New Mexico Abolishes Death Penalty.

[ironsides]

HELL NO! I'M NOT PREJUDICED AGAINST GAYS, MUSLIMS, HANDICAPPED, WOMEN, OR ABORIGINALS!!!

HAD YOU READ MY POSTS YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT!!!


But yes, I openly confess to hating Republicans. I'll GLADLY bring out the hanging tree for any of those crooked basturds. And with a vengeance, too!

Why all this hate talk, really all that was done was to replace the Republicans with the Democrats who are doing the same thing financially to us. We just replaced one gang with another milquetoast one. Great job we did. :roll:

 

[ironsides]

And why did you ignore the second half of my answer (about death penalty being a violation of human rights)? Amnesty International has called USA out on death penalty, you may be aware.

Because I do not consider those on "Death Row' to have any rights other than to a quick painless death as prescribed by law.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Because I do not consider those on "Death Row' to have any rights other than to a quick painless death as prescribed by law.

You may not consider that (and I assume most Americans don’t, hence America’s love affair with death penalty). However, most of the developed world (including the Pope, one of the rare instances where we are on the same side) disagree with you.

 

[Colpy]

You may not consider that (and I assume most Americans don’t, hence America’s love affair with death penalty). However, most of the developed world (including the Pope, one of the rare instances where we are on the same side) disagree with you.

Like far too many Canadians, you naturally "assume" Canadians are "ethically superior".......incorrectly.

I looked it up........according to Amnesty International (in Canada) and the Death Penalty Information Center (in the US), the number of people who don't believe Capital Punishment should be used is exactly the same in both countries, as of 2007-08. In both the US and Canada, slightly LESS that 50% disapproved of the death penalty.

This is up a lot over the past 10 to 20 years. Previously, in both the USA and Canada, around 70% of people approved of the death penalty.

So, I would stow the "Americans love the Death Penalty" line.........cause Canadians do too.

 

[ironsides]

You may not consider that (and I assume most Americans don’t, hence America’s love affair with death penalty). However, most of the developed world (including the Pope, one of the rare instances where we are on the same side) disagree with you.

Now there you go again making another assumption, now about developed countries. I assume that there are no other developed countries other than the U.S.? Yes we still are Proud. maybe a wee bit pompous.


From the country that gave you - :spam1:

 

[YukonJack]

Re #73

SirJosephPorter, I did not call what I saw magic. You put words in my mouth, figuratively. What I saw was a living, breathing human life, waiting to emerge and gain the status that abortionist baby killers are willing to give her after nine months in the womb. Religion or lack thereof had nothing to do with it. Denying life in the womb IS the total lack of logic.

Your defense of those scientists of yesterday who are nothing but quacks by today's standards is equivalent of saying that those who are your heroes today will be tomorrow's fools, just like the quacks who pretended to know how to convert lead to gold are nothing but quacks defended only by those who need a straw while drowning. They were the ancestors of modern chemistry no more than barbers of yesteryear were ancestors of today's brain surgeons.

As you so cleverly and correctly state, science evolves based on observations. Observing a living entity in the mother's womb (which according some scientists and fellow travellers is nothing but a piece of slime) gives anyone a good reason reason to take everything those scientists say with a big pinch of salt. We all know that scientists live and die by the "publish or perish" syndrome. So, yesterday's global warming becomes by the same bunch, today's global cooling. Yesterday eggs and milk were bad for you, today they are good. Yesterday red meat was bad for you, today it is an important part of your nutrition. Yesterday butter killed yo and margarine was your only chance to live to a hundred. Or vice versa, who cares, as long as gullible people go for it and the tax-payer funded grants keep pouring in.

So, grope around in the dark. Deny your eyes. By all means, DO NOT observe the activities of your future grand kid in the womb by ultra sound, when the time comes for you to become a granddad.

Don't get me wrong, I am grateful for all the great things science has given us. But blind faith in scientists - as you profess to have - is no less foolish than having a religion. Like you said, scientists can make mistakes and no doubt, they do.

But, of course, that is neither here nor - as you say - "their". (Not that I want to pick at your spelling).

 

[YukonJack]

Re #75 and #76.

In the face of so much nobility I stand totally humbled.

In answer to your question (and to rebuke your asinine presumed answer), that message would have never been posted with Liberals/Democrats being the subject of such hate and venom, because for anything that hateful would to have been posted by a conservative.

And we all know that name-calling and unconditional hatred and debasement of anything and anybody with an opposing view is the unrivalled and undisputed domain of the oh so loving and tolerant liberals.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Like far too many Canadians, you naturally "assume" Canadians are "ethically superior".......incorrectly.

I looked it up........according to Amnesty International (in Canada) and the Death Penalty Information Center (in the US), the number of people who don't believe Capital Punishment should be used is exactly the same in both countries, as of 2007-08. In both the US and Canada, slightly LESS that 50% disapproved of the death penalty.

So, I would stow the "Americans love the Death Penalty" line.........cause Canadians do too.

Colpy, where did you get that? Was it a pro death penalty web site? I thought support for death penalty was much higher in USA than in Canada. I looked it up and I was right. Support for death penalty was at 64% in 2008 in USA.

National Polls and Studies | Death Penalty Information Center

It was at 69% in 2007.

Death Penalty Backed in Four Countries: Angus Reid Global Monitor

This same poll gives support for death penalty in Canada at 44%. Indeed, in this poll people were asked in several countries as to their attitude towards death penalty. Support for death penalty was substantially higher in USA than in any other developed county polled.

Another poll puts support for death penalty in Canada at 20%.

TheStar.com | News | Conservatives find slim support for death penalty

So my hunch was right, support for death penalty is much higher in USA than in Canada. Incidentally, that is true for almost every social issue. On almost every issue, abortion, contraception, evolution, interracial marriage etc., Canadians hold much more liberal, tolerant attitudes compared to Americans, at least according to opinion polls.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Now there you go again making another assumption, now about developed countries. I assume that there are no other developed countries other than the U.S.? Yes we still are Proud. maybe a wee bit pompous.


From the country that gave you - :spam1:

Ironsides, death penalty is abolished in every other developed country except USA (and Japan). Also, death penalty is opposed by majority of people in most developed country except USA (at least according to the opinion polls I have seen). It is only in USA that a big majority of people support death penalty.

 

[Colpy]

Colpy, where did you get that? Was it a pro death penalty web site? I thought support for death penalty was much higher in USA than in Canada. I looked it up and I was right. Support for death penalty was at 64% in 2008 in USA.

National Polls and Studies | Death Penalty Information Center

It was at 69% in 2007.

Death Penalty Backed in Four Countries: Angus Reid Global Monitor

This same poll gives support for death penalty in Canada at 44%. Indeed, in this poll people were asked in several countries as to their attitude towards death penalty. Support for death penalty was substantially higher in USA than in any other developed county polled.

Another poll puts support for death penalty in Canada at 20%.

TheStar.com | News | Conservatives find slim support for death penalty

So my hunch was right, support for death penalty is much higher in USA than in Canada. Incidentally, that is true for almost every social issue. On almost every issue, abortion, contraception, evolution, interracial marriage etc., Canadians hold much more liberal, tolerant attitudes compared to Americans, at least according to opinion polls.

Ah, the unreliability of polls....depending on how the question was asked.

From the source we both used....the Death Penalty Information Center

The last time Gallup asked respondents about alternatives (which would be a better punishment for murder, the death penalty or life in prison with absolutely no possibility of parole) was in 2006. In that poll, more people supported life in prison without parole (48%) than supported the death penalty (47%). (Gallup Poll, 2008 Oct 3-5, Death Penalty)

​

 

[YukonJack]

Once again re #75 and #76.

I dare either of you noble Lords to show just ONE example where I used the term "Praise the Lord". Show me one example where I called anybody "brother". Show Show me where I ever asked for any "LOOT".

Your two posts are bordering on being personally offensive. Go ahead, enjoy yourselves. Small things amuse small minds.

I also dare you to produce any evidence that I am a Fundamentalist and an adherent to Jim Bakker (or ANY other televengalist). I have stated before that I am a Roman Catholic and I see no reason to be less proud of that than the atheists have declaring their lack of faith in anything.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What I saw was a living, breathing human life, waiting to emerge and gain the status that abortionist baby killers are willing to give her after nine months in the womb. Religion or lack thereof had nothing to do with it. Denying life in the womb IS the total lack of logic.

Again, you are only stating your opinion, Yukon Jack. Science doesn’t support that.

Your defense of those scientists of yesterday who are nothing but quacks by today's standards

Sorry, only a religious fanatic would claim that yesterday’s scientists (such as Newton, Priestly, Lavoisier etc.) were quacks because they didn’t have the understanding of science that we do. It only shows your ignorance of science and scientific methods.

Science progress incrementally. The existing knowledge in those days was negligible, so these scientists had very little to work with. They did the best they could with the knowledge and resources available and did a marvelous job of trying to understand the mysteries of nature.

In my opinion, one Newton or one Lavoisier did more good than perhaps ten of your Popes and there no comparison between Priestly, Newton and the witch burners and Inquisitors of the Church.

the quacks who pretended to know how to convert lead to gold are nothing but quacks defended only by those who need a straw while drowning.

They did not pretend to convert lead or iron to gold (well, some may have, but not most). They really thought that with study and research they could convert lead into gold. In the process they carried out plenty of research, they perfected the scientific process. Modern day science owes a lot to the alchemists of the middle ages.

They were the ancestors of modern chemistry no more than barbers of yesteryear were ancestors of today's brain surgeons.

They most certainly were the ancestors of modern chemistry. Chemistry owes a lot to alchemy, same as Astronomy owes a lot to the Astrologers of Middle ages (and ancient times).

Observing a living entity in the mother's womb (which according some scientists and fellow travelers is nothing but a piece of slime) gives anyone a good reason reason to take everything those scientists say with a big pinch of salt.

That is a religious fanatic (and not a man of science) speaking.

Yesterday eggs and milk were bad for you, today they are good. Yesterday red meat was bad for you, today it is an important part of your nutrition. Yesterday butter killed yo and margarine was your only chance to live to a hundred.

So what is your point? Science gets things wrong sometimes, big deal. It would be surprising if science got everything right the first time. Even today, it wouldn’t surprise me if our understanding of many scientific phenomena is less than perfect. It is the Pope and the religious fanatics who are supposed to be perfect, infallible, omniscient, never wrong etc. Don’t confuse scientists with your Fundamentalist or Catholic preachers.

Don't get me wrong, I am grateful for all the great things science has given us.

Really? No!!!!!!!!!!!. So when you trash, badmouth science, aren’t’ you biting the hand that feeds you?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Quite right Colpy, polling is a statistical science and as such one has to be careful as to how one asks the question. It indeed is ironic that we both quote the same web site to support our (differing) views.

In general, the simpler the question, the more reliable it is. So the simplest question, (are you in favour of death penalty to a person convicted of murder?) is the more reliable one, in my opinion.

And to that question, 64% Americans replied yes in 2008.

When you introduce any additional facts, you only introduce uncertainty in the outcome. To ask people to choose between 'death penalty or life with absolutely no possibility of parole' sounds like a push poll to me, to get the outcome one desires.

It reminds me of our gay marriage debate. When asked if they support or oppose gay marriage, Canadians split 50:50 (at that time, now it is more like 60:40). However, if asked which do they support, gay marriage, civil unions, or neither, Canadian split roughly 1/3rd each.

This poll was spun by opponents of gay marriage to claim that 2/3rd Canadians oppose gay marriage. The logic was that 1/3rd support neither and 1/3rd support civil unions, so only 1/3rd support gay marriage.

So it is the simplest question that is the most reliable. And when asked the simplest question, Americans support death penalty by a big margin, much more so than Canadians.

 

[ironsides]

I believe that part of our past happened for a reason. Why bad mouth religion, when it was religion that brought us out of chaos. Granted some took it to far, but look at the Dark Ages in Europe for example, it was religion that saved history and science. It was religion that protected the Mid-Eastern civilization total destruction during those same Dark Ages. Today the Christian religion is not out to conquer the world as some seem to fear. I personally am not a religious person, but I do not fear one who is. The only religious people who I have disliked were personally trying to kill me. I do believe however that those who profess their extreme dislike of organized religion are just as dangerous as the religious fanatics in our world. It is time to move beyond that.

 

[ironsides]

Death never was or has been a simple question. Most of the time it takes years to carry out the sentence if at all.

 

[YukonJack]

Re all the misrepresentatons, spin and lies in #92.

"Again, you are only stating your opinion, Yukon Jack. Science doesn’t support that."

SirJosephPorter, ot is only YOUR pseudo-science that does not support the idea of life in the womb - in spite of visible and undeniable evidence - because you are hooked on baby-killing (aka abortion) as much as a heroin addict is hooked on his/her daily dope.

"Sorry, only a religious fanatic would claim that yesterday’s scientists (such as Newton, Priestly, Lavoisier etc.) were quacks because they didn’t have the understanding of science that we do. It only shows your ignorance of science and scientific methods."

I asked you before to prove that I am a religious fanatic, obviously in vain because your best proof ever was "that is your opinion". I know I would ask in vain for proof that shows that I called Newton, Lavoisier (oh heck might as well add Faraday, Volta, Mendeleev, Bell, Harvey, Fulton, Franklin etc, etc) and Priestly quacks.

You and I both know that those whose wisdom prevailed through the decades (centuries?) are not the ones that I meant.

Now I am asking you to show me and the world where and when did I ever call Newton, Priestley or Lavoisier quacks. I only referred to the nameless nobodies who have long since faded in well-deserved mediocrity. And those who prevailed by their wisdom were at the time supported by the Church (Pope) much the same as scientists of today are supported by the government. So, stop demeaning any and all Popes.

It is safe to say that none of the "research" that was ever aimed to convert lead to gold resulted in anything lasting that in any way could be useful today.

"They most certainly were the ancestors of modern chemistry. Chemistry owes a lot to alchemy, same as Astronomy owes a lot to the Astrologers of Middle ages (and ancient times)."

Heavens, could that be the same SirJosephPorter who ridiculed Nancy Reagan for consulting an astrologer????
Of course not! It was SirRupertMurgartroyd!

"That is a religious fanatic (and not a man of science) speaking."

I related what I saw on the ultra-sound. For that you call me a religious fanatic. Fine! I take any offense from the likes of you as a badge of honour. But tell me just for curiosity, if I told you that I saw that it was daylight at noon would you call me a religious fanatic? Never mind, of course you would!

"So what is your point?"

My point, as I stated before that blind faith in science is just as flawed as blind faith in religion. However, note that I never called you a derogatory epithet, such as "FANATIC".

And I NEVER bad-mouthed science, per se. I only expressed my opinion about quasi-scientists (e.g. Al Gore) and their adherents. But that has to be OK, because - as you would say - it's only my opinion.

 

[Colpy]

Quite right Colpy, polling is a statistical science and as such one has to be careful as to how one asks the question. It indeed is ironic that we both quote the same web site to support our (differing) views.

In general, the simpler the question, the more reliable it is. So the simplest question, (are you in favour of death penalty to a person convicted of murder?) is the more reliable one, in my opinion.

And to that question, 64% Americans replied yes in 2008.

When you introduce any additional facts, you only introduce uncertainty in the outcome. To ask people to choose between 'death penalty or life with absolutely no possibility of parole' sounds like a push poll to me, to get the outcome one desires.

It reminds me of our gay marriage debate. When asked if they support or oppose gay marriage, Canadians split 50:50 (at that time, now it is more like 60:40). However, if asked which do they support, gay marriage, civil unions, or neither, Canadian split roughly 1/3rd each.

This poll was spun by opponents of gay marriage to claim that 2/3rd Canadians oppose gay marriage. The logic was that 1/3rd support neither and 1/3rd support civil unions, so only 1/3rd support gay marriage.

So it is the simplest question that is the most reliable. And when asked the simplest question, Americans support death penalty by a big margin, much more so than Canadians.

You are correct, my point was I misread the polls......

Although the split between Canadian and US opinion is smaller than one would think.......and a few years ago it was identical.

I still say "America loves the Death Penalty" is more than a little pompous........

 

[YukonJack]

Colpy dared to say regarding SirJosephPorter's post:

"I still say "America loves the Death Penalty" is more than a little pompous........"

Congratulations, Colpy, you put your finger on the very existence and very essence of SirJosephPorter.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I still say "America loves the Death Penalty" is more than a little pompous........

Not pompous, Colpy, perhaps facetious. And anyway, it is supported by facts. More more Americans support death penalty that do Canadians or Europeans.

 

[ironsides]

Quoting SirJosephPorter You may not consider that (and I assume most Americans don’t, hence America’s love affair with death penalty). However, most of the developed world (including the Pope, one of the rare instances where we are on the same side) disagree with you.

Just read this article, I assume that France, Spain and Portugal are considered part of the Developed world.

Three European Union nations — France, Spain and Portugal — do not prosecute consenting adults for incest, and Romania is considering following suit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090321/ap_on_re_eu/eu_europe_incest


​