Walsingham

Alas I am a humble destructive engineer and formerly psychologist. Not a philosopher. I'm also none too bright when the wind is northerly. To explain: you assert that it is impossible for a human to construct any logically superior moral standpoint. I allege that in itself that statement is a moral standpoint of amorality. Therefore by its own rationale it is inconclusive and self-defeating. At best it is simply no worse than any other standpoint. Therefore if you find it annoying you should abandon it. You make a good point about options. It may be the case that in the future we could come up with a better solution than execution. For example, a better solution would be 'freezing' a person in a low maintenance state. We could use them as draft-excluders. I do not support the use of the laogai (I had to look them up). Firstly, they seem unneccessary. A machine can do the same work, and it won't require 24 hour guarding. Secondly, there's no possibility of escape, which is a real problem. More than 20 serial killers are believed to be on the run in the United States having escaped custody after conviction. I might change my mind if there were some sort of cost-effective use for them. Space exploration is the most obvious thing which springs to mind. Mine-clearance is another. And I mean proper mine clearance, not just herding them around, amusing as that might seem. EDIT: It just occurred to me that we may be speaking at crossed purpose in an important respect. I don't believe there would be more than a handful of such cases in a year. Maybe no more than 20 for the UK. Only around half might be established to the correct degree of certainty. Not much forced labour you can get out of that few people.

I wasn't just joking. That's the really scary part.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's soul-eating demon lord of pain. Demons are too political and edgy. I vote we go retro and have a wicked stepmother. Possibly one that is a dragon. Its name will be Fionavar.

My mum is very bad. Cancer in her lungs is making fluid at a rate of knots. I tried to convince her to sell it as Chinese herbal medicine, but she just made a sort of wailing noise.

To address the question of economics, objects lose value the closer they get to the centre of the bowl-world. This is called inclination, and it varies according to terrain. The principal mediums of currency are things that are sticky, like camembert cheese, honey, and small children. The only universal standard of currency is the gold pin, or GP. These are hammered into the face of anyone who questions the use of sticky things.

The black swan in thi scase is simply to address the three planks of objection ...I'm thinking as I go here... - Evidence - Humanitarian grounds of mercy - Prospect of rehabilitation I know I used a double negative. I get that way sometimes.

What if you punched it a great deal?

I think that is a perfect sentence for a perfect moderator. <3 You mean I should be found innocent in a trial by my peers and then spurned as guilty forever?

It is nothing more or less than the oft-repeated statement 'I don't believe in capital punishment'. I used to say it, until I got more involved in criminal reporting. I accept all the stuff about how hard it is to make legal cases, but I also feel that some crimes, and some criminals demand it. The most recent example I gave is a bad one, because guilt is less clear, but it does helpfully illustrate that I am very keen on guilt being practically unassailable.

I have to agree with TheHarlequin. Its a question of the normal balance of proof. Anyone without Jackson's money would never have been able to shake those charges. I naturally accept that the law is the law, I'm not saying a lynch mob should have strung him up. Particularly in a case which was almost all witness testimony. But if someone is allowed to believe a man is innocent after being found guilty then I should be allowed to think someone is guilty even after they were found innocent. I still don't really care that he's dead, though, and I'm annoyed no-one found my original bon mot hilarious.

An excellent suggestion. There should also be a large desert with a giant red mountain in the middle, inhabited by a strange species of desert-nymph, who entrap people to come and rest under it, only to terrify them away again with tiny amounts of dust. And then shoot them for sport. I like it. Damn. We've just violated the whole object of the exercise.

Sorry. I guess that is how it looks. My point was essentially that a persistent, very violent offender ought not to be dealt with by the current system of incarcerate and then simply release. Parole and monitoring outside jail appears to have insufficient impact on reoffending. Taking this as valid, we are left with three options: rehabilitate, remand, and re... something involving a pint of ether and a big lump of rock. However, looking at it in this way is straying from the whole point of my posting this topic. I am not attempting to prove the death penalty is sensible. I am simply attempting to prove that NOT using the death penalty is NOT sensible. On some limited occasions. These cases are the 'one black swans' that disprove the rule of non-capital punishment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ealth-unit.html Another case. Multiple rapist, escapes from custody and murders old man for his TV. Utilises false names, false ID, even shows up to a police station. Rehabilitation at this stage?

I only just read this and I've already got a headache. As companies get bigger and more successful they often tend to try and shore up their position by use of anti-competitive initiatives. This an be anything from pricing bundles to men with hammers in dark alleyways. The only way to prevent them doing so is - magically everyone becoming really brave and selfless so they take the tough decisions that would stop them inherently - violent peasant revolts - government laws and law enforcement.

I guess. I just assumed that anything happening faster than that would be practically imperceptible, except by the preconscious mind.

I'll always remember what I was doing when Michael Jackson died: not giving a ****.

I think it should be concave, so everything winds up rolling into the middle.

I know you would, old man. I know you would. Return to your position by the aft harlot batteries.

I have a sore throat. It's not enough to make me take the day off, but it's ruining my concentration.

My mother has cancer in her face. Would that work?

The important thing is not whether the world ends, but whether we end with it.

I got annoyed at the notion that suppressing makes you good. I only did it because of my character's monumental ego. He just didn't like giving in.

Can I just say that anyone with 2 ns reaction time is a freak of nature? Take something sharp, and reasonably fast that's within your budget.

I thought he was echoing Shakespeare.

Pointless and arbitrary? Possibly. Unnecessary? More possible, I feel. If there can be no logical foundation for a moral standpoint then that logical realisation is itself invalid. It is self-defeating. Like the Pope using his infallibility to state he gets things wrong. In any event, even presuming you were correct it must be a superior experience to live by absolutism since you aren't crippled by indecision. Just eat the damn cookie, etc etc. Anyway, I applaud your self-undermining. Very English. I suggest 'Spiffy McLovehandle' as your tag, by the way.