Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/26/07 11:51 PM, Euroc wrote:

Weak dude, you didn't even attempt to answer the facts I posted...

You didn't post any facts. All you did was say, "Well umm the murder rates are actually lower not higher, despite damning evidence to the contrary", and uh, that's not a factual argument. Whether you wish to believe it is or not.

At 11/26/07 05:17 PM, Euroc wrote:

So, have you run out of arguments?

What? Because you said so? You do know that strawman Ad Nauseum doesn't reflect well on you right?

Seriously, no one ran out of arguments but you, that's why you quit and not me, remember?

Lt. General and 11.03 votes(ie, I surpassed 11)

At 11/26/07 01:14 PM, Elfer wrote:
I don't know if I'd go so far as to assume it's a causal relationship one way or the other. There could be an underlying societal factor that drives both the use of lethal injection and the higher murder rate.

However, I'm still unimpressed by the power of the death penalty as a deterrent.

Well I would say that there's probably some truth to that. But you have to admit it doesn't help to deter crime when the punishment is less severe than it perhaps should be.

Also for the record, to the guy that said we should focus on what causes crime, I partially agree. One factor in crime is that people such as felons often have a hard time finding jobs because of their past, whether they are trying to live honestly or not. While not everyone of them, at least some will turn to crime to support themselves when they can't have jobs. Certainly there are some things we can do to prevent crime before it starts.

However it is also true that there are cold blooded people out there who are just going to commit the crimes anyway. So while your proposal would help and even be a good idea, it is not a big, ultimate solution to crime.

At 11/26/07 09:16 AM, Euroc wrote:
You refused to answer any of the factual data that I have posted...

No dumbass I did answer it, by pointed out that you refused to include all the relevant facts and demonstrating your will to spin things to make them appear in a way that supports your agenda. You refused to acknowledge what elfer posted, despite repeated references to it by me.

Heh, I now match spanker's exp. I know that's not an actual accomplishment, but I still felt like saying it.

At 11/26/07 12:02 AM, Euroc wrote:
And you've done nothing by site another persons discussion

Actually said person's discussion had actual, factual data in it. You on the other hand have shown you are too stupid not to triple post. And you even had to retarct a statement.

Either way, it makes it sort of hard to prove in an arguement, doesnt it?

Not when it's also proven that states practicing lethal injection have higher murder rates.

But all I am saying is that history shows that a government can become out of control when it is allowed to execute it's citizens.

No you're not showing it, you are deliberately naming only the facts you want people to see in an attempt to spin them to support your argument. And no matter how many times the big picture is pointed out to you(that they expanded all areas of their laws, meaning both what applied to the death penalty and what didn't) you keep ignoring it in the hopes your argument will magically become valid when it isn't, which is text book Ad Nauseum

And you are any better?

Yes, I'm not the one fallaciously neglecting factual arguments, ythat is you. So yes, I am a lot better than that.

At 11/25/07 11:24 PM, Euroc wrote:
Yessir boss... I be good from now on, sir boss...

Good, you are learning your place I see.

So what? If you know two people who would rather have been executed than spend time in prison, does that make a majority? What about the countless that you may or may not know? Or the ones who may or may not exist?

I've known quite a bit more than 2. I lived in the ghetto for around 2 years, quite a few people I got to know had been to prison. Even a survey would not have responces from every single potential murderer in existence, but more a small sample of 10000 at most.

Anyways, I noticed you deliberately ingored the data in elfer's post yet again. Seems it was too damning to your argument.

Wrong... This is not a strawman argument.

"No it isn't" is strawman buddy. Anyway, you once again ignored the data in elfer's post, further proving how damning it was to your argument.

And who draws that line?

The same people drawing it now.

It may be apples to oranges,

And it is.

but consider William the Conqueror... He abolished all forms of execution for crime in the 10th century. It was reinstated in the 16th century and the number of crimes PUNISHABLE by DEATH continued to grow until the 1700s when jurors refused to convict someone to death for a petty crime.

But once again you name past europian rulers who expanded the total number of punishable crimes, not just the ones punishable by death. This is nothing more than you repeating yourself Ad Nauseum. Congratulations, you are a ferrous cranus.

At 11/25/07 10:20 PM, Euroc wrote:

You offer no facts that inmates would rather have their life ended than spend lwop in prison! That is why I say you were speculation on an idea,

K, first, quote only what I said, not what you said before it.

2nd, while the survey does not exist(prisoners don't get surveyed about their punishments), I not only have known people who've been in prison and say they'd prefer lethal injection, but it's also supported by the fact that states with the death penalty have a hgher murder rate.

It is slight by percentage wise... I believe it is about 2 percent lower.

This is nothing more than you commiting another strawman fallacy. Pay attention to elfer's post again.

And where does it stop?

Where it's no longer warranted, obviously.

Think thats a ridiculous stretch? Maybe. Look up the Draconian Laws in 7th century bc. Or English law from the 16th to 18th century and how many crimes were punishable by death... Its not the number that concerns me.... its the growth of that number. If there is one thing Ive learned, its that when power is given it is not easily taken back. I'm just not sure if the govt should have the power to execute its citizens... thats all.

You are comparing apples and oranges. The old europian tryants were power mad to begin with. You are erroneously assuming that they only expanded their death penalty offenses, and not all offenses in general.

At 11/25/07 11:18 AM, Greensinge wrote:
How and why have the United States been involved in any wars? (WW1/WW2/Vietnam/Iraq 1/Iraq 2)

Various reasons dependingon the war. If your professor wants a general answer, there isn't one. All I can tell you is pay attention in class and try to discern the answer he wants you to tell him.

On how many occassions has the United States used a Nuclear Weapon, in both War and test situations?

237

What are the United States policies on Nuclear Weapons today?

Be prepared to use them at all times in this hostile world, but only as a last resort.

How have they changed?

We use more caution with them since other countries now have them as well, but even in WW2 it was only created and used as a last resort to end a years long war.

What do the people of America think of these policies? (the last question there isn't necessarily important, because it may be a bit difficult to find this answer)

No answer, opinions are mixed. Again, tell your professor what he wants to hear.

What is the defence budget in the United States?

$1.2 trillion

It would be very helpful to know these figures as a percentage against the rest of the country's spending..

16%

How many nuclear weapons do we know exist in the world today and who owns what?

1412

501 in the US, 476 in Russia, 228 in china, 47 in North Korea, 87 in India, 73 in Pakistan.

At 11/25/07 09:35 PM, NintendoMadness wrote:
Lol. Wasn't here to witness it. Yay I rock. But JC went from Garbage to Silver in one day!

No I never had garbage, and I've been at gold for a very long time now.

At 11/25/07 05:48 PM, Euroc wrote:

Exactly... if it a speculation that means it is what you think. And while that may make for interesting conversation, it would hardly hold up as evidence one way or another.

Dude, you could have troubled yourself less by just saying, "I know you are but what am I." In any case, your presupposition that it was just speculation is erroneous. You may think that your strawman response suffices for evidence of your point, but it does not.

Its a false correlation... states that do not have the death penalty have a mildly lower murder rate... it just has to deal with the society .

No, it's not slight. Did you pay no attention whatsoever to what elfer posted?

While doing my research I have found instances when every one of the five death penalty methods have been both cruel and unusual. After speaking with some people, they say that perhaps a little extra pain is warranted when dealing with the people who are facing execution. However, what must be asked is if the government should ever have the right to execute its citizens.

The question is, why not? If the crime warrants execution, why shouldn't that sentence be carried out?

I still think that whole mass garbage whistle thing was funny as fuck.

At 11/25/07 08:15 AM, Haggard wrote: Strawman argument about garbage whistles, laced with Ad Nauseum about the faq

Again dude, the faq is way outdated. What the faq says basically don't mean shit. Well not anymore anyways.

At 11/25/07 08:06 AM, Haggard wrote:
Then you weren't flagging the right (read: abusive) reviews.

If he was flagging non-abusive reviews for 2 months he'd probably have a garbage whistle by now. It's more likely that he's been flagging reviews that aren't being looked at, yet.

Also note that you lose more points than you gain. So only flag the ones you are absolutely sure of.

At 11/25/07 03:44 AM, LongliveACDC wrote:
It says in the F.A.Q that garbage whistles will have no effect what-so-ever when reporting.
Maybe the whistle system has been changed since you were told.

It's more like it got changed since the faq, as did a lot of things. The faq also says this:

A level is a number (between 1 through 60, inclusive) along with an icon of a fist, glove, or weapon for a user based on that user's experience.[b] Levels 1 through 8 are static in that their level requirements and range remain fixed; each is 50 experience points apart. Levels 9 through 60 expand to even out the experience point differential between those levels. [/b]Because they change, their requirements and range cannot be accurately given. Levels serve no purpose except to increase the voting power in the Flash Portal and to indicate amount of experience. For this reason a higher level often commands a certain amount of respect.

However that too is wrong. It was the way that the 30 level system worked. When the new site launched, they changed, "30" to "60", so anyway the point is the faq is long out of date, and quite a bit of it is innaccurate, including the whistle section.

At 11/25/07 03:26 AM, LongliveACDC wrote: My mistake, I didnt fully understand what you were saying..
Yes your whistle effects more if you have a higher level, but garbage will have 0 effect; nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, review mods can see what your whistle power is. And was informed by one a long time ago that garbage is indeed negative.

At 11/25/07 02:54 AM, EKublai wrote:

I believe you're deliberately trying to reshape sentences, so please don't.

This unsubstantiated presupposition is erroneous.

Of course they will be comfortable killing someone when all they would get is a slap on the wrist. If there were no disciplinary system, the only consequence a killer would have to face are the possible loved ones avenging that persons death. And if he thinks he can take them on. why stop killing at all?

K, seems you agree that severity of punishment has an effect. But then you contradict yourself with this:

no I'm saying that the method is not part of their thinking at all, it doesn't even come into the calculations. It isn't necessary to think about since at that point all they want to make are generalizations. And when I say these people are thinking logically, all I meant was that these people have a sense of priority like others, only it's warped into either believing that resulting death is worth dying for or it's at least worth running from the law for.

You just got through agreeing that severity effects the fear of consequences, and yet you are now saying that the severity doesn't matter when it applies to the death penalty itself? I don't see how that's supposed to work. I doubt severity stops being a deterrent just because it is applied to the execution itself.

Take that example of vlad the impaler. I would bet money that the deterrence of crime was not caused by the harshness of the penalties but by the efficiency of how he killed off his potential enemies.

And you'd be wrong. A brutal turkish dictator was recorded running when he saw Vlad's forest of anally impaled people(many of which were still somewhat alive). It was a war, so it wasn't the threat of death itself that scared him, but the manner in which it would be applied.

Similarly, it is not uncommon for people to allow themselves to be convicted for not testifying against their crime rings, even when facing the death penalty. Because they'd rather die by the needle. Severity of the execution is a deterrent.

Crime went down not because of the mass impalings but because he would do it so many times.

It is true that mass enforcement was also likely a factor, but definitely not the only one.

No there really isn't. I love how people feel so superior in their arguments that they nitpick the details of someone's speech and think they're strengthening their own. really charming.

It wouldn't have happen had you not gotten arrogant yourself and personally attacked me in the first place.

At 11/23/07 02:22 PM, IngramJ wrote: WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!! NO!!! NOT GARBAGE!!! HOW DID I GET FROM BRONZE TO GARBAGE FROM ALL THOSE?!? No, seriously, I went down TWO levels for flaggin' 15 pages of TOTALLY abusive reviews, just 'cause I flagged reviews for old movies?!?

Lol sorry man but that's hilarious. ZOMG NOOOO, NOT GARBAGE!. That literally made me roll on the floor laughing.

Hey did you know what's even funnier? Garbage means negative whistle power. Gfox told me about that back when he was a review mod. So now you're actually making reviews lower priority for deletion when you flag them.

At 11/25/07 12:23 AM, therealsylvos wrote:
Bull Fucking Shit
You guarantee? What the fuck? Who are you?

While Vlad the impaler is indeed a good example, en.wikipedia.org is a terrible source nonetheless. Indeed though he was feared, and this fear did deter crime.

At 11/24/07 11:39 PM, RedSkunk wrote:
Aw, you're so mean-spirited. It's k. Hug?

Are you questioning JerkClock's jerkery? Hmm? :p

At 11/24/07 07:52 PM, EKublai wrote:

....k though logical thinking might not be your calling

You are making a petty, childish, unsubstantiated personal attack, and it is erroneous.

But in all other cases, and i'm putting particular emphasis in the situations before the murder has taken place, no one is going to care at that point how they will be executed because murderers that think logically don't put value into consequences.

Oh right, logical thinking involves throwing out the consequencies and acting irrationally, not at all factoring in what might happen to you when you do stuff, right.

Anyway, you are contradicting yourself. You say they have the ability to factor in that they will be killed, but just not how it'll happen until it's about to. That not only doesn't make sense, but it's a direct contradiction to order itself. If consequences did not deter crime, than murder rates would not decrease when anarchy goes away, but they do. So naturally, the harshness of the penalties would also be a factor.

I mean assuming that the harshness of a penalty doesn't factor is assuming people are not deterred by being locked up for life any more than they are a slap on the rest. And yes that example was extreme, I am sure that you will draw a radical, erroneous conclusion from what I've said, nonetheless the point stands. Penalty harshness does count for deterrence.

I'm not speaking from experience,

No surprise there.

At 11/24/07 11:12 PM, Euroc wrote:

I think thats just your speculation

What you think is irrelevant.

I would be interested in any surveys you have to back up the idea that inmates would rather die than go to prison

While I'll admit I've never seen such a survey, how else would you explain states that practice lethal injection having a higher murder rate?

or are you saying the current penal system is too soft?

Yes and no. I think, "Cruel and unusual" has been abused to hell and back, making it so sick fucks who kill people in unimaginably horrible ways don't get what they deserve. But i do think at the same time that it is rather excellent at reducing sentences where it's warranted.

At 11/25/07 12:02 AM, Officer wrote:

couldn't wait :3

Son of a bitch, well, I can't criticize, I was trying for it too. Fucker.

Damn, that's 2 people with 3000 blams today, and on this same page even.

At 11/24/07 10:12 PM, Dream-of-Duke wrote: OMG, 2000 pages!!!! Too bad that I have nothing to report. Wait, I think that I am ranked No.100 for total VP right now. Anyway, happy 200 pages!

Yeah, k, I think the 2000th page thing is a dead horse by now. A long dead, overly beaten one.

At 11/23/07 11:10 AM, PhoenixTails wrote: Hi, I'm going to post that biased politcal compass that you've all seen millions of times before.

Ah geez, not this bullshit again.

At 11/24/07 06:56 PM, Lindione wrote: Not to mention that fact that over time pot kills short term memory

Dude, I was being sarcastic. People aren't going to lose thier work ethic due to pot, plain and simple.

At 11/24/07 12:40 PM, Lindione wrote: If it was legal everyone would get it and it would kill the work ethic of workers cause they would just be stoned all the time

Right, because alcohol killed the work ethic, due to people just being drunk all the time, oh wait, no it didn't.

At 11/24/07 05:09 PM, Drakim wrote: You can't say that anybody who kills somebody is a cold blooded murderer that deserves to die. That is looking too black and white on the situation.

Right, and I agree, I'm not saying that people who kill someone who abused them deserve to be executed, but then I wouldn't call all killings murders either.

Getting drunk and driving a car into somebody because you couldn't see him can hardly put you in the same group as an psychopath that kills people for fun.

In that particular case, because of how well known the dangers of drunk driving are, I would argue that it's pretty damned close to being as bad.