Zierro

WHAT THE BEEP! When carrots are baked in roast and onion juices, they are literally THE MOST flavorful succulent vegetable ever!

Tequila. Silly putty.

Seems like they put a lot of effort in tackling all the elements Oblivion fell short with. In fact, I might give this one a try even though I hated Oblivion.

Donkey Kong. Rump roast.

How thoughtful. <3: I would gift the person above me these people:

I just had a hoagie with Italian dressing. Definitely one of the best sandwiches I've had in a while.

I agree. Why give someone even more of an advantage when they just kicked a lot of ass? UAV and such are fine, but the OP ones like helicopter just completely destroy the match. Don't even get me started with tactical nukes. +2 That being said, I'm about to pop it in. :boohoo:

I've noticed an increase in comfort in my own skin and living in the world as I age. Not that I've really gotten any 'happier', but I have learned to value the opportunity of life more. Things don't seem as dark and hostile as they did during my teenage years. But they don't seem as shiny and welcoming like when I was a child. Right now I like who I am and I like what life is. I have no desire to get rid of them, regardless of how miserable I am most of the time. By the way, what's wrong with your communication skills? It sounds like you want to have relationships but don't think you have what it takes.

Not really something that annoys me per se, but when the holiday decorations get taken down, my mood suddenly drops. :(

Bioshock 2 was the only one to arouse my interest last year. GoW3 and SC2 do look pretty great, but I haven't tried them yet.

(I could return the favor and say that everyone dismissing my criticisms against statistics is just avoiding the fact that I disproved their claims. It would be a more accurate accusation too. But I'm not interested in a battle of credibility.) The fact of the matter is the statistics do not prove that there has never been a prevented murder because of capital punishment. My belief is that the death penalty deters crime. (Note that I did not specify how much crime it deters, as that was never my argument. Only that at least some lives have been spared because of it.) I base this off of human nature - behavior patterns we see in everyday life. People tend to want to avoid negative consequences. Sometimes the pros are not worth the cons. Furthermore, death is commonly deemed a negative (perhaps one of the most negative) outcome in both an emotional and instinctual sense. We simply function based off self-interest and self-preservation. The fact that people think it's even possible to "prove" that not one single murder has been prevented by capital punishment already raises a skeptical eyebrow. But I still decided to be fair and ventured to take a gander. What logical fallacy do I find? You guys are comparing countries as if the only difference between them is whether they have the death penalty or not. That's far from the truth, not to mention ethnocentric. Essentially, it is not conclusive enough evidence to posit a 100% universal fact about sociology and any rational skeptic would agree. Sorry, but as far as I can see, evidence seems to be pointing in the direction of some people being too concerned with self-interest to go through with murdering someone they wish were dead. Are there some who are not affected by consequence? Sure. But you honestly can't be telling me this is true for every single human being in existence. That would be an extraordinary claim, which would require an extraordinary amount of evidence, which I have yet to see. A more reasonable claim would be that the death penalty is not a good enough deterrent, which is an opinion I find no problem with. While we're at it, I'm not some twisted sadist intent on seeing people die. It is an uncomfortable thought, but it beats the alternative of allowing innocent lives to be taken by these people. My belief is founded on logic and humankind. I am not avoiding the truth. If I come across a strong convincing argument that my belief is wrong, I will naturally adapt to the better supported belief as I do quite regularly actually. In fact, my beliefs seem to be some of the most fluid on this board. Pretentious, but true. I enjoy finding better ways to do things, and I enjoy the quest for knowledge. I am always open to new ideas but I will always be critical of their flaws, as that's a big part of the quest. No, not necessarily. We do not have time machines. Suggesting that we have solid proof that no murders have been prevented is quite simply a bold assumption: Country A has the death penalty in the year 2000. Country B does not. Country A has 100 homicides. Country B has 50. For all we know, country A could have had 150 homicides in the year 2000 if the death penalty wasn't in effect, which would mean it has saved 50 lives. There is no way to truly know what would have happened. It is assuming the results for that country would not look any different if the death penalty were banned/implemented that specific year - and this is just the first assumption being made about the statistics. As for the second assumption, it is assuming the results are that way because of one specific factor instead of a combination of them all. We can start by thinking of why different countries have different crime rates. Different lands, different people, different governments, different medias, different morals, different hobbies, different jobs, different events, different economies, different cultures. Country A has 100 murders in the year 2000, no death penalty. The very next year, they implement the death penalty, but a large political event takes place as well and raises tensions within the country. In 2001, Country A has 100 murders again. Now we could jump the gun and assume that the death penalty has done absolutely nothing for the country. Or we could look at the other possibilities. For all we know, if the death penalty was not implemented but the political event still happened, there could have been 120 murders. For all we know, if the death penalty was implemented but the political event did not happen, there could have been 80 murders. Forgive the lame example, but I wanted to get the point across that the death penalty is not the only factor to take into account when trying to find out how it works. And the same argument could be used against the statistics I have posted, as Ring World has pointed out. There are more things that happened in America during those years than the government banning/implementing the death penalty that could be attributed to the outcome of the results. I did give statistics that supported my claims, while simultaneously saying how it should not come down to a battle of statistics and credibility. There are more interesting and constructive arguments to be brought up. I do think statistics can be helpful, but not when they are thrown around like this without acknowledging any of the discrepancies that follow. As far as I can tell, statistics are treated as photographic evidence here, and questioning their validity is like questioning whether the sky is blue.

With you realizing you have nothing of value to rebut with other than "lol ur just stupid and ur holding ur ears shut //FACEPALM"? Yeah, you're quite the quality debater. Fact is, statistics are not infallible. Of course you say you agree on this point, but you don't show it. You take those statistics as proof that there has never been at least one potential criminal that didn't go through with a murder for the sake of self-preservation. I've shown you several reasons why that's a ridiculous line of reasoning, yet you still insist that the statistics are perfect photographic evidence that you are right. Hell, you even went as far to say jail didn't deter crime one day. I've done my best with you. You are your only hope. There is a wonderful world of truth out there, and it is yours to discover if you could just learn from your mistakes every now and then instead of fabricating your own little world.

Not necessarily. Perhaps you should do a bit of research on the faults of statistics. Look up correlation =/= causation. That would be a good start. And hypothetically, if that were true, I just "proved" it by your very own definition of "proven", by posting a graph of an obvious drop of homicides after the death penalty has been implemented. So essentially you just place a hefty amount of faith in experts? It's literally impossible to take into account, observe, and measure all of the contributing factors, ESPECIALLY FROM CULTURE TO CULTURE. Don't know where you heard otherwise.

By the looks of it, we seem to be in agreement. My point is that statistics should not be esteemed as infallible proof, because of the simple fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. People would dismiss my rhetorical arguments simply because statistics supported their claims, so I decided to return the favor and point out how it is a blatant stalemate when all we rely on is "seeing what effect implementing the death penalty has on a certain year or country". (I made the mistake of directing that remark towards the wrong person though.) Unsurprisingly, there were mixed results, just as I predicted with statistics concerning something of such a controversial nature. You and I could discuss other aspects of death penalty, such as morality if you'd like. But as for statistics, I think we're on the same page. I don't take either set of statistics as infallible proof that "criminals are or are not deterred by the death penalty". But if you are saying x is effective, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence that it is, what grounds are you basing your claims on? What seems to you like "commonsense"? I never said statistics = absolutely ZERO evidence. Just that they should not be the end-all factor to look at, like what you did the last couple of threads when I didn't post statistics supporting my claims and you told me I was just closing my ears and ignoring your "proof". Sure they count as evidence - they are correlations, but they are not infallible and should not be the only thing to look at, especially when trying to find an accurate depiction of how the world will work if X happens. As stated several billion times, there are other factors besides the death penalty that should be taken into account. For example, different cultures, governments, crime scenes. We need more than just [faulty] statistics when dealing with a subject as delicate as this. Also, I have given you several non-statistical logical arguments that I base my beliefs off of time and time again. I would advise you to stop consistently being so slanderous about my credibility - it doesn't paint very a good picture of someone who is supposedly against revenge.

By the looks of it, we seem to be in agreement. My point is that statistics should not be esteemed as infallible proof, because of the simple fact that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. People would dismiss my rhetorical arguments simply because statistics supported their claims, so I decided to return the favor and point out how it is a blatant stalemate when all we rely on is "seeing what effect implementing the death penalty has on a certain year or country". (I made the mistake of directing that remark towards the wrong person though.) Unsurprisingly, there were mixed results, just as I predicted with statistics concerning something of such a controversial nature. You and I could discuss other aspects of death penalty, such as morality if you'd like. But as for statistics, I think we're on the same page. I don't take either set of statistics as infallible proof that "criminals are or are not deterred by the death penalty".

I haven't even posted any statistics in this topic fyi. Pretty sure this topic is dead now, it's just going to be you and me arguing back and forth for 4 pages until one of us gets bored Obviously I was referring to the past debates where it was literally just an argument of me "disregarding" your "proof", even though I was giving a counterargument as to why statistics should not be the only thing we take into account. Then I post statistics showing that there is a correlation behind criminals fearing the death penalty, since apparently that is the most important factor to take into account, and big surprise you just dismiss it and exit stage, claiming the topic as dead. I don't know about you, but I'm just here to discuss how we could best save innocent lives and virginities.

That's the thing with weak atheism. It pretends to be the neutral stance by formulating such a term, implying that we are all born atheists, a rock does not have belief in a god therefore is atheist, etc. Just look at the word "atheism". You have consciously built a set of beliefs based on the notion of god not existing. There's a difference between having the self-ascribed label "without god" and having a reserved opinion on theology. But I guess they really want that sort of leverage. I don't know if you got the point or not. Nihilism is about a lack of value when it comes to the nature of existence, yet in order to have such a position, you must first value knowledge. Therefore it is a paradox, suggesting high levels of obscurity.

To some people, sure it's a lesser punishment. There have been many serial killers who would just commit suicide rather than deal with the legal consequences. But at the same time (and this is relevant to your third point), it is a safeguard preventing further damage done to society. There have been murders in prison, people have escaped, and people have been released freely after supposed rehabilitation or a long enough sentence and then end up taking more lives regardless. I remember one case where a man gets released because the prisons were too full and days later he started killing again. Not to mention all the people who are strong advocates of self-preservation and do fear that punishment. This is really the only point I can agree on. There is no going back with the death sentence, however there is no going back once you let a serial killer strike again. I guess it's dependent on which happens more frequently. By the way, I apologize for saying statistics were your only argument. I was confusing you with someone else. Ideally, I feel the same way. But it is a gamble in two senses. One, it isn't setting a good precedent for some potential criminals - the ones that would much rather go through rehab than be killed by the state. Two, we never know if they are going to kill again until it's too late. My argument here is that the criminal already forfeited his right by breaching others, therefore the safety of innocent public exceeds that of someone who has shown intent to harm the public. Furthermore, why should society give them benefits that they themselves try to pry from society for no good reason? Yes, my studies compare year by year for the same country. Your studies compare country to country. Both statistics have their discrepancies, as the death penalty being implemented is not the only thing that happened that year, and it is not the only difference between different countries. Now do you see why statistics should not be the only means of deciphering truths in our world? People acting off self-interest is not the case? No, please continue.

Nihilists value the knowledge of the nature of existence. How's that for obscurity?

In real life, yes. On the internet, no. I agree with Mask though - they're both too loud.

I'm too cool for this!

Firstly, it should not be a mere matter of statistical patterns, as statistics have been inaccurate or misleading time after time. Secondly, I have statistics suggesting the exact opposite of what you just claimed. The only difference is I don't use it solely as the backbone of my argument, and have provided most of you people several rhetorical arguments such as Operant Conditioning - proof that cognitive beings tend to want to preserve themselves and avoid negative consequence. But I guess since statistics are all that matter, this should suffice in convincing you unbiased rational posters: http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#deter During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University said: "While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction." Notes Dudley Sharp of the criminal-justice reform group Justice For All: "From 1995 to 2000," "executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999 -- a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966. " The most striking protection of innocent life has been seen in Texas, which executes more murderers than any other state. According to JFA (Justice for All), the Texas murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 per 100,000. By 1999, it had fallen to 6.1 -- a drop of 60 percent. Within Texas, the most aggressive death penalty prosecutions are in Harris County (the Houston area). Since the resumption of executions in 1982, the annual number of Harris County murders has plummeted from 701 to 241 -- a 72 percent decrease Anyway... this is why I don't like arguments of credibility and statistics. We all know how easily it can become a stalemate. I'd prefer if it came down to a battle of witty remarks: Or it could mean you think you're supporting a logical or moral argument, when you're actually doing the inverse. Yes, hence why I believe people need to deal with statistics delicately when attempting to exhibit a causation. There are more factors than what meets the eye, especially when comparing completely different cultures to one another. You just said they never happened, and when corrected you altered your stance to "It's a stupid example and there aren't very many". I can already tell this will be another good one.

I regret becoming a TIF regular. Just how lame am I? :(

The Misfits - She

After discovering that it was non-sequitir reasoning that led you to believing god, instead of reevaluating your beliefs you accepted it anyway? Surely there are other reasons for you believing him. And why is your name Zealot if you don't mind me asking?