Without expertise, your only "objectivity" possible is the one form the few sources you got about the subject. If the only "science" book you read is the Bible, you can certainly report what the Bible said objectively, but I wouldn't call that objectivity.

Doesn't anyone remember the 80s when local currency where regularly attacked by speculators? The idea of the Euro was to end this speculation which was hurting local economy badly, at least that's how the governments sold it.

As you said, Greece's problem is that it doesn't produce much. So the solution is not with transfer payments (the justification that it will eventually ends up in Germany anyway is just idiotic), but to make Greeks actually produce something they could sell.

Comparing the intellectual masturbation of some economists with the Manhattan project?

What's next? Comparing the drawing of 4 years old with Michelangelo's frescoes?

And what's wrong with that? When it comes to road damage, a single truck can be the equivalent of up to 50,000 cars. Trucks are the one damaging roads. Why should car owners pay for it?

Again, your point was irrelevant. It was only a straw man. Do you think I am that stupid?

This discussion was not about deterrence, that was only YOUR argument. I'm just saying YOUR argument is irrelevant. It's not me who's moving goal-posts, it's you.

So why should we not kill this guy? Do you have any reason?

Then your point is mostly irrelevant because there are other good reasons for death penalty.

Again, prison is not an effective deterrent. Do you think we should abolish prisons?

The solution is to correct this barbaric system where we spend millions of dollars on a criminal, not to keep the guy alive because of a bad system.

The purpose would be to stop spending resources on worthless people.

Just for the record, what purpose does keeping him alive serve?

What is barbaric is to spend the limited resources we have on piece of shit like this guy instead of helping innocent people. What is barbaric is to consider that criminals have more value and deserve more resources than good people. The civilized thing to do would be to kill him right now with a single bullet in the head without any kind of glorified ceremony and use the millions we'll save to help several hundred children to have a bright future instead.

You are barbaric for trying to save this criminal's life.

Why spend several hundred thousand of dollars to try to rehabilitate a criminal? Why not rather use the same money to help a few hundred innocent people who are in need to have a better future instead? Why a single criminal has more value than innocent people?

Prison is not an effective deterrent either. So what's your point?

One individual may have as much merit and ability as another individual, but saying "women" have as much merit and ability as "men" is the very definition of sexism. You are the one who is sexist.

The idea that everyone has the same brain and so goes through the same development following the same linear path is wrong. Moreover the idea that morality is in strict correlation with intelligence is also wrong. Sociopaths are often highly intelligent and have successful career (including in science), most don't even commit serious crimes when they are adults, it doesn't change that they are sociopaths.

Yes, there a few examples of teenagers who were rebellious and then became productive member of society. But there are an awful lot more examples of juvenile delinquent who committed crimes after crimes during all their lives. Prisons are full of them.

Schools are full of kids who never committed a serious crime (apart from trying drugs, which to me is not a serious crime) and who will never commit any. How do you explain that if they can't fully understand the consequences of their actions?

The development of the frontal lobe is somewhat researched (certainly not well research as neuroscience is quite new and changing rapidly), but saying from those data that someone under 25 years old can't fully understand the consequences of his action is nothing but speculative interpretation.

What we are talking here is morality. So go to a any 10 years old, describe what that teenager did and the reason he did it and ask the 10 years old if this behavior was good or bad. Again, try to learn a minimum about children moral development before thinking you know enough to have an opinion, because you really don't.

You think I have a trollish behavior? Tell me... If someone begins to argue with you that the sky is not blue, but red. You show him a lot of pictures with blue skies, but he simply discard them and continue to argue the sky is red. How will you react?