289 replies to this topic

[SilentSnow]

Balloon guy, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 7:52 AM, said:

1.Now you are creating another straw man, there is no burden on the punishment of death to prove that our prison system is or isn't capable of holding a person securely. I freely grant you that our prisons are secure ( even though there have been escapes from death row where the escapee wanted to kill the guards but was prevented by other inmates )The punishment is a response to the crime, not to the ancillary results.2.I'll type slow: We don't kill people to save money, stop future crimes, make more dramatic endings for movies or to feed a blood lust of conservatives who obviously hate minorities and want them to die. We kill people to punish them for their most heinous crimes.3.You have presented no proof that society benefits by keeping murders alive. I'm sure you will quote Ben Franklin with a cute catch phrase soon, but just know that I will mock that technique as another unprovable point that is based on feelings, not reality.4.And since we have shown that death row inmates have escaped in the past from death row, then the only way to perfectly prevent future victims is to kill those who have been shown to be willing to commit murders with special circumstances.5."Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153)6.False, mistakes are not routinely made in trials. This is another liberal BS catch phrase based on nothing but a desire to be caring and compassionate. Mistakes are not routinely made in capital punishment trials. In fact mistakes are almost never made in capital cases. ( This statement is based on the identical data that yours was in making your statement )

1.It's not a straw man to correctly point out that your argument is wrong. You have to prove that life in prison without parole causes more harm than the death penalty. Let the record show that you didn't refute my point about zero death row escapee murders. 2.This is just getting embarrassing. In points 2, 4 and 5 you blatantly contradict yourself. Also, your response begs the question. Why are you so eager to kill people for no apparent reason? I know conservatives love senseless killings, but at least give us a reason for punishing criminals if none of the usual reasons for punishment are valid. 3.Society benefits by not executing innocent people, it saves money and there could be other less definable benefits depending on what statistics you would believe. 4.Shouldn't you have to show one case in history where this has happened before we accept this as a legitimate argument? 5.See point 4. We are talking about those who escape from death row, not those who have been released. Unless you come up with a link, then I will assume the total is zero or very close to it. 6. Given your false and contradictory points so far I'll have to see where you are getting this information from. Besides, If you're the one being killed one mistake is one too many.

[Balloon guy]

SilentSnow, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 10:07 AM, said:

1.It's not a straw man to correctly point out that your argument is wrong. You have to prove that life in prison without parole causes more harm than the death penalty. Let the record show that you didn't refute my point about zero death row escapee murders.

Life in prison can be better or worse for the inmate, both are irrelevant. I want them to be punished for certain types of crimes. As do you:Morally a person forfeits their right to life once we unequivocably know that they are a murderer. Page 6

Quote

2.This is just getting embarrassing. In points 2, 4 and 5 you blatantly contradict yourself.

Your entire argument is fraught with this consistent desire to muddy the waters, so I got caught answering your silly notions that keeping guilty people alive is 100% safe for society.

Quote

Also, your response begs the question. Why are you so eager to kill people for no apparent reason? I know conservatives love senseless killings, but at least give us a reason for punishing criminals if none of the usual reasons for punishment are valid.

No apparent reason? Ummm we are talking about guilty people who have committed heinous crimes...oh, I get it...you are so indoctrinated with liberal BS that you have been unable to differentiate that a criminal is punished in every society in the history of the world, including your utopias of Cuba, the USSR, Denmark and even...gasp...Canada.

Quote

3.Society benefits by not executing innocent people, it saves money and there could be other less definable benefits depending on what statistics you would believe.

Much cheaper to kill a person than keep them in prison for life. And to date the value of sociopaths and murders to society has been quantified..their value is nil. But I do like the liberal spin..."let's see these murders and rapists as 'people' first and criminals second. Now what can this person who raped and killed 4 year olds contribute to society? Oh I feel so good about myself that I am so compassionate not to judge a person who rapes and kills innocent women for fun. this makes me better than everyone else...I need to buy a Prius now."

Quote

4.Shouldn't you have to show one case in history where this has happened before we accept this as a legitimate argument?

What? An escapee from death row? I did. The likelihood of a murderer committing murder again? Yea..I guess I took that at face value.But at least I like that you are demanding some proof to statistics being made up out of thin air. It's the first step from your previous position where you made up statistics out of thin air and presented them as proof of your position.

Quote

5.See point 4. We are talking about those who escape from death row, not those who have been released. Unless you come up with a link, then I will assume the total is zero or very close to it.

Until you prove that an innocent man has been killed on death row than I must return your decision back to you...what? You mean you haven't presented any proof either...well I'm sure the difference is that you were planning on doing this some time in the future. I am.....http://www.prodeathp....com/escape.htm.

Quote

6. Given your wildly false and contradictory points so far I'll have to see where you are getting this information from. Besides, If you're the one being killed one mistake is one too many.

Again, from this logic...if ONE person is sent to life in prison without the possibility of parole is innocent, than NOBODY should ever be sent to prison for life without possibility of parole.

[AmScray]

Quote

-That blacks in other cultures have much smaller IQ gaps than in the US.

Gaps nevertheless- across a range of different operating environs. No one is arguing that environment isn't a relevant factor. What seems to be quite clear is that it isn't *the only* factor and that indeed, in spite of the equality impulse, mother nature might play a larger role in IQ than the egalitarians would like to admit and further, per all plainly apparent evidence, it breaks cleanly along racial lines. This has a clear implication, whether you like it or not.

Quote

-That there doesn't seem to be an IQ gradient in mixed "race" people.

Quote

-That it is difficult to come up with any sort of clear race divisions based on skin color.

Give the field of genetics a bit of time to catch up, then wait a bit longer for a 'rogue academic' to break away from the company line and start applying it to race. We're in a brave new world here that is expanding at light speed. I know what outcome I'm betting on.

Quote

-That current blacks have the same IQ as white southerners in the 1940s.

It would be interesting to see the data for this one. I don't know from where it originates, but intuitively, I'd be willing to wager that it employs similar methods that the very same people who oppose "The Bell Curve" rail against. FWIW, this is quite possibly true.

Quote

-That IQ seems to be increasing generally(Flynn effect). This shouldn't be possible if IQ is as fixed as you act like.

Struggling with logic?No one is saying IQ is "fixed". We're saying that IQ is relative and unequal amongst races. It's entirely possible for IQ to increase at different rates amongst different races given different factors. If you think that one through and avoid lying to yourself, you'll eventually arrive at the conclusion that this one supports my position much more than it does yours.

Quote

-That education seems to influence IQ scores in various ways.

Quote

-That the IQ gap gets larger from early childhood to adulthood- exactly what you would expect if the gap were caused by environmental factors.

Again, you're tilting at windmills. We both agree that environment can play a role in IQ, but it's pretty clearly not the sole determining factor. That there may be a 'genetic median', which statistically explains the inordinate presence of top % genius amongst Jews and an equally disparate weighting of retards amongst blacks on the upslope of that same curve. Historical natural selection is pretty heavily biased in certain cultures to favor certain intelligence types. This may explain why rural Chinese may be poor and have limited access to resources, yet in spite of being educated in dirt floor school houses, in spite of a history of tribal warfare and colonialism, don't have the same "IQ issues" as Africans, even though the very same reasons the apologists cite to explain lower African IQ apply to many other peoples who do not share a similar 'low intelligence' outcome.

Quote

But even if you could miraculously prove that there was definitely a real racial gap, then we would have to proceed to the next question-How would society be any different? What policy implications should there be if we knew there was a definable group that was likely to achieve less? We already do not even remotely believe in equality of outcome so there would clearly be no difference there. Race based quotas would be out, but I don't believe in these and most people don't either. Would the small group difference be enough to stop treating each person as an individual? Obviously not. Should we stop trying to help someone because they were somewhat less likely to be able to take advantage of it? I think the differences between our current society and this one would be very small.

Noting 'miraculous' involved here. It's been proven.How would society be any different? Well, if we were to be fair in acknowleding this, it would beg some questions that have painful answers. If you actually lived in an area with lots of blacks (like, not "in the town over", but your neighbors, walking the streets in front of your home), those questions would be obvious to you already.

[Balloon guy]

JubilantLankyLad, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 9:33 AM, said:

This is funny. Salesmen are good at taking farmers' money, not saving them money. And that what their research is based on.

Most salesmen have products that benefit the person buying it. They are educating about new technology.Some salesmen are crooks sure, but most have to deliver.Unlike liberals who NEVER deliver on their promises ( lowering unemployment, lowering crime, lowering poverty numbers, having an open administration, not using tax dollars to buy votes etc. )

[AmScray]

Balloon guy, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 9:27 AM, said:

Most salesmen have products that benefit the person buying it. They are educating about new technology.Some salesmen are crooks sure, but most have to deliver.

This isn't true.Some salesmen do, but some sell stuff that only exists to be sold and has little (or even, no) net benefit to the buyer, either directly or cost/benefit adjusted. An awful lot of products are like this.

[Balloon guy]

AmScray, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 10:41 AM, said:

This isn't true.Some salesmen do, but some sell stuff that only exists to be sold and has little (or even, no) net benefit to the buyer, either directly or cost/benefit adjusted. An awful lot of products are like this.

I think the person's proclivity to pessimism or optimism will result in our sides being viewed as right or wrong.I am more optimistic in general, and I admit that I will be duped more than someone who is more pessimistic, but I like being this way and am willing to trade the chance for being duped by trusting my fellow man.It is probably very important of course that I am in a wealthy community and not an inner city or a trailer park and am freer to maintain this position.But I also trust farmers to generally be smart enough not to be duped, since most farmers I know are pretty down to earth and not easily fooled by normal salesmen spiels crafted towards fooling the unwitting ( liberals )

[AmScray]

Farmers are smarter than most people, this is true, but still, this doesn't mean that most products being sold have merit. "Marketing" is basically Snake Oil; 101.

[Balloon guy]

AmScray, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 11:07 AM, said:

Farmers are smarter than most people, this is true, but still, this doesn't mean that most products being sold have merit. "Marketing" is basically Snake Oil; 101.

I'm not arguing most products being sold have merit, I am arguing that most products farmer's actually buy have merit, based on their being smarter than most people.No reason for salesmen to try to fool the intelligent while there are so many democrats/Canadians around giving them easy targets.

[speedz99]

Balloon guy, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 7:26 AM, said:

Nobody is arguing if people sentenced to life in prison are innocent or not, because there is no argument to change that. For you to bring it up while discussing the death penalty proves one of two points, one that you have to muddy the waters because you have nothing, or two you are a liberal who thinks that catch phrases give you credibility irregardless of their irrelevance.I'm going to go with C, a hybrid of A and B.

None of this makes any sense. I'm talking about why life in prison makes more sense as a punishment than the death penalty. What about that don't you understand? And, once again, your dependence on ranting about "liberal catch phrases" just makes your arguments sound silly.

Balloon guy, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 7:26 AM, said:

But since you are under some delusion that you have made some point, please supply proof that thousands of people are serving time for life that are innocent.

You...you're really questioning whether, over the lifespan of our criminal justice system, there have been thousands of people wrongly convicted who are either in prison now or ended up dying there? Really? You need me to prove that to you?

mtdesmoines, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 8:46 AM, said:

I'm just saying it's an arrogant and naive thing to say.

Most farmers are feeding what has traditionally worked well for them, not the rations worked out in a research setting. Scram's argument would seem to assert that the farmer must be feeding the right stuff, but I'd argue that in many cases it would turn out that the maximum efficiency in cases like this is better worked out in an academic setting than solely through experience. That doesn't mean a feeds researcher could run a farm better than a farmer, but it's just one example of where hand-on and academic professionals can help each other out instead of simply saying one is better than the other.

mtdesmoines, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 8:46 AM, said:

You have to be kidding.EDIT: I've worked with farmers all my life aside from actively farming for a decent portion of it. I've also worked for a large commodity association. The great majority of farmers who are farming full time are not only well-educated, but hold degrees in crop sciences and related areas of study. They operate multi-million dollar businesses with razor-thin margins. The days of Ma and Pa Kettle or Green Acres or whatever you're thinking of ... long gone my friend.

I think you've confused my responses to scram as some kind of assertion that farmers are idiots. I said pretty clearly that you'd have to assume the rancher in his scenario is educated in his profession, aggie schooling in particular. I'm sure that there are plenty of farmers who hold advanced degrees, but it is most certainly not "the great majority" of farmers. I'm not sure who you worked for, but there are still many more small/medium sized farms than large scale operations in this country*. The total number of cattle is skewed towards the big operations (which may very well have maximized things like feed efficiency), but we're talking about farmers themselves, the actual business owners, and there are still a lot of those who are pretty old school, not that there's anything wrong with that. In my example of how many farmers aren't feeding 100% effectively, the farmer pulling in sales of $50k on a small farm in Western Massachusetts counts just as much as the farmer pulling in sales of $500k with his operation in Iowa. And there's a lot more of the small guys...you could argue that "retirement" and "lifestyle" farms shouldn't count, but those are (usually) still people who are around their cattle just as much as any other farmer, so they're just as qualified to be the rancher in scram's example of hand-on versus academic experience.Anyway, I've been on farms and talked to the farmers who run those multi-million dollar operations with razor thin margins that in many cases can so heavily depend on the current market that it's scary to even think about, and I've got a hell of a lot of respect for them in many ways, so I don't think that I could just walk onto every farm out there and tell the farmer how to run his business. Sorry if you misunderstood what I was getting at. With all of that said...yes, after my two credit course, I could make positive changes in the feed ratios on many farms out there. Not the big operations that have already paid someone to regularly make those changes (or are run by someone with the necessary knowledge/education base), but the majority of the smaller/medium sized ones, which as the link below shows, is the majority of farms out there today. *Farm Demographics

[speedz99]

I'm not exactly sure what you guys think should happen in terms of sales and marketing. You sound like a bunch of old ladies complaining about being hoodwinked by the door to door vacuum salesman in the fancy suit.

Balloon guy, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 9:27 AM, said:

Unlike liberals who NEVER deliver on their promises ( lowering unemployment, lowering crime, lowering poverty numbers, having an open administration, not using tax dollars to buy votes etc. )

Read my lips...

[SBriand]

look at you using the census as some way to prove your point. Census is just a liberal head counting scam!

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 11:16 AM, said:

None of this makes any sense. I'm talking about why life in prison makes more sense as a punishment than the death penalty. What about that don't you understand? And, once again, your dependence on ranting about "liberal catch phrases" just makes your arguments sound silly.

You have made no effort to prove that your 'sense' of life in prison is better than killing them for their heinous crimes.No effort at all.

Quote

You...you're really questioning whether, over the lifespan of our criminal justice system, there have been thousands of people wrongly convicted who are either in prison now or ended up dying there? Really? You need me to prove that to you?

Yes, should be easy because you once again are implying that its a known fact. Please use either graphs, or at least a nice pie chart with colors favoring reds. This should be a real softball for you, just an easy hit it out of the park with a snazzy report that proves that thousands of people are currently in prison unjustly. ( not for being wrongly tried, no 'they didn't follow procedure so they get a pass on the crime they committed, only actual innocent people who are serving time who are guilty of nothing. )I'll even allow you to go back 5 decades, since this will give you mucho data, going back farther is not reasonable since Chicago democrats used jails as a political tool for voter intimidation etc and you could skew the results from that city alone.

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 11:22 AM, said:

Read my lips...

Ahhh a cute catch phrase favored by liberals even though they have no ability to understand what happened..Bush signed a democrat bill that included increasing existing taxes. The democrats changed the tax laws that reduced the allowed write offs for second homes. This resulted in the collapse of the Savings and Loans.So the DEMOCRAT bill that Bush signed RUINED the economy, and the Dems blame Bush for allowing THEM to ruin the economy.And you guys bring it up all the time. "Hey remember when we used political trickery to force Bush to allow us to ruin the economy? Man those were good times"Besides, we didn't vote him back in for allowing existing taxes to be raised ( there were no 'new taxes' which is what he said in his Read My Lips sentence). And for allowing the democrats to ruin the economy and created the future system of banks 'too big to fail'So Read My Lips is probably the single greatest failure of the democrat party ever. Thanks for reminding me why Democrats are completely unable to do anything correct ever and should be placed in prison for life for their destruction of so many lives through their misguided policies.

[Balloon guy]

SBriand, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 11:25 AM, said:

look at you using the census as some way to prove your point. Census is just a liberal job creating to reduce unemployment numbers scam!

FYP

[speedz99]

Balloon guy, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 10:26 AM, said:

You have made no effort to prove that your 'sense' of life in prison is better than killing them for their heinous crimes.No effort at all.

What? I'd like to kill the ones who actually committed the "heinous crimes". I'm referring to the ones who didn't actually commit the crimes. You're getting more and more confused as we go along...it's like you don't actually read what I write, you kind of mesh together my words to say what you assume I want to say.

Balloon guy, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 10:26 AM, said:

Yes, should be easy because you once again are implying that its a known fact. Please use either graphs, or at least a nice pie chart with colors favoring reds. This should be a real softball for you, just an easy hit it out of the park with a snazzy report that proves that thousands of people are currently in prison unjustly. ( not for being wrongly tried, no 'they didn't follow procedure so they get a pass on the crime they committed, only actual innocent people who are serving time who are guilty of nothing. )I'll even allow you to go back 5 decades, since this will give you mucho data, going back farther is not reasonable since Chicago democrats used jails as a political tool for voter intimidation etc and you could skew the results from that city alone.

Well, the trick here is that I'll only be able to find these numbers on websites you won't like. Obviously a conservative website isn't going to publish them, so you'd have to be willing to admit that a website like the one for The Innocence Project, which uses DNA evidence to exonerate innocent prisoners (something that everyone should be totally behind), wouldn't just make up statistics like the ones below:

Quote

There have been 271 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history. These stories are becoming more familiar as more innocent people gain their freedom through postconviction testing. They are not proof, however, that our system is righting itself.The common themes that run through these cases — from global problems like poverty and racial issues to criminal justice issues like eyewitness misidentification, invalid or improper forensic science, overzealous police and prosecutors and inept defense counsel — cannot be ignored and continue to plague our criminal justice system. •Seventeen people had been sentenced to death before DNA proved their innocence and led to their release. •The average sentence served by DNA exonerees has been 13 years.•About 70 percent of those exonerated by DNA testing are members of minority groups.•In almost 40 percent of DNA exoneration cases, the actual perpetrator has been identified by DNA testing.•Exonerations have been won in 34 states and Washington, D.C.

DNA evidence only came into play in the last two decades. So, if you'd like to give me five decades, it's fair to say that there would have been around 700 DNA exonerations. And, realistically, there would be more than that for the decade or two in that time period when it was relatively easy to convict any random black guy (liberals LOVE the blacks!) for any crime in the south. Then add in the fact that of course there are more cases in which there was no DNA evidence.You really think that wouldn't all add up to four figures? Really? You're in that much denial?And, for the record, it's not like I think our criminal justice system is totally horrendous...it's run by humans, of course there are flaws and mistakes will be made. Which is why shutting the door on someone through the death penalty is a poor choice, as there will always be people proven innocent after the time when an execution would have taken place. Stop trying to deny that fact, it's ridiculous. If you're ok with a few innocent people being put to death for the sake of executing a lot of people who truly deserved it, that's fine. Just admit it and we can move on.

[speedz99]

Balloon guy, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 10:34 AM, said:

I can't even take a joke anymore.

You're too easy. But I appreciated the effort anyway.

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 11:44 AM, said:

What? I'd like to kill the ones who actually committed the "heinous crimes". I'm referring to the ones who didn't actually commit the crimes. You're getting more and more confused as we go along...it's like you don't actually read what I write, you kind of mesh together my words to say what you assume I want to say.

But you are arguing that I my position is different than yours, since your position is that the truly guilty are worthy of being put to death, then to disagree with me you must be saying: I am for killing innocent people, or that I am saying no person on death row is innocent or ever has been ever. Which is it?

Quote

Well, the trick here is that I'll only be able to find these numbers on websites you won't like. Obviously a conservative website isn't going to publish them, so you'd have to be willing to admit that a website like the one for The Innocence Project, which uses DNA evidence to exonerate innocent prisoners (something that everyone should be totally behind), wouldn't just make up statistics like the ones below:

Ah the simple minded excuse that conservatives don't want truth, only propaganda...from people who are 100% fooled by the propaganda from their own side...it's sweeter than honey.

Quote

DNA evidence only came into play in the last two decades. So, if you'd like to give me five decades, it's fair to say that there would have been around 700 DNA exonerations. And, realistically, there would be more than that for the decade or two in that time period when it was relatively easy to convict any random black guy (liberals LOVE the blacks!) for any crime in the south. Then add in the fact that of course there are more cases in which there was no DNA evidence.

So the 'system' has been improving itself to prove the guilt or innocence of people. This is the same system that allows for a decade of appeals for people on death row. I'm not sure how you guys can argue that the system kills innocent people all the time while admitting that it is imp[roving and giving all chances possible to the condemned?Edit: I am curious if all these 'exonerations' were for people on death row? Cause if it was for people not scheduled to die, then using their numbers would be moot to the discussion. The report by Columbia in 2000 arguing against the death penalty in fact proved that there have been no people put to death who were innocent in the last 25 years.

Quote

You really think that wouldn't all add up to four figures? Really? You're in that much denial?

Well the prison population has increased exponentially in this country's history, so trying to argue that the number of innocent people in jail now is equal when there were considerably fewer inmates makes your position weak. Basic math you did didn't reach one thousand, you quoted 'thousands and thousands'

Quote

And, for the record, it's not like I think our criminal justice system is totally horrendous...it's run by humans, of course there are flaws and mistakes will be made. Which is why shutting the door on someone through the death penalty is a poor choice, as there will always be people proven innocent after the time when an execution would have taken place. Stop trying to deny that fact, it's ridiculous. If you're ok with a few innocent people being put to death for the sake of executing a lot of people who truly deserved it, that's fine. Just admit it and we can move on.

I 100% deny this '''''fact''''. This is a made up phrase to try to allow you to argue an impossible position. There is no way I believe that we can never be 'sure' about a persons guilt of innocence. We already place huge conditions on the possibility of the death penalty even being allowed in a murder case. So before we even begin we are placing huge restrictions on the prosecutors. Then we have a 'fair trial' followed by years and years of appeals. We also have groups like the one you quoted who make it their jobs to find innocent people to free ( using tax dollars to do this, they are still lawyers after all )So yes, I believe that we can have enough assurance of a person's guilt to fry em. And if there is any reasonable doubt ( not liberal doubt, but actual based on reality doubt ) then I am fine with life without parole in solitary confinement.

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 11:47 AM, said:

You're too easy. But I appreciated the effort anyway.

One of us jumped off the 'joke for joke' train....and it wasn't me ( first )

[speedz99]

I'm sometimes baffled by the joke train, sorry.Be back later with more propaganda, only to be fed the other side's propaganda, which is basically just saying that I've been fed propaganda. The circle of life.

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Monday, June 13th, 2011, 12:10 PM, said:

I'm sometimes baffled by the joke train, sorry.Be back later with more propaganda, only to be fed the other side's propaganda, which is basically just saying that I've been fed propaganda. The circle of life.

Here's a propaganda site to short cut the procedure for you.Feel free to discredit their assertions.