Comment Alien pod (Score 1) 339
Obviously this must be an alien pod buried millions of years ago and patiently waiting for its pilot to arrive riding the lightning. We were bound to stumble across them some day!
... decent monetary policy is a necessary though not sufficient condition for good economic performance.
Exactly. In other words, without a lot of scientific research you can't conclude from the fact that the Eurozone did worse than the US for the last few years economically that the ECB therefore did a worse job of making monetary policy. They could have just been dealt a much worse hand. Ultimately I don't think you can make comparisons like this between the Eurozone and the US anyway. The Eurozone is not one country, which makes a huge difference in practice and invalidates all kinds of comparisons.
It is designed to maintain its value against other currencies,
I have to disagree again. It can't maintain its value against other currencies if it is to be a success. There will only ever be 21 million bitcoins. If it ever becomes a large and stable economy then the bitcoin will have to be worth much more than it is worth today against other currencies. That's what I'm banking on anyway...
This makes no sense whatsoever. Why on Earth would China want to destroy the US economy?! China is not at war with the US. On the other hand China has huge financial interests in the US (I believe China owns most of the US these days), and even if it didn't, the hit to the world economy if the US economy collapsed would be so large that China would be dragged down as well. There is no reason for China to want to harm the US economy and every reason for them to want to bolster it.
Could the NSA really not have come up with a more believable story?
And it is fair to say that the Euro has not been governed well over the last few years.
I don't agree with that at all. The Euro has consistently remained strong, even during this so called "Euro crisis". Whether the way the Euro is being governed is good for the economies of the individual countries of the Eurozone is an entirely different question, but reality shows that it was good for the Euro and that the ECB is doing a good job of keeping its independence. There just is no comparison whatsoever (which the original poster was doing) between the Euro and the way it is governed, and Bitcoin.
Well obviously I don't have a crystal ball. But there is no evidence or reason to assume that they won't. All of the doomsayers are just speculating wildly. They're mostly hacks who are hoping to profit from it somehow.
It would be very bad for the Euro if Greece defaulted, or left the Eurozone. I think it simply won't be allowed to happen. Note that I'm not saying that that's necessarily a good thing.
"No one governing" the Euro is what almost caused the collapse of the EU over one small state having credit difficulties.
Wow. It's been a long time since I've seen such a high concentration of ill informed bullshit in one sentence...
I don't see him wrapping it around vertical objects.
Yet.
that would be around 2M bitcoins
I think it's safe to assume that they meant 10% of all currently existing bitcoins, which, if true, would currently amount to around 1.2 million bitcoins.
The court is set up already for that thinking so what or how does this court do something different.
What they mean is that the court stayed their decision (postponed the time at which it would come into force) to give the DHS time to appeal.
When I read that I get the feeling that the "Court" felt ugly for their ruling and really really hopes that aggrieved party will appeal.
No, it's pretty standard in cases where a) the court thinks the party who lost might appeal, b) there is at least an outside chance such an appeal might succeed and c) if they didn't stay their decision the appeal would become moot since in the mean time the losing party would have to (in this case) hand over the information and there would be no point in appealing. It's to protect the integrity of the judiciary system. Otherwise, what would be the point of having appeals?
1) The justice system is imperfect, so we shouldn't take the slightest risk of executing an innocent person. This is the argument that I'm most sympathetic towards. I agree that extraordinary punishment should require extraordinary proof. Of course, that doesn't address the issues around biased judges, juries or prosecutors.
I'd say it's the definitive argument. You can't get around it. It is fundamentally impossible to make the justice system 100% fool proof, and unacceptable to run even the slightest risk of killing an innocent person, when there are alternatives with no downsides relative to capital punishment (such as life without parole, which is cheaper, and not less of a deterrent).
Because I do believe that there are heinous crimes that death is an appropriate punishment for, I tend to look to fix issues with the justice system in other ways. In particular, you throw the book at corrupt prosecutors, judges, etc.
So how many innocent lives are you prepared to sacrifice while you tweak and fine tune the system, ignoring for the moment the fact that it is impossible to make it perfect?
And yes, I believe that prison is for punishment, not as a time-out from society. Does that mean I think prisoners should be abused? Nope, not at all. But it also doesn't mean that I think we need to be providing cable TV or other luxuries while they are serving their time.
What does that have to do with anything?
2) The method of execution is cruel. I don't buy this argument vs. lethal injection
The very article from this post states that some alternative sedatives that states have been using their death row inmates as lab rats for have caused them to still be moving and blinking minutes after getting the injection. I'd say there's a very good chance that that was cruel.
3) Even if the method isn't painful, it is cruel/barbaric to execute someone "regardless" (no matter what they did). I can respect this argument even if I don't agree with it. I don't share that view, but I can understand it. Unfortunately, most folks I've talked to that make this argument don't seem to apply it as a fundamental value or principle.
The fact that you don't share it makes you a very creepy person in my book. I don't get this bloodlust, this insistence on killing people even in the face of all the doubts which even you admit to above, and given the valid (and superior) alternatives.
4) Execution as a form of punishment is no different than murder Sorry, but this argument is fundamentally flawed and childish.
I agree. Luckily I didn't make it. Another straw man...
5) Life w/o parole is cheaper than execution. I don't doubt that it is given the processes and appeals involved with the death penalty. I'm ok with that. It's a practical financial argument, but doesn't really address whether the death penalty is morally right or wrong.
Nevertheless it is a valid argument, which you only seem too happy to blithely ignore.
How do I tie this back to stances on abortion? If you really believe that "no matter what, the death penalty is wrong" or "can't take the slightest risk that an innocent person might be executed", then by those same principles, you should be vehemently against abortion.
All those argument, and none of them relevant in the least to your central point... You just assume that abortion is exactly the same as capital punishment and that every argument I make against capital punishment should also be valid against abortion, otherwise I'm full of it. Which is ludicrous even on the face of it, let alone if you spend a few minutes to think about it.
The only way to try to get around it is to play the "not really a human until it is born" game. That's about as intellectually dishonest as it gets, IMO.
Really? So your position is that an ovum becomes a human being at the split second it is fertilised? I hope not, as that would plainly be absurd.
A foetus is not a human being. It becomes one at some point during pregnancy (some point before the actual birth). Wars will be fought over exactly which point that is, but it is some significant time after the moment of conception. Until then there is no moral argument to be made against abortion whatsoever. It's a clump of cells, without feelings, emotions, awareness, conciousness, senses, pain, etc. It is not even alive, so you cannot "kill" it. The difference between it and a death row inmate could not be greater. There is nothing intellectually dishonest about observing this fact.
And even after the nebulous point where the foetus becomes a human being there are still morally valid reasons for performing an abortion, namely when it is a choice between the life of the mother or the life of the baby. Just like I agree that it is moral to kill someone to protect your own, or somebody else's, life (in case of immediate danger). If somebody is going to die and the only choice is which one, that choice is morally null. Note how this does not apply in the least to taking the life of a prisoner.
Are you really trying to protect the innocent in all cases? Or are your principles "flexible" and convenient?
They are neither, and still my argument holds up.
On most news sites where this argument pops up, one of the more common arguments is sadly enough "Why should my tax dollars be used to keep this guy alive in prison for decades with a life without parole sentence when we can just kill him now for far cheaper?"
Of course those people don't realise that prosecuting and executing a death penalty costs way more than locking someone up for life. So if minimising the amount of tax dollars spent is the goal that actually argues against the death penalty...
some human beings are monsters; you must have lived sheltered life.
No, no human beings are monsters. Monsters are fairytale creatures which don't really exist. I know it's a very popular metaphor to use, but that doesn't make it true, and that kind of thinking is irresponsible and extremely dangerous when lives are at stake.
your invoking the "found to be innocent" no longer applies, those were cases of DNA and advanced forensics being used on past cases. now we have those tools to use to verify guilt
Wow. If you truly believe that you are spectacularly, staggeringly naive... There is no way to make a justice system 100% fool proof. Simple maths and physics will tell you that.
Do those of you arguing so ardently against the death penalty apply the same logic to abortion?
Why don't you explain how you think they are the same, so I can demolish your argument.
"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai
