Death penalty
Offline I just wanted to know what people here/atheists thought of the death penalty.
I'll just make it clear right now that I'm against it, but this isn't going to be about me.
I've always thought that the death penalty exists more because of religion than... social justice or w/e. In the olden days, christians/catholics used to kill people all the time, even for stealing. Obviously. I mean, everyone did, but in European countries, I'm pretty sure religion played a big role in it.
Even today, people aren't KILLED, but in Saudi Arabia (and I only heard this) people's hands are chopped off for stealing.
But in the U.S...
1) Does religion even have ANYTHING at ALL to do with the death penalty? Are people killed because "God said so", or are they killed because the public is afraid?
2) What do people here think of Capital Punishment
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this 
- Login to post comments
ooh, you're feisty.
so you've never broken the law in your life. i'll bet dollars to whatever you want that you have.
and where is this hypothetical 'should' coming from? even if you execute every living threat to your little security, you've still got tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, volcanoes, and tsunamis to contend with. no you shouldn't worry about people trying to hurt you. you should expect it. and if you're prepared for it, it won't shock you, and hopefully you'll be able to prevent it from killing or hurting you.
parents should keep an eye on their damn kids and maybe they won't get raped in basements.
i'm not seeing a problem.
you are undeserving of anything. therefore what happens to you is not a matter of 'deserving'. murder can be one of those things. Clear it up any?
it's not one way or the other. they're both 'dirty' deeds. and why wouldn't you exact some sort of revenge? oohhhhhh, yeah....-
because a shitty justice system considers you a criminal for taking care of your own problems....that's right...i forgot.
(p.s. this is exactly the problem we're talking about)
oh, my yes! please do, because i'm so stupid, i don't have the slightest clue why "we" have a justice system. please, massah', do tell us why we's got a justice system!
nothing, as long as it's carried out by a government institution. the poor guy who's being fulfilled upon, though, he's in big trouble for fulfilling his revengeful fantasies. why does it work one way, and not the other?
do tell. i anxiously await your bombastically irrational response.
Fear is the mindkiller.
you want clues to the 'mentality'? ask away. i have this so-called 'mentality'. allow me to shed some light.
you think a base human behavior that's existed since the dawn of the species is some disease to be cured? well, why not, i mean, we're already creeping up on the dawn of an age where women don't have to be total sociopaths once a month, why not work on leveling out all of humanity's hormonal spikes. they can't possibly be good for anything, right? right, let's just drug everyone out of their minds and into complacency...just so we can finally be lazy about our personal security....
Fear is the mindkiller.
um...man, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. For one thing torturing small animals and burying them in the back yard is not something that was happening at the beginning of time. Cutting dude's dicks off and putting them in the fridge isn't normal. I didn't say drugs was the only way. They put him in prison and had to know he was going to be murdered or something.
It's funny that you assume the I would drug people into complacency. I myself am totally straight-edge. I just think it's kind of mob mentality to go kill someone without understanding them. I have had too many friends die at the end of a needle or self-inflicted gun shot so please don't assume I would drug someone to "make it all better."
BTW, what do you mean that you have this sort of 'mentality'? Please clarify. I just don't understand because what I was referring to was people that chop up other humans because they have this uncontrollable urge to do it. Or they want to go on a murderous rampage to get back at something that pissed them off a long time ago and the only way to make it better is kill a whole bunch of innocent people. I didn't mean to offend you. :handshake?:
yeh, no hard feelings. it was the whiskey talkin'
you sure? why not, because nobody had 'backyards' back then?
maybe it's not normal for you, but for a chopped-off-dick-collector it certainly is.
oh...you have a new method for correcting chemical imbalances?
i mean i don't see anything wrong with killing. which i understand is somewhat paradoxical in relation to the conversation at large.
i wouldn't mind chopping up a few humans in my time. it's not uncontrollable, but it's definitely an urge.
and again, with the 'innocent' people. innocent of what?(without using the word 'deserve', please)
Fear is the mindkiller.
in·no·cent (n-snt)
adj.
1. Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.
2.
a. Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
b. Within, allowed by, or sanctioned by the law; lawful.
3.
a. Not dangerous or harmful; innocuous: an innocent prank.
b. Candid; straightforward: a child's innocent stare.
4.
a. Not experienced or worldly; naive.
b. Betraying or suggesting no deception or guile; artless.
5.
a. Not exposed to or familiar with something specified; ignorant: American tourists wholly innocent of French.
b. Unaware: She remained innocent of the complications she had caused.
6. Lacking, deprived, or devoid of something: a novel innocent of literary merit.
n.
1. A person, especially a child, who is free of evil or sin.
2. A simple, guileless, inexperienced, or unsophisticated person.
3. A very young child.
www.thefreedictionary.com
I guess you were right. People that are murdered are not 'innocent' according to this definition. But a person arrested for committing a murder and didn't really do it would be innocent. (adj.2a.)
Maybe this is just a matter of the right word to describe a victim of a crime. Not innocent but definitely a victim.
Where do you stand on this issue of the death penalty? Because you are making arguements that killing is natural. But do you think it is ok for the government to systematically execute those who break this law? Eye for an eye? I have already stated why I'm against the death penalty and that is because people like the WM3 are caught up in the system and there is no evidence that they did the murders they are accused of doing. Which would make them innocent. (innocent,adj.2a.) There was evidence that got lost that the step-father did do it, though, according to the story on www.wm3.org. There's no justice, just us.
Last time I checked most of us are. I don't see that as anything particularly special or of particular value.
I can respect the fact that the family of the executed may be upset. That is unfortunate, as they did nothing wrong, but that certainly isn't a positive reason not to execute the guilty.
Where? Damn, did I miss them?
I brought up the emotional aspect, because we ARE emotional creatures. Our sense of justice certainly does employ such facets. Why deny them? We should weigh them rationally, but we should never pretend they don't exist.
I think a sense of reciprocity has been engrained in us by evolution. A brass rule, if you will. We essentially give one another free reign until they wrong us or those we love.
Where does are sense of justice and fairness come from if not our evolutionary history, and the mind it gave us. This mind is at once emotional and rational, some times more one than the other.
I don't think it paints a dim picture of humanity at all. I think it embraces who we actually are.
I don't really see the distinction, honestly. Should we eat meat? Should we bungee jump? Should we have sex with animals? Should we masturbate?
I personally don't require logical reasons for every thing that I do. I'm sure you don't either.
I'm not a Vulcan.
I don't have to drink beer, and if I were logical about it, there is no real rational reason to drink a beer every now and again. Yet I drink beer. So? Same could be said for lots of things. I wish to talk of ethical issues, not utilitarian ones.
The should has no real meaning other than pure utility unless we couch it in ethical terms.
Good idea, so why not torture them and make the experience even worse?! Great idea!
Hey, I personally don't see any problem in torturing people we KNOW are guilty of such crimes either. I would find it deliciously ironic if Jospeph Mengele were used to test potentially fatal and crippling drugs as a human guinea pig until the day he died.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I do agree. I like Fromm a great deal in fact. I simply think it isn't germane to the crux of the issue.
Yes, I do agree. So why should we be compassionate in the face of such ghastly things?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
You understand the argument then.
Well, I would say war is a slightly different issue, and not always one based upon self preservation or defence. I'm not a fan of wars of aggression. As far as executing POWs, however, I cannot deny the logic of it, and don't really find much ethical fault in it in fact.
War is a ghastly thing, something to be dreaded and avoided, IMO. However, if you are going to wage war, it makes no sense to pull punches. I find it ridiculous and darkly hillarious that we try to apply rules like the Geneva Convention and UN guidelines to the most abhorrent and violent things humans do to one another.
I'm with Tecumseh Sherman on the matter: "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over. "
I never said it wasn't. I essentially said I don't find value in all humans based upon the mere fact that they are human.
Yes, value is not a given, value is earned. I don't find people like Dahmer, Hitler and their ilk to have tangible value.
I disagree vehemtely. You have the same value as Jeff Dahmer? There's certainly a spectrum of value if nothing else.
Well, I do apprieciate what you tried to do here, but I think that clearly humans don't all have the same value when put in such terms. We certainly don't have value just because we are humans. So why don't you tell me what value Hitler or Dahmer have. That would go along the lines of making a positive argument for keeping them alive.
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
VERY good point, actually. I personally DON'T care whether murderers in general are put to death. I simply contend that it IS ethical to do so.
As far as the personal issue goes, perhaps the guilty's ultimate fate should be left to the berieved?
There's nothing more that I would want with the guy who raped and beat my daughter to death than 30 minutes alone with him with as baseball bat, pliars, blowtorch, cheese grater, a bag of salt, bottle of bleach, razor blades and a gun to finish it off.
Perhaps other families would be in favor of life in prison.
On that I disagree. It became my business when you took somebody I loved away from me. It affected me, and will affect me for the rest of my life. Why shouldn't I be allowed to have my way the killer in the way they had their way with the one I loved?
None. I never really touted the threat to the general public as justification. They do have access to other inmates and gaurds though - but it is pretty moot. Once locked up few will ever have the opportunity to kill agian.
Nope, I support it out of pure spite and vengence.
Holy non-sequitor batman. Would it make you feel better if we simply formed a lynch mob and left the state out of it?
I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
it probably is. but ethical is subjective, it's not a blanket of truth. there is a consensus that says it is ethical, and there's also an opposite consensus that says it isn't. which one is right? i say neither. which one wins? the one that more people believe.
sure, as long as he's not being held down by the cops.
prison is just as bad as execution.
you should be allowed to do whatever you want. i don't think an emotional attachment constitutes "your business", but that's just my opinion. they're just people.
agreed. that was barkatthemoon. my bad.
vengeance for what?? this is my point--(almost) everybody who supports the death penalty does so on a purely hypothetical basis...they are unaffected by it and are likely to remain unaffected by it.
yeah. good one, huh?
no. the state is just a polished turd of a lynch mob. i would feel the same.
i believe this to be a good summation of my nebulous point.
i'm not against killing a killer. i'm just against it being carried out by a thousand people who have no connection to the situation.
it's like rich guys who pay to go out in a field, point a gun at some food, let an animal out of a cage, shoot it when it eats the food, and say they went hunting. it's not hunting if somebody caught the animal and put it in front of you. and it's not vengeance or justice when somebody else catches and kills your assailant for you.
it's bullshit. three is a crowd. three is a crowd!!!!
Fear is the mindkiller.
Yes, I’ve broken several laws. But how is this relevant to the conversation? Are you saying that anyone that has broken a law has it coming?
Maybe I am misusing innocent, as another poster pointed out. Victim would probably be more appropriate.
We should expect tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, blah blah blah. I also expect a certain level of protection from my government. I work two days a week for free, so yes, I do expect to get my money’s worth (as far as security goes...and I have up until this point).
Parents should monitor their children more closely, but we should also monitor who is running around on our streets and in our neighborhoods. I’m not saying that I support all executions, because I don’t. What I’m saying is that there are certain sick individuals running around that need to be removed. If you’ve got a bad apple in a barrel, you remove it.
Why is it that I am deserving of nothing? I deserve a lot of things that I work for or earn.
In most executions, yes they are both dirty deeds. The only revenge I would need is seeing the person that killed my mother imprisoned to prevent him/her from stripping someone else of their life.
Poor Jeffrey Dahmer, poor Osama Bin Laden, poor Ted Bundy, poor John Gacy, Poor Stalin, Poor Hitler….get a grip man. These people weren’t out retaliating against one person in particular, they were just sick. There are people out there who kill randomly and repeatedly just to fulfill their twisted fantasies. That has nothing to do with revenge.
Most executions are useless and achieve nothing but another death…...but some executions help society.
and i thank the both of you.
i'm tempted to go rocket-blasting off topic here, but i won't.
so you're pleased that your tax dollars pay to execute criminals (after feeding, bathing, and sheltering them for a few years)...because this keeps you safe.
executing people who are already locked up keeps you safe.
mmm, yes, everybody spying on and poking their noses into everybody elses business, what a revolutionary idea. i'm surprised that no dictatorship has ever thought to do that before, it would certainly keep people afraid, and distrustful of their neighbors. i'm sure no one would ever think to make false accusations against someone they didn't like.....
hah! that's like someone saying "i don't hate all black people".....you're either racist or you aren't.
so who decides what's sick? the christian right thinks doctors who provide abortion services are sick, i'm sure if they got their way, they'd advocate the death penalty for abortion doctors. oh, yeah, homosexuals too. sure, they're extreme from our point of view, but from theirs, they're right as rain.
ok, but we're not talking about good pay for good work. we're talking about whether one can 'deserve' to live.
what concern do you have for this hypothetical 'someone else'? perhaps if you had the same concern for your mother, she wouldn't have got kill't.
'sick' is your judgement. Bin Laden, Stalin, Hitler, these are all leaders, they command(ed) those in their organizations to kill, and did so each for their own particular reasons. neither hitler or stalin were medically 'insane'. Bin Laden, not retaliatory? hah! you're going to have to elaborate on that one. Ted Bundy hated women, Gacy was a pedophile and had to dispose of the evidence. Dahmer was a sexual domineer and a necrophile.
they didn't find it 'sick'. you do.
exactly. neither does the death penalty.
i suggest you take an overview of society and see if anything really helps it, and if a large-scale society even warrants helping in light of the terrible effect it has on the planet.
Fear is the mindkiller.
No, that's not what I said....the complete opposite, in fact. I’m somewhat content with the current security system in place, meaning the police, cops, pigs, slugs, heat.I seriously doubt that most inmates would continue to pose a threat to society, unless you’re someone like OBL or Al Capone.
I’m not talking about Enemy of the State here. Anyone can throw out false accusations all day long, but if they’ve got no evidence to back it up, it’s probably not going to go anywhere.
Your little analogy is bunk. I dislike certain black, white, red, yellow, whatever…that doesn’t make me racist. Ethnicity is irrelevant....if you're an asshole, you're an asshole.
As is stands right now, 12 jurors or a judge decide, based on testimony and expert witnesses. How expert those witnesses are is questionable. And last time I checked I can still get an abortion, be openly homosexual or perform abortions without being executed. The Christian right are not 'getting their way' and I think (hope) that will continue to be the case.
I’m a bad apple.
Their behavior is/was unacceptable and I think most of society would agree with me on that. Like you said earlier in this thread:
Yep.
Wrong. Capital punishment is revenge exacted on behalf of the victim’s family and society....and it’s not arbitrary. I wonder if I’ve got a better chance of being randomly murdered or being randomly ‘chosen’ for execution?
Killing for revenge is not a rational action, regardless of how rational it may "seem" to you.
Justifying killing a person based on carnivores is also not rational. Humans are not carnivores (we're omnivores). To use the feeling of revenge based on animal instinct to justify killing only makes you irrational and carnivore-like. It also makes you very much like the killers themselves (killing for revenge, for example).
What you don't seem to realize is that people kill for various reasons, many times for unknown reasons, and sometimes for innocent reasons (such as brain damage, insanity, sometimes by mistake, etc.). If you kill them then you can't possibly understand why they killed and you can't learn how to prevent others from doing the same thing. Keeping them locked up for life, also prevents them from murdering again too, but they can then be studied. Executing them solves nothing.
Moreover, many of those convicted for murder are found innocent. A death sentence forever prevents correcting improper or illegal prosecutions. Unfortunately this happens a lot in our criminal "justice" system. How would you like to be sentenced to death for a crime you didn't commit? I didn't think so. Putting sadistic perversion over human life is unacceptable.
Keeping a criminal locked up for life is actually cheaper than executing them, thus less a burden to tax payers, and many times killers *have* been rehabilitated and live productive lives.
Capital Punishment is also not only *not* a deterrence to crime, but it actually produces the opposite effect. Violence breeds more violence. Take for example the fact that Texas has one of the highest execution rates in the country and also one of the highest homicide rates.
Many of you need to rethink your position on capital punishment.
I remember (I dont know where it was a long time ago) hearing about a hermit( person who never leaves the house) being conviced of murder, and even thoe he didnt leave the house, he supposidly went on a crime spree, and even thoe they had no evidence of him, and had little evidence of the real killer, he died and the killer walked free of charge.......
That right there tells me that anyone can point the finger at anyone, anytime and can be put to death over something that took place half way across the country.
now tell me, is this a fucked up country????
Subway: $8.75-----Bottled water: $1.00------the dumbfounded looks on stuttering christians when their confronted: PRICELESS.
which is essentially what i said. you think the cops can protect you. unless you carry one with you 24/7, that's a larf.
good, because i've never seen it.
and by not going anywhere, you mean nobody is ever falsely arrested, imprisoned, put through an extremely costly legal process in order to determine their innocence, and forced into even more costly litigation in order to recieve possible compensation for the aforementioned.....
"i hate everyone equally" is also a popular racist apology. unless you're claiming to be a misanthrope, which your entire argument contradicts....
no, they decide a person's guilt as applied to the made-up standards of 'sick'.
think(hope)? you belie your own doubt with that.
the Christian right are not 'getting their way'? how blind are you?
a majority believes the death penalty is justified as it is currently applied. taking out of context from your posts that you don't believe the same, you seem to have entangled yourself in contradiction. do you agree with the majority's rule or not? maybe you need some time to think deeper on the topic.
vigilantes exact revenge on behalf of others, and they are seen in equal light with 'killers' with respect to the law. so is exacting "revenge" 'on behalf' of someone else good, or bad?
then explain how my rational thinking "seems" flawed to you.
if we are to believe MarthaSplatterhead's compelling table here, they're neither.
explain how the instinct to kill is irrational. and reeeeaallllly think about how you word it.
a killer being 'one who kills'. soldiers kill. cops kill. oh, right, but they're hero killers....yeah, that's ok then.
i fully realize that. and just because the reason is unknown to you, doesn't mean there is no reason.
ho, now, there's the irrational statement for the evening. what makes you think an end to killing is something that's even possible?
Fear is the mindkiller.
Instinct itself is not irrational. Next time try to reeeeeallly read instead of jump to conclusions. I said "based on animal instinct...makes you irrational." Meaning the instincts we have are irrelavent when taking into account our ability to reason. Last time I checked this site was called: Rational Responders not Knee-jerk Reactionary Instinct Responders.
Again, your belief not mine. You're putting words in my mouth and then attacking an argument I never made.
You are taking a specific argument and broadening it to include killing in general. You and I have no complete control over homicidal maniac mentalities;however, that does not stop us from preventing more deaths by instituting laws against such crimes. By lowering ourseleves to the level of these criminals, we in turn become the criminals. You also fail to understand that not only is Capital Punishment not a deterrance, but that it causes more violence (see previous post). If belief in theism were to go away, for example, it would certainly not end all killing and ignorance in the world, but it sure would solve a MAJOR cultural problem. I never made the claim to try to stop all deaths. You're putting words in my mouth again. You give away strawmans like candy.
That's just your problem isn't it. You're too quick to believe instead of think. That looks like a chart that came from an old biology book that derived from Jean Baptiste Lamarke's classification.
Lamarck, because of pressure put on him by religion, put humans into a separate classification from animals. Unfortunately many biology books still reflect this obsolete classification. Of course, today, biologists know better. Humans are animals, in fact mammals. Our diet is that of an omnivore (although we eat far more plants than we do meat). Moreover, the archeological record shows that humans have always been omnivores.
The suffix vore comes from the Latin word vorare, meaning 'to devour'. Many primates including humans are considered omnivores (omni meaning 'everything' because in fact we will eat just about everything).
May I suggest that next time you look into a science website and not someone's myspace profile for scientific information. Its just more...oh what's the word? rational!
Next time, think instead of believe.
I put that on my page because it makes freaking sense. Our intestines are not the same as a lions. Thanks for the bitch slap.
No problem.
You want to eat meat, then go kill a cow with your bare hands and teeth and see what happens...
I don't agree with your logic or you so-called rationality. These things have already been discussed on another forum, a topic called 'veganism'. Believe me, people always try to make me feel like I am wrong but I don't really care, (just like being atheist I might add). You can get your colon cancer and call it a good time if you want to but I try to prevent such things. It's really not anybody's business what I eat anyway. But I feel like I got to defend myself when someone is mocking my decision to not partake of eating meat. How the hell does this hurt you? Why do you feel you got to take on the smug approach by attempting to belittle the chart that simply says what our bodies have in common with herbi-carni-omni-vores? I am not an omnivore. I don't eat everything somebody calls food. i.e. 7-eleven, mc Ds, BKs, TacoHell, Big mf Gulps. See, not just meat. I mean BhT, MSG-preservatives, corn syrup in my apple juice! No. Beef fat in a twinkie?
I hope you enjoyed your bitch slap now
I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals.
-Henry David Thoreau
Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.
-Albert Einstein
People often say that humans have always eaten animals, as if this is a justification for continuing the practice. According to this logic, we should not try to prevent people from murdering other people, since this has also been done since the earliest of times.
-Isaac Singer
You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
Look, number one, my intention was not to offend. I guess I don't speak for all nonbelievers when I say this, but I honestly don't have beef with you or anyone who owns beliefs. I don't, however, respect beliefs simply to avoid offending someone. The position I am taking is to debate based on reason, evidence, and opinion alone. If this offends you well I am sorry, but it is your face turning red not mine. Now you might see how religionists feel when they think they are being belittled. It is the person who is meant to be treated with equality and respect, not the beliefs of individuals.
Number two, I did not bring up your precious chart. Your friend DrFear did and I simply called him (and I guess you indirectly) on it and its flaws. Period.
I accept your apology.
I eat a lot of chocolate and candies and bakery goods which is not good in large amounts, so I have no room to talk about healthy eating. I probably won't get fat yet, but will have health problems in the future if I continue long enough. So I am irrational in this case.
If putting a cd in the tv at the dinner table of animals being slaughtered is unacceptible for the dinner table then how is dead flesh acceptible at the dinner table? I think if you can eat dead flesh then you can watch animals being slaughtered while you take each bite of dead animal flesh. Naturaly omnivors will enjoy watching animals being killed one after the other while they eat thier hunk of animal corpse. Just thought I'd trol..um stroll through this thread and say hi.
Hi everbody Hello Elegy! .
Just to be clear, this is in no way intended to be a "bitchslap" as you call it. This is, after all, a debate forum.
We cannot blame ourselves for immoral behavior just because we eat animal flesh. We evolved as omnivores. We can't help our evolutionary past. But we did not evolve as cold blooded carnivore killers like sharks or crocodiles, either. We must teach our young to kill animals. Our ability to hunt and kill animals does not come from instinct but rather from social conditioning. And this gives us reason to modify and evolve our ethical behavior without contradicting our animal nature.
Consider this: domestic farm animals evolved to live with humans. Through artificial selection their genes have altered to adapt with us. They can no longer live in "natural" wild environments without us.
We provide domesticated animals protection from predators, food, and the ability to raise their young. In return, they provide us with food and clothing.
If you practice a vegan life style and still think vegetarianism represents the most ethical position, then think again. If everyone on earth converted to a pure vegetarian diet, then what need do we have for domesticated farm animals? They can't live without us and if we no longer need their meat or hide, then we have no reason to raise them (except for a few to keep in zoos). If you think the free cattle roaming around the streets of India represents a solution, then you have not thought it through. These poor diseased starving creatures hardly represent an ethical solution any more than free-roaming feral cats and dogs, and they still require humans to keep them barely alive.
In human terms we would call this genocide. Ironical as it may seem, by eating animal meat we keep their species thriving. And what about those precious cats and dogs that we so dearly love? They live strictly as pure carnivores! Now what? The question for vegetarians then becomes: "Should I allow an animal live a short but generally happy life, rather than no life at all?"
I'm sorry, but that is known as "willful ignorance". In spite of the teeth of evidence against your argument you still won't budge to logic and fact.
Were you aware that for example, both plants and animals have saturated and trans fats, so simply eliminating animal fat does not necessarily reduce bad fat consumption? In fact, some vegetarian diets yield higher levels of saturated and trans fats (including hydrogenated oils) than meat-vegetable diets! So what to do?
If you wish to lower your bad cholesterol and increase your good cholesterol, you should generally eat unsaturated fats (monounsaturated and polyunsaturated) and steer away from of saturated, trans fats, and hydrogenated oils.
The better unsaturated fats come in the form of Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. Short-chain Omega-3s occur only in plant foods. Long-chain Omega-3s serve as the best form because of the way the body processes them, and only animals produce long-chain Omega-3s.
The evidence so far shows that fish provides the best source of unsaturated fats, something almost guaranteed to lower the bad cholesterol and raise the good cholesterol, especially if you eliminate the saturated fats.
This means that the healthiest diet known, must include some animal flesh, and yet because some animal fats contain the worst forms of fat, one can also construct an unhealthy diet by eating the wrong forms of flesh.
Colon cancer, by the way, is said to be increased when eating degenerate amounts of red meat for long periods of time. My arguments were never in favor of engaging in this sort of behavior.
Belief is Santa Clause doesn't hurt me but that does not mean I don't call on its irrationality. You are right that it is none of our business what you ingest; however, consider what I say a health warning. Though I guess, like a theist, dispite the teeth of evidence against them, a believer won't budge to new information.
Imagine if a christian would tell you, "why do you feel you got to take on the smug approach by attempting to belittle the Bible that simply says where we came from?"
I attempt to discredit not belittle. It is not based on scientic fact and it must be countered. Sorry, but sticking to old information simply because it sounds good to you does not cut it. Take the adaptive approach of science better and discard the old information taking in the new. This avoids one sticking to false information.
You choosing to reject meat does not automatically make you not an omnivore. I'm sorry, it just doesn't work that way. Just like a celibate priest is still a sexual creature dispite his refusal to engage in sexual conduct.
Good for you. Avoiding these toxins from entering your body is a sure way to say healthy. I am glad you have taken a personal stance against junkfood. Meat, however, is not absolute junk like you'd like to paint it and does not fall into this category automatically simply because of your belief of it being "bad".
Why you insist that I meant to attack you directly baffles me. Ever since I joined this forum I was always a bit reluctant to post anything simply because of how people react to a post. It seems as though nobody can take a differing point of view without resorting to personal attacks (ad hominem). Can we not instead have a rational debate on the issues?
Speaking of issues, lets stick with the death penalty seeing as that is the topic on this particular thread.
Hehe.
I think its cool to have difference of opinion and discuss or debate them. Maybe our idea is the "bad apple" I think your arguments are very good...so far, but eating animal corpse is still distgusting to me.
I have learned a great deal in this thread. I like your argumentations
against the death penalty.
"You also fail to understand that not only is Capital Punishment not a deterrance, but that it causes more violence"
I can see that it is not a deterant, but how can I prove that it causes more violence?
Research showes that states which have instituted the death penalty have higher levels of homicide. Many times criminals see these executions as a personal threat and rebel against the system just like when cops kill members of a gang when they should have just apprehended them.
Consider that Texas has executed 321 people. No other state even comes close to 100. Texas also has one of the highest homicidal rates in the country! Violence breeds more violence. I cannot comprehend, living in these times, how people can look at the middle east crisis, for example, and not see how violence has not solved anything for either party. One muslim group attacks, the other fights back with more force and so on. No one seems to come up with any other solution. The only ways out for people are surface solutions. It's like trying to put a bandaid on gangrene on a foot.
Thank you QR4Q. I will research this for my writing class.
I was against war and the death penalty as a Christian and I am still against them as an atheist.
I really liked Chaos Lords logical argument against it too, but others had to go and make things a little uncertain again. Philosophy and debates drives me crazy but I can't stay away from it. heh.
um...just wondering...are you calling me a bad apple?
My response can be found http://www.rationalresponders.com/forums/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/freethinking_anonymous/veganism
Lexis-Nexis Article
"A recent study by Amnesty International revealed that the homicide rate in US States with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 per cent higher than in States without the death penalty.
Why is this? It is not that people are irrational when they contemplate committing crime. Rather the evidence shows that to the extent that people make a cost/benefit decision about committing crimes, they generally only weigh up the risk of being caught, not what will happen if they get caught."
No. You are the girl and QR4Q is the bad apple. It has the carnivorus teeth. His avatar.. hehe.
so when a fire truck is barreling toward you as you're crossing the street, you pause to reason about the situation rather than running or jumping out of the way? when someone is threatening to beat you up or kill you, does a plea for reason diffuse the situation? it might, but it's not your best bet for survival. instincts have not been made irrelevant by reason or any social construct.
no, it's a fact. and i didn't put any words in your mouth. you used the label "killers" in a negative context to differentiate people who kill or have killed from the "you" in your statement. i simply removed the connotation from the label by showing how it applies universally.
the subject of the death penalty does include "killing in general". it's the core of the frigging debate. my side of the argument has been "what makes a so-called 'homicidal maniac's' mentality a crime, and not yours?"
let's read on, and watch you contradict yourself...
i completely understand that. are you under the impression that i am for the death penalty? take some of your own medicine: learn to read.
capital punishment is not a deterrent, eh? didn't you just promote the idea of creating new laws against "such crimes"? you think laws are any more of a deterrent?
then why stop any?
not, haven't, and won't.
(in reference to the 'carnivore' table i referenced)
i know that, you dunce, it was a joke at the expense of 'Martha', not a presentation of evidence. now who's putting words in whose mouth? and look how long you went on about it:
and then how many off topic posts on omnivorescence after?
gullible!
mm-hmm. you're on quite an intensive regimen of your own medicine by now. why not rest up, and come back when you're feeling 100%....that is to say, ready to read and think
happy day.
Fear is the mindkiller.
I used to have a lot of respect for this "so-called' free-thinking website. But today I have been the joke, Dr.Fear "i know that, you dunce, it was a joke at the expense of 'Martha', not a presentation of evidence. now who's putting words in whose mouth?" and (anti-faith) "bad apple". I will refrain from posting after this since I don't fit in here. Just like when I went on a racist board with the moniker, 'nazissuk'. Farewell hypocrits (not referring to everybody on here just some).
it was lighthearted, i assure you. my bad, i thought we were on good-natured terms.
No. You are the girl and QR4Q is the bad apple. It has the carnivorus teeth. His avatar.. hehe.
You miss my post to you Martha at pg 4 of the thread. You are no joke to me. I have scattered thoughts sometime and it shows in my posts sometimes. Sorry for any confusion. I never said your argumentation are bad ones. See pg 4 of the thread for perspective. You are not a joke to me, I was teasing QR4Q. I will not do that anymore. I think you are needed in this thread and the veganism thread...
whoops! Sorry for taking that the wrong way. I didthink that was how you meant it at first, then I wasn't sure.
and to Dr. Fear, yeah, I thought we were on friendly terms, too, that's why I was a little like wtf when you said that.
Sorry you two, I just found out today that my friend is terminal and have been perty damn sensitive all day.