patrick.net

Kevin says

Yeah, but if it wasn't for that one of the greatest songs of all time never would have been written.

What song?

Highway 61 Revisited.

Actually, Christianity did take root in the Middle East and was the dominant religion for hundreds of years before Islam.

Poor choice of words perhaps, but I think you understand what I meant.

I think Islam is fundamentally different from Christianity because Jesus didn't kill anyone, but Mohammed killed lots of people.

How does that make the religions "fundamentally different"? The outcome of both martyrs was the same: Their followers decided that they had to kill or convert anyone who disagreed with them.

It certainly makes the men different, though it's hard to say much about the real Jesus, since the real man's life was poorly documented by people who mostly had favorable things to say about him, and the Church simply discarded large parts of the writing.

By the time Muhammad is as old as Jesus (~600 years to go), I wouldn't be surprised if the less positive aspects of his life are also whitewashed.

To me, the only real difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity absorbed European culture and Islam absorbed Arabic culture. The European culture has evolved substantially in the last thousand years, but Arabic culture is far less enlightened.

Using the Abraham and Isaac story to discount religion is silly. No Christian I know would ever condone murder.

By killing Isaac, the son of the Promise, Abraham would essentially be killing himself. It is sacrificing everything most dear for what is most important.

It is also a foreshadowing to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Also, "religion" has been a huge scapegoat to explain conflict. Also, while it has been used used to control unthinking people, religion does not have a monopoly on war or controlling people.

ChristianGuy says

By killing Isaac, the son of the Promise, Abraham would essentially be killing himself. It is sacrificing everything most dear for what is most important.

Don't you think it's odd for an allegedly all-good God to even ask this of somebody?

In most cases, religion won't stand up to logical scrutiny (except Taoism, and its daughter, Zen Buddhism). And those are only logical if you allow yourself to understand paradox.

But, in fairness to the "people of the book", the Abrahamic faiths make sense to a variety of people.

Some, WANT to believe so badly that they perform logical cartwheels trying to make them appear factual and logical.

Some try to extoll the essence of these religions and make a logical error: i.e. "People have done great things as Christians, therefore Christianity has made them good."...."My friend was an alcoholic who beat women and then found Jesus and changed his life", etc.

But I think that, as stated above, the essence is mystical. It shouldn't make conventional sense.It defies logic and your instincts.

Does psychoanalysis work? Instinctively, we don't want to relive our childhood trauma, nor admit our failings to our friends or family...yet, many find relief in moving TOWARDS their pain rather than away from it, n'est-ce pas?

This is the essence of all religion, when you strip away the rites, rituals and storybooks. Understand yourself and your place in the universe---understand that you are insignificant, one of trillions, quadrillions, gazillions of organisms---that all live and all die.

Those who realize this are right-minded. The right-minded are freed from the cycles of fortune and misfortune, happiness and despair.

And by proper placement of the ego, you become wiser, happier, well-adjusted and what you were meant to be.

To quote Lennon: Who on earth do you think you are? A superstar? Well, right you are!

ChristianGuy says

No Christian I know would ever condone murder.

Go to any red state. You'll find lots of Christians rejoicing when someone gets the death penalty.

Dan8267 says

ChristianGuy says

No Christian I know would ever condone murder.

Go to any red state. You'll find lots of Christians rejoicing when someone gets the death penalty.

Those people do not consider killing any of the following "murder":

- Anyone who isn't white.
- Anyone who isn't christian.
- Anyone who does not speak english.
- Anyone who has ever voted for a democrat.
- Anyone who has ever been convicted of any crime, regardless of questions about the trial.

Dan8267 says

Go to any red state. You'll find lots of Christians rejoicing when someone gets the death penalty.

Go to any blue state and you'll find lots of people supportive of allowing little girls to obtain certain surgical procedures and specific drugs without their parents consent. Go figure - they are more concerned with complete strangers than their own children.

The OP's question is rather silly. Religions arise in a time, place and context. The story of Abraham and his son is an example while looking at it from today it seems on face to be an insane demand. But in the context of the times when blood sacrifice was the rule and there was an need to impose law upon tribes to create some semblance of order it makes more sense. For those that believe that there is or was no need for religion then they should ask the question is there an inherent objective morality with in man? That is, where does /do the the guidelines of life we take for granted i.e. thou shall not kill, steal, commit adultery etc. come from? I am no defender of religion and the heinous crimes done in its name but for the masses of humanity, when not too distorted, it does provide some fame work directly or indirectly
(through laws) to keep human society marginally functional

I do not celebrate the death sentence being issued. I celebrate when it is carried out in a timely fashion. We need to speed it up!!

Below is something or the liberal leftists to read and enjoy. Please share some comments! And to really get a feel for the case, try youtube. It might help some of you grasp reality. Maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

Bap33 says

I do no celebrate the death sentence being issued. I celebrate when it is carried out in a timely fashion. We need to speed it up!!

Below is something or the liberal leftists to read and enjoy. Please share some comments! And to really get a feel for the case, try youtube. It might help some of you grasp reality. Maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

Bap here is something for you to read and enjoy. Perhaps it may help you grasp reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham

And lets not forget Dr. Sam Sheppard, who's "crime" would probably deserve a speedy death in your dream world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sheppard

The question is not whether there are people who deserve to die. There are many examples of way worse crimes than the one you cited.

The question is how many innocent people you think should die so we can kill the guilty ones, and how much more money are we willing to spend to kill someone rather than keep them in prison for life.

Would you be willing to die in-order to assure the execution of a guilty person? How about 10 or 100 guilty people?

note the differences , please:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/ann-coulter-fans-didnt-murder-anne-pressly-it-was-the-usual-suspect-but-no-ones-apologizing

http://newnation.org/NNN-Black-on-White.html

""In Table 42, entitled "Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender," we learn that there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005. (The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with the more specific crime of rape.) In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.

The table does not gives statistics for Hispanic victims and offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear:

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man. ""

Here is a site with some detail to the first case I posted. A recent parolee ... hmmmm ... whoever turned him loose should be held responsible too. And, had the proper punishment been executed in the first place, these two kids may not have had to go through this hell. Right?

http://floppingaces.net/2007/05/13/rape-mutilation-and-murder/

innocent lives sacrificed for the lives of monsters?? is that your arguement? look around, read the story, THAT is already happening!

Bap33 says

innocent lives sacrificed for the lives of monsters?? is that your arguement? look around, read the story, THAT is already happening!

Yes, that is the argument, and it would be additional innocent lives beyond the original victims. If you want to kill people for committing crimes you have to be willing to execute innocent people as well. The harder you try to filter out the innocent the greater the cost. How many additional innocent lives lost makes execution no longer worth it for you?

I did notice that you did not answer the question. Are you willing to die in-order to assure the execution of a guilty person? How about 10 or 100 guilty people?

You must not be familiar with Charles Ng because he was involved with a crime much worse that your example (my gift to you is a more horrific crime to use as an example of people deserving execution). Anyway Ng is on death row in California, and his trial has cost the state somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/laomenus/sections/crim_justice/6_cj_inmatecost.aspx?catid=3

If Charles Ng had life in prison he would have to live about 424 years to cost the state $20 million.

Richard Allen Davis should have been put to death the first time ... and now he will die of old age before Cal finally kills him ... ask Polly Klass how she feels, she was innocent and was destroyed by Davis (by the way, he's white).

Would I give my life so as to make sure every convicted gangster and rapist and child molestor and sexual deviant and murdering thug was hung by the neck until dead? Absolutly. They go first.

Would you?

Bap33 says

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man. ""

Fucking racist rapists.

Bap33 says

Would I give my life so as to make sure every convicted gangster and rapist and child molestor and sexual deviant and murdering thug was hung by the neck until dead? Absolutly. They go first.

Absolutely, but I wouldn't give my life so that 1 or 2 of them died. I certainly wouldn't give my child's life for 5 or 10 of theirs.

That's really the point here. A disturbingly large percentage of death row inmates are exonerated by DNA evidence. It is a mathematical fact that we have, as a society, murdered hundreds of innocent men in the name of serving justice.

I'm not completely against the Death Penalty, but I think the standards for such a sentence must be very high.

I also have little issue with killing a murderer just because they might be crazy; if someone is crazy, dangerous, and provides nothing for society, they should just be killed to save everyone the trouble.

Kevin says

I'm not completely against the Death Penalty, but I think the standards for such a sentence must be very high.
I also have little issue with killing a murderer just because they might be crazy; if someone is crazy, dangerous, and provides nothing for society, they should just be killed to save everyone the trouble.

good points

Bap33 says

hung by the neck until dead

Is there any other way?

"Let's hang him by the neck until he's mighty uncomfortable."

Just a thought.

thunderlips11 says

Bap33 says

hung by the neck until dead

Is there any other way?

"Let's hang him by the neck until he's mighty uncomfortable."

Just a thought.

Homo Economicus. Like Bigfoot, reported to exist in fantasy books, but never seen in the wild.

Actually it can take a while to die when hanging by the neck.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/woman-accidentally-hangs-herself-at-haunted-house_n_1066259.html

Bap33 says

Would I give my life so as to make sure every convicted gangster and rapist and child molestor and sexual deviant and murdering thug was hung by the neck until dead? Absolutly. They go first.

OK, the problem here is convicted does not necessarily = guilty (Oh, yeah and BTW when you die you are also a convicted: gangster,rapist,molester,sexual deviant and/or murdering thug). As stated by Kevin...
Kevin says

A disturbingly large percentage of death row inmates are exonerated by DNA evidence. It is a mathematical fact that we have, as a society, murdered hundreds of innocent men in the name of serving justice.

And your death does not mean all of them die, just an unknown percentage.

Bap33 says

Would you?

No, I would not. Why would I sacrifice myself when they can be removed from society through life in prison. Who would take care of my kids? Would I abandon them just so I could kill someone who would otherwise spend their life in prison?

I am not sure that you understand that in this hypothetical scenario your death is not saving any innocent lives. The innocent have already been victimized, your death just changes a life in prison sentence to an execution. I am sorry that you feel your life holds so little potential and value that you would feel the need to spend it on this type of vengeance.

So... I am going to call your bluff here... I don't think you would really die for this cause...

If you do feel that strongly about using your life to assure the death of Richard Allen Davis types it is something you can do. While being an internet tough guy is all well and good, you simply lack the conviction of this man:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Oi3Hyxuf5AE

Anyway, on to the next question then, as brought up by Kevin, would you sacrifice your child's life to see a murderer executed? I am assuming that you are more than willing to sacrifice the child of another, but you can correct me if I am wrong there.

Bap33 says

Kevin says

I'm not completely against the Death Penalty, but I think the standards for such a sentence must be very high.

I also have little issue with killing a murderer just because they might be crazy; if someone is crazy, dangerous, and provides nothing for society, they should just be killed to save everyone the trouble.

good points

I am not against the killing of "monsters" in and of itself, but I am against the death penalty -- only because the cost to society is significantly more than life in prison, and it assures that innocent people will be mistakenly put to death by the state. Why would I want these people, who have already done so much harm, to increase there burden on society?

The insanity is a difficult defense, and truly crazy people is a whole other issue. BTW, they get removed from society often more effectively than a "sane" criminal.

Depending on how it was setup I might be for state assisted suicide for certain convicts. One requirement would be that it must decrease the overall financial burden to the tax payer when compared to the cost of life in prison.

the "cost" is easily dropped as soon as the recurrence that is now the norm goes away. Dead guys do not do these crimes ever again.

I think that currently islam seems to be the most "barbaric" for religious reasons: stoning, honor killing, etc. However, they are not doing anything that christians or jews haven't done or probably will do in the future.

Ahh-hemm... I do say this in-spite of working with a practicing muslim and he is one of the nicest guys you would want to know. Also, I have traveled to muslim countries that have been the most hospitable friendly places I have been.

But, I don't know is judaism worse because it started christianity and islam?

I think Patrick sums it up well though.

My problem with all three is that they explicitly approve of the ritual murder of your child when you hear voices telling you to kill. Not good.

Islamic Barbarism is something you find mostly in Arabic countries*. This points to the culture of the region rather than the culture of the religion as being the problem.

* Yes, there are barbaric acts committed in more reasonable countries with religious motivations, too, but I'd wager that the occurrence of such acts is no higher than abortion clinic bombings by Christians or shocking homosexuals to deaht.

Kevin says

* Yes, there are barbaric acts committed in more reasonable countries with religious motivations, too, but I'd wager that the occurrence of such acts is no higher than abortion clinic bombings by Christians or shocking homosexuals to deaht.

You are assuming that muslims don't also commit religiously motivated bombings, and murder of homosexuals. *Hint* some honor killings are because of homosexuality.

One of the big differences between an honor killing and a bombing or murder of a stranger is that the killing is of someone who should be loved and protected by the killer, and for no reason other than the victim had acted "immorally". Also, a period of torture will usually precede the killing, and when the torture fails to control behavior killing is the last resort.

I would agree that the barbarism is primarily found in Arabic countries/cultures -- where it can be codified through sharia law.

Almost all religions practice honor killings to some degree. I looked for a while and could not find a good data set on honor killings per capita by religion. Part of the problem in the US is that what may be an honor killing may be filed as a domestic abuse killing. That said it seems that countries where honor killings are more common also happen to be countries that have primarily converted to islam. Coincidence? Is there something about islam that is appealing to those cultures?

Judaism and christianity seem to have evolved away from wide spread barbarism, perhaps someday islam will do the same.

Bap33 says

the "cost" is easily dropped as soon as the recurrence that is now the norm goes away. Dead guys do not do these crimes ever again.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. I think you are trying to say that if we kill the offenders they will not commit more crimes or have to pay any up keep costs? Therefor reducing crime and lowering costs?

yes, that, plus the fact that new offenders will have some very good negative-reinforcement for doing such crimes also.

I understand what your point is about the cost of carrying out a proper execution. But, the largest part of that cost is the fraudulent ALCU/Defense lawyers taking actions to delay the process and tie-up courts. That is the largest reason for the high cost of an execution, I think. And, that is a reason that can be adjusted.

Here's something I would like to add to this part of the topic: The person that comes forward with an accusation should be serve the penalty of the crime if they are found to be a false witness.

Bap33 says

I understand what your point is about the cost of carrying out a proper execution. But, the largest part of that cost is the fraudulent ALCU/Defense lawyers taking actions to delay the process and tie-up courts. That is the largest reason for the high cost of an execution, I think. And, that is a reason that can be adjusted.

The reason that death sentences are so costly is that there is a higher standard of evidence, and more "chances" to prove your innocence. The more of these "fraudulent" chances -- as you put it -- removed the more likely that an innocent person will be executed.

You are correct that you can make executing people cheaper than life in prison, but the trade off is that you will execute more innocent people.

Until we have floating robots that monitor and record the actions of every American the legal process to prove guilt, deserving of execution, is going to continue to be very costly and still execute innocents.

Also, life in prison, with out the possibility for parole, is just as effective at protecting your child from a killer as execution, and the deterrence effect of the death penalty is questionable.
http://www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/communications/reports/summer06/capitalpunish

The deterrence effect is a whole other conversation.

Bap33 says

Here's something I would like to add to this part of the topic: The person that comes forward with an accusation should be serve the penalty of the crime if they are found to be a false witness.

Why, are you planning on committing a horrible crime and want any victims/witnesses deterred from accusing you?

Do you really want a system where you witness Glenn Beck raped and murder a girl. Then after you go to the police Glenn Beck uses his considerable influence and money to beat the rap, and proving your "false witness". Would you even have come forward in the first place with the chance you would have to serve the penalty for rape and murder?

I'll say this for Christianity, it's a pedophiles dream come true. Where else could you become a member of an order when you have free rein to molest children to your hearts content. Someone questions you, your questioning God if you question me. Too many complaints from the community, well they will just move me over to another parish where no one knows me yet. And a crop of new victims. If any embarrassing allegations do surface, well just pay off the families. It wasn't until the mid 1980's that this behavior got any attention at all in the press. You have to wonder how many children have been victimized over the centuries and if it was tolerated (and protected) for so long, within the church, how much it has grown within the church over the years. I wonder if there are questions on the priest applications forms, do you like to touch young children, before they allow another member to join there exclusive society to covet children.

ChristianGuy says

religion does not have a monopoly on war or controlling people.

No, but it sure is the flavor of the week...

Dan8267 says

Go to any red state. You'll find lots of Christians rejoicing when someone gets the death penalty.

While your point is well taken, I think that was a bad example. You must admit there is a difference between killing and murder. If you do, maybe you could concede that, while maybe not appropriate, capital punishment is not the same as murder.

Still, there are many people in red state America who go crazy about the idea of abortion, but rejoice at the thought people being murdered (Dr. Tiller in Kansas) or abortion clinics being bombed.

rdm says

it does provide some fame work directly or indirectly
(through laws) to keep human society marginally functional

I don't need someone else's religion providing a framework for my morality, and I don't want the laws of my community based on anyone's religion. We really can live good lives without "abrahimic" religions, we're just too stupid and lazy to do so.

leoj707 says

The question is how many innocent people you think should die so we can kill the guilty ones, and how much more money are we willing to spend to kill someone rather than keep them in prison for life.

In my opinion, those are the strongest arguments against the death penalty (they are the only arguments against it that I agree with), and either of them, by theirselves should be enough to convince us stop using the death penalty.

Bap33 says

the fact that new offenders will have some very good negative-reinforcement for doing such crimes also.

Capital punishment really doesn't deter crime. After decades of watching the issue we've clearly seen that. The role of capital punishment is to permanently remove dangerous predators from our community. The argument used to be, why pay for these assholes to live the rest of their lives with 3 hots and a cot? Well now we also know the reason to pay for that is because it's cheaper than killing them.

ChristianGuy says

No Christian I know would ever condone murder.

What is war? What is false accusations of Bush admin. Justifying the murdered and wounded in Iraq and elsewhere. Think about it.

ReasonNotFaith says

Capital punishment really doesn't deter crime. After decades of watching the issue we've clearly seen that.

That is not ture. If the puishment of a capital crime is a QUICK PUBLIC death on the same block that the bad guy lived on, then there is a deterant for the next generation, as well as a guarentee there will not be a release and redo of another crime from this same bad guy.

Punishment is a deterant ... that is why speeding costs money ... People avoid speeding, or driving without a license, to avoid a monitary punishment. Personal mortality is a high price to pay. I submit that it is the greatest price to be paid. So, for a murder 1 conviction, a public hanging on the bad guy's block is a deterant. If you disagree, then why agree with forcing a man to live in a zoo full of filthy humans for life? A deterant? Protect public? The fact that it is removed from public view results in low effect on the next generation. Hang the murderers in the public square and the next generation will avoid murder. Betcha.

Gangsters would really have trouble getting the next generation in line if gangsters were hung in public too.

Except that capital punishment isn't meted out on the town square, so I'm calling bullshit on your right-wing fantasy-land. It has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the rate of crime or acts as ANY deterrent when a perpetrator makes the concious decison to commit a crime, other than that person/s scheming to actually not get caught, and somewhere before, during, or after them committing the crime.
People speed all the time, it's just a matter of whether or not they get caught doing it, so that's not an effective deterrent either.

EightBall says

Go to any blue state and you'll find lots of people supportive of allowing little girls to obtain certain surgical procedures and specific drugs without their parents consent.

By little girls, you mean 16-year-olds? There's a big difference between a 16-year-old and a 5-year-old. And by certain surgical procedures and specific drugs, I take it you mean abortion.

I don't see what the abortion issue has to do with the fact that Christians in red states often rejoice during an execution. I made that observation to show that sometimes some Christians do condone murder. This is true whether or not you are pro-life or pro-choice.

ReasonNotFaith says

While your point is well taken, I think that was a bad example. You must admit there is a difference between killing and murder. If you do, maybe you could concede that, while maybe not appropriate, capital punishment is not the same as murder.

Analysis, of course, follows semantics rather than precedes it. We should agree on a nomenclature before forming arguments even though we could always choose a different nomenclature and translate our arguments accordingly. As such, let me submit my definitions, which I have chosen for clarity alone, and then my basic philosophy.

kill - To end a life.

murder - To kill a person without his permission and on purpose.

euthanize - To kill a person with his permission and at his request and on purpose.

newTerm1 - To purposely kill a person who is incapable of stating whether or not he wants to live on the assumption that the person would want to die because of his condition.

Killing is not immoral of itself. An accidental killing is not necessarily immoral even though it is tragic.

Deliberate killing is not immoral of itself. Euthanasia is moral. For examples, see Kevorkian's work.

Murder is always an evil, but committing murder might not be immoral if it is the path of least evil. For example, killing a madman who has a gun before he can kill other people is the path of least evil. As such it is a moral act even though it is not desirable.

Soldiers killing other soldiers in war is murder and is evil, but it may or may not be immoral because it might be the path of least evil that the soldier can take. Yes, evil is still done, but it is minimized and that's the best the soldier can do. Of course, not all soldiers can claim that their kills were the path of least evil or no killing would have been done.

Capital punishment is murder and thus also evil. Some argue that the murder is justifiable. I would not agree unless you can prove that it is the path of least evil and not just blood vengeance as the people cheering executes implies. Now I might very well want someone to die for harming a love one, but that does not make it less evil. From what I have heard on both sides of the arguments, I have to agree with Penn and Teller that life imprisonment is more just.

Euthanizing a person is killing but not murder, and therefore is not evil or immoral.

I've coined the word newTerm1 because I don't know of an English word for it distinct from euthanize, which I've already used. NewTerm1ing a person is killing. It's a bit harder to decide if this should be considered murder or not. Given the intent is to help the person, I would lean towards considering newTerm1 to not be murder or immoral. It, however, might be evil if the doer is incorrect about the person's wishes.

A moral person attempts to minimize evil and maximize good. Sometimes the optimal solution is simply the least evil among several evil outcomes.

Bap33 says

If the puishment of a capital crime is a QUICK PUBLIC death on the same block that the bad guy lived on, then there is a deterant for the next generation, as well as a guarentee there will not be a release and redo of another crime from this same bad guy.

You make a good point for why bad people should die, but you totally ignore the other problems associated with the state killing alleged offenders... Is that an accident or on purpose?

Bap33 says

If you disagree, then why agree with forcing a man to live in a zoo full of filthy humans for life?

If I were king, our prisons would be managed much differently than they are now, I can promise you that. We do a very poor job of managing prisons and inmate populations.

Dan,
a soldier killing an enemy in war is not murder. I am pretty sure you know the difference between murder and killing.

Dan8267 says

Murder is always an evil, but committing murder might not be immoral if it is the path of least evil.

Ok, I was with you using your definitions until you came to evil. Please define it, please specify who gets to define it.

I don't accept the idea of an absolute good or evil. Good and evil are subjective measures of they way people or situations affect us personally.

http://cofcc.org/2010/05/science-daily-whites-have-lowest-instance-of-maoa-l-gene-which-is-linked-to-aggression-violence-crime-and-sexual-abuse/

Bap33 says

http://cofcc.org/2010/05/science-daily-whites-have-lowest-instance-of-maoa-l-gene-which-is-linked-to-aggression-violence-crime-and-sexual-abuse/

So many problems with this article:

"Researchers have censored their own findings..." points to a dead blogspot link.

It doesn't say that the Italian court gave the defendant a lighter sentence because of MAOA-L, just that the defense brought it up.

And the only functioning link is to a study run by a political "scientist" (politics is not a science, but philosophy) and behavioral economists (also not a science), rather than psychiatrists, neurologists, or biologists (real scientists). Administering various levels of hot Sauce? Where? On the tongue? In the eyes? In the imagination? How did that work?

Cortez, Pisaro, Heydrich and Clive would be very interested to discover they didn't have the MAOA-L to slaughter great masses of people.

Bap33 says

Dan,

a soldier killing an enemy in war is not murder. I am pretty sure you know the difference between murder and killing.

Please read my full post before commenting on it. By the nomenclature I proposed it is. However, nomenclature isn't important, meaning is.

In any case, soldiers killing soldiers is evil. At best, it's the least evil out of a set of evil choices.

Please re-read the following part of my prior post:

Analysis, of course, follows semantics rather than precedes it. We should agree on a nomenclature before forming arguments even though we could always choose a different nomenclature and translate our arguments accordingly. As such, let me submit my definitions, which I have chosen for clarity alone, and then my basic philosophy.

murder - To kill a person without his permission and on purpose.