So what is an appropriate penalty for using someone else's work without paying for it? Or do you feel you should be able to listen to Metallica or play Halo free of charge?
You may disagree with how much they cost, but using them without paying for them is wrong.
It largely depends on the terrain and the person driving.
CC's have a hard time with hilly terrain, since it has no way to know when a hill is coming and gradually build up speed before it, instead having to over compensate after it starts to loose speed.
The bigger problem, IMO, is that most drivers don't have fine enough touch on the accelerator to be more fuel efficient than a CC. I have tested this several times and I can routinely do 3-4MPG better than the CC, but it takes more concentration and over a 8-10 hour trip can result in higher fatigue.
"Let's see, with Florida, much of California, Michigan, and many East Coast states, including much or all of New York City completely under water."
The only real loss there is Michigan (which I believe you are wrong about, since most of MI is well above sea level), good riddance to the rest of them.
It could also be construed as restricting where he could work in the future if a future employer has a similar contract, he couldn't/shouldn't sign the new employers contract since it conflicts with his agreement in the previous contract. Which means he could be out of work for year while he waits for the first contract to expire.
"I would expect Libertarians to have a fit at that (or at least at the notion that the GPL is considered "free"), but I've never heard a professed Libertarian commenting on code licenses (if anyone would like to reply, please do)."
From a strictly libertarian point of view it's your software you can license or put any restrictions on it that you wish. The GPL has a twisted view of freedom, and as a libertarian I don't agree with their definition, but they are free to have that view, and they aren't forcing their view on me, because I choose not to use software licensed by it, in my products. I am also a libertarian not a Libertarian so they may have a different view...
"others simply don't want to be contributing to the bottom line of corporations that they don't like"
They aren't thinking clearly if they think this works in all cases. The GPL certainly keeps software companies from profiting from my work, but what about a non software company that uses my code for an internally written application?
For example: Say I hate oil companies, but I write a piece of software, and an oil company finds a way to use my software to find more oil, hence increasing their bottom line. The GPL has done nothing to stop them from profiting from my work.
The above line of thinking only works when dealing with companies that intend to redistribute your work, which is only a fraction of all of the "evil" corporations out there. If you have a moral problem with companies profiting from your work then you need to look at a different license then any of the popular ones, because none of them will do this.
I don't share RMS/FSF twisted view of freedom or have any moral convictions about anyone profiting from my open source work, so I use the BSD exclusively.
Yes, long before he got drunk, opened his mouth, he was labeled an anti-Semite for The Passion of Christ. Just because he happens to believe in a previous interpretation of the bible doesn't make him an anti-Semite, the Catholic church believed the same interpretation until the 60's, and all Catholics weren't labeled anti-Semitic.
Words can be offensive no matter what the context. Is the offense to me less relevant because it was a "staged" event?
Quentin Tarantino gets a pass on his movies, but Mel Gibson gets labeled an anti-Semite for his effort. The context is the same, both are movies, "staged events", yet one gets away with it and the other doesn't.
"Where did he state that he had a rule not to offend?"
Sorry shouldn't have said "rule", I was referring to the supposed quote by Chris Rock, in the OP. He is absolutely allowed to offend anyone he wishes, just like Imus.
"He's not using it to address whites in the audience or in general."
So are you saying, because I'm white, I can't choose what I can be offended by? Just because he doesn't address his comments to whites doesn't mean that someone still won't take offense to it.
BTW, I personally don't take offense to anything Chris Rock (or anyone for that matter) says, but I do know people that don't like him because they are offended by his slaps at white people.
"The proper way for non-Africans to discuss such things is offline and out-of-range."
And thanks to Jesse and Al there are now potentially 2.5 million more people discussing these issues "out-of-range". The KKK and others of like thinking, must love every time Jesse and Al get involved, because they are those groups best "recruiters".
While I agree with Chris Rock's statement, he doesn't live by his own rules. His shows are filled with "cracker" and "honkey" references, certainly not comments directed as his own race.
Don Imus was an "equal opportunity" offender, while I don't remember a specific incident involving an NFL player, he insulting an NBA player (sorry can't remember the name), by calling him a knuckle dragger.
Don Imus is/was offensive, and that is what CBS/NBC paid him to do, it just so happens that outside forces "convinced" his employers that his services were no longer needed.
When it takes five times as long to get it right, so you can ship a product, it erases any cost advantage.
What India is going through with their education problem, really isn't all that different than what the US went through during the Dot Bomb years. There were many people in IT that had NO business being there. People jumped on the bandwagon, because IT is where the money was, just like India.
Unfortunately for the US, with the "money" moving to medical over the next 10-15 years, due to all of the Baby Boomers retiring, I fear for the quality of medical care in the US over that span...
Having worked for a company that outsourced a couple of projects to India, I can tell you that all companies care about is how much money it is saving them right this minute. I told my boss repeatedly, and he told his boss, etc on up the chain that the quality wasn't nearly the same, the answer always came back, "Yeah, but it is costing $Y less to do it!".
Companies have a very short term focus on the bottom line, it's all about making sure the "street" is happy next quarter, so cut all of the costs you can. Long term doesn't matter to them anymore, because the average life span of a C-level executive is 1-2 years, so they don't care what happens to the company in 3 years, they are on some beach enjoying their mult-million dollar severance. Hum... maybe more companies should compensate their C-level executives based on their and the companies performance, and no "golden parachutes".;)
"Plus we have the highest percent of our population incarcerated in the world; folks can't commit - many - more crimes if they are behind bars."
Yes and many of their sentences are almost done. Read an article last week that over half the US prison population will be eligible for parole over the next 10 years, should be interesting...
I have to disagree. In Michigan, before they started the refund program the roads always had trash along them, after the program you rarely see a can or bottle. If you do, more than likely it was someone from out of state, who brought the can or bottle with them or didn't realize it was worth money.
"I don't follow your reasoning why the one should be coppled to the other, but personally, I'm against it. I'm not against it because of what is said in the Bible or on any religious grounds (I'm actually an atheist), but with logic I can only come to two conclusions: or one should dissallow abortion, or one should allow it even after birth. Both are equally logical, but when related to observable reality, there is no society which allows children up to a year or two to be exterminated. So reality together with my humanistic view and empathy makes me chose the latter"
At least your logically consistent.;) The reason I brought it up is because of your concern over killing innocents, in the US this is frequently used as an argument by the anti-abortion folks, who BTW usually support capital punishment, and vice versa, pro-abortion supporters are typically anti-capital punishment. Never wanted to debate you on it, just wanted to make sure you were logically consistent. Abortion isn't something I feel too strongly about either way, it just falls under my motto of: kill em all and let their god(s) sort it out (apathetic agnostic myself).
"I fear the day people will base their judgement of the worth of a human being on their personal opinion of who is dreg and who isn't, again."
BTW, it wouldn't be a "personal" opinion, it would be the opinion of the "state", formed much in the same way that opinions are formed on who is and who isn't a criminal. As I mentioned, currently the US has determined that drug users are criminals, lots of people have their own "personal" opinions about this, but the "state" is of the opinion they are.
"Do you mean that you think people who commit lesser crimes (e.g. for stealing something) shouldn't be in prison?"
In the US a fair number of people go to prison for drug related "crimes", "crimes" as petty as possession/using, these are the people I am referring to. Drug addiction is no different than alcohol/tobacco addiction and should be treated the same way. Granted they are using an illegal drug, but if the "state" can't keep the illegal substance off the street, then why should the people who use it be penalized for a failing of the "state" (this happens in other areas too, drugs are just one example).
I do believe most of what I have written, with the exception of killing bums and beggers. In the US bums and beggers are not too much of a problem, they tend to stay to themselves and are easy enough to ignore. Most cities I know of don't even bother to take them to jail anymore, even though there are still laws on the books about panhandling, etc. I suspect more college students get locked up every year for "drunk and disorderly" than bums, which is a huge waste of the systems time (college students or bums), just take them out of the situation they are in and take them back to their dorm/home/tent/box and call it an evening.
"What I'm getting at is; while you make several claims and arguments, they are *all* unsubstantiated and lack *any* real evidence that they are true. Your whole reasoning is based on confabulation and personal opinion, without a shred of evidence."
I haven't seen any real evidence from you either, not that it would change my mind. Your arguments all stem for your belief that the "killing of just one innocent" is unacceptable. Which, speaking of innocents, what was your stance on abortion? Must have missed it in your reply...
I am not empathetic toward the dregs of society. I believe everyone should be responsible for themselves, their actions, and suffer the consequences of those actions. They also shouldn't look to the "state" to support them for the rest of their lives (welfare leeches), and live on the backs of other hard working members of society.
"Yes, right...why does that not surprise me? And you do realise that no civilised country follows you in that notion, if it's the kind of 'permanent getting rid of' were talking about."
Fortunately for you, there are too many bleeding heart liberals to ever allow my idea of Utopia, so you don't have a lot to fear, my dreams will go unfulfilled. Everyone has a different idea(s) about their ideal, civilized society, most won't be realized, so everyone has to make due with the one their stuck with.
"The logical consequences of that, would be that even prisoners which commited lesser crimes (but still consume resources) would have to be killed too. In fact, there is no reason to stop with prisoners; since you agree that consuming resources is the measure to decide the value of the death penalty; bums and beggers, and other 'parasites' of society who live of wellfare and thus consume resources from the state, should get the death penalty too instead of being thrown in jail for a day to sleep off their boozesleep."
You assume that I agree that everyone in prison should be there, I don't. Secondly I do agree that beggers, bums, and welfare leeches should be gotten rid of.
"Point in matter is, it's far from proven that it costs less then imprisonment, especially if one would consider other alternatives, like condemning the perpetrators to forced labor, instead of the death penalty."
Sorry I forgot to address this earlier. Every study I have seen on this has been sponsored by anti-capital punishment groups, which means they automatically have a bias and can be discounted as suspect. Logically it makes no sense, because any person convicted of any crime, provided they feel they are innocent, is going to appeal. Even if you consider capital punishment appeals to cost more, the difference in cost isn't going to make up for the money spent housing, feeding, and guarding that person for the rest of their natural life.
"You are assuming people who commited capital crimes are inherently unredeemable."
Yes I do believe that the vast majority of them are unredeemable, there are always exceptions, but these are anomalies and statistically unimportant. I suspect any studies that suggest otherwise are again sponsored by anti-capital punishment groups and so is suspect.
To continue on the logically consistent theme, what is your opinion of abortion? It might surprise you that I have no problem with abortion. There are only two logical answers when it comes to capital punishment and abortion, either you are for both or against both, being for one and not the other is logically inconsistent...
"It is, if one is of the opinion that people which the state has taken away their freedom, have the right to consume resources."
I don't feel that person has any rights, if they commit a capital crime they forfeit their rights, including their right to life itself.
"The argument about economic costs, after all, remains the same whether it deals with capital punishment or not. If consuming resources is the measure to decide the value of the death penalty, then all people put in prison who continue to consume resources should be killed."
Exactly! IMO, the death penalty isn't used enough.
"Besides that, it also takes as assumption that the death penality is neccesarily consuming less costs than a life-sentence. However, studies have shown that it actually costs more to condemn a man because of the length of time to execution and the inevitable appeals."
Never said the "process" shouldn't be sped up. There is no reason appeals have to take years? You lose your first case, bring in a new jury, new judge, run through it again, repeat one more time, if you loose three times, take them out back and string em up!
I think it's great that European's think they have found a way to redeem the unredeemable, maybe that should be the US solution we can give our undesirables a one way ticket to Europe.
I have already stated that I don't care if capital punishment results in lower crime, IMHO that's not why capital punishment exists, capital punishment exists as a way to rid society of an undesirable element.
Innocents die everyday, and not by capital punishment, how about traffic accidents? They kill more innocent people every year than capital punishment has EVER killed. A few innocent people killed is a small price to pay for a society that is rid of many times that number in undesirables.
When I say it is a failing of the court system, those are my "wishes", I feel that in the case of murder the prosecutor and judge should have no option on the sentence, if guilty they die. I realize that, unfortunately, this is not the case, but in my ideal world it would be.
"As it is unvalid, it is no longer a correct counter-argument in rebuting my claim; "If it were true that permanently removing someone 'rights a wrong', then someone killing somebody else who killed before, would right a wrong too, and shouldn't be dragged to court."
The problem with your argument is that you equate murder with capital punishment, I don't. Capital punishment is just that a punishment for a "capital" crime, carried out by the "state". Therefore, if a person kills another known killer, that person should NOT be treated any differently under the law, since what they did was murder, not punishment. Allowing that person to get off, because you feel he exacted punishment on the killer, would promote vigilante justice, which is certainly not where I want to go.
"What I *am* saying is, that the arguments you brought forth are logically inconsistent and contradictory, and can't be used as an excuse or a valid reasoning for the use of the capital punishement *by the USA*. I think, within that context, we can both agree that the claims I made are the logical consequences when using rationale and reason."
So your argument for locking a person away, in total isolation, for the rest of their natural life, (40+ years), consuming resources, and providing absolutely no value back to society, is logical? No thanks, get rid of them. Your arguments are not driven by logic, you are against the death penalty because in your mind the "killing of just one innocent is unacceptable", that is an emotional argument.
Slashdot Mirror
So what is an appropriate penalty for using someone else's work without paying for it? Or do you feel you should be able to listen to Metallica or play Halo free of charge?
You may disagree with how much they cost, but using them without paying for them is wrong.
It largely depends on the terrain and the person driving.
CC's have a hard time with hilly terrain, since it has no way to know when a hill is coming and gradually build up speed before it, instead having to over compensate after it starts to loose speed.
The bigger problem, IMO, is that most drivers don't have fine enough touch on the accelerator to be more fuel efficient than a CC. I have tested this several times and I can routinely do 3-4MPG better than the CC, but it takes more concentration and over a 8-10 hour trip can result in higher fatigue.
You assume we'll let them in.
"But then what will the rest of the US do when they can no longer mooch off the cash that California and the east coast provide?"
Be better off, because we can finally get rid of all the social bloat crap that those "blue" states ram down our throats!
"Let's see, with Florida, much of California, Michigan, and many East Coast states, including much or all of New York City completely under water."
The only real loss there is Michigan (which I believe you are wrong about, since most of MI is well above sea level), good riddance to the rest of them.
It could also be construed as restricting where he could work in the future if a future employer has a similar contract, he couldn't/shouldn't sign the new employers contract since it conflicts with his agreement in the previous contract. Which means he could be out of work for year while he waits for the first contract to expire.
"I would expect Libertarians to have a fit at that (or at least at the notion that the GPL is considered "free"), but I've never heard a professed Libertarian commenting on code licenses (if anyone would like to reply, please do)."
From a strictly libertarian point of view it's your software you can license or put any restrictions on it that you wish. The GPL has a twisted view of freedom, and as a libertarian I don't agree with their definition, but they are free to have that view, and they aren't forcing their view on me, because I choose not to use software licensed by it, in my products. I am also a libertarian not a Libertarian so they may have a different view...
"others simply don't want to be contributing to the bottom line of corporations that they don't like"
They aren't thinking clearly if they think this works in all cases. The GPL certainly keeps software companies from profiting from my work, but what about a non software company that uses my code for an internally written application?
For example: Say I hate oil companies, but I write a piece of software, and an oil company finds a way to use my software to find more oil, hence increasing their bottom line. The GPL has done nothing to stop them from profiting from my work.
The above line of thinking only works when dealing with companies that intend to redistribute your work, which is only a fraction of all of the "evil" corporations out there. If you have a moral problem with companies profiting from your work then you need to look at a different license then any of the popular ones, because none of them will do this.
I don't share RMS/FSF twisted view of freedom or have any moral convictions about anyone profiting from my open source work, so I use the BSD exclusively.
Yes, long before he got drunk, opened his mouth, he was labeled an anti-Semite for The Passion of Christ. Just because he happens to believe in a previous interpretation of the bible doesn't make him an anti-Semite, the Catholic church believed the same interpretation until the 60's, and all Catholics weren't labeled anti-Semitic.
Words can be offensive no matter what the context. Is the offense to me less relevant because it was a "staged" event?
Quentin Tarantino gets a pass on his movies, but Mel Gibson gets labeled an anti-Semite for his effort. The context is the same, both are movies, "staged events", yet one gets away with it and the other doesn't.
"Where did he state that he had a rule not to offend?"
Sorry shouldn't have said "rule", I was referring to the supposed quote by Chris Rock, in the OP. He is absolutely allowed to offend anyone he wishes, just like Imus.
"He's not using it to address whites in the audience or in general."
So are you saying, because I'm white, I can't choose what I can be offended by? Just because he doesn't address his comments to whites doesn't mean that someone still won't take offense to it.
BTW, I personally don't take offense to anything Chris Rock (or anyone for that matter) says, but I do know people that don't like him because they are offended by his slaps at white people.
"The proper way for non-Africans to discuss such things is offline and out-of-range."
And thanks to Jesse and Al there are now potentially 2.5 million more people discussing these issues "out-of-range". The KKK and others of like thinking, must love every time Jesse and Al get involved, because they are those groups best "recruiters".
While I agree with Chris Rock's statement, he doesn't live by his own rules. His shows are filled with "cracker" and "honkey" references, certainly not comments directed as his own race.
Don Imus was an "equal opportunity" offender, while I don't remember a specific incident involving an NFL player, he insulting an NBA player (sorry can't remember the name), by calling him a knuckle dragger.
Don Imus is/was offensive, and that is what CBS/NBC paid him to do, it just so happens that outside forces "convinced" his employers that his services were no longer needed.
Or we could just build a REALLY big hand basket get in and enjoy the ride...
When it takes five times as long to get it right, so you can ship a product, it erases any cost advantage.
What India is going through with their education problem, really isn't all that different than what the US went through during the Dot Bomb years. There were many people in IT that had NO business being there. People jumped on the bandwagon, because IT is where the money was, just like India.
Unfortunately for the US, with the "money" moving to medical over the next 10-15 years, due to all of the Baby Boomers retiring, I fear for the quality of medical care in the US over that span...
Having worked for a company that outsourced a couple of projects to India, I can tell you that all companies care about is how much money it is saving them right this minute. I told my boss repeatedly, and he told his boss, etc on up the chain that the quality wasn't nearly the same, the answer always came back, "Yeah, but it is costing $Y less to do it!".
;)
Companies have a very short term focus on the bottom line, it's all about making sure the "street" is happy next quarter, so cut all of the costs you can. Long term doesn't matter to them anymore, because the average life span of a C-level executive is 1-2 years, so they don't care what happens to the company in 3 years, they are on some beach enjoying their mult-million dollar severance. Hum... maybe more companies should compensate their C-level executives based on their and the companies performance, and no "golden parachutes".
"Plus we have the highest percent of our population incarcerated in the world; folks can't commit - many - more crimes if they are behind bars."
Yes and many of their sentences are almost done. Read an article last week that over half the US prison population will be eligible for parole over the next 10 years, should be interesting...
I have to disagree. In Michigan, before they started the refund program the roads always had trash along them, after the program you rarely see a can or bottle. If you do, more than likely it was someone from out of state, who brought the can or bottle with them or didn't realize it was worth money.
"I don't follow your reasoning why the one should be coppled to the other, but personally, I'm against it. I'm not against it because of what is said in the Bible or on any religious grounds (I'm actually an atheist), but with logic I can only come to two conclusions: or one should dissallow abortion, or one should allow it even after birth. Both are equally logical, but when related to observable reality, there is no society which allows children up to a year or two to be exterminated. So reality together with my humanistic view and empathy makes me chose the latter"
;) The reason I brought it up is because of your concern over killing innocents, in the US this is frequently used as an argument by the anti-abortion folks, who BTW usually support capital punishment, and vice versa, pro-abortion supporters are typically anti-capital punishment. Never wanted to debate you on it, just wanted to make sure you were logically consistent. Abortion isn't something I feel too strongly about either way, it just falls under my motto of: kill em all and let their god(s) sort it out (apathetic agnostic myself).
At least your logically consistent.
"I fear the day people will base their judgement of the worth of a human being on their personal opinion of who is dreg and who isn't, again."
BTW, it wouldn't be a "personal" opinion, it would be the opinion of the "state", formed much in the same way that opinions are formed on who is and who isn't a criminal. As I mentioned, currently the US has determined that drug users are criminals, lots of people have their own "personal" opinions about this, but the "state" is of the opinion they are.
"Do you mean that you think people who commit lesser crimes (e.g. for stealing something) shouldn't be in prison?"
In the US a fair number of people go to prison for drug related "crimes", "crimes" as petty as possession/using, these are the people I am referring to. Drug addiction is no different than alcohol/tobacco addiction and should be treated the same way. Granted they are using an illegal drug, but if the "state" can't keep the illegal substance off the street, then why should the people who use it be penalized for a failing of the "state" (this happens in other areas too, drugs are just one example).
I do believe most of what I have written, with the exception of killing bums and beggers. In the US bums and beggers are not too much of a problem, they tend to stay to themselves and are easy enough to ignore. Most cities I know of don't even bother to take them to jail anymore, even though there are still laws on the books about panhandling, etc. I suspect more college students get locked up every year for "drunk and disorderly" than bums, which is a huge waste of the systems time (college students or bums), just take them out of the situation they are in and take them back to their dorm/home/tent/box and call it an evening.
"What I'm getting at is; while you make several claims and arguments, they are *all* unsubstantiated and lack *any* real evidence that they are true. Your whole reasoning is based on confabulation and personal opinion, without a shred of evidence."
I haven't seen any real evidence from you either, not that it would change my mind. Your arguments all stem for your belief that the "killing of just one innocent" is unacceptable. Which, speaking of innocents, what was your stance on abortion? Must have missed it in your reply...
I am not empathetic toward the dregs of society. I believe everyone should be responsible for themselves, their actions, and suffer the consequences of those actions. They also shouldn't look to the "state" to support them for the rest of their lives (welfare leeches), and live on the backs of other hard working members of society.
"Yes, right...why does that not surprise me? And you do realise that no civilised country follows you in that notion, if it's the kind of 'permanent getting rid of' were talking about."
Fortunately for you, there are too many bleeding heart liberals to ever allow my idea of Utopia, so you don't have a lot to fear, my dreams will go unfulfilled. Everyone has a different idea(s) about their ideal, civilized society, most won't be realized, so everyone has to make due with the one their stuck with.
"The logical consequences of that, would be that even prisoners which commited lesser crimes (but still consume resources) would have to be killed too. In fact, there is no reason to stop with prisoners; since you agree that consuming resources is the measure to decide the value of the death penalty; bums and beggers, and other 'parasites' of society who live of wellfare and thus consume resources from the state, should get the death penalty too instead of being thrown in jail for a day to sleep off their boozesleep."
You assume that I agree that everyone in prison should be there, I don't. Secondly I do agree that beggers, bums, and welfare leeches should be gotten rid of.
"Point in matter is, it's far from proven that it costs less then imprisonment, especially if one would consider other alternatives, like condemning the perpetrators to forced labor, instead of the death penalty."
Sorry I forgot to address this earlier. Every study I have seen on this has been sponsored by anti-capital punishment groups, which means they automatically have a bias and can be discounted as suspect. Logically it makes no sense, because any person convicted of any crime, provided they feel they are innocent, is going to appeal. Even if you consider capital punishment appeals to cost more, the difference in cost isn't going to make up for the money spent housing, feeding, and guarding that person for the rest of their natural life.
"You are assuming people who commited capital crimes are inherently unredeemable."
Yes I do believe that the vast majority of them are unredeemable, there are always exceptions, but these are anomalies and statistically unimportant. I suspect any studies that suggest otherwise are again sponsored by anti-capital punishment groups and so is suspect.
To continue on the logically consistent theme, what is your opinion of abortion? It might surprise you that I have no problem with abortion. There are only two logical answers when it comes to capital punishment and abortion, either you are for both or against both, being for one and not the other is logically inconsistent...
"It is, if one is of the opinion that people which the state has taken away their freedom, have the right to consume resources."
I don't feel that person has any rights, if they commit a capital crime they forfeit their rights, including their right to life itself.
"The argument about economic costs, after all, remains the same whether it deals with capital punishment or not. If consuming resources is the measure to decide the value of the death penalty, then all people put in prison who continue to consume resources should be killed."
Exactly! IMO, the death penalty isn't used enough.
"Besides that, it also takes as assumption that the death penality is neccesarily consuming less costs than a life-sentence. However, studies have shown that it actually costs more to condemn a man because of the length of time to execution and the inevitable appeals."
Never said the "process" shouldn't be sped up. There is no reason appeals have to take years? You lose your first case, bring in a new jury, new judge, run through it again, repeat one more time, if you loose three times, take them out back and string em up!
I think it's great that European's think they have found a way to redeem the unredeemable, maybe that should be the US solution we can give our undesirables a one way ticket to Europe.
I have already stated that I don't care if capital punishment results in lower crime, IMHO that's not why capital punishment exists, capital punishment exists as a way to rid society of an undesirable element.
Innocents die everyday, and not by capital punishment, how about traffic accidents? They kill more innocent people every year than capital punishment has EVER killed. A few innocent people killed is a small price to pay for a society that is rid of many times that number in undesirables.
BTW, I choose 2.
When I say it is a failing of the court system, those are my "wishes", I feel that in the case of murder the prosecutor and judge should have no option on the sentence, if guilty they die. I realize that, unfortunately, this is not the case, but in my ideal world it would be.
"As it is unvalid, it is no longer a correct counter-argument in rebuting my claim; "If it were true that permanently removing someone 'rights a wrong', then someone killing somebody else who killed before, would right a wrong too, and shouldn't be dragged to court."
The problem with your argument is that you equate murder with capital punishment, I don't. Capital punishment is just that a punishment for a "capital" crime, carried out by the "state". Therefore, if a person kills another known killer, that person should NOT be treated any differently under the law, since what they did was murder, not punishment. Allowing that person to get off, because you feel he exacted punishment on the killer, would promote vigilante justice, which is certainly not where I want to go.
"What I *am* saying is, that the arguments you brought forth are logically inconsistent and contradictory, and can't be used as an excuse or a valid reasoning for the use of the capital punishement *by the USA*. I think, within that context, we can both agree that the claims I made are the logical consequences when using rationale and reason."
So your argument for locking a person away, in total isolation, for the rest of their natural life, (40+ years), consuming resources, and providing absolutely no value back to society, is logical? No thanks, get rid of them. Your arguments are not driven by logic, you are against the death penalty because in your mind the "killing of just one innocent is unacceptable", that is an emotional argument.