll get found easily if they do. And yes, criminals don't use their guns 99% of the time, at least in Europe, maybe we don't have the same criminals. And maybe it's because it's legal to have an ak47 in the USA. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
