I would like you all to express yourselves on this subject.
How do you think the UnitedStates should punish criminals. Lets start off with this if someone kills a person do you think they should be put to death the first time convicted or lock them up for 5 years in federal prison?

Why just the US? And Death penalty is kind of retarded IMO, very primitive. And what if you've convicted the wrong person?

Oi, yer back. Your typing has improved.
This is coming of the Saddam thread isn't it? And I request of thee, more information, because this subject is fickle and depends on the situation at hand. We're talking info like First degree or third degree; juvenile or adult.

But if we're going for the average first degree by an adult, and you're asking a mere five years for manslaughter? You freckin' crazy boy?

Oh. And then there's parole and execution methods.

Because in the U.S. courts are trying to pass some type of law if you kill 2 or more people you are to be exicuted. that is why you are sent to courts of different degree. Each person is intitled to a fair trial.

That doesn't take away the fact that killing a killer makes whoever kills him is a killer too. Basically it's a good example of American hypocritism in my opinion. You're not allowed to kill, unless you're the government. Government is allowed to do everything even if it's against their own laws (or the ten commandments, isn't 95% of the US Christian?). That's just stupid.

Oi, yer back. Your typing has improved.
This is coming of the Saddam thread isn't it? And I request of thee, more information, because this subject is fickle and depends on the situation at hand. We're talking info like First degree or third degree; juvenile or adult.

But if we're going for the average first degree by an adult, and you're asking a mere five years for manslaughter? You freckin' crazy boy?

Oh. And then there's parole and execution methods.
Okay put it this way, I would say if an adult killed someone on accident I think they should be put in federal prison for 5 years without parole. if it is on purpose I say lock them in federal prison for 10 years and no parole. If you lock them up in prison they suffer alot and if you just kill them that is just an easier way out of manslaughter. If it was up to me I would make them suffer like they made their victim suffer.Do you agree or not? And why or why not.

That doesn't take away the fact that killing a killer makes whoever kills him is a killer too. Basically it's a good example of American hypocritism in my opinion. You're not allowed to kill, unless you're the government. Government is allowed to do everything even if it's against their own laws (or the ten commandments, isn't 95% of the US Christian?). That's just stupid.
Read Ed Koch's essay on the Death Penalty. it's not American hypocritism. , and it's not primitive. The Death Penalty is only issued in cased of murder (not killing) [or extremely rarely treason]. If you murder someone, your punishment should fit the crime. A life sentence could be either viewed as too harsh for making someone suffer for the rest of their life, when the murder they committed might have made the person being killed suffer for only a few moments; or as not harsh enough because the murderer killed someone, and he's still alive. The Death Penalty is also a deterent. (obviously I'm only talking about this when the murderer is convicted correctly, but it's stupid to say we shouldn't issue a punishment altogether, cause then that would apply to every crime.)

That doesn't take away the fact that killing a killer makes whoever kills him is a killer too. Basically it's a good example of American hypocritism in my opinion. You're not allowed to kill, unless you're the government. Government is allowed to do everything even if it's against their own laws (or the ten commandments, isn't 95% of the US Christian?). That's just stupid.

Next you'll accuse us Americans of being ignorant of other countries' societies :mellow:

So...if I get mugged in a dark alley by some guy with a gun, and while struggling not to get shot I grab hold of the gun and it fires and he dies, I'm now a killer?
So...if someone tries to shoot up a school and a policeman shoots him first, the policeman is now a killer?

And, of course, the Ten Commandments do NOT include "Thou shalt not kill", but rather "Thou shalt not murder." Similarly, US law (and I'll bet UK law does as well) makes a distinction between killing and murder.

Perhaps you should look at the conclusion of Eichmann in Jerusalem to understand why the death penalty is by no means hypocrisy.

But then again, you seem to have a rather..."complex" view of killing, don't you?
http://forums.ichigos.com/showthread.php?t=7278

when people in Israel die because of attacks I cheer for it
Good thing you edited/deleted some of your more objectionable statements in that thread...

Sadly the world isn't happy la la like many people wish it was, or more like is should be. Ideally. Capital punishment is the taking of ones life, though the government doesn't do so because I ate a grape in the store and didn't pay for that one fangled grape.

Tann, don't get frustrated at angelic. For the past hundred years, its been cool to make fun of America and Americans, generalizing ideas, putting words in our leaders mouths and making fun of our our spellings. Sadly, many of those people either don't know crap about their own countries history or refuse to acknowledge it.

Sorry, Angelic just caught me in an especially bad mood (it must have something to do with these final exams x_x). My point, though, is that the writing off of some established policy (or, heaven forbid, an entire people) as "stupid" results from either the refusal or the inability to actually analyze the situation.

Okay put it this way, I would say if an adult killed someone on accident I think they should be put in federal prison for 5 years without parole. if it is on purpose I say lock them in federal prison for 10 years and no parole. If you lock them up in prison they suffer alot and if you just kill them that is just an easier way out of manslaughter. If it was up to me I would make them suffer like they made their victim suffer.Do you agree or not? And why or why not.

Locking them in prison is punishment? How do they suffer? Hey sure, maybe they meet a lot of scary people (but if you've committed murder, you should be pretty scary yourself, what's there to be afraid of?) and perhaps you suffer from lonliness, after not seeing your friends and family. But in the end, who's going to want to be friends and family with a murderer at any rate? And my second point. You're giving them food to eat, a place to sleep at night, a shelter from the elements; and all at no cost except their reputation. He doesn't work for it, you're pretty much doing them a favour. And it's your tax money that's going to keeping them alive in there. If you really want them to suffer, torture them; But that would make you no worse than them, at least if you killed the silly bastard, the public would be safe and you wouldn't have to waste money doing the guy a favour. Criminals, by the way, do not deserve favours.

It's not a matter of making them suffering for what they did. It's a matter of what's better for everyone else, the greater good. We're not doing any good wasting money keeping him alive/not punishing him.

Note: Please excuse my reference to everything in what I said, as a "he". If you are really offended that much, I will change everything to "she".
:bleh:

And it's your tax money that's going to keeping them alive in there. If you really want them to suffer, torture them; But that would make you no worse than them, at least if you killed the silly bastard, the public would be safe and you wouldn't have to waste money doing the guy a favour. Criminals, by the way, do not deserve favours.


That's a common misconception on this topic. Do you know just how much it costs to sentence someone to death? Between the (several) appeals, the drug cost, all the other amenities, and time it takes to actually undergo the punishment, it comes out just about equal to sustained life in prison.

That's why we need a low-cost, humane 3rd option. Penal colonies would be great -- if only we had some place left on Earth to use...

That's a common misconception on this topic. Do you know just how much it costs to sentence someone to death? Between the (several) appeals, the drug cost, all the other amenities, and time it takes to actually undergo the punishment, it comes out just about equal to sustained life in prison.

Which is, how ever a lot. Just getting someone through jail with finger prints, photos and health checks alone cost 4,000 dollars [my aunt who is an rn in a jail told me].

Just remember, two wrongs don't make a right! If it were to be clear that the murderer in question intended to kill someone then the death penalty is ideal, unless the murderer wants to die. Really it depends on the crime, person and circumstances as to whether death is the answer.

Tann, don't get frustrated at angelic. For the past hundred years, its been cool to make fun of America and Americans, generalizing ideas, putting words in our leaders mouths and making fun of our our spellings. Sadly, many of those people either don't know crap about their own countries history or refuse to acknowledge it.

I probably know more about my country's history than you do about yours.

If you really want them to suffer, torture them; But that would make you no worse than them, at least if you killed the silly bastard, the public would be safe and you wouldn't have to waste money doing the guy a favour.
Your right I would tourch them,But for 3 weeks no breaks like they would live after the 5th day if I was the on tourchering them. And killing a silly little baster wouldn't make the public safer because their is still a lot of muderers lose.I belive in secon chances though if you kill someone to protect yourself by accident I would order you to be set free after the law has done some research on the murder case to conclude your innocents.I don't think I made sence:heh:

If you really want them to suffer, torture them; But that would make you no worse than them, at least if you killed the silly bastard, the public would be safe and you wouldn't have to waste money doing the guy a favour.
Your right I would tourch them,But for 3 weeks no breaks like they would live after the 5th day if I was the on tourchering them. And killing a silly little baster wouldn't make the public safer because their is still a lot of muderers lose.I belive in secon chances though if you kill someone to protect yourself by accident I would order you to be set free after the law has done some research on the murder case to conclude your innocents.I don't think I made sence:heh:

So... toruring them is inhumane but killing them is fair? @_@@_@@_@

I probably know more about my country's history than you do about yours.

Theres a very high chance you probably do, but theres always those who love to point out bad aspects of others countries and they don't know or refuse to learn the bad aspects of their own country.

Neither capital punishment nor imprisonment makes much sense, but to be fair neither do most crimes.
I’m against capital punishment, believe it or not, there have been people who have been wrongly accused of a crime and its taken over twenty years before someone found out that they were innocent. The purpose of a justice system is to keep people safe, but if it accidentally kills an innocent person, then the whole point of having one is lost.

Not to mention its hypocritical. Its like hitting a child for hitting someone. Only the child will never be able to get back up.

The question shouldn’t be which is more humane, because neither of the options are humane. The question shouldn’t be which is more expensive, they’re both expensive. The question should be where do the government’s priorities lie? Should it be deciding who should live and who should die, personally, the government shouldn’t really have any business in deciding that, keeping people locked up is a good enough way to keep dangerous people from entering society.

The way capital punishment should be delivered is also another argument that kinda frustrates me. They were once arguing what kind of lethal injection should be delivered. One makes a victim look like he’s dieing a peaceful death, but is apparently going through some kind of painful hell. Another lets any bystander see his pain, but it hurts the victim less.

Theres a very high chance you probably do, but theres always those who love to point out bad aspects of others countries and they don't know or refuse to learn the bad aspects of their own country.

Oh, let's not start about my country. Recently a new prison was opened but from the description you'd think it's a hotel (TV, heated floors, game consoles...). I personally think that's the other end of stupidity. You don't have to kill criminals, but you don't have to treat them too well either.

Lock them up with water and bread is what I think is best.

Thats a lot of luxury for criminals. But I think for some, letting them live in prison is luxury enough, even with bread and water.

[insert quote]
If you really want them to suffer, torture them; But that would make you no worse than them, at least if you killed the silly bastard, the public would be safe and you wouldn't have to waste money doing the guy a favour.
[line break]
Your right I would to[]r[ture] them,[ b]ut for 3 weeks[,] no breaks[;] like they would live after the 5th day if I was the on to[]r[tur]ering them.[..] And killing [the] silly little bast[a]r[d] wouldn't make the public safer[,] because the[]r[e] is still a lot of muderers lo[o]se.[ ]I beli[e]ve in secon[d] chances[,] though if you kill someone to protect yourself by accident[,] I would order you to be set free after the law has done some research on the murder case to conclude your innocen[ce].[ ]I don't think I made sene[.]:heh:

Okay, how old are you really? Your English is worse than a ten year old.

You talk like you're smart, but you're not. Torture is worse than death, in my opinion, because it's inhumane to put someone through so much immense pain and suffering for a prolonged period of time.
So why don't you imagine it.
Imagine one moment of pain in your life.
How long did it last? A few minutes? An hour?
Now imagine that for three weeks without stop; and that, my misguided [s]friend, is fucking crazy.
And furthermore, you think they should be tortured for three weeks? What the hell is wrong with you, you repulsive beast? You're disgusting and I have even less respect for you than I have for Wolfgoddess; and that is by no means a good thing. At least with death, the pain lasts for a momnet, and then BAM. You're gone. No more pain. And what good would a criminal have done if he was alive, besides continue his filthy ways or endeavour to write a stupid book about his stupid ordeal.

Like who gives a damn anyways, O.J Simpson. No one wants to know how you "Din't do it" 'coz they know you did; and no one's gonna buy your stupid book, like they care, you ugly wife-beater/media-whore. :bleh:
[/endRandomPG18Rant]

You say you believe in second chances but yet you think they should undergo torture? How is that a second chance? That's no different than killing him. How does revenge do anything to benefit anyone besides encouraging our thirst for blood and bringing out the sadistic monster in all of us? Pfft, like that's a benefit.
*And yes, I consider it sadism, for the fact that someone's pain satisfies you.

And, my dear sir, it's stupid to say that getting rid of just one murderer will do no difference. Why bother at all then? Why throw your trash in the garbage when you know there will be three other people that will through it on the ground? Why would you ever try to make a difference when you know there will be other people that will do the opposite? I don't like your type, that have no idea of the small differences, that have no outlook on things. So please, rethink that statement and we'll see who's wrong. Shall we?

Btw, I should add that killing someone by accident in self-defense does not make you innocent. You are still guilty of killing him, but with different intent.

I am not a beast. I am a human. My English does suck because for the past 6 months I have been learning Japanese and I have forgotten some of my english grammer, so stop trying to embarse me it is not happening. No it is not an excuse.Back on subject I don't think killing them would do anything good for people So I just simply stated tourcher them.

So if I went over to a mother with her baby and knifed them both to death and stabbed away at the 1 year old until it could not be seen for all of its organs, I won't be punished as severely as one who got drunk and accidentally crashed into a bus stop killing 3 drunks?

I am aware that my spelling there was attrocious... (sp?)

I am not a beast. I am a human. My English does suck because for the past 6 months I have been learning Japanese and I have forgotten some of my english grammer, so stop trying to embarse me it is not happening. No it is not an excuse.Back on subject I don't think killing them would do anything good for people So I just simply stated tourcher them.

(1) If you're not embarrassed, then that's a problem. Considering that the Japanese international students I've met speak/write MUCH better English than this, you have quite a bit you should be ashamed of. This isn't a matter of forgetting some obscure grammar rule; everyone does that from time to time, but few people choose their punctuation marks using roulette. It isn't a matter of minor spelling errors either; "embarse" isn't even a phonetic approximation of "embarrass." Most importantly, however, is the fact that none of your arguments (if you can call them that) are even remotely logical. Let's take, for example:

(2) What good does torture do "for people"? It's certainly bad for the torturee, psychologically bad for the torturer, and certainly not beneficial for a random person on the street.

How the hell do you forget your English grammar anyways? I'd understand when five year olds fluent in Korean or something move to America, learn English, and forget how to speak Korean, BUT. You are not five years old!

And it would help if you explained why you think torture will be be more beneficial than killing them off. Because I sure don't see it mister.

I am not a beast. I am a human. My English does suck because for the past 6 months I have been learning Japanese and I have forgotten some of my english grammer, so stop trying to embarse me it is not happening. No it is not an excuse.Back on subject I don't think killing them would do anything good for people So I just simply stated tourcher them.

I've been learning Japanese for over a year and it didn't do anything to my Dutch or English. Maybe you shouldn't try to learn Japanese if you can't even properly use English.

So if I went over to a mother with her baby and knifed them both to death and stabbed away at the 1 year old until it could not be seen for all of its organs, I won't be punished as severely as one who got drunk and accidentally crashed into a bus stop killing 3 drunks?

I am aware that my spelling there was attrocious... (sp?)
That is a good question. Since you killed two people, I would only lock you up for 10 years because you were aware what you were doing.

Okay new subject! What do you think the punishment sould be for rapist and why? I'll give my opinion later on this subject.

Rapests should have there 'bits' removed. What more needs saying?

Isn't it "rapist"?

Good point HanTony. But still,should that be all? What if it was your boy or girl? If it was my child, I would make them pay $ 5oo,000 to me for putting my child through all that crap. That is after they get their stuff removed of course. And if they can't pay that make them work like dogs, Better yet kick that persons ass for raping a child. Just to make it fair have the child or adult confront him/her and let the child beat the crap out of them with a metal pole. I would put the person who rape someone through hell if it was me.

Dude, that's creepy. You actually think it'd fun to watch? You must really have a sick mind. Maybe methodx was right about you.

I still want to know what good torture and sexual humiliation does for the public. Asides from encouraging your sick sadistic demeanor. Which isn't good for you, nor the public.

"Still", being the key word here.
I'm waiting.

It entertains them duh

Good point HanTony. But still,should that be all? What if it was your boy or girl? If it was my child, I would make them pay $ 5,000 to me for putting my child through all that crap. That is after they get their stuff removed of course. And if they can't pay that make them work like dogs, Better yet do that same thing they done to that child or adult. Just to make it fair have the child or adult confront him/her and lay it on em. Just kidding but that would be fun to watch.

5000 dollars? that's hardly anything, really. Maybe make it 500.000 or something. Then again, money will never take away the trauma the rape victim has.

Better yet do that same thing they done to that child or adult. Just to make it fair have the child or adult confront him/her and lay it on em. Just kidding but that would be fun to watch.

You are one sick bastard. How can you say its entertaining to watch someone being raped especially a child, or in this case, a child doing the raping.

Yes! Leon agrees with me! Take that Cody!

This thread is making me laugh *so* hard.
Thank you cody, for being an insane jackass. XD

I know he's stating his opinions like we all are but damn......how can you think that let alone type that? Sure, if something like that happened to my child, I would want the bastard/bitch to pay too but I wouldn't find it "fun to watch" as that stuff you said before is happening to them. If something like that did happened, I would say that he/she got what's coming to them (out of extreme anger and pain of course) but I wouldn't be all giddy and say "Did you get it on tape?" And why would I let my now abused child anywhere near that person? That's plain stupid. Also, who in their right mind would really find any of that "fun" let alone funny? That's not funny. I wouldn't find that funny in the least bit at all. I would want that person to suffer (in the rare case die) for putting my child through that too but I wouldn't be laughing my ass off thinking it's funny as they're suffering. I'm not that cruel or heartless or in your case, sadistic. Anyone could feel that way but only a few would actually enjoy the sick joy as a human being is tortured in such an inhumane way and relish the extreme pain that occured from it. I would rather have him/her, if possible, to remain in prison for life and think about the pain and mental damage it caused my child for the remainer of his/her life. I think that's a lot more understandable and sane for a revenage than what you mentioned earlier. I find it extremely sick that you actually said any of this, opinion or not. Cody.....you need help.....seriously....a normal person wouldn't say or kid around like that at all. Methodx was totally right about you. You sicken me Cody....never ever talk to me....I mean it.

I think the Government should do what they do with Paedophiles where they put the names and addresses on a list where the general public can gain access. It seems to work with convicted Paedophiles so it should work with various other crimes as well.

p.s Cody is on vacation so don't expect his reply's to soon.

You are one sick bastard. How can you say its entertaining to watch someone being raped especially a child, or in this case, a child doing the raping.

What are you talking about? I never said I injoy watching someone get rape. What tha hell is wrong with you people that is freaking sick.

Is that why your last post was edited at 11:58 today, or are you trying to cause conflict?


Oh yeah...


What are you talking about? I never said I [e]njoy watching someone get rape[d]. What th[e] hell is wrong with you people[?] [T]hat is freaking sick.

Hahahahaha, he totally changed his last post! He didn't even *try* making it look like it wasn't changed; it's totally different!

That is hilarious!
::crying laughing right now::

I swear Cody's original post was different, yeah...

Is that why your last post was edited at 11:58 today, or are you trying to cause conflict?


Oh yeah...
No I am not trying to cause conflict. I just edit my last post because I noticed their would be a number of people who would missunderstand me. I know I didn't spell correctly.

Angelic quoted him shortly after he made the original. The quote shows his earlier post. And it is...


Good point HanTony. But still,should that be all? What if it was your boy or girl? If it was my child, I would make them pay $ 5,000 to me for putting my child through all that crap. That is after they get their stuff removed of course. And if they can't pay that make them work like dogs, Better yet do that same thing they done to that child or adult. Just to make it fair have the child or adult confront him/her and lay it on em. Just kidding but that would be fun to watch.

There isn't a confusing point with such a straightforward statement. You said it'd be fun to watch the "child or adult" lay it on "em".

AND!--yes, there's more--if you know that you are making spelling mistakes, why don't you fix them? Or do you like looking like a failure?

I think the Government should do what they do with paedophiles where they put the names and addresses on a list where the general public can gain access. It seems to work with convicted paedophiles so it should work with various other crimes as well.

p.s Cody is on vacation so don't expect his reply too soon.


What are you talking about? I never said I enjoy watching someone get raped. What the hell is wrong with you people? That is freaking sick.

Let me put two and two together:

Cody was "on vacation" because he is "freaking sick". From his edited and contradictory posts, I deduce that Cody is suffering from Multiple Personality Disorders. In fact, one of the posts were posted by Cody, but the other post is posted by McCollaum, as evident by his username. So, when Cody goes "on vacation", McCollaum's indignant righteous personality surfaces to replace Cody's sick perverted personality.

Conclusion: Cody/McCollaum needs to take his/their medication(s). Eat your bitter-tasting candy (pills), screwball!

Let me put two and two together:

Cody was "on vacation" because he is "freaking sick". From his edited and contradictory posts, I deduce that Cody is suffering from Multiple Personality Disorders. In fact, one of the posts were posted by Cody, but the other post is posted by McCollaum, as evident by his username. So, when Cody goes "on vacation", McCollaum's indignant righteous personality surfaces to replace Cody's sick perverted personality.

Conclusion: Cody/McCollaum needs to take his/their medication(s). Eat your bitter-tasting candy (pills), screwball!
I got to give it to you that was very funny. So funny I giggled:bleh:
I do not injoy watching anyone getting raped that is sick and wrong now lay off!

No, you still have it wrong. You said "lay it on em".

Theres a line between pointing out something and ridiculing. Heres a prime example while I sometimes hate smart people, they bend and warp until people want to stab you. Just stop picking on him, DB said what was to be said.

There's a line between pointing out something and ridiculing. Here's a prime example while I sometimes hate smart people, they bend and warp until people want to stab you. Just stop picking on him, DB said what was to be said.Candidly speaking (due to a nauseating hangover), in this case it is M that is pointing out what has to be said, Cody/McCollaum bending and warping his own posts (whether he is "smart" or not remains to be see), and I'm ridiculing Cody/McCollaum until he wants to stab me (oh noes~!!1)(disclaimer: I may not be smart).

I believe you two are smart. But hey, I am the one to talk, I give out so much sarcasm I need a stabbing :O

I agree on the stabbing alright.

"Punishing Criminals" has turned into "Punishing RD".

Let the fun begin. :poke:

Stab me, its a stabbing spree!

*staps ^* :death:

Please everyone, no stabbing. Before I leave on vaction I want to ask you all this, How do you think prostitutes and drug lords should be punished if their cought?

I don't think that prostitutes need arresting/punishing, whats so harmful about it?
Drug lords could be stopped by removing there finger tips so that they phisicaly cannot what they do. But this would be inhumane and prison is like a trophy to some people so i don't know what could be done.

Edit: Why do i have a feeling that Cody has a school project on punishment.

Prostitutes don't need a punishing. They need a decent job, relocation and rehabilitation.
I don't see drug lords as bad as murderers so I suppose 20 years would do, but this would depend on whether or not they sold drugs to minors. If so, then they get the whole shebang. Lethal injection ftw.

Let me put two and two together:

Cody was "on vacation" because he is "freaking sick". From his edited and contradictory posts, I deduce that Cody is suffering from Multiple Personality Disorders. In fact, one of the posts were posted by Cody, but the other post is posted by McCollaum, as evident by his username. So, when Cody goes "on vacation", McCollaum's indignant righteous personality surfaces to replace Cody's sick perverted personality.

Conclusion: Cody/McCollaum needs to take his/their medication(s). Eat your bitter-tasting candy (pills), screwball!

I just spat hot chocolate across the screen! I have never laughed so hard!

Prostitutes don't need a punishing. They need a decent job, relocation and rehabilitation.
I don't see drug lords as bad as murderers so I suppose 20 years would do, but this would depend on whether or not they sold drugs to minors. If so, then they get the whole shebang. Lethal injection ftw.

What the hell? What makes minors so special? Don't they have as much free will as anyone else?

I don't think drug dealers need to be punished either. They're selling a product. If people want said product, they're going to get it no matter what. That's their own stupidity. It's not like drug dealers hold kids at gunpoint and force them to take heroine. :rolleyes:

Well. For one part wouldn't selling drugs to kids be seen as being more.. repulsive, if you will, than if you were to sell it to an adult?
I dunno. Maybe it's just me.

I agree that kids have as much free will as anyone but are they old enough to consider the consequences? Furthermore, they are definitely more easily manipulated to do things even if the drug dealers don't hold them gunpoint. Drug dealers are selling a product which will ruin someone's future and can even cause death, it is selling poison to another person while encouraging them to take it so that they can earn money out of it.

What the hell? What makes minors so special? Don't they have as much free will as anyone else?

I don't think drug dealers need to be punished either. They're selling a product. If people want said product, they're going to get it no matter what. That's their own stupidity. It's not like drug dealers hold kids at gunpoint and force them to take heroine. :rolleyes:

A lot of drugs are much more dangerous if taken at an early age. (Not to mention a lot more addicting...hence the appeal of selling to minors--they make more loyal customers...)

I don't buy the logic that drug dealers are simply facilitating what would happen anyway. Analogy: "I don't think hitmen need to be punished. People are going to die no matter what." Or what about weapons dealers?

A big difference between the prostitute and the drug lord is that, more often than not, the prostitute acts out of need, and the drug lord out of greed. Also, the main person who gets hurt in prostitution is the prostitute himself/herself (they can't be guaranteed to have protected sex, so they end up with whatever STD their clients might have), while the people who get hurt in drug dealing are the clients, law enforcement officers, and innocent bystanders.

Oops, sorry guys, I forgot about this thread for a bit ^ ^"
Now I'm back to answer though. ^_^


A lot of drugs are much more dangerous if taken at an early age. (Not to mention a lot more addicting...hence the appeal of selling to minors--they make more loyal customers...)

That's true and arguably a good point. Still, these drugs are *always* dangerous and *always* addicting, so I don't see why the punishment for selling to minors should made much steeper because of this.


I don't buy the logic that drug dealers are simply facilitating what would happen anyway. Analogy: "I don't think hitmen need to be punished. People are going to die no matter what." Or what about weapons dealers?

I think that's a broken analogy. Hitmen don't ask their victims whether they mind being killed. Therefore, if hitmen weren't around, their victims wouldn't die (at least not quite so quickly. XP )

With drugs on the other hand, the dealers aren't even *asking* people to buy their drugs most of the time. Their "victims" (if you can call them that) go to them by free will, and even *pay* to be "victimized."


A big difference between the prostitute and the drug lord is that, more often than not, the prostitute acts out of need, and the drug lord out of greed.

That's a good point there, I agree with that one. ^_^


Also, the main person who gets hurt in prostitution is the prostitute himself/herself (they can't be guaranteed to have protected sex, so they end up with whatever STD their clients might have), while the people who get hurt in drug dealing are the clients, law enforcement officers, and innocent bystanders.

I kind of disagree with this, mainly because I was really only talking about non-violent drug dealers. That was my own mistake of course, as Cody said "drug lords" originally. If a drug lord goes around harming people in ways besides selling his drugs, such as getting into shootouts with police men and such, then yes, I do think he's worse than a prostitute. I was really thinking about the usual 24 year old kids walking around bad neighborhoods quietly selling their wares when I made my argument, my apologies. ^ ^;

Also, prostitutes can hurt many people too, for the same reason you gave regarding why they hurt themselves: what do you think happens when they contract an std? If they're working the streets out of need as you suggested, they sure as hell don't just stop being a prostitute; they go along spreading their newly-gotten disease to others. ;P

Anyway, my arguments, haha. Sex from a prostitute and drugs from a dealer can both ruin your life. Still, they're both selling services that people want and would find regardless. This is why I find them equally....neutral I guess I would say, haha. ^ -^

Alcohol kills a lot of people too; should we go around arresting liquor store owners? We tried doing that in the 20's. It was stupid, and didn't work for obvious reasons. People wanted alcohol. People want drugs and sex too, and they'll find ways to get them no matter what the government does to try stopping them. <---random tangent, it had a point when I started writing it, but I forgot how I was planning on closing it up...just use your imagination I guess. ;)

I have no problem with prostitutes because they do that somethimes to survive, although I think they sould get a better job instead of selling their selves. Only thing I have against drug lords is the violence,and selling to young kids.

Ever heard of Mother Teresa?

You can hardly expect a child to understand that drugs will do more to you than make you high. Most haven't learned enough to be able to separate reason from impulse. An adult, though may be an idiot, has lived longed enough that they should be responsible for their future, their actions and be able to understand consequences. Even the thickest ones should know deep down that by the end of the day, everything is not going to be all rainbows and pixies for them and they will be just a loser wasted by a bottom feeder and artifical emotions. It's like the thin line between raping a blind woman and raping a.. fully functional woman.
Erm.
Well, I have gotten myself into a little pickle now have I?

You can hardly expect a child to understand that drugs will do more to you than make you high. Most haven't learned enough to be able to separate reason from impulse. An adult, though may be an idiot, has lived longed enough that they should be responsible for their future, their actions and be able to understand consequences.

True, I guess I wasn't thinking clearly...when people say "minor" I automatically think "16-17 year old," because those are the minors you most often hear about in the news and such, getting their dumb asses into trouble. XD

Of course, I think the penalty should be harsher when selling to a 12 year old than a 30 year old, I really only meant that the punishment should be decided rationally, instead of just going "omg, he sold to a kid who was only 17 years, 9 months old! Give him 30 years instead of 5!!!" Looking back on your posts, I'm sure that's what you meant too; I'm just an idiot sometimes I guess. X3


It's like the thin line between raping a blind woman and raping a.. fully functional woman.

That made me laugh pretty hard. ;)

Why 30 years? I would make sure that the person had to pay for the damage that they caused the kid.I say a $500 fine and 32 years in jail.

OH.MY.GOD.

A 500 whopping dollar fine! Are you SUUUURE that you won't mentally damage the poor prisoner with a whole FIVEHUNDRED DOLLAR fine?!! OH MY GOD!

Seriously, how stupid are you? If you're sending them to prison for 30 years they won't give a damn about those 500 dollars anymore.

Yeah pretty stupid in some areas.But your right making them pay $500 is stupid. Why would that damage the prisoner mentally? Like you said," they won't give a damed about those 500 dollars anymore."

That's my point. I was being sarcastic. To be honest, I was making fun of you.

How could you spel damn as damed? How? Please tell me, as I am interested as to how his could possibly ever "accidentally" happen...

Anyway, yes, Angelic was taking the mick. The fine is not meant to mentally scar someone it is meant as punishment. If you had to pay the child 50$ you wouldn't think too much about it as a punishment.

And extending 2 years doesn't really make a valid point. You could juggle fews of years.

How could you spel damn as damed? How? Please tell me, as I am interested as to how his could possibly ever "accidentally" happen...

Anyway, yes, Angelic was taking the mick. The fine is not meant to mentally scar someone it is meant as punishment. If you had to pay the child 50$ you wouldn't think too much about it as a punishment.

And extending 2 years doesn't really make a valid point. You could juggle fews of years.
Okay I am lost what are you talking about? What do you mean juggle a few years?


Angelic don't get so defencive I was only messing with you. I know you were making fun of me.

Let me break it down so you can understand.

Juggle ---> Thats when you do this: juggle.jpg (JPEG Image, 432x458 pixels) (http://yucs.org/%7Erweiser/pics/juggle.jpg)
A -------> one... single... proportional word.
Few ----> A small number.. such as 3 or 5
Years ---> a group of 356 days.

All together: it means to pick and choose the dates: it is irrelevant: IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

You could juggle fews of years.

Sorry Jaso, but trying to make Cody look stupid with this one just isn't going to fly. What you said just made no freaking sense; I didn't get what you were trying to say either. XP

Of course, I understood that you were saying adding a number as small and arbitrary as "2" was pointless, but I didn't know what the hell to make of that last sentence of yours. XD

Oh I get it now. Its not realy pointless if you think about.A person would be satisfied with 30 years than 32 years would they not?

It wouldn't make much of a difference to them, really.

[QUOTE=Angelic;322384]It wouldn't make much of a difference to them, really.[/QUOTE

why wouldn't it make any difference? Please tell me.

It just wouldn't. on 30 years 2 years extra is hardly worth mentioning. You should at least add 5 years or so to make it worth anything.

You think too much like a kid. To children 2 years and 500 dollar fines seem massive, but to adults it's not really that much. Especially if it's added on 30 year they'd already go to jail anyway.

Let's do some math...

30 years. That's 10 950 days.
32 years. That's 11 680 days.

What's another 730 days when you've already been in jail for 10 950 days? That's only another 6 percent. Not even a tenth of what they have already done. To put it into perspective, look at what a 1.00 USD can buy, then look at what 0.07 USD can buy. It's nothing.

If you really want to make an impression that the number is too low, go another ten years, maybe even twenty. But then that's what the United States calls a "Life Sentence" (50 years or so).

Also, 268 USD can be earned in a standard work week being paid minimum wage here in the US. The fine could be paid off in half a month.

*wonders how a 17 year old doesn't have this kind of outlook on things*

*Shoots M for introducing math*

*Shoots Cody for spelling TAGS wrong!*

OMG!!! How do you mispell tags!?!? AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!

Jaso don't be such a hypocrit(sp?) (yes maybe its spelled wrong. Correct me, i don't care) you spell tags wrong sometimes too. =.= You don't see anyone else bitching at you when you put wrong tags.

Personally I don't think prostitutes should be punished (heh typical of me saying it since i'm a christian... meh) they're trying to earn a living and its not like they force someone to buy the service. I don't think theres a law against prostitution........ is there? (waits for someone like M to correct me)

Drug dealers should be punished though, only if they sell to teens or kids since they're more gullible at this age.... :unsure: ... well most are. Most underaged drug addicts use drugs because they think its "cool".

*wonders how a 17 year old doesn't have this kind of outlook on things*

Remember the rule of the intranet...
Either that or he lives under a rock...

Personally, I think that when punishing criminals, they should experience the same thing they put the victims through...but seeing as that's impossible, maybe what M said was right...a life sentence would suffice (about 50 years or so)

Personally, I think that when punishing criminals, they should experience the same thing they put the victims through...

I kind of disagree with that...I think people should only be punished as much as is necessary; eg. enough to convince them not to do it again, and enough to defer others from making the same mistakes the criminal in question made...
Here's why: http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=866

Because of that, I believe we should not hold grudges against people, and should punish them not out of malice, but only to make them better people. ^_^

Of course, I held that view of the universe way before I saw that webcomic, but now that I've found it, I use it to explain my views in a quick, convenient way. XD

Uhmmmm, oops...
I posted twice somehow? And the delete button is hiding? Sorry guys! XD

Eh, personaly I believe punishment should be adjusted to the situation. (Ie: if killing was to protect someone, or actually to kill them). I'm not a big fan of 'death penality' and feel it should be used very sparingly, only if the situation warrants it should it be used. I guess that's kinda vague, but that's what I feel...

Of course, I held that view of the universe way before I saw that webcomic, but now that I've found it, I use it to explain my views in a quick, convenient way. XD
A webcomic about your life being set in stone or free to choose whatever path you want? I don't really get how it connects to this :\

But it DID give me an idea! XD

Hmmm, it connects to this thread, because I was basically saying that nobody deserves to be punished for anything, no matter how horrible...since life is just a string of connected, unchangeable events. ;)

And I'll post in your new thread soon, its 6 am, I just got up, and I'm very tired. XD

*wonders how a 17 year old doesn't have this kind of outlook on things*
Because I don't have the ability to do so in cases like this. I just simply added 2 years to add 2 years. Who cares? Luckly I didn't say something like 30 more years thats basicly life in prison.

Your English has suddenly improved 0.0

By golly, it has. I smell a New Year's Resolution.

Attempting a multiquote. Will edit in real content after I get it working.

EDIT: Screw that...copy and paste time.


OMG!!! How do you mispell tags!?!? AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!
Of course, you just have to misspell "misspell"...


Years ---> a group of 356 days.
What planet are you from? o_O

Honestly, some of your posts are just, well, criminal...


You think too much like a kid. To children 2 years and 500 dollar fines seem massive, but to adults it's not really that much. Especially if it's added on 30 year they'd already go to jail anyway.
For reference, illegally reproducing a movie can bag you 5 years in jail and/or a $250,000 fine. So a 30-year jail sentence could go with...?

Honestly, some of your posts are just, well, criminal...
@^: i'd say hypocritical ><

hmm did cody gain a third personality XD? (referring to Dark Bring's analysis on cody's posts)

For reference, illegally reproducing a movie can bag you 5 years in jail and/or a $250,000 fine. So a 30-year jail sentence could go with...?

The government[s] need to get things straightened out. Some man slaughter criminals get what I think is less sever punishment then that.

^ Yeah, some of the trials I've heard about are freaking outrageous. How about this one - a man rapes a girl (around 15 years old I think) and the judge says he's "too short to go to prison, as he might be raped or abused." So he gets some bullshit punishment of like 200 hours of community service. Talk about irony. XP

Hay I done some research and found this, a man whent to rob this house and got suck into the garage for 3weeks. Well when ever the people came home from vacation they found him. He took the people to court because he got stuck in their garage for 3weeks and had to eat dog food and drink soada. He won the case even though he is the one who tried to robbed that person. Thats crazy.

Hay I done some research and found this, a man whent to robe this house and got suck into the garage for 3weeks. Well when ever the people came home from vacation they found him. He took the people to court because he got stuck in their garage for 3weeks and had to eat dog food and drink soada. He won the case even though he is the one who tried to robe that person. Thats crazy.

I remember that. it got a reward for top ten most rediculess law cases about 2 years ago. BTW it's rob. robe is an item of clothing.

Oh. That happened 2 years ago damed I got to come up with something more up to date.
I ment robbed

How the hell is that even possible? They got sue because the theif was stupid enough to get stuck in their garabe? Man....we got some dumb judges out there.

How the hell is that even possible? They got sue because the theif was stupid enough to get stuck in their garabe? Man....we got some dumb judges out there.
Tell me about it. Somehow we should get rid of all the stupid judges and have smart judges take there places. Is their away to do that?

I'm not sure. I think some of those people are just there until they quit or die no matter how good or bad they are. Oh, and quote me next time, don't copy and paste it. It looks like you said it which can be weird like you're talking to yourself.

Okay. How do we get rid of them?

I'm not sure to be honest. They got some kind of thing going on there where the people there are just there. I forgot what it was but it's like they can't get fired or something. I'm a little confused as to if that pretain to this or something else. I know that it's true for some people in the government.

Edit: DS is kinda dizzy from trying to remember old facts from several years ago. I think I got some facts mixed up. Sorry if I confused anyone.

I'm a little confused as to if that pretain to this or something else. I know that it's true for some people in the government.

I'm pretty sure normal judges can be fired...I think maybe supreme court justices can't or something? I really should read up on this, it's kind of embarrassing not even knowing how my own government works. > <

^ Yeah, some of the trials I've heard about are freaking outrageous. How about this one - a man rapes a girl (around 15 years old I think) and the judge says he's "too short to go to prison, as he might be raped or abused." So he gets some bullshit punishment of like 200 hours of community service. Talk about irony. XP

If I was the judge I would send him to prison anyways. It dosn't matter how short you are. A crime is a crime and that guy should of got 50 lashes, 30 years in a mental institution, along with 40 years in prison. But sitll that seems a little harsh though.:lol:

Strange.....since he was the one who raped the little girl. I mean come on. He didn't get sent to prison because he, the rapist, would get raped? I know rape is a serious thing and it shouldn't happen to anyone but that punishment is just plain stupid. I thought rape was a crime to go to jail for. He probably raped another child after that for all we know. Our world is truly a fucked up place.

Strange.....since he was the one who raped the little girl. I mean come on. He didn't get sent to prison because he, the rapist, would get raped? I know rape is a serious thing and it shouldn't happen to anyone but that punishment is just plain stupid. I thought rape was a crime to go to jail for. He probably raped another child after that for all we know. Our world is truly a fucked up place.

I'm sorry man but I don't understand, what you are talking about? What punishment is plan stupid? The 50 lashes, 30years in a mental institution, 40 years in jail, what?

He is saying that is is stupid that the rapist did not go to jail.

Oh. Sorry I missunderstood him.

Note: If an adult has sex with a minor, it is considered rape no matter what the circumstances. It's possible that this case was one of those "18-year-old guy and 15-year-old girlfriend hook up, and her parents found out and got mad" statutory rape cases.

Not just rape: Statutory rape. There's greater punishments.

without criminal everything would go too good and without things done by criminal such as killing people (which is in my eyes a favor to the planet's survival), we shouldn't be punishing them.

.....Whoa......Celeste....dear....do you actually believe that? :mellow: Isn't being in a criminal free world a good thing? If you live in the ghetto like me you would reallyyyy change your mind about that. You really think it's in the planet's best interest that by criminals killing people......we shouldn't punish them because it's for the good of the planet? From the planet's view point that would be true since w/ the way we humans use and waste.....to be more accurate destroy the planet's natural resources and its life forms, it would be a good thing but from a human's view point....it's a matter of keeping our people civilize and under control. I mean, of course we kill each other..... we too are some form of animal trying to survive and our history shows that we do that all the time but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. Shit....you can drive a car w/ your feet if you want to but that doesn't mean it's a good fucking idea. I'm just saying if things went your way.....life as we know it will be hell itself since no criminals can be punish no matter how horrible the offense that was committed, it'd be righteous in the eyes of the planet so it's justicable.

well sweetie ^_^ let me rephrase my phrase in a different tone. If everything was pretty and everyone loved their neighbors and everyone loved each other, leading ourselves into a criminal free world, the planet would obviously over populate leading us to a leak in natural resources and everyone would be commiting self suicide. Therefore, criminals are there to keep the planatorial balance to assure that this one doesn't over populate :) And this applies to much more than criminals.

You've suddenly melted into Cody's form of speech.

I.e. reph[r]ase, diff[e]rent, ton[e], as[s]ure, appl[ie]s




Waahhhhhh I'm sorry.:( I couldn't help it. 'scuse me.

You've suddenly melted into Cody's form of speech.

I.e. reph[r]ase, diff[e]rent, ton[e], as[s]ure, appl[ie]s




Waahhhhhh I'm sorry.:( I couldn't help it. 'scuse me.

:( thank you.

Note: If an adult has sex with a minor, it is considered rape no matter what the circumstances. It's possible that this case was one of those "18-year-old guy and 15-year-old girlfriend hook up, and her parents found out and got mad" statutory rape cases.

Only in America though.

To be honest if its 'statutory rape they really need to look at the circumstances.' But no jail because youre too short?x_x

What idiot says that. People can be so stupid these days.

I am out of Ideas. One of you can come up with the next dicussion on punishing criminals.
Sorry but what is statutory rape? Is that when a person older haves sex with aminor when they are going out?

This explains Statutory rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape) more in detail so you can understand it better.

Thanks!
That helped some.

Oh, and I got over that never wanting to talk to you thing again. It was just that one of my little cousins (female) was molested before so I kinda took it personal. She's okay now but I always wondered how it affected her.

well sweetie ^_^ let me rephrase my phrase in a different tone. If everything was pretty and everyone loved their neighbors and everyone loved each other, leading ourselves into a criminal free world, the planet would obviously over populate leading us to a leak in natural resources and everyone would be commiting self suicide. Therefore, criminals are there to keep the planatorial balance to assure that this one doesn't over populate :) And this applies to much more than criminals.

The planet only overpopulates if the average number of children per couple is greater than 2 (something of a simplification, because it doesn't count people who aren't, er, coupled). Last I checked, the better the quality of life in a country, the lower its birth average. I believe there are even some countries (i.e., Japan) that have a birth rate below 2/couple, which would mean that barring immigration, they would run out of people, not resources.

The planet only overpopulates if the average number of children per couple is greater than 2 (something of a simplification, because it doesn't count people who aren't, er, coupled). Last I checked, the better the quality of life in a country, the lower its birth average. I believe there are even some countries (i.e., Japan) that have a birth rate below 2/couple, which would mean that barring immigration, they would run out of people, not resources.

And did you know that if all the people on this miserable earth had the same thing we'd need about 5 planet earth to satisfy all their needs? But everyone knows theres only one earth. That is what I mean.

And did you know that if all the people on this miserable earth had the same thing we'd need about 5 planet Earth to satisfy all their needs? But everyone knows theres only one Earth. That is what I mean.First off, tell me where'd you get 'if all the people on this miserable Earth had the same thing we'd need about 5 planet Earth to satisfy all their needs' from.

Secondly, not everybody wants the same thing.

Thirdly, you explicitly stated that criminals functions as a population control mechanism, without which we will overrun the planet. What tanonev is telling you is that the countries which are experiencing a gradual loss of population is due to their birth average, not due to their crime rates.

^Exactly. Cigarettes kill more people than murder does in the United States. Japan has almost zero violent crime, yet I think their birth rates are very low, and their suicide rate is very high. Population growth isn't simply tied to how many criminals there are in a country. Believe me, if crime went away, the world wouldn't randomly explode. XP

First off, tell me where'd you get 'if all the people on this miserable Earth had the same thing we'd need about 5 planet Earth to satisfy all their needs' from.

Secondly, not everybody wants the same thing.

Thirdly, you explicitly stated that criminals functions as a population control mechanism, without which we will overrun the planet. What tanonev is telling you is that the countries which are experiencing a gradual loss of population is due to their birth average, not due to their crime rates.

I'm a university student, some of my courses tend to look over these subjects. And no not everybosy wants the same thing, but you do know that their is a norm in this world and that norm is what everyone refers to, so will I.

And for your last point (and this does reply to the hopelesscomposer); it's kind of hard for me to explain it but here goes: we overpopulated this world and now, things are making that changec, and crime is just one of them.

I'm a university student, some of my courses tend to look over these subjects. And no not everybody wants the same thing, but you do know that there is a norm in this world and that norm is what everyone refers to, so will I.If you are a university student, you will know of the important of quoting your sources and references, which you have yet to provided to us. Secondly, if not everybody want the samething but there is a norm, tell us, what is the norm?


And for your last point (and this does reply to the hopelesscomposer); it's kind of hard for me to explain it but here goes: we overpopulated this world and now, things are making that change, and crime is just one of them.You have yet to provide evidence that crime is preventing us from overpopulating this world.

Dark Bring is right girl. Pretty much, without quoting your sources and references, you're just really giving your opinion.....nothing more. Come on Celeste©, if you really want to support your statements, start giving some evidence to go along with your arguments or else it will be shot down like this everytime.....and what happened to your grammar?

Bleh, Ugh... listen stop treating me like an incompetant fool. I know all about that crap but I don't think I'll get sued on ichigo if I make a statement without quoting my resources.

I'm done in this pathetic thread it's only opinions upon others you can't proove shit as well as I can so let's call this the end of our little conversation unless you want us to start another in religion.

Bleh, Ugh... listen stop treating me like an incompetent fool.Why do you think that I am treating you like an incompetent fool?


I know all about that crap but I don't think I'll get sued on Ichigo's if I make a statement without quoting my resources.Of course you won't get sued simply because you made a statement without quoting your sources on the Internet, of all places, but surely you understand that the burden of proof is upon you to back up your claim that criminals are a population control mechanism, right?


I'm done in this pathetic thread it's only opinions upon others you can't prove shit as well as I can so let's call this the end of our little conversation unless you want us to start another in religion.Whilst the quality of this thread isn't stellar, I wouldn't be so harsh as to rate it pathetic. Yes, people do state their opinions in this thread, and people have also provided facts. If you want to end this dialogue you can simply cease replying to this thread, and I would be more than happy to join you in the Religion thread for some verbal sparring.

If you want to end this dialogue you can simply cease replying to this thread, and I would be more than happy to join you in the Religion thread for some verbal sparring.

No Celeste! It's a trap! Dark Bring has a sharp wit and ridiculous stamina! He'll argue with you until you give up in despair! XD

;)

Then again, I'm starting to miss the religion thread...maybe you should go Celeste; it'd be entertaining at least.

cry!

Where's your source?

How can you be conned into abortion?

How can you be conned into abortion?

Their was a 17 year old girl. She was pregnant 6 moths. She wanted to have that baby but her mother didn't want her to have it. The mother went to the docter,then got the docter to lie to her daughter, Saying that the baby was going to be born deformed and brain damage and that the effects were permanent. He perswaded her twice to abort her child. She did.
Sorry about the grammer, I am still working on it.

Still no source. Until you cite your sources, I refuse to believe any facts you provide.

Still no source. Until you cite your sources, I refuse to believe any facts you provide.

LIsten up belive what you want. Go to google or something look it up yourself

Rude. <_<
Just make sure you put in the site where you got your data otherwise we'd believe you're making it up. It's so we can believe what you're saying. You can't expect us to just blindly believe whatever you say. This is the internet, the web of lies. You need proof man. Also, why would we need to look it up? Shouldn't you be the one to do so? You're the one that provided unfounded data here. It's lazy to not prove what're you saying and then tell us to look it up for you or whatever.

Hmmmm. his 'guy stuck in garage' story was true so i presume at least some of this could be true, but if you are just saying what you yourself have read then a souce would be ideal.

Cody, if you just shout out stuff and then refuse to give us your sources, nobody will believe you and you might as well not bother to post.

Okay, this is from google.com
How many abortions are there?

In the U.S. there are 2 reporting agencies. The U.S. Center for Disease Control is a passive recipient of reports voluntarily sent to it by the states. Since all states don’t report, and many report inaccurately, these totals are under-reported. The CDC does do a meticulous job of breaking down the categories, and so these are the percentages everyone uses. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a branch of Planned Parenthood, aggressively contacts hospitals and known abortionists, and the result is a more accurate and larger figure, which we use.

How many? During the 1980s and 1990s total abortions stayed about 1,550,000 annually, slowly decreasing in the 1990s. Note that the Guttmacher Institute reported that 10% of known abortion providers did not report. Adding 10% to its 1,550,000 equals 1,700,000. The total reported slowly decreased in the 1990s. When the unreported abortions are added (income tax evasion, cover-up for privacy, etc.), a figure of 1,800,000 may be more realistic. Live births have hovered just under 4,000,000. Therefore: Almost every third baby conceived in America is killed by abortion. 112 Abortion Surveillance U.S. 1988 Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, July 1991. S.K. Henshaw et al., "Abortion Services in the U.S., 1987-1988," Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 22, No. 3 (May-June 1990), p. 103.

What’s the story on numbers of abortion providers?

In 1973 half of all abortions in the U.S. were done in hospitals. Twenty years later it was down to 7%. Most are done in 440 large free-standing abortion chambers which did 70% of all abortions. The rest are done in doctors’ offices or in clinics that do less than half of their "business" in abortion. 5 Henshaw et al., Ab. Service in U.S. Fam. Plan Persp., June ’94

How far along in pregnancy were they?

Using a 1,500,000 figure, in 1992:

- 1.2% or 18,000 were 22 weeks or older

- 10.0% or 150,000 were 13-20 weeks

- 88.8% or 1,332,000 were 12 and under

Center for Disease Control, MWWR, Dec. ’94

In 1994 the CDC reported that in 1993, 1.3% were done after 22 weeks or about 20,000.

How many are repeaters?

Repeat abortions were 20% in 1973 but rose to 44% in 1987. In the U.S., by 1995, 45% of all abortions were repeats. S. Henshaw et al., Ab. Characteristics, 1994-95, Fam. Plan. Persp., Vol. 28, No. 4, July ’96, p. 143

What is the racial mix?

"The abortion rate for black women is approximately three times that for white women." The race of those aborting, looking at total numbers, is 63% white, 33% black and 4% "other." CDC as above 113

How many in 3rd trimester?

Probably more since the partial birth abortion technique was begun. The official figures in the U.S. stop at 22 weeks but Dr. Wm. Swartz reported on inserting laminaria in 700 women for third trimester abortions. Swartz, OB/GYN News, vol. 21, no.11, p. 23, Jan. ’87

How many abortions are there in Canada?

In Canada, in 1984, there were 64,449 abortions, which is 17.5% of their birth rate (11.7% were late abortions). In 1993 there were 104,403 abortions. Statistics Canada, Globe & Mail, July 13, 1995

The 1969 Canadian law was struck down in 1988.

Since then, many free standing abortion chambers have been set up. The result has been a steady increase in the numbers of abortions.

How about sex selection?

Few abortionists admit to doing this and so there are few reports. When reported, it is girls who are killed except for a few males known to carry or have genetic diseases.

Is abortion done for sex selection?

Selective abortion of multi-fetal pregnancies is a good example. Doctors faced with quadruplets (4) will at times selectively kill two in the womb on the supposition that survival of two has better odds than four. But, if the sex can be determined, which ones are killed? "Ninety-nine percent of the requests are to keep the boys." M. Evans, Progress in Fetal Studies . . . Thorny Ethical Issues, OB, Gyn News, Oct. 1, 1990, p. 3

In a series of 8,000 amniocenteses done in Bombay, India, 7,999 unborn girl babies and one boy baby were killed.

But think of the additional welfare costs for all these babies born to teenagers.

Planned Parenthood’s own figures are that there will be welfare costs of $13,900 for each first birth to a teenager (married and unmarried), and $8,400 cost for each first birth to her if she is 20 years or older. Compare this with the average of nearly $50,000 each will ultimately pay in taxes as an adult. M.Burt, "Public Cost of Teen Childbearing," Family Planning Perspectives, vol.18, no. 5, Sept. 1986

What about Informed Consent?

This is one of the most tragic abuses associated with the abortion industry. In any other type of surgery, the doctor is required to explain in detail what the procedure is, its possible complications, etc. Only then does the patient give "informed" consent. Abortion is unique in that, while it is surgery that is potentially dangerous to the mother, it also destroys the living being within her. To be fully informed, she should be given full factual information on the surgery, its possible complications (immediate and long-term), and, also, full details about "what she carries."

What is done? Very little factual information is given at all, and what is given is often false. The complications are ignored, glossed over, or given on a paper in fine print. Her passenger is referred to as "pregnancy tissue," "not alive yet," "not a baby yet," "just a bunch of cells," "only a glob." These descriptions are given at a stage of development when the baby already sucks her thumb and feels pain, and when we can listen to her tiny heartbeat on an office ultrasonic stethoscope. Such deception of the mother and planned railroading of her into an abortion is never more evident than when the so-called "counselor" asks her, "Do you want your menstrual period reestablished? If so, just sign up for this procedure." Abortion is not mentioned, nor anything about the baby.

There is no better example of the exploitation of women than this continuing, commercialized, and almost universal deception.

How are abortions different in practice in clinics compared to other surgery?

Abortions are unique among all types of surgery.

The chart below reflects the situation in free standing abortion clinics in the U.S. To a greater or less extent, in every nation, abortion procedures are commonly exempt from the sanitary and professional rules required of other surgery.

ABORTION ETHICAL SURGERY
Payment Cash at door Pay later
Pathologic exam Seldom Routine
Advertising Routine Rare
Counseling Usually a farce Done if needed
Second opinion Never If needed
Informed consent Legally not required Always
Kickbacks Sometimes Never
Record Keeping Sketchy In detail
Pre-op exam Often not done until Mandatory and she is on the table detailed
Follow-up exam None Mandatory and detailed
Correct Diagnosis 10-15% done on none-pregnant women Surgeon is disciplined if he does many wrong operations
Husband’s consent Not needed Expected
Husband informed Not necessary Always
Consent of parents of minor Not needed Legally required
Parents informed Seldom Legally required
Tissue disposal In garbage In humane and dignified manner
Burial In garbage Yes, if large enough In humane and dignified manner
Surgical training Not required Absolutely required
Non-medical reasons 99% About 1%
Cash "kick-backs" common forbidden

Is there a remedy?

In the U.S., states are beginning to pass "Women’s Right to Know" laws. These require the abortionist to see the patient and mandate a waiting or "cooling off" period. Most require that an information booklet be given her. Probably the best such book is from the Ohio Department of Health and was approved by the Ohio Medical & Hospital Associations. For a copy, send $2.00 to Cincinnati Right to Life at 1802 W. Galbraith Rd., Cincinnati, Ohio, 45239, USA.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_17.asp

There we go. Was that so hard?

Angelic, thank you for providing links to cody/mccollaum's sources.
cody/mccollaum, please provide a link to the website you retrieved your sources from, not from a search engine.

Now let us examine cody/mccollaum's claims in the context of the issue he has raised.


I have done some research on this topic and found out 60% of women have abortion.Do you mean that 60% of all women in the United States of America have abortions, or do you mean that 60% of all pregnant women in the United States of America have abortions?


Though 20% is willing to abort the child, the other 40% are forced or conned into doing so.1) What happened to the remaining 40%?

2)How does your sources support your claim that '20% is willing to abort the child, the other 40% are forced or conned into doing so' ?

Doesn't this thread seem very off topic.

Angelic, thank you for providing links to cody/mccollaum's sources.
cody/mccollaum, please provide a link to the website you retrieved your sources from, not from a search engine.

Now let us examine cody/mccollaum's claims in the context of the issue he has raised.

Do you mean that 60% of all women in the United States of America have abortions, or do you mean that 60% of all pregnant women in the United States of America have abortions?

1) What happened to the remaining 40%?

2)How does your sources support your claim that '20% is willing to abort the child, the other 40% are forced or conned into doing so' ?

It doesn't. It was just an example. I ment 60% of most of pregnant woman has an abortion.

Doesn't this thread seem very off topic.

Not if you consider abortion a crime that needs punishing.

Not if you consider abortion a crime that needs punishing.

How should abortion be delt with when the doctor keeps urging a woman to have an abortion?

If a doctor does that it's probably because the mother's life is in danger.

Exactly, in which case, nothing should be done. Obviously. XP

So you'd let the mother die because of a baby who will probably have slim chances of survival? And if the kid survives, wait till they're 18 and then charge them for murder?

NO! In cases like that nothing should happen to the doctor.

So you'd let the mother die because of a baby who will probably have slim chances of survival? And if the kid survives, wait till they're 18 and then charge them for murder?

Who the hell are you talking to? XD
Was that directed at me? If so: I wasn't being sarcastic in my last post; I was agreeing with you. I'm not a sarcastic person unless someone annoys me, so you can usually take what I say at face-value. ;)

I think maybe I misunderstood your post then. I thought you meant no action should be taken (as in no abortion) and the mother should be left to die, but I now suppose you meant they should leave the doctor alone?

Yes, just that. ^_^
Sorry for being unclear; I was speaking as if I were holding an IRC conversation with you two, in which case, I think my point would've been sufficiently clear. I forgot that you'd be reading my response hours after you and Cody had posted. Sorry if my ideas came out muddled. ^ -^

It doesn't. It was just an example. I meant 60% of most of pregnant woman has an abortion.You mean you have nothing to back up your claim that [60% of pregnant woman abort their pregnancy / 20% is willing to abort the child but the other 40% are forced or conned into doing so]?

You actually expected him to? Hello, it's Cody.

As much as I like to belittle people on the forums, when it comes to arguments/debates/verbal sparring, I try not to commit any of the logical fallacies.

I am also genuinely interested in that remaining 40% of women who had abortions, but did not do it willingly nor were conned into doing so.

(I used to be a cody/mccollaum too, heh.)

Not if you consider abortion a crime that needs punishing.

I wouldn't concider a woman aborting her unborn child a criminal.

I wouldn't concider a woman aborting her unborn child a criminal.

O:

Why not? aren't unborn babies still babies? I mean, if someone punches a pregnant woman in the stomach, and kills her baby, im pretty sure they get charged with something stronger than "assault." ;)

I wouldn't consider a woman aborting her unborn child a criminal.Will you consider a woman aborting her born child a criminal?

... wait.

O:

Why not? aren't unborn babies still babies? I mean, if someone punches a pregnant woman in the stomach, and kills her baby, im pretty sure they get charged with something stronger than "assault." ;)


Will you consider a woman aborting her born child a criminal?

... wait.

@HC: Yeah it would be an assault to the girl, if it wasn't self-inflicted. Crime to another person in this case is hurting another human. And no I do not for a minute concider a feotus a living human thing. Until it has came out of the woman, it'll always be a feotus uncapable of anything.

@DB: It wouldn't make sense of killing a born child when their are multiple families ready to kill for one; now would it?

And to both of you: I will not start debating if a feotus is a living thing or not and if it's moral or not to have an abortion. You guys have your opinions and I have mine. Theres nothing you can do or say either that'll change my way of thinking.

@DB: It wouldn't make sense if killing a born child when there are multiple families ready to kill for one; now would it?I think that the fact that so many people are having abortions tells us that there are multiple families already killing not to have one.

... and if you didn't know already, my previous comment was intended to be humorous.


And to both of you: I will not start debating if a foetus is a living thing or not and if it's moral or not to have an abortion. A pity, but I'll live with it.


You guys have your opinions and I have mine. Of course, in fact, I think our opinions are not the same! Thank goodness for that, too!


There's nothing you can do or say either that'll change my way of thinking.This is very, very untrue and naive.

That said, I'd prefer that you do not change your way of thinking, because that would mean that there's one less person to disagree with me.

I motion that abortion rights be extended until the fetus reaches 18 years, 9 months :mellow:

OK, in all seriousness:

@HC: Yeah it would be an assault to the girl, if it wasn't self-inflicted. Crime to another person in this case is hurting another human. And no I do not for a minute concider a feotus a living human thing. Until it has came out of the woman, it'll always be a feotus uncapable of anything.

In the US, if a person kills a pregnant woman, he/she is tried for two counts of murder. That has nothing to do with opinion.
The DNA of the fetus is significantly different from that of the woman. That is a fact as well. I argue (now the opinion starts) that that means while the fetus may be in the woman's body, the fetus is not a part of the woman's body, any more so than a tapeworm (yes, bad analogy) in the woman's digestive tract or a screw in the woman's spine.

Finally, consider this: If a fetus is not a living human thing until it has come out of the woman, then killing it 5 seconds before childbirth is abortion, but killing it 5 seconds after is murder? Not only that, in the vast majority of cases it is the doctor or midwife who is supervising this threshold of childbirth. Therefore, according to this argument, it isn't the woman who decides the boundary after all--it's the doctor. So the "it's her body" argument doesn't really work now, does it?

Abortion is a complicated topic, even more so when you take into account its legal repercussions.

Abortion is something im for, all the way, I just think we should set an international law that dictates a difference between when we can and when we cant abort a "thing" the change should be the "things" ability to live on its own. To me a fetus is nothing more than a parasite, sucks to say but its the truth.

Abortion like any other decision shouldn't be taken lightly, so use yer head (this goes for soon to be parents and grandparents)

A medical team should be held responsible just for advising the patient with objectivity and the actual surgical procedure, nothing more.

I just think we should set an international law that dictates a difference between when we can and when we cant abort a "thing" the change should be the "things" ability to live on its own.

Doesn't that roughly translate into 18 years, 9 months? :P

Until it has came out of the woman, it'll always be a feotus uncapable of anything.

So a person's worth is dependent on how much they can accomplish? Is this absolute or relative? If it's absolute, then that'd mean that killing brain-dead, extremely handicapped, or very old people wouldn't be wrong...

If it's relative, then that'd mean that I have the right to kill almost anyone I meet. (Ego! Kekekekeke :shifty: )

Either way, what you said isn't making much sense to me. >_>

@Tanonev's comment: As someone who is 18 years, 4 months old, I resent that statement! :stomps foot like a two year old:
XD

So a person's worth is dependent on how much they can accomplish? Is this absolute or relative? If it's absolute, then that'd mean that killing brain-dead, extremely handicapped, or very old people wouldn't be wrong...


You are very blowing this thing out of proportions... you know what i meant and thats final.

You are very blowing this thing out of proportions... you know what I meant and that's final.If you are not willing to invest the effort into clearly expressing your own thoughts, who are you to blame us for misunderstanding your message?

You are very blowing this thing out of proportions... you know what i meant and thats final.

No, I *don't* know what you meant, because you didn't say what you meant, apparently. An unborn baby has brain functions. Probably more brain functions than someone who is say...brain dead. I was just wondering how you measure someone's humanity. Don't worry Celeste, it's not like I'm going to judge what kind of person you are based on your answer. I'm just curious as to whether or not you have any *reason* for your opinion - as in, did you actually think about your answer before you gave it? Or did you just give an answer based on instinct?

If you are not willing to invest the effort into clearly expressing your own thoughts, who are you to blame us for misunderstanding your message?

Ugh, I'm starting to get anoyed... this is not between me and you, stop jumping into things that do not concern you. It's very anoying and I'm starting to lose it here...


No, I *don't* know what you meant, because you didn't say what you meant, apparently. An unborn baby has brain functions. Probably more brain functions than someone who is say...brain dead. I was just wondering how you measure someone's humanity. Don't worry Celeste, it's not like I'm going to judge what kind of person you are based on your answer. I'm just curious as to whether or not you have any *reason* for your opinion - as in, did you actually think about your answer before you gave it? Or did you just give an answer based on instinct?

I gave an answer based on my beleifs and thats all, my beleifs overpower you so theres no need to keep talking.

Edited because I'm a nice person.

I suppose I'm done talking Celeste. ;)

Also, be nice to Dark Bring. It originally *was* between you and him; I just kind of sidetracked you I think. ;P

Ugh, I'm starting to get annoyed... this is not between me and you, stop jumping into things that do not concern you. It's very annoying and I'm starting to lose it here...Celeste©, what makes you think that you can carry a private conversation in a public forum (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forum&x=0&y=0)? Go ahead, click the link, it might refresh your memory, or you might learn something new. Also, I suspect that the 'power' of your beliefs is merely limited to inhibiting your logical reasoning - the evidence is right before your eyes, but somehow I do not think that you are capable of recognising it as such.

@ HopelessComposer: Thanks. It's been awhile since I've had an opportunity to attempt to crack a shell of ignorance/denial, so this will be quite primitive, brutal and forceful, unlike the more sophisticated and graceful but nevertheless ferocious session that we enjoyed earlier. lawl.

@ HopelessComposer: Thanks.
Heh, np np.

It's been awhile since I've had an opportunity to attempt to crack a shell of ignorance/denial, so this will be quite primitive, brutal and forceful, unlike the more sophisticated and graceful but nevertheless ferocious session that we enjoyed earlier. lawl.

Haha, of course. Go for it - my last response to Celeste was pretty brutal actually, but then I edited it when I realized how....we'll say "cruel" my response was. ;)

I couldn't bring myself to continue arguing here; I'm just too soft. Finish the fight for me kind sir! Though my will to crack has waned, deep inside my black heart, I still yearn for a cracking of great magnitude to take place here. Do what I couldn't! Bring the ignorant to their senses, no matter how painful it may be for them! XD

lol. X3

And Celeste, you should stick up for your ideas, at least for a little bit, instead of just telling people "your feelings overpower them." That's basically saying "You're wrong just because I say so," which is kind of insulting. :heh:

Yes it's public but you just don't go jumping and quoting every little thing I said to you or anyone else...well actually you can and you do, I just don't. But that doesn't make me more or less than you. I appologise for all this lol... you two are good debater and it's hard to debate for myself when you two were vs. my ideas lol. I'm maybe a little less skillful at this thing than you two are lol. I admire you guys I'd love to be able to go on and on on a subject but I'm not that kind of person. I understand what you say there HC, but lol you know when you have like a feeling inside you that you can just not put in words, that pretty much how I felt here... but anyhow I'm sorry for all this...I hope we don't hate each other because of this. Sorry! =/

Now that we're all one happy family again, I wanna pick the next crime :D

Copyright violation/IP piracy?

I understand what you say there HC, but lol you know when you have like a feeling inside you that you can just not put in words, that pretty much how I felt here... but anyhow I'm sorry for all this...I hope we don't hate each other because of this. Sorry! =/

Yeah, I know what you mean, and it's frustrating, which is why I decided to stop arguing with you, even though I really want to. And arguing is just a game for me (and Dark too I think), so no hard feelings. We argue for sport! :3

Ah well, I guess we should leave her alone, Dark. She very obviously doesn't want to argue. :heh:

Piracy...no punishment, as long as you can't afford what you're pirating/wouldn't have bought it anyway!

Piracy...no punishment, as long as you can't afford what you're pirating/wouldn't have bought it anyway!

How is piracy in the form of downloading the songs of a CD off the Internet different from stealing a physical music CD from a local store, and why should it carry a different (in this case nonexistent) punishment?

Because data doesn't cost anything, whereas a CD/CD-case/etc *does.* When you steal something from a store, the store-owner, and the company loses money. If I steal Photoshop CS2 off the internet, nobody is losing anything, as I would never have bought it anyway. (I'm poor.) If I stole it from a store, the store owner would've lost a good junk of money, and Adobe would be affected by this in a roundabout sort of way, since the store owner would have less money to order more copies of the software. ;)

Of course, If I were say, an art company, and could actually afford Photoshop and was planning on ordering it from Adobe but then found it on the internet, Adobe would be losing money, as they would be losing a sale.

Also, my first answer was really half-joking, as it'd be impossible to enforce what I suggested. (How could you ever determine if someone would've bought the software if they couldn't pirate it?) Maybe the punishment should be less for people using the software for recreational purposes, people under a certain wage-earning group, etc?

All I know is that I wouldn't mind people pirating my stuff; if it was good software or music or whatever, people will buy it. And if those people wouldn't have bought it, its because they couldn't afford it, in which case, I wouldn't have been losing anything anyway. ;)

^ XD
I can't believe you just said that. Data is far more valuable than any piece of hardware in existence. If it wasn't for data, the hardware could not drive a process. Not to mention it is data that provides information; the most powerful thing in this world.


Also, you're forgetting about licensing laws. Even though you have pirated software that regularly costs $XXX, you are to pay for license infringement which is $XXX plus $XX,XXX,XXX. Thank the EULA for that random clause for anti-piracy.

Software comes in two real flavours these days: free and not-free. There are reasons why things are free, and there are reasons why things are not-free; set by the producer of the software for whatever reason.

~Sigh, of course data is valuable. What I said is not what I meant at all. So don't ask why I said it. Still, I think you should be able to discern what I meant from what I said. Anyway, please explain to me how say, a thirteen year old kid pirating a copy of photoshop CS2 is hurting anyone in any way, shape or form. Keep in mind that the kid is thirteen, and has no possible way of buying said program. If anything, I'd think he'd be helping Adobe, as he'd be more likely to gain respect for the program and to buy it when the time comes. And don't ask me why I keep on using Adobe as an example...I'm an artist, so the first thing that comes to mind is photoshop I guess. XD

And when I said data wasn't valuable, I meant that it doesn't cost anything to *reproduce,* say, through pirating. ;)

Also, Limewire had one weakness: http://limewireweakness.ytmnd.com/
Slightly off-topic, but I loved that ytmnd. XD

As much as I like to belittle people on the forums, when it comes to arguments/debates/verbal sparring, I try not to commit any of the logical fallacies.

I am also genuinely interested in that remaining 40% of women who had abortions, but did not do it willingly nor were conned into doing so.

(I used to be a cody/mccollaum too, heh.)

What did you mean you use to be like me?
About the 40% I have no clue I was listning to a woman tell this other woman about that, so I typed it down. Pretty stupid though. I just think abortion is muder any way you look at it.

Anyway, please explain to me how say, a thirteen year old kid pirating a copy of photoshop CS2 is hurting anyone in any way, shape or form.

This is the cost of piracy. (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html)

If piracy weren't an issue, then this DRM stuff would not have been inflated to such a high priority that security and stability would be shortchanged. So while Adobe may not be able to tell the difference between "not buying or using Photoshop" and "pirating Photoshop", the act of piracy itself IS very harmful.

Other harm coming from piracy:
Suppose I'm cheap and use a pirated copy of Windows. My reasoning: Microsoft is rich, and they can take the hit, so no real harm is done. Problem? Say Microsoft donates 1% of its revenue to charity. That's $1 less that goes to starving children in third world countries. Whoops, guess that's another death on my hands....Even worse, perhaps Microsoft has to maintain a certain profit level in order to please investors. If revenue falls too low, then charitable donations are cut out to maintain the required profit level. So a full $100 is taken out of the charity fund. Whoa, there goes a whole village...
(Yes, this is a cheap shot, but the point is to illustrate that the flow of money is very complex and that it's hard to see all of the effects of disrupting that flow illegally.)

Also, I noticed that you cited Adobe as the target. This is probably because it's easier to justify piracy against a large company. But honestly, do really think people who pirate software even look at the name of the company that made it? Well, what's the result of this? This means that ALL companies take a hit from piracy. Large companies like Adobe and Microsoft can take that into account in their budget. Startups cannot. If the latter don't meet their target revenue, their investors pull the plug and the startups fold. What's the end result? This raises the cost of entry into the software industry, which results in less competition, perhaps to the extent of the dreaded monopoly. Ironic, that justification of file sharing as an exercise in "freedom of information"...

Thank you for the short speech, Tanonev. XD
Very informative, though I get the feeling it was just a long way of saying "Honestly, I can't say the thirteen year old boy was hurting anybody." You could of just said that you know, and saved yourself some typing. ;)
I know that pirating in general hurts companies. I only said that in specific instances, pirating isn't hurting *anybody.*


Also, my first answer was really half-joking, as it'd be impossible to enforce what I suggested.

See? I've already said I was kidding when I declared that pirates shouldn't be punished. Of course they should; as they have to be. It's just sad that some of the harmless pirates could be punished along with the..."bad" ones.

Also:

Also, I noticed that you cited Adobe as the target. This is probably because it's easier to justify piracy against a large company.

Dead-wrong.
I cited Adobe because I have a copy of CS2 that I use constantly. ;)

Very informative, though I get the feeling it was just a long way of saying "Honestly, I can't say the thirteen year old boy was hurting anybody." You could of just said that you know, and saved yourself some typing.
I know that pirating in general hurts companies. I only said that in specific instances, pirating isn't hurting *anybody.*

Actually, I claim that all instances of pirating hurt people. It's just that it hardly ever hurts anyone directly. If you (impersonal) know that what you do will (not just might, WILL) harm someone down the line and you do it anyway, then you are responsible for that harm.

Related acts that don't hurt anyone directly but certainly run into legal (and moral, for that matter) issues:
Sneaking into theaters
Taking but not sharing photographs of people in locker rooms without their permission


Dead-wrong.
I cited Adobe because I have a copy of CS2 that I use constantly.
This was meant half in jest, but surely CS2 isn't the only software that you use constantly? :P

First of all:

This was meant half in jest, but surely CS2 isn't the only software that you use constantly?
Haha, of course not! I just need to get myself another copy, so it's been on my mind I guess. :heh:

Second of all, you still haven't answered my question. Your entire last post was basically saying "The thirteen year old boy is hurting someone because....BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT'S WHY! O:"

That's how my mom debated with me when I was five and she was trying to get me to go to bed. It didn't work then, and it doesn't work now. ;)
Of course pirating for the most part hurts people; anyone can see that. You're just saying it hurts someone *everytime* *no matter what,* with which, I disagree. So please answer my original question: How is that thirteen year old boy hurting anybody? Give me some examples of how he'd be causing harm to others. (Not to himself; I don't see why people should be in legal trouble for hurting themselves.)

Just felt like I had to chime in here with a quote from Terry Pratchett's Going Postal, though this is an indirect contribution at best.


It was a little like stealing. It was exactly like stealing. It was, in fact, stealing. But there was no law against it because no one knew the crime existed, so is it really stealing if what's stolen isn't missed? And is it stealing if you're stealing from thieves? Anyway, all property is theft, except mine.

Since I have nothing better to do at the moment I'm just going to chime back in real quick to say that Going Postal was an awesome movie, though it got very sad towards the end. X3

What did I miss? whats the main topic now?

This is the cost of piracy. (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html)

If piracy weren't an issue, then this DRM stuff would not have been inflated to such a high priority that security and stability would be shortchanged. So while Adobe may not be able to tell the difference between "not buying or using Photoshop" and "pirating Photoshop", the act of piracy itself IS very harmful.

Other harm coming from piracy:
Suppose I'm cheap and use a pirated copy of Windows. My reasoning: Microsoft is rich, and they can take the hit, so no real harm is done. Problem? Say Microsoft donates 1% of its revenue to charity. That's $1 less that goes to starving children in third world countries. Whoops, guess that's another death on my hands....Even worse, perhaps Microsoft has to maintain a certain profit level in order to please investors. If revenue falls too low, then charitable donations are cut out to maintain the required profit level. So a full $100 is taken out of the charity fund. Whoa, there goes a whole village...
(Yes, this is a cheap shot, but the point is to illustrate that the flow of money is very complex and that it's hard to see all of the effects of disrupting that flow illegally.)

Also, I noticed that you cited Adobe as the target. This is probably because it's easier to justify piracy against a large company. But honestly, do really think people who pirate software even look at the name of the company that made it? Well, what's the result of this? This means that ALL companies take a hit from piracy. Large companies like Adobe and Microsoft can take that into account in their budget. Startups cannot. If the latter don't meet their target revenue, their investors pull the plug and the startups fold. What's the end result? This raises the cost of entry into the software industry, which results in less competition, perhaps to the extent of the dreaded monopoly. Ironic, that justification of file sharing as an exercise in "freedom of information"...

Piracy kills games (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070131-8743.html)

There have been warnings before: in early 2004, Mac game developers and porting houses warned that increasing piracy could kill off the Mac game market. That hasn't happened, as Mac OS X game development has continued at its historic, anemic levels.

I lol'd *so* hard at that. So the point of your link is that we need to pirate just a little more right, Angelic? Stupid Apple. XD

Also, your link says that pirating killed that game. I say, who can say that's true for certain? Who says all those people who pirated the game would've bought it anyway? Maybe mediocrity killed that game? Small game studios are still making it out there, and every game ever made gets pirated, so I'm going to assume that it wasn't *just* the fault of pirating that killed that game.

-Average gameplay?
-Poor budgeting?
-Bad advertising?
-Piss-poor piracy-protection? (XD)
-Bad choice of hardware?
-Lack of innovation? (omg a hockey game!)
-...Other stuff? X3

Second of all, you still haven't answered my question. Your entire last post was basically saying "The thirteen year old boy is hurting someone because....BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT'S WHY! O:"


OK then:
That 13-year-old just hurt you and any other person who legitimately purchased Photoshop because Adobe charges MORE for the software in order to make up for piracy. (Remember that sign in stores that says "We use video surveillance to keep our prices low for our customers"?)
That 13-year-old also hurt his parents by violating the contract his family has with his ISP, which means his Internet service can be shut off without refund.
That 13-year-old hurt Adobe, of course; more importantly, that 13-year-old hurt Adobe's employees, not some abstract corporation.
That 13-year-old hurt anyone who plans on using Adobe software in the future, because guess what gets cut out of the development cycle when money is scarce? Testing, of course. Which means future software is more likely to have bugs and security flaws.


I'm going to assume that it wasn't *just* the fault of pirating that killed that game.

So you agree that pirating was a factor in the death of the game?
By the way, I think the reason any game startups remain at all is because they avoid piratable material, instead providing servers, etc. The client software is freely distributed. What does that mean? Game startups selling offline games are harder and harder to find.
And the claim that "small game studios are still making it out there" masks the fact that that 13-year-old's big brother just lost his job to piracy.

So you agree that pirating was a factor in the death of the game?Tell us of another game that has been killed due to piracy.

So you agree that pirating was a factor in the death of the game?

Yes, as much as I'd agree that gravity is a factor when a burnt-out building collapses.


OK then:
That 13-year-old just hurt you and any other person who legitimately purchased Photoshop because Adobe charges MORE for the software in order to make up for piracy. (Remember that sign in stores that says "We use video surveillance to keep our prices low for our customers"?)
Yeah, that'd almost make sense. Except the thirteen year old kid wouldn't have bought photoshop in the first place, even if he hadn't pirated it. Which is my point. ADOBE DIDN'T LOSE ANY MONEY BECAUSE OF THIS KID.

That 13-year-old also hurt his parents by violating the contract his family has with his ISP, which means his Internet service can be shut off without refund.
::Shrug:: Granted. Fine, I'll change the thirteen year old kid into an 18 year old kid who pays for his own internet. Problem solved.

That 13-year-old hurt Adobe, of course; more importantly, that 13-year-old hurt Adobe's employees, not some abstract corporation.
To repeat for the 1,000th time: Adobe lost no money from the 13 (now 18) year old boy, because he can barely make ends meet and would never buy photoshop anyway.

That 13-year-old hurt anyone who plans on using Adobe software in the future, because guess what gets cut out of the development cycle when money is scarce? Testing, of course. Which means future software is more likely to have bugs and security flaws.
For the 1,001st time: Adobe wasn't losing any money here. There are two scenarios with this boy:
a.)He doesn't buy photoshop, and doesn't pirate it. Adobe makes $0. The boy's artistic dreams are crushed needlessly, to uphold "justice."
b.)He doesn't buy photoshop, but pirates it. Adobe makes $0, but the kid gets to enjoy his spare time between working 3 jobs a little bit more. That evil bastard.


I think the reason any game startups remain at all is because they avoid piratable material, instead providing servers, etc. The client software is freely distributed. What does that mean? Game startups selling offline games are harder and harder to find.

So you're saying small companies have to sell games online? Where they've historically made the most money anyway? You're saying that companies may have to sell games for the Wii, 360, or ps3 through their respective online stores? You're saying the industry is changing and evolving? Horror of horrors. I can see why people would have trouble making money with games during these times, with three mainstream home consoles to be published on. It must be tough for these companies, with *so few* opportunities, with everything moving so fast. ;)

Sorry for the sarcasm. My main goal in life right now is to get something published on the Xbox live arcade before the summer starts. Getting into the gaming industry and making some money off of it is easier than it has ever been in the history of gaming in my opinion. Because of this, I really can't feel bad for crappy companies who aren't flexible enough to adapt to what's happening around them, and fold as a consequence of this.

Also, Dark Bring makes a good point:

Tell us of another game that has been killed due to piracy.
There are hundreds of games released every year (If not thousands, counting all the online PC stuff.) Listing *one* game that *may* have died because of piracy doesn't really say much about the evils of pirating.

For the 1,001st time: Adobe wasn't losing any money here. There are two scenarios with this boy:
a.)He doesn't buy photoshop, and doesn't pirate it. Adobe makes $0. The boy's artistic dreams are crushed needlessly, to uphold "justice."
b.)He doesn't buy photoshop, but pirates it. Adobe makes $0, but the kid gets to enjoy his spare time between working 3 jobs a little bit more. That evil bastard.

Adobe might not lose money, but *someone* is. Let me paint a more realistic scenario:
We have a $600 (I don't know how much Photoshop costs, but that's my guess) big-name image editor made by a large corporation, and a $19.95 image editor (let's call it PaintPlus) made by a startup that has fewer features, a less snazzy interface, and runs slower.
a) He doesn't buy Photoshop because he can't afford it, but he CAN buy PaintPlus (if he has the bandwidth necessary to download Photoshop, he obviously has the money to buy a $20 program, especially since you've now revised his age to 18). Adobe gets $0, the startup gets $20.
b) He doesn't buy Photoshop because he can't afford it, so he pirates it instead. Adobe gets $0, the startup gets $0.

Expanding this, we divide the population of people who want to use Photoshop into those who can afford it and those who can't. Without piracy, those who can buy it, and those who don't instead buy PaintPlus. With piracy, those who can buy it, and those who don't pirate it. In other words, without piracy, PaintPlus can exist; without, it cannot.

Finally, how can you defend each act of piracy individually without defending its collective effect?


Getting into the gaming industry and making some money off of it is easier than it has ever been in the history of gaming in my opinion. Because of this, I really can't feel bad for crappy companies who aren't flexible enough to adapt to what's happening around them, and fold as a consequence of this.
"Adapting to what's happening around them" is shuffling where games end up. Console games are generally harder to pirate, so smaller studios who aren't planning on gaining server revenue will move (and have moved) to consoles. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but have you noticed that the sources for PC puzzle games are dwindling? You have PopCap, Puzzle Pirates (which I'm not sure we should count, since its niche is actually MMOG), and WildTangent. It used to be that you could go to the store and buy a novel puzzle game. But it's been a long time since I've seen a good puzzle game on store shelves.


Tell us of another game that has been killed due to piracy.
Regardless of whether 1 game or 1000 games were killed by piracy, a project was destroyed, which means jobs were lost. Sure, if you're going to be impersonal about it, it's only a drop in the bucket...but if you're going to be that way, just make sure you're willing to let your job be that statistic.

We have a $600 (I don't know how much Photoshop costs, but that's my guess)
I think that's about correct actually. I just made the same guess in some other thread. XD

We have a $600 (I don't know how much Photoshop costs, but that's my guess) big-name image editor made by a large corporation, and a $19.95 image editor (let's call it PaintPlus) made by a startup that has fewer features, a less snazzy interface, and runs slower.
a) He doesn't buy Photoshop because he can't afford it, but he CAN buy PaintPlus (if he has the bandwidth necessary to download Photoshop, he obviously has the money to buy a $20 program, especially since you've now revised his age to 18). Adobe gets $0, the startup gets $20.
b) He doesn't buy Photoshop because he can't afford it, so he pirates it instead. Adobe gets $0, the startup gets $0.
Oops, I knew in the back of my mind using Adobe as an example was a mistake. Your example is a good one, and in most cases, probably a true one. But my kid is very finicky, and has very little time to go shopping around for 2nd rate art programs. He's heard of the free program Gimp. He'd use that, or nothing at all. PaintPlus (I love that name btw, its so....great for some reason XD) would not have been bought anyway. Or maybe we could change the program? Let's say he needed a 3d art program. There is no such thing as a good 3d art program for under 3,000 USD. Startups can't even *dream* of making something so complex. So fine. The once 13 year old illustrator is now an 18 year old 3d modeler. ::shrug::

You're saying that whenever something is pirated, someone gets hurt. I'm saying that's not true; suggesting something with so many variables involved will invariably turn out true is ridiculous in my mind.

I agree with you that the vast majority of pirates are hurting someone. Not all of them though.



Finally, how can you defend each act of piracy individually without defending its collective effect?
The way I've been defending it for the past 100 posts? I've already said that pirating should be punished, as there'd be no way of distinguishing which pirates were hurting others and which were harmless. (Plus, 99% of pirates are harmful anyway.)

We almost agree on this; we're just one percent off here. ;)

We almost agree on this; we're just one percent off here. ;)

OK then, can we get that one percent by agreeing that it's that thirteen-year-old's duty to not pirate in order to set a good example for those around him?
What I was trying to get at is an idea of collective guilt; isolated instances of piracy may not be much, but 200000 people performing those "isolated instances" at the same time add up fast.


There is no such thing as a good 3d art program for under 3,000 USD. Startups can't even *dream* of making something so complex. So fine. The once 13 year old illustrator is now an 18 year old 3d modeler. ::shrug::
Derail, but have you tried out Blender or Google SketchUp? (I'm...artistically inept, so I have no clue how those rank among 3d art programs...)
And less of a derail: Why is that 18 year old not in college and taking advantage of academic discounts, as well as the probability that the college would have such software on lab computers that he would have access to for free?

What I was trying to get at is an idea of collective guilt; isolated instances of piracy may not be much, but 200000 people performing those "isolated instances" at the same time add up fast.

Of course, I agree.


Derail, but have you tried out Blender or Google SketchUp? (I'm...artistically inept, so I have no clue how those rank among 3d art programs...)
Bleargh, I never liked them. X3


And less of a derail: Why is that 18 year old not in college and taking advantage of academic discounts, as well as the probability that the college would have such software on lab computers that he would have access to for free?

Because the 18 year old is a crazy bastard who'd rather take a year off and try getting something published. Besides, most art colleges would run him more than the cost of the program with only half a year's tuition anyway. ;)

So then I guess we agree. Piracy as an entity is bad, although separate instances are not always harmful?

Then...Court Adjorned! *gavel'd!* XD
Should someone declare the next topic?

We haven't figured out how to punish piracy yet...

I motion we give companies free rein to put rigged copies of their software onto LimeWire and other p2p services.
The legally safer way: Reserve some keys for baiting pirates. Since most software nowadays connects to an update server, a few months after the release of the software, use the update server to obtain the necessary information to levy a hefty fine against anyone using a pirated key.
The vigilante way: Release versions of the program with heavy destructive payloads onto LimeWire. The payload is triggered a few months after its release, to give it time to spread. The rationale: "If our program data isn't worth anything to you, then we hope you don't mind trashing your data."

Oh yes, the punishment. How could I forget the most fun part? haha ;)


I motion we give companies free rein to put rigged copies of their software onto LimeWire and other p2p services.
As far as I know companies do that already; There are viruses all over p2p networks dressed as wares. Could be just random virus people though I guess.

The legally safer way: Reserve some keys for baiting pirates. Since most software nowadays connects to an update server, a few months after the release of the software, use the update server to obtain the necessary information to levy a hefty fine against anyone using a pirated key.
I don't know why, but something about that plan screams "illegal!" at me. I'm no expert on law though, so I can't say exactly why I think this. I think it'd be kind of like when cops pose as prostitutes...they can't arrest the person, unless the person blatantly says "GIVE ME SECKS FOR MONEY PLZ." Know what I mean? I just don't think it'd be considered good enough evidence to get the person prosecuted. Was it really them using their computer at the time? Did they know that the serial key was illegal? Maybe a "friend" gave them the key? I see too many holes in that plan for it to work.

The vigilante way: Release versions of the program with heavy destructive payloads onto LimeWire. The payload is triggered a few months after its release, to give it time to spread. The rationale: "If our program data isn't worth anything to you, then we hope you don't mind trashing your data."

That, of course, is totally illegal, as you've mentioned. Still funny though. XD
Most companies just choose not to do anything at all, as going through court would cost more than it's worth for them. As for me, I think the most they should be able to get out of you is the price of what you pirated, and cost of legal fees, etc. I don't believe in punishing an individual more to make up for not being able to punish others who committed the same crime but got away. If that were case, we'd have convenience stores suing teenagers for 5 grand over a stolen soft drink. "BUT I NEED THE FIVE GRAND, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND! EVEN THOUGH THESE TEENAGERS ONLY STOLE A DOLLAR FROM ME, LOTS OF TEENAGERS STEAL FROM ME, AND IT ADDS UP! I CAN'T CATCH THEM ALL!"
Or how about "This man punched this other man in the face. We're executing him because there was a murder last week, and we can't catch the murderer. SOMEONE NEEDS TO PAY THE PRICE."
Both those examples, while not totally parallel to pirating, are close enough for my tastes, and seem kind of silly to me.

I just don't think it'd be considered good enough evidence to get the person prosecuted. Was it really them using their computer at the time? Did they know that the serial key was illegal? Maybe a "friend" gave them the key? I see too many holes in that plan for it to work.

Each serial key is supposed to work only with the instance of the software it's packaged with. If you use a bait key, you have to have obtained the instance of the software associated with that bait key. In any case, it's probably more practical to have the key encrypted and embedded inside the software installation instead of having to manually type it in.
Look at it this way:
CompanyX releases 1000000 copies of its software with keys 1-1000000 to store shelves. CompanyX then gets 10 of its own computers, places software with keys 1000001-1000010 onto them on LimeWire, and lets people download those. If someone puts key 500 on LimeWire, CompanyX will simply let that go; however, anyone with key 1000005 must have pirated the software because there is simply no way they could have gotten a hold of that key without going on LimeWire.

Was it really them using their computer at the time?
If someone else is driving your car and runs it into a tree, who foots the insurance bill?
As the owner of your computer, you are (at least morally) responsible for any actions carried out by that computer.
If your "friend" loads pirated software onto your computer, cough up the money, then force them to cough up the money to pay you back. Of course, this could be avoided quite easily by not being reckless with giving out computer accounts.

Maybe a "friend" gave them the key?
If a "friend" hands you their official CD, it's guaranteed not to have a bait key. (This is still technically illegal, but this system will let this slide.)
If that friend hands you a CD with the contents Sharpie'd in, it should be plainly obvious that it's illegal to install that CD.
Finally, remember that 2498452643892-page long "End User License Agreement" that everyone just hits "I agree" on? That's a legally binding contract. If that were to include "you (the user) certify that you have legally purchased this software", then if you were careless, that's your fault. Remember, if you go to Wal-Mart or Amazon and buy this software, you are 100% guaranteed not to get hit by a bait key. If you go to eBay, make sure it's shrink-wrapped.


As for me, I think the most they should be able to get out of you is the price of what you pirated, and cost of legal fees, etc. I don't believe in punishing an individual more to make up for not being able to punish others who committed the same crime but got away.

The problem with that is that some people will look at it this way:
If I buy the software, it will cost me $600. If I pirate the software, it may cost me $0, or it may cost me $600. Clearly, someone looking at it this way will choose the latter, since its average cost will be less than $600.

I agree with your whole post, except for the last snippet, because there would still be legal fees involved. I'm pretty sure paying for lawyers for both you and the other company would run you wayyy more than $600. Not that I'd know from experience, but lawyers aren't especially cheap from what I've heard. :heh:
And if they were going to charge you extra fees, I think it should be a percentage thing, as in, "You owe 150% of the original software price."

I don't think it'd be fair for someone who pirated $100 worth of software and someone who pirated $8,000 worth of software to both pay the same $10,000 fine.

I agree with your whole post, except for the last snippet, because there would still be legal fees involved. I'm pretty sure paying for lawyers for both you and the other company would run you wayyy more than $600. Not that I'd know from experience, but lawyers aren't especially cheap from what I've heard.
And if they were going to charge you extra fees, I think it should be a percentage thing, as in, "You owe 150% of the original software price."

I don't think it'd be fair for someone who pirated $100 worth of software and someone who pirated $8,000 worth of software to both pay the same $10,000 fine.

Well, the legal fees only add up if you actually go to court. Chances are, the pirate will go, "Fine, you caught me, here's the $600," and be done with it.

Good call on the percentage thing, though. However, repeat offenders should get charged more...

Well, the legal fees only add up if you actually go to court. Chances are, the pirate will go, "Fine, you caught me, here's the $600," and be done with it.
That's true, though he'd probably be a bit more hesitant if the program was more in the 10k range. XD
But yeah, I suppose the extra charges are needed, as many people would just choose to pay for the program after being caught.


repeat offenders should get charged more...
If they're stupid enough to get caught multiple times then... :heh:
XD

Do you think Shoplifting should be conciderd a crime?, and why.

Yes, otherwise the economy would collapse and we'd all die or become farmers. Neither of which seems like a very happy future. :heh:

Tell us of another game that has been killed due to piracy.

Not a game, but the Trigun Maximum anime was cancelled because of the fansubs for the first anime.

Not a game, but the Trigun Maximum anime was cancelled because of the fansubs for the first anime.

A little late, but sad nonetheless. XD

Yes, otherwise the economy would collapse and we'd all die or become farmers. Neither of which seems like a very happy future. :heh:

Man how come your so smart? Do you like live in the Economic book or what?

The real question isn't why is he so smart, it's why you are so stupid not smart.

It's all logic, man. Logic.

The real question isn't why is he so smart, it's why you are so stupid not smart.

It's all logic, man. Logic.

...So you explain all of it... :huh:

...So you explain all of it...
Explain all of what? :heh:

The real question isn't why is he so smart, it's why you are so stupid not smart.

It's all logic, man. Logic.

...So you explain all of it... :huh:

Very well then.


Do you think Shoplifting should be conciderd a crime?, and why.

Yes, otherwise the economy would collapse and we'd all die or become farmers. Neither of which seems like a very happy future. :heh:

The basic rule of the economy is profit: that you get back more money than you put in. So, you spend money to make something, and then sell it for more than what it took to make it for a profit, right? Otherwise, its called charity. Though even charities are self-funded, funded by the government or by means of further donations. Or else, how would they run? On a wing and a prayer?

So what happens when you make no profit, or rather, you recieve nothing back whatsoever? You're negative. You have less than what you started with. You bankrupt. You have no more money, because you spent up all your money. So if the public went bonkers and shoplifted like, well, a shoplifter, what happens then? All these businesses get no profit. They go bankrupt. They collapse. Thus so, we have no supply to meet our demand. Where we gonna get our stuff yo, if we don't have people selling it to us? Well we won't. No food to buy, we go starve. No clothes to buy, we go naked. No lawyers to hire, we go senile. So what then? We all die.

You see, the thing is about our world is we're living in a pyramid. There are little drones working at the bottom, for the hotshots on the top. Without the drones, the hot shots go out like a candle in the wind. If we didn't have people working in primary, secondary industries etc. we would have no one to provide for us the things that we don't provide for ourselves. The only way to avoid this little apocalypse is by way of converting to a subsistence economy. What's that? It's an 'economy' where everyone provides all their earthly needs by themselves. You grow your own food. You make you own clothes. So in a way, we've all become farmers. Therefore there is no person relying on another person for their life. We are responsible for ourselves and no one else. Like a billion miniature goverments scattered across the world. There is no chain reaction of a pre-apocalyptic meltdown, when one little domino of a business topples all the ones in it's line. We won't die. Unless every little one of those billion governments are crazy and make their own nuclear bombs, pollute like an American, go cannibal etc.
But that is never going to happen since no one likes all that work. All that trouble of herding cattle and weaving underwear. So it's never gonna happen. Believe it.

All this is a bit radical, yeah I know, but it's a likely worst-case-scenario so believe it. If we don't punish those shoplifters, people would think it would be okay to steal, and everything Hopeless and I said could happen, might very well happen.

Edit: Darn this had taken longer to write than I had hoped. Grr. Good night.

....*High-fives Method* X3

Edit: Darn this had taken longer to write than I had hoped. Grr. Good night.
Believe me, it was well worth it; that made me laugh so hard. XD
Nice job working in my one sentence over a few paragraphs too - you get extra credit for highlighting how silly spot's demand to "explain it all then" was.

Your small essay on economics gets a....*drum roll*
10/10! For "explaining it all!"
Hahahaha ;)

*agrees*

Shoplifters should be executed. :shifty:

^Agreed. (to whom agreed with me? XD)
On the grounds that being a farmer would totally suck. > <

...So you explain all of it... :huh:

Theirs nothing to explain; I understand it.

^Agreed. (to whom agreed with me? XD)
On the grounds that being a farmer would totally suck. > <

I agree.

Shoplifters should be executed. :shifty:[/QUOTE]

Whats wrong with you? Have you ever stolen anything from a store? If so should you be executed?
Sorry I triple posted.

Are you still here? :huh: Wow, persistant :mellow:

Note the :shifty: emoticon. It often implies sarcasm.

Are you still here? :huh: Wow, persistant :mellow:

Note the :shifty: emoticon. It often implies sarcasm.

Shouldn't you be editing his 3 posts into one, or are you saving the hard work for M?

Shouldn't you be editing his 3 posts into one, or are you saving the hard work for M?
Nay. Humorous posts are often times even more humorous (eg, like right now) when they are not made up of but one post, but many. Angelic is just trying to keep this forum entertaining! XD

And Cody, everybody who said shoplifters should be executed were joking.

Also, I don't think you're one to suggest that people's punishments are too harsh or "sick." Read some of your earlier posts, why don't you? :rolleyes:

Nay. Humorous posts are often times even more humorous (eg, like right now) when they are not made up of but one post, but many. Angelic is just trying to keep this forum entertaining! XD

And Cody, everybody who said shoplifters should be executed were joking.

Also, I don't think you're one to suggest that people's punishments are too harsh or "sick." Read some of your earlier posts, why don't you? :rolleyes:

Yeh in that case I realy don't have much room to talk.:lol:
another thing I am know not to take jokes as jokes. If you know what I mean by that.

Haha, yeah, I got what you meant. Don't worry about it. ^_^

....*High-fives Method* X3

Believe me, it was well worth it; that made me laugh so hard. XD
Nice job working in my one sentence over a few paragraphs too - you get extra credit for highlighting how silly spot's demand to "explain it all then" was.

Your small essay on economics gets a....*drum roll*
10/10! For "explaining it all!"
Hahahaha ;)

I guess I just worded my statement wrong, but I was wondering why methodx was calling deathraider "not smart" for calling you smart... Social Studies/World History/whatever you call it is my worst subject, and I actually didn't understand how it would lead to us being farmers. But, thanks for laughing, I really needed that... :think: By "...explain all of it..." I really wanted to know how we would become "farmers." Thanks methodx for the explanation, (this is a real thanks this time)

I know this is a little late, but I don't see the humor in me not being able to fully understand economy...

I know this is a little late, but I don't see the humor in me not being able to fully understand economy...

Oh, the humor's there. Just look harder. ;)

No, just kidding. I was only laughing because when you said "well *you* explain it all then" I thought you were doing so sarcastically, as if MethodX wouldn't have been able to do it. As MethodX proved with style and grace, this wasn't the case at all. ("at all" added to that last sentence because I hate rhyming!) Anyway, I wasn't laughing at your lack of economic sense, I was laughing at the thought that you didn't think Method would know why we'd become farmers either. X3

So yes, Method called Cody stupid because to me (and her) the question "why would we all become farmers?" is common sense. I thought she made that pretty clear by calling Cody stupid, which is why I laughed when you asked her to explain something that she could obviously explain; I thought you were insinuating that she couldn't. Sorry if you just honestly wanted an answer, haha. ^_^

but I was wondering why methodx was calling deathraider "not smart" for calling you smart...

That's incorrect. I was calling Cody, not deathraider, "not smart" for even wondering how it was possible that Hopeless was so smart (though he is) to have come to his conclusion: as if the concept were highly complex astro physics, when instead it's elementary, my dear Watson.

Please don't misinterprete my sentence structure.
But anyways. Off topic. :sorc:

^Heh, that made me laugh. I read it something like this:

That's incorrect. I was calling Cody, not deathraider, "not smart"
Yeah, she said Cody. We all know Deathraider is a smart guy. Gawd.

for even wondering how it was possible that Hopeless was so smart
What the?!?! I mean, I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT-

(though he is)
Ah, wait. Never mind then.

to have come to his conclusion: as if the concept were highly complex astro physics, when instead it's elementary, my dear Watson.
Elementary indeed!

Please don't misinterprete my sentence structure.
Wait, wasn't it more noun choice? Hmm...

But anyways. Off topic.
Yeah, but the general forum has been dead lately anyway...


And oops, I guess I'm off topic too... XP
Edit: I knew I'd make a bracket mistake with all those quotes. XD

... as if the concept were highly complex astro physics, when instead it's elementary...

It's not elementary for the average 8th grader, (I'm hoping you're not going to come and say "I'm and 8th grader," because that would suck.) :cry:
And as for the deathraider thing, I confused him for cody. Sorry deathraider!

Anyways off topic, like we all are... Let's find something else to say about punishing criminals.

Oh I got one, how should your country or mine punish illigal aliens? If you don't know what that is, that is a person who comes in to anther country illigaly. Well something like that.(Talk about stupid.)

They shouldn't be punished at all. XD

There's something about the term illegal "alien" that disagrees with me.
Can't we just call them illegal immigrants?

And I too do not believe they should be punished.

Does *anyone* think illegal immigrants should be punished? This topic hasn't been getting many replies...

Putting punishment aside for a moment, should illegal/undocumented immigrants, when discovered, be sent back to their respective countries? If they are caught attempting to cross the border, should they be sent back?

Well why not? They did come into this country illegally and all that but what illegal/undocumented immigrants who had children born in the USA also? The parents aren't from here but their children are since they were born in the USA, making them instant citizens (the children only) of this country. What about families like those should be handled?

They should be deported back to their own countries without granting the children citizenship.

Putting punishment aside for a moment, should illegal/undocumented immigrants, when discovered, be sent back to their respective countries? If they are caught attempting to cross the border, should they be sent back?

Im two-sided with this one. Yes because its wrong. If they want in a country, they need to do it the right way and get a job when their in that coutry because it causes problems.

Okay, I need to make myself clear. I am two-sided with this because theirs this girl who I like that is an undocumeted immigrant. A part of me wants to report her, but the other part of me dosn't. The other reason is she trust me.

Do you think a person who sleeps with a prostitute and kills them after they have fun should be convicted? I ask this because this guy I was reading about sleept with 8 prostitutes then killed them.
As you all might know I have a weird point of veiw of everythingso try to understand me. A person I asked this same question said that the man shouldn't be convicted because he was doing the world a favor by getting ride of the prostitutes. Do you agree or disagree? Exlaine why too because I'm interested in what you have to say.

That's like those radical bastards that go out and kill people, saying "it was God's will". It shouldn't be used as an excuse to kill someone. There is never a good reason to kill someone. But even as I say this, I find myself going back on what I have said earlier about jailed criminals being better off killed by death sentence than lying in idle waste in a prison. I think I have gotten myself in a pickle. I'll go think harder and come back later.

Lmfao. I lived in the projects (basically a government funded ghetto....really REALLY cheap housing so that people don't end up homeless) until I was about 14. I've met my share of prostitutes, and I can say that all, besides one of them were better people than 90% of the people I've met since then. Do prostitutes deserve to be killed? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. They're girls trying to get by by selling a service men obviously want. There's nothing wrong with prostitution at all in my book. So no, prostitutes don't deserve to be killed any more than any other group of people out there.

Lmfao. I lived in the projects (basically a government funded ghetto....really REALLY cheap housing so that people don't end up homeless) until I was about 14. I've met my share of prostitutes, and I can say that all, besides one of them were better people than 90% of the people I've met since then. Do prostitutes deserve to be killed? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. They're girls trying to get by by selling a service men obviously want. There's nothing wrong with prostitution at all in my book. So no, prostitutes don't deserve to be killed any more than any other group of people out there.

:lol: :lol: Obviously seeing your point of veiw, I understand what you mean.
I belive prostitutes shouldn't be killed period. Not saying that just because I'm a guy. I look down on people such as prostitutes because they defile theirselves. Hell I'll hire them at my business. They need money so then could come and work for me, $10.00 an hour. But lets get for real I belive prostitutes shouldn't sell themselves, instead get a job for someone.

They need money so then could come and work for me, $10.00 an hour. But lets get for real I belive prostitutes shouldn't sell themselves, instead get a job for someone.

A lot of prostitutes have jobs. Paying the bills isn't always easy, especially when the guy who knocked you up five times suddenly decides to vanish, ya' know? Of course there are other ways to make money. I'm not saying prostitutes aren't stupid; every one of them I've met was stupid. I'm just saying they're not always bad people. Haha. X3

A lot of prostitutes have jobs. Paying the bills isn't always easy, especially when the guy who knocked you up five times suddenly decides to vanish, ya' know? Of course there are other ways to make money. I'm not saying prostitutes aren't stupid; every one of them I've met was stupid. I'm just saying they're not always bad people. Haha. X3

I know most of them are not bad. I am friends with few. That guy who just suddenly vanishes should get beat to hell and back. And the paying bills part would be easy if they pay 10% of what they make to a near church. God blesses people all the time to those who are faithful. Everyone just needs to rely on him, its easy.

Relying on God won't get me food. Relying on my job and the money I make from that does. God doesn't really do anything for me, why would I do something for him?

Well their is a man's part and their is God's part. God makes a way for you to get what you need. All you have to do is reach out and do something.

You're gay cody...you are going to hell for looking at Yaoi. If you want to redeem yourself and be blessed by the grace of god you should stop being so damn gay. Then go get a prostitute and have a good time, but don't murder her like your friend did. Give her a money shot and a Dirty Sanchez and call it a night and drop her skanky ass off at the corner. Then thank god for letting you have a good time. O yeah, and this is fucking Punishing Criminals, not the Religion thread; so the next time you tell me to pay my tithe at my nearest church, I am going to go to your house and break your fingers so you can't right anymore stupid shit. Now please go hit alt + F4 and stick a lodestone to your computer case and any other electrical appliance you might just so happen to have. O yeah and I hate you...

Uhm, "I Hate You," Stfu and gtfo. Could we get a ban over here please?

Anyway:

Relying on God won't get me food. Relying on my job and the money I make from that does. God doesn't really do anything for me, why would I do something for him?
God created the universe for you. If you believe in that sort of thing I mean. Of course, a pessimist may disagree that the universe being created was indeed a good thing, as the late Douglas Adams so eloquently pointed out in his masterpiece. X3
But yeah, anyway, this isn't the religion thread, as our newest friend just pointed out.