Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
What would you define as murder? Because i'm sure that many have been killed in the name of religion. Would you classify acts of killing during "religious wars" as murders? the man in this thread (remember him?) committed his crimes against places that didn't side with his religious views.
So as you said about proof or disproof....
I would class anyone who kills using religion as an excuse as a fanatic. It always depends what side you are on. People wanting change in the old Soviet Union were Freedom fighters. People in Iraq wanting 'invaders' out are Insurgents.
Quote:
You can't prove everything with stats, especially with that method.
Of course you cant. Because people would just come back with other statistics to try and disprove yours. If you are not going to use statistics you should not quote instances to prove a point.
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I would class anyone who kills using religion as an excuse as a fanatic. It always depends what side you are on. People wanting change in the old Soviet Union were Freedom fighters. People in Iraq wanting 'invaders' out are Insurgents.
Of course you cant. Because people would just come back with other statistics to try and disprove yours. If you are not going to use statistics you should not quote instances to prove a point.
Instances tell more of the story than stats.
Example: You can tell an individual not to own a gun because gun ownership is highest in America and this correlates to higher guns deaths.
However, that person saved their own neck due to protecting themselves with one.
Stat out out the window. :dry:
The stat is not always conclusive evidence of a proper solution.
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Instances tell more of the story than stats.
Example: You can tell an individual not to own a gun because gun ownership is highest in America and this correlates to higher guns deaths.
However, that person saved their own neck due to protecting themselves with one.
Stat out out the window. :dry:
The stat is not always conclusive evidence of a proper solution.
No ... instances, by their very nature, are one off events. Properly prepared statistics tell the story of a lot of instances so tell you what's most likely to happen.
Of course a statistic is not always right but it is infinitely more reliable than one instance.
I could say that you won't remember pi to any more than 1000 digits, even if you practiced all day - because of statistics yet a few instances say that it's possible.
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Instances tell more of the story than stats.
Example: You can tell an individual not to own a gun because gun ownership is highest in America and this correlates to higher guns deaths.
However, that person saved their own neck due to protecting themselves with one.
Stat out out the window. :dry:
The stat is not always conclusive evidence of a proper solution.
Are you saying that this discussion can not be resolved? Because you cant prove one way or another.
The USA has one of the highest murder rates in the world. It also retains the death penalty. One could say that the murder figure would be a lot higher if it was not for the skill of the medical world.
I dont think it can be proved or disproved whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not. My personal opinion says that if it is a deterrent why do they have to keep carrying out.
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Instances tell more of the story than stats.
Example: You can tell an individual not to own a gun because gun ownership is highest in America and this correlates to higher guns deaths.
However, that person saved their own neck due to protecting themselves with one.
Stat out out the window. :dry:
The stat is not always conclusive evidence of a proper solution.
You are telling me that one anecdotal event overthrows what statisitcs bears out.
You flip a coin twice and it is heads both times, you want to tell me that the chance per flip is not 50/50?
You want to bring up the time that not wearing a safety belt saved a life because the victim was thrown from the car, which went over as cliff and ignore the other 999 times?
Anecdotal evidence is the anti-thesis of science.
You, yourself, would be dead had that nut case grabbed a gun instead of a hammer. Your six guns and box of shirikins were of no use to you.
You should have learned something there.
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Are you saying that this discussion can not be resolved? Because you cant prove one way or another.
The USA has one of the highest murder rates in the world. It also retains the death penalty. One could say that the murder figure would be a lot higher if it was not for the skill of the medical world.
I dont think it can be proved or disproved whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not. My personal opinion says that if it is a deterrent why do they have to keep carrying out.
I explained that before.....
Is hell a deterrent?
Remove the death penalty...now is life in prison a deterrent?
It's very simple.
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I dont think it can be proved or disproved whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not. My personal opinion says that if it is a deterrent why do they have to keep carrying out.
I don't think it can be unequivocally proven since comparisons are fraught with difficulties but wrt the second sentence, it would only no longer be necessary to carry it out if it was a deterrent to 100% of the populous. If it was merely a deterrent to 99.999% of the population then it would still be carried out.
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
I would class anyone who kills using religion as an excuse as a fanatic. It always depends what side you are on. People wanting change in the old Soviet Union were Freedom fighters. People in Iraq wanting 'invaders' out are Insurgents.
fanatics, whatever, it's still murder in my book and many a murder has been carried out because of religious beliefs.
I went through this before with busy.
having religion doesn't equal morality and having no religion doesn't equal immorality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
IMO if you compared 1 million god fearing, religious people with 1 million non-religious people(Excluding fanatics from both sides) I think the murder rate would be higher in the secular million.
I have to take this to task because we are seeing non fanatics every day being charged with murder. The BTK killer...a church leader, not a fanatic, not claiming god told him to do it.... Catholic priests buggering boys, devoutly religious yet not claiming god told them to do it. My point being that these are "god fearing folk" and your opinion really has no basis ( I appreciate you did say it was impossible to prove) and as an atheist I can't agree with this opinion.
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
You are telling me that one anecdotal event overthrows an what statisitcs bears out.
You flip a coin twice and it is heads both times, you want to tell me that the chance per flip is not 50/50?
You want to bring up the time that not wearing a safety belt saved a life because the victim was thrown from the car, which went over as cliff and ignore the other 999 times?
Anecdotal evidence is the anti-thesis of science.
You, yourself, would be dead had that nut case grabbed a gun instead of a hammer. Your six guns and box of shirikins were of no use to you.
You should have learned something there.
I never said ignore stats. I said stats don't always equal proper solution.
Your answer is get rid of all guns except I guess law enforcement.
Mine is tighten gun laws.
Your stats don't conclude either solution.
Mine just happens to be more feasible and not a pipe dream. :)
Re: why not death penalty?
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
I don't think it can be unequivocally proven since comparisons are fraught with difficulties but wrt the second sentence, it would only no longer be necessary to carry it out if it was a deterrent to 100% of the populous. If it was merely a deterrent to 99.999% of the population then it would still be carried out.
We have a winner and a thinker here. :)
