syntax

I do not understand you can refer to the data that he presented as "scientific" and as "biased" in the same paragraph.

Well, ;) I thought it was up to him to prove that he could produce a study that said that CP increased the incidence of murder. He sure didn't do it with the sites that he posted--did he? ;)

So what? iIt is perfectly simple to skew data so that it will support one's political point of view. Besides, what he claimed was that there were studies that indicate that capital punishment increases the murder rate. I saw none of that, did you? ;)

The charts show a drop in executions after 2000 and no drop in violent crime after 2000. This would tend to refute what fishteacher said about capital punishment increasing the murder rate.

Do you have any scientific data to show that the death penalty contributes to an increase in the murder rate? What you presented was a political site who's only purpose is to repeal the DP.

But there could be factors involved that might increase the incidence of murder that have nothing to do with CP, like the average education level in a state, the average wealth of citizens in a state, the number of blacks in a state, etc. These factors are known to affect the murder rate and are outside the box when considering the statistics. Therefore, you have an apples and oranges situation. The same thing applies to murder if the punishment were life. The point is that once one has committed a murder, the punishment will be the same regardless, so why hesitate to commit another? I would be interested in examining the methodology of any such "study." Link? Have you ever heard the term GIGO? It applys to "studies" as well as computers. :hyper:

If these studies show murder rates to be lower in states without capital punishment, why would you conclude that it was because these states did not have capital punishment? Surely you don't think that capital punishment increases the murder rate--do you? :hyper: Is it possible that there is something a little awry in these "studies?" :D

I tend to agree with most of the above. However, it should be noted that the faster the system moves, the more are the mistakes that will result. Unless we are willing to accept the fact--yes fact--that innocent people will be executed becuase the system erred, we should proceed more cautiousely than this. The intelligent thing to do, would be to try to ascertain how many innocent people will be wrongfully executed, compared to how much the murder rate would go down and make a decision based on that.

Sorry, I was under the impression that we were discussing whether or not executing convicted murderers would reduce crime. So now we are talking whether or not we should execute political heads of state? :)

Here is a web site that points out that if someone is executed, then he will not murder again. It also gives examples where, had an execution taken place, many lives would have been saved. http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#deter

I asked this question years ago on another forum, got an answer, but I have forgotten what the answer was, so I will try you guys. If the Earth did not rotate at all on it's axis, then one year would be the same as one day, right? I don't mean that one year would be 24 hrs., I mean that one day would be 8760 hrs. (approximately). Now from that it seems apparent that the Earth does not rotate on it's axis 365 times in a normal (non leap) year. The question is, does it rotate 364 times, or does it rotate 366 times?

I have wondered about that very thing myself. Certainly we would not be doing any harm to the sun. But what would be needed is an absolutely dependable launching system. We wouldn't, after all, want this stuff to go halfway up, and then come down of one of our cities. The electronic cannon sounds quite reliable. Whether or not it would be cost effective would probablybe the make or break to this idea. :)

This avatar is from another forum, posted by someone that I do not know, but I thought it appropriate for a science oriented forum as an avatar. It was discribed as......."Doughnut-shaped cloud has 'black hole' filling NASA NEWS RELEASE An international team of scientists has found more evidence that massive black holes are surrounded by a doughnut-shaped gas cloud which, depending on our line of sight, blocks the view of the black hole in the center. "

To me, the minuet one begins to discuss morals, he is discussing something that is subjective to his personal system of values.

You are probably correct about that. So, assuming that at some futire date, someone, probably a mining company, will commence operations there, (now here I am assuming that the problems of a self sustaining colony are solved) the question I have is--are there any minerals on the moon worth going after? What is the potential for gold, for example? I don't think there is any oil there of course, :) but why wouldn't the expectation to find precious metals and jems be as good as it is here on Earth, albiet conditions a little harder to work in? Also, since we know that deep mines on Earth are hot, because we are getting closer to the molten core of the Earth, would that same thing occure on the moon? :)