Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Men's Rights morons (Score 1) 766

Instead of addressing any of my previous points, he asked a bunch of questions, Fox News-style. "Why won't Barack Obama show his birth certificate?" or, "Is Hilary Clinton a lesbian? You decide!"


I think the word you're looking for is innuendo.

Fox News is not the only practitioner. There are many others, including most notably, Glenn Beck.

Comment: Re:Men's Rights morons (Score 1) 766

In California, the police can only arrest the "dominant" (physically stronger) partner, regardless of who was the initiator or the aggressor. So a woman can attack her husband, and he goes to jail.

[Obligatory]: Citation please?

I mean seriously, this fails the sniff test.

Comment: Re:not surprised (Score 1) 648

I will amend my assertion, to exclude the motivations of those personally involved, to only focus on society-at-large. Those personally affected have an entirely different perspective and it's not one that the rest of us can empathize with unless we've been through a similar tragedy.

Fair enough.

But what do you say to those not personally involved, who oppose a death penalty because it would make him a martyr to his cause (rather than an opposition to the death penalty in general?)

Comment: Re:The two things that have led me to oppose the D (Score 1) 648

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

None of which are part of the thread discussion, which was about deterrence. Don't move the goal-posts.

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

Of course not. Murderers should be punished. My point is that the type of punishment is irrelevant to the question of deterrence.

Comment: Re:The two things that have led me to oppose the D (Score 4, Insightful) 648

That's how I feel about it - some people simply do not deserve to live with the rest of humanity. There should never, ever be a chance that some people should ever have the possibility of afflicting more atrocities on society. I can can understand arguments about when it's perhaps not clear the perpetrator was guilty (and, of course, it sadly has happened before)... but of course, that didn't happen in this case.

People think it's all about punishment, but it's also about keeping those who'd violate your rights away from you.

I think all of your concerns can be addressed equally with execution or incarceration. So, why not chose incarceration? It's cheaper, it maintains a morally superior position for the justice system, and it can be reversed in the event a conviction is wrongful.

How come financial advisors never seem to be as wealthy as they claim they'll make you?