Trying to avoid punishment is an example of a "moral, principled basis".

I'll quote myself : "And you want those people to pay me to install and maintain a firewall?"

Charities have access to donation from Microsoft. The problem is not the cost of the license (Linux is also completely free), it's my time. I REALLY can't install, configure and maintain a firewall for $30.

Several of my clients are charities for whom recycled Core 2 Duo with 2 Gigs of RAM are the best they can get. Some can't even get a semi-decent server, so they just use an old P4 as a file and print server. And you want those people to pay me to install and maintain a firewall? NAT with a $30 router is an acceptable substitute for a firewall when you don't have the money for anything else.

On an entirely different level? Apart from data about the way I drive, they will have LESS data than what Google (I have an Android phone), my phone company and the government already have on me (they not only have access to my location, but they also have access to most of my communications). Talking about the government, they have also access to what I earn, the money I spend and in big part what I buy (for example when I buy something with my debit card or credit card), they have access to my medical record and what not. The worst is the government is the one who can really destroy my life, Google or my phone company can't do shit against me despite all the information they have.

So what if my car insurance company can also track me? What could they do? Send me a bit more ads on my email address? Do you really think I will notice it?

The question is : does my data about the way I drive could be detrimental to me? Since I never had a single traffic violation ticket in my life (I bought my first car in 1989), you can guess the answer is no. So why should I care? They're willing to pay me to verify that I don't lie when I say I'm a good driver? No problem. I never consider what I do on public property as private information anyway.

You obviously don't know how to negotiate. Being a good negotiator is about making the person you negotiate with believe that what you're selling is worth more than its true value. In this case, it's about making your employer believe you're more valuable than you truly are.

Negotiation is not about collaboration nor finding the best solution, it's about finding the best deal. Good negotiation skill is always detrimental to the person you negotiate with. In a team, a good negotiator is detrimental to the team.

Sociopaths are almost always excellent negotiator. Think about it.

Are you dishonest or just really, really bad at logic?

It's not about punishing, it's about not rewarding useless skills. A Man may run a marathon in less than 3 hours, if his job is to sit all day in front of a computer, his running abilities should not get him a higher salary.

The difference is his "excuse" makes sense, while yours is just a sign of stupidity.

I'm not sure what is exactly your point. If you have a cell phone, even a dumb phone, you are already being track at least by your phone company (which will give the data to the government if asked). Sorry, but you already lost your "privacy". So what is your point?

I read the summary and thought : why the fuck does it tell those common facts about the 6502. I mean who doesn't know this? And then there was this awkward moment when I thought to myself : am I that old?

You have absolutely no clue about what autism is.

People in the autism spectrum are neither loners nor asocial. Quite the contrary in fact. They generally are less individualistic, more faithful, much more honest and they have a much stronger sense of justice than "normal people". Also, although they lack cognitive empathy toward "normal people" (the same way "normal people" lack cognitive empathy toward autistic people), they generally exhibit extreme emotional empathy. An autistic person is basically the complete opposite of a psychopath.

The main problem with people in the autism spectrum is not that they are loners or asocial, it is that they are outcasts.

There's no such thing as a natural right to run a business. The only natural right is the right of the strongest. Every other rights are just a product of society.

It is a logical error to change what you are talking about in the middle of your argument.

Your initial point was not against the executioner, but against the possibility that a judge could make an error which will lead to the death of someone. That error is not deliberate. Your argument is logically wrong.

Is it a murder? No, it's not, even if the person is innocent. A murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, it has nothing to do with the concept of innocence. A soldier who kill an enemy combatant is not committing murder. A lawmaker who decide that a kind of crime should be punishable with the death penalty is not committing murder. A judge who come to the conclusion that the crime of someone is subject to death penalty is not committing murder. An executioner who kill someone condemned to death penalty is not doing something unlawful, so it's not a murder. Again, your argument is logically wrong and saying "in fact" won't make it magically true.

Finally, if every single rational objective that can be applied to death penalty was also applicable to life sentence, everybody would be satisfied with a life sentence and nobody would ask for the death penalty. You just choose to ignore the obvious because you're irrational.

Behind all the excuses and false logical arguments, the only real reason against death penalty is exactly the same as being for death penalty : it's purely an emotional reason. The basis of all our moral constructs are our emotions. As long as people will try to justify their little emotions using dubious arguments, this debate will never end.

Yes, I know being rational is not the strong point of humanity. But it's not because you're irrational that I should be!

Yes, mistakes do happen. So?

We all have a lot more chances of being killed in a car accident then being wrongly accused of a crime. Yet, very little is done to effectively prevent death in car accidents. We could limit the speed of cars to 15 miles an hour, but we don't. We consider the convenience of our system of transportation outweighs the life of a few individual (more than a million each year in the world). We consider a million people being killed each year is an acceptable margin.

So what's your point about "mistakes happen"? Because it seems completely irrational to me.