birdlike

You insisted on paying only to me. Either you will pay the money to third parties or you won't. It makes no difference to me, but you can't have it both ways. Besides, it's not may responsibility to pay fees associated with payment. Fine, do you want to send me a self-addressed, stamped envelope and I'll mail you your buck? I am not on the hook for anything more than one dollar -- and I dispute even that, because the reply you claimed won the bet was not what I consider to be a qualifying "good faith" reply. Yes, you owe me a dollar. Thus, it is your responsibility to pay any associated fees involved with payment. That's patently absurd. If it were the case, I would have bet you "a dollar, plus all associated costs or fees involved with payment." No wonder you are not following the basic logic of the discussion at hand. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Lucky did a pretty good job describing the process. Well, what he did was give his view of it. Are you truly unable to understand that what he did and what you have done does not count as "citation" any more than anyone's lay opinions? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

'Errors could be made' means that the probability of an error is not zero. On a sufficiently long timescale, those errors will eventually occur. Your mistake is in thinking that because the possibility of errors exists, that they MUST happen. That is simply proved in the logical construction we are dealing with. It's simply not; I don't know how else I should need to say it. No, of course I cannot. That still does not prove your assertion. You have caused me to admit that in justice systems where "errors could be made," they have been made. Still, nothing about that is cause to insist that errors must be made just because their potential exists. Again, LoGicAL FaLLaCy. All you can state definitively is that they could. As above. On a sufficiently long timescale, any possible error will occur. Again, no. You misread the logic. And please note, I am not saying that I expect zero errors to be made. I am simply saying that you cannot make a LOGICAL conclusion that "any possible error WILL occur." You just cannot prove that, and there is no ethereal force that forces errors to occur to please your expectation. Every single part in my car, from the engine to the tires to the cupholders to the little spring that flips the fuel lid open, is made by man, and since man is imperfect and makes imperfect things, the parts in my car are all--every last one of them--imperfect. According to you, not only should I expect a failure of some parts, you appear to think that if I drive long enough, every part will, in turn, fail. I disagree. Non-sequitur. Police do not impose the judgement of the state. It doesn't matter. They are an arm of the state, they make decisions ad hoc on behalf of the state, under color of the state's authority, up to and including the decision to end a life in the pursuit of justice and public safety. There's no reason to limit this discussion to "imposing the judgment of the state." The police DO act as an arm of the government (they are, after all, officers of the court, right? I'm pretty sure. I mean, their testimony is taken to be fact; they are assumed to be telling the truth.) And since the police act as an arm of the government, and we arm them knowing that they may kill the innocent mistakenly, we are engaged in a practice that we (should) know to be incompatible with justice. My point is that when our goal is to mete justice, and we do so in good faith to the best of our ability, we recognize that we are fallible and that our decisions run the risk of being wrong, and unjust. But there's nothing else we can do! This is what we have to work with. Well, thanks for the backhanded appreciation, but I'm afraid your critique of my logic seems rather less than convincing. OK. Stalemate, I guess. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

So, that guarantees you that the appelate case WILL be heard by the court? Nothing wrong with that advice, and in fact (although you may not be inclined to believe it) I am generally quite open to utilizing it. Just not in this case--particularly because our friend who is asserting the contrary has not stepped up to show so much as the first citation from even a quasi-authoritative source to back his statements up. He hasn't even claimed to be a lawyer! Why are his qualifications--or yours--any better than mine? Unless you are a lawyer, or unless he is, why is my layman's view of this worth any less than either of yours? Basically what I wrote. Doesn't appear to be. That section says that the appelant MIGHT be able to challenge the result in an appelate court. That does not mean he is guaranteed to be able to challenge the result in court. And being able to FILE to have the appeal heard may result in the application being turned down, no? Or does the court have to grant a full hearing on a case that has no merit, just because a convict wanted to take a crack at a reversal that his case does not merit? Dude, are you not paying attention?! That's exactly what I was fucking talking about! The appellant needs some LEGAL REASON to be CLAIMING that the prior court proceeding erred! You just supported what I've been saying all along, because your example jibes perfectly with what I was saying. But do you also assert that any ol' convict can get an appeals court to HEAR HIS APPEAL just because he got a guilty verdict and says to himself, "Aw, man, that sucks!"? Then without citations, your word is about as worthless as mine, I guess. We are two layment arguing what we think we know. Kind of a stalemate, or do you really have the hubris to claim that your layman's opinion, without anything to independently back it up, is superior to mine? I mean, at least I cited Wikipedia. And I should take your word, when you use the incorrect homophone "effect" in a sentence where you should have used "affect"? And when you made two words out of "outcome"? Oooh, confidence-inspiring! And what you know came from...? OH, that's right, you haven't even said. Ah, this derives from your uncited reservoir of knowledge again, I take it. The one that thinks that Communism is a system of legal procedure, and not an economic system. I think you mean "principle." But who am I to challenge you on what you know. Surely your intellect is infallible. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I understand the point you were trying to make. I also understand why your logic was faulty. It's unfortunate that you do not. Whatever, dude. The logic was beyond reproach; the problem is that you just didn't like it, so you lie and call it faulty. C'est la guerre. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

That would clearly have to do with the fact that unless someone committed a killing that wronged you or your loved one, you would not be going out looking for anyone to be killed. The murderer brings the situation about. For example, I would never kill anyone or want anyone killed unless a person killed someone I love. But after his execution, my involvement with killing stops. The murderer, well, after the killing of my loved one, he would probably be open, or maybe even eager, to continue murdering people for whatever purposes he likes to, as for furthering his criminal career. So, the BIG difference between the murderers and the executioners is that the executioners kill only those who are guilty of murder, and never seek the killing of anyone else absent a murderer who needs to be punished. How could this not be clear to you? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Your source did not contradict what I said. I think you'll find by reading the source that it covered judicial appeals in general, not those specific to the US or to criminal convictions. In the US, everyone has the right to appeal a criminal conviction. Then cite a fucking source for your assertion! Surely, if that is something so universal that it applies across the entire United States, it's gotta be codified somewhere in some document that governs all 50. Here's more of what Wikipedia's article said (same article as before): Many jurisdictions recognize two types of appeals, particularly in the criminal context.[2][3][4] The first is the traditional "direct" appeal in which the appellant files an appeal with the next higher court of review. The second is the collateral appeal or post-conviction petition, in which the petitioner-appellant files the appeal in a court of first instance--usually the court that tried the case. The key distinguishing factor between direct and collateral appeals is that the former only reviews evidence that was presented in the trial court, but the latter allows review of evidence dehors the record: depositions, affidavits, and witness statements that did not come in at trial. The standard for post-conviction relief is high, typically requiring the petitioner to demonstrate that the evidence presented was not available in the usual course of trial discovery. Relief in post-conviction is rare and is most often found in capital or violent felony cases. The typical scenario involves an incarcerated defendant locating DNA evidence demonstrating the defendant's actual innocence. The article establishes a high standard for succeeding on a criminal appeal. Does that sound like a scenario in which they would agree to hear any and every case that someone didn't like the verdict of, rather than those where a claim can be made that something about the trial was done wrong? Hardly. Since you seem so intent on mereceiving the $1, within the next few days I'll PM an email address where you can send $1 plus PayPal fees (since you are so concerned about me receiving the payment, not anyone else, such as ACLU or PayPal). Yeah, um, show me where I agreed to pay any fees in connection with the dollar I "lost" to you. As far as I'm concerned, all I owe you is a dollar, (if even that), not the cost of getting it to you, so maybe you should just come and visit to collect it, I dunno. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If you can bring yourself to say that some murderers have "deserved" the death penalty, then it doesn't like it's appropriate for you to use the phrase "oppose it altogether." That doesn't sound like "altogether," to me, because of the fact that you can conceive of someone who "should" be executed (i.e. "deserve it"). It appears that you oppose it because of the whole "innocents caught up in it and wrongly put to death" thing. I would have thought that "altogether" would imply that no matter whether it could be administered with zero-flaw correctness you would still oppose it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

But they'd be a CHAAAAAANGE! Aren't we supposed to be all about getting a CHAAAAAANGE to occur? I mean, nobody cares what the CHAAAAAANGE will actually BE, but we're supposed to WAAAAAANT it, right? Well, who better to represent the best possible chance for CHAAAAAANGE? More than another glib, lying, charismatic Washington insider, anyway. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If that's the sentiment being expressed, I agree, too. And I appreciate the sentiment; I just don't agree with you at all that it was stated clearly or coherently, that's all. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Which has happened many times. When will the majority of folks tire of having that blood on their hands. When Mexico wins back Texas. Ohhh, you want to make this about illegal immigration, huh? Next thread over, bub! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Does that matter? Is the principle of deterrence the bedrock of criminal punishment? No. It never has been. And if it has been, it has been an astronomical failure from day one -- witness the fact that we have no shortage of daily crimes committed of the very type we try to "deter." For that matter, then, we could say that, "Imprisoning people is relegated to simple revenge, not deterrence." After all, you seem to hold punishments to the standard of "does it deter? and if not, it's just revenge and we shouldn't do it." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

In every case, it has prevented the convicted and executed murderer from killing again. One down, X to go. As for others, can you disprove that some of them who might have thought about murdering people have been dissuaded from it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>In every case, it has prevented the convicted and executed murderer from killing again. One down, X to go. That's defined as incapacitation, not deterrence. At the same time, executing an innocent person incapacitates them from not killing again too. It's also referred to as a flip remark, and it's a common joke I've seen used on the internet to essentially dismiss with annoyed contempt the idea that we need the death penalty to deter murderers in order to justify it. (You won't hold "life in prison without parole" to the same standard, strangely...) Are you gonna admit that you lack a sense of humor? You take things very literally, it seems. Kinda reminds me of Rain Man doing "Who's On First?" Fuck yeah! Fuck no! Kinda stupid of you to ask, I feel. Almost insulting. Or, it would be if I really truly cared what you think about what I think. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

LoGicAL FaLLaCy You cannot conclude that errors will be made; only that they could be made. Again, LoGicAL FaLLaCy. All you can state definitively is that they could. The first part of this is fine; the second is not. There are lots of things that are done under color of the law's authority that have the potential to violate the rights or the lives of innocent people. But knowing that an imperfect man in an imperfect system is all we'll ever have to work with, we don't just shut down the system because we can't risk innocents. We arm cops, knowing that we may see cops mistakenly shoot and kill innocent people. Does that mean arming cops is "incompatible with justice"? Your understanding of logic needs work. I appreciate your effort and your attempt, but it needs work. You don't have it all pegged just yet. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

In every case, it has prevented the convicted and executed murderer from killing again. One down, X to go. All you have to do now is prove that those executed would, in fact, have killed again had they only received a life sentence. Without that, you've not provided evidence supporting your assertion. All I needed to do was demonstrate that an executed convict never murders again. IF he would have murdered again if he'd received life in prison, he won't be able to. I did not set out to guarantee to you that he would have. You know, I see a tremendous irony in the fact that your signature talks about "understanding." You have been demonstrating an inability to. Like when you disputed the logical accuracy of what I said about skydiving and jumping off a building to commit suicide. You said I should look up the definition of skydiving. Ha ha. My purpose in using that analogy was to show that two things can involve doing the same thing without being the same thing. Executing a murderer is not murder just like falling from a building to kill yourself is not skydiving. The fact that you could not wrap your mind around that one is not my fault, or my problem. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

An appeal can be filed for any criminal conviction in the US. The defendant has that right. I was under the impression that there has to be a LEGAL BASIS for an appeal filing to be accepted. Otherwise, for every conviction there would be an appeal. For every appeal denied, there would be an appeal to the next highest court. My suspicions were confirmed when I went--as you could have--to Wikipedia and looked at what it has to say about appeals, to wit (emphasis mine): I guess you lose that one. Maybe we should have bet a dollar. Is there something you can cite besides your say-so, if you're insisting on a positive claim as you are? I love how some people love to claim sarcasm or devil's advocate when they have been shown to be wrong. So do I, but that's not what I was doing. Perhaps it's because it's harder to come across in print, but I did indeed intend those comments sarcastically. Only you are suggesting that the jury is a bunch of dolts. Any conviction can be appealed, as previously stated. Prove it, please One of the principles upon which our justice system is built is that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to incorrectly find an innocent man to be guilty in court. That is certainly a debatable concept. It's not like you can claim that that was written into the Constitution; nor can you claim that 100% of the people of the U.S. agree with that principle. While I abhor the concept of an innocent man being imprisoned, I find it very difficult to accept the notion of a known guilty man going free to continue his crimes. Who volunteers to be his next victim? You bet a dollar and lost the bet. I posted the manner in which I would like my dollar paid in order to keep the wager legal. Of course, if we fail to see a posted picture of the receipt of the donation to the ACLU posted, it will demonstrate a lack of personal integrity on your part by not keeping your word and paying your lost bet. If that's the message you want to send to everyone, so be it. I will pay the bet, but I never agreed to pay anyone but you. If you want the dollar, PM me your PayPal address and I shall send it. If you wish to, you can then donate the dollar to the ACLU. If I don't receive a PM from you by about mid-week, I will assume that you have no interest in pursuing this petty matter and will consider you to have dropped it. My integrity won't be impugned once you have to admit that I paid you the dollar (even though I dispute that you actually answered my post in good faith). The dollar really will be to shut you up, rather than to admit that I lost the bet, because that, too, is debatable. But I did not agree to be forwarding any donations to anyone. I bet YOU--not the ACLU. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

What do you mean? Is it unreasonable to think that a country like China would do something like that? Is it unreasonable to think that any number of psychotic terrorist organizations might have worked toward pulling off an attack during the games? Did I say I was wishing for it? No. My point was that it would not surprise me. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I think that the people who fucked up handling Katrina most, and first and foremost, were the citizens, police and elected officials of New Orleans. Sorry he's not willing, like Clinton, to cook the books into showing a surplus that is as genuine as Clinton's angry insistence that he didn't get the blowjob. Oh, holy shit, you do NOT want to go into a right-versus-left comparison of the disgraceful presidential pardons! Clinton did a SLEW of them! Clinton engaged in the bombing of an aspirin factory to take attention off himself when his popularity was waning. Presidents don't legislate. Try again. If you're gonna keep putting your foot in your mouth, please do! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Hardly on a regular basis. Unless you're just talking about welfare checks. I never said I was for giving tax breaks to the rich, i.e. letting them get away with not paying a fair share of taxes. But I think it ought to be a flat tax. I don't believe that if you can manage to make more money, the penalty should increase as a percentage. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Yeah, and if they screw up, maybe they'll keep ALL of us from ever existing! I think we'll have warning, though: we'll begin to graaaaadually faaaaade from our own photographs, first. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Yes, but hardly surprising. Me, I keep waiting for some real carnage to happen there -- and if not carnage, some tremendous news-making event, like a mass-attempt at defection, or a bombing, or a crackdown, or an arrest of an American athlete for illegal speech against China that blows up into a diplomatic disaster... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

My dreams tend to fall into the "Acrobatic" category or the "Experimental" category. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I ain't seen no jumpers that gone and done thinked that, anyways you don't gots to do what they says anyway. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I am not sure I follow the gist of the preceding post. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

What he said. While I agree that the politics and Olympics are intertwined, I support the US athletes and want them to compete honorably in the games. I would love to read, in a few weeks (how long do the games last, anyway?) that the American athletes kicked ass. But I'll wait to read it in the newspaper. I certainly won't watch it on t.v. But I need to tell you this background: I long ago realized that the nobility seems all but gone from athletics. I am completely jaded about it. You can't open a sports section without reading about athletes to whom the dignity of competition means nothing anymore, who are willing to whore themselves to winning, dope themselves or inject themselves to win. Modern athletics is full of cheaters--perhaps not all, but enough that all of them now suffer the taint, in my eyes. And it also seems to me that modern athletes get into competition from the get-go because they have the dream of the multi-million-dollar endorsement contracts, not the dream of excelling at their sport. It's not an axiom; it's just what I see too much of. Like I said, I'm jaded. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire