Albert Einstein on the death penalty

[goofball]

He said:

[ QUOTE ]
I have concluded that elimination of the death penalty is desireable for the following reasons. 1) Irreversibility in case of error, and 2) Moral decay of the societies and individuals performing the executions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without getting into issues of cost, racism or hypocrisy, are Einstein's reasons by themselves a sufficient argument against capital punishment?

[Felix_Nietsche]

I don't buy bread from a butcher.
I don't buy meat from a baker.

Now if Einstein wants to give his opinions on physics, then I'll listen with extra respect. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[dr_venkman]

Because the man was a brilliant mathematician he isn't qualified to give sound advice about morality?

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]

Without getting into issues of cost, racism or hypocrisy, are Einstein's reasons by themselves a sufficient argument against capital punishment?

[/ QUOTE ] I think so. Clearly the chance that a innocent man dying should be reason enough to stop killing our criminals. IMO, one innocent man dying is just as bad as an innocent child being murdered. As for his second reason, I think an argument can be made for that as well. I don't really know how to explain it, but I also agree with it.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy bread from a butcher.
I don't buy meat from a baker.

Now if Einstein wants to give his opinions on physics, then I'll listen with extra respect. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have "opinions" on physics.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
He said:

[ QUOTE ]
I have concluded that elimination of the death penalty is desireable for the following reasons. 1) Irreversibility in case of error, and 2) Moral decay of the societies and individuals performing the executions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without getting into issues of cost, racism or hypocrisy, are Einstein's reasons by themselves a sufficient argument against capital punishment?

[/ QUOTE ]

The first is a valid point. It argues for stricter standards of proof for captial crimes.

The second, that capital punishment leads to moral decay, is an unsubstantiated hypothesis, an opinion. I'm assuming that Einstein presented no empirical evidence for his opinion. At least there is no reference to any here. Lacking such evidence, why should I give any more credibility to his opinion about an issue outside his field of expertise than I would to anyone else? Because he is smart? David Sklansky is pretty smart too, but I consider his theological opinions to be just that, his opinions. I probably would not be interested in Einstein's opinions about poker either.

[dr_venkman]

When it comes to understanding the morality of society around us does a person have to have special qualifications? I don't understand that.

He's talking about how killing people makes a society sick. Who could argue with that? It's obvious that taking for granted life has done to this country and others like it who practice the death penalty.

And what about 'Thou Shall Not Kill' as empirical evidence?

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Because the man was a brilliant mathematician he isn't qualified to give sound advice about morality?"
************************************************** ***
I never said that....BUT I do say...being brilliant at science does not make his opinions on morality more valid than anyone elses. Just like I don't give much weight when a hollywood actor/actress gives their opinions on politcal matters.

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
being brilliant at science does not make his opinions on morality more valid than anyone elses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and if all people's opinions are being equal why discount his?

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and if all people's opinions are being equal why discount his?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because there is no logical argument for the death penalty so he avoids the real question.

[MMMMMM]

Einstein also said (paraphrasing from memory) that he had no inherent objection to the killing of bad and useless people, but that he had no condidence in humans beings being capable of implementing such things fairly.

I think the above, along with his point about irreversibility in case of error, are very significant arguments against the death penalty. Whether they are entirely sufficient as stand-alone arguments is another matter.

One problem with allowing government such powers is that such powers have the potential to be terribly abused if government should somehow turn fascistic or tyrannical.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have "opinions" on physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely wrong, modern physics is filled with opinions.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
When it comes to understanding the morality of society around us does a person have to have special qualifications? I don't understand that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The original poster implicitly claimed greater authority for the statement about morality because it came from Einstein. I claim that Einstein's unscientific observations or opinions should carry no more weight than my own, and should be judged on their merits, not on their author.

[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about how killing people makes a society sick. Who could argue with that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I could argue with that, and I can say with truth, and a little pride, that my I.Q. is in the same general neighborhood of our friend Albert. Killing people does not necessarily, in and of itself, make a society sick. We kill a lot fewer people than a lot of societies in history than were considered quite advanced and moral.

[ QUOTE ]
It's obvious that taking for granted life has done to this country and others like it who practice the death penalty.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not obvious to me, or to many others. People who say things are obvious generally lack any objective foundation for their pronouncements. As a quick example off the top of my head, compare the US (with capital punishment) with France (without it). I would argue that the US is head and shoulders over France in terms of morality and intestinal fortitude. In a preemptive stike against other objections, I will admit that the US invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But the world situation that precipitated it was greatly exacerbated by the moral spinelessness of the French.

[ QUOTE ]

And what about 'Thou Shall Not Kill' as empirical evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

You cite mythology, not empirical (i.e., scientific) evidence. Granted, mythology is an educaton process for getting truth to the masses, and "Thou shalt not kill" is a generally correct principle for the good of society. But every principle has exceptions, as does this one. To reiterate, there is no emipirical (scientific, historical, measureable) evidence that captial punishment, in and of itself, is morally decaying. I don't claim that that proves that it is not morally decaying, I merely state that those who make the claim have the burden of proof, annd have failed.

[goofball]

We already have innocent people convincted "beyond all reasonable doubt"

what standard are you suggesting? Unreasonable doubt?

[QuadsOverQuads]

I think benfranklin's response, above, pretty much sums it up. My only addition would be that Einstein's first reason is -- in and of itself -- sufficient to sustain the point.

As a more general observation, I find it interesting how it is almost always the so-called "conservatives" -- who allegedly believe in "limited government" -- who will aggressively advocate giving that same government the authority to kill its own citizens (provided that the government's courts first declare that person guilty, of course).


q/q

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
I could argue with that, and I can say with truth, and a little pride, that my I.Q. is in the same general neighborhood of our friend Albert. Killing people does not necessarily, in and of itself, make a society sick. We kill a lot fewer people than a lot of societies in history than were considered quite advanced and moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

America is one country (out of a small handful) that practices capital punishment out of hundreds who don't. That's nothing to be proud of.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And what about 'Thou Shall Not Kill' as empirical evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

You cite mythology, not empirical (i.e., scientific) evidence. To reiterate, there is no emipirical (scientific, historical, measureable) evidence that captial punishment, in and of itself, is morally decaying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whereas I agree the bible represents myth, the actual writing is recorded of 'thou shall not kill' as part of the moral code one is to abide by as a true follower. Most religions have laws along these lines. So to violate that law clearly is a proveable sign that the moral code is being corrupted.

The evidence is right there in your face. Is it no arguement to say that a majority of the world's population measure moral purity by the books that identify their religion. Q'uran, Torah, Bible and the basic precepts of Buddhism. The act of executing people contravenes this measure of moral purity.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
We already have innocent people convincted "beyond all reasonable doubt"

what standard are you suggesting? Unreasonable doubt?

[/ QUOTE ]

While I personally am opposed to the death penalty in virtually all cases, I would prefer to see a standard of complete certainty (if, that is, the death penalty is to be a part of law). Yes, a standard of "beyond ANY doubt"; essentially a mathematical certainty (the completely absurd excepted, such as a defense that Elvis came with little green men and kidnapped the defendant, and hypnotized him by repeatedly singing "Hound Dog", while aliens implanted an indetectable bionic chip in his brain which contained a code for the specific murder).

Lesser punishments may be commuted or reversed upon later proof that the convicted did not commit the crime. Hence a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not inappropriate. Be aware that "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not require proof to a mathematical certainty, and that the jury is left to determine what is reasonable or not. The death penalty, however, cannot be reversed, so the standard of proof should be yet higher.

[Iplayboard]

As far as the moral decay argument, I believe Einstein has some validity. The South has by far the most executions of any region in this country and has by far the highest murder rate. The Northeast has the least executions (and many northern states like Massachusetts have no death penalty), and the lowest murder rate.

One of the arguments for the dealth penalty is that it should deter future murders. It appears as though the opposite may be true.

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that the US is head and shoulders over France in terms of morality and intestinal fortitude. In a preemptive stike against other objections, I will admit that the US invasion of Iraq was a mistake. But the world situation that precipitated it was greatly exacerbated by the moral spinelessness of the French.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn I am so sick of criticism of the French like this. It's really ridiculous. What did the French do that was so "spineless"? They dared disagree with the big, bad US of A? The nerve of them.

You're free to criticize the French for their position on the Iraq war. I didn't agree with their position either. But I hardly feel that them standing up to us, and trying to suggest an alternative to a war, makes them "spineless". To the contrary, I think they took the most active role in pushing a path to avoid a war. One could reasonably argue that it was quite courageous of them to do so.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Whereas I agree the bible represents myth, the actual writing is recorded of 'thou shall not kill' as part of the moral code one is to abide by as a true follower.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I have read that the closest translation, going back to the root words of the day, is not "Thou Shalt Not Kill" but rather "Thou Shalt Not Murder". This would also appear to make more sense, as the Old Testament does not forbid people from defending themselves, nor from killing animals for food.

So is legal execution merely killing, or is it murder?

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't have "opinions" on physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely wrong, modern physics is filled with opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?

I really don't want to discuss technicalities about the word "opinion".

You should know better the difference between the word in a forum like this one and in the Science world.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
and I can say with truth, and a little pride, that my I.Q. is in the same general neighborhood of our friend Albert.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a little pride...

Well, the rest of us in the peanut gallery will try to figure this gem out on our own:

[ QUOTE ]
People who say things are obvious generally lack any objective foundation for their pronouncements. As a quick example off the top of my head, compare the US (with capital punishment) with France (without it). I would argue that the US is head and shoulders over France in terms of morality and intestinal fortitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't bother asking benfranklin to try to explain this, as I'm sure he's busy pioneering avant-gardes physics theories with Steven Hawking and finally discovering the unified field theory; but rest assured, I think we can all thank benfranklin for taking some time out of his day to inform us of the inherent moral/intestinal fortitude (is this for real? I mean, seriously?) qualities each nationality has. I don't know why ben (whose intellect is, with truth, and a little pride, in the general neighborhood of Einstein’s) would stop at the US and France; perhaps he could enlighten us all and draw a diagram, depicting the intrinsic hierarchy of national intestinal fortitude and morality - I've been curious as to whether or not the Chinese have more natural intestinal fortitude than the Dutch; or if Australians are more/less moral than Brazilians.

What of French immigrants to the US? Do they retain their natural lack of moral clarity, or can we train them? What if John Wayne married Marie Antoinette? Would their kid be a spineless Frenchman or would it possess the required intestinal fortitude to be a true American?

Apparently an IQ similar to Einstein’s doesn't preclude senseless generalizations about nationality.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
You should know better the difference between the word in a forum like this one and in the Science world.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the difference?, my opinions of both subjects are correct /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Seriously, sorry for derailing and being a nit.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy bread from a butcher.
I don't buy meat from a baker.

Now if Einstein wants to give his opinions on physics, then I'll listen with extra respect. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Back then, guys like Einstein and Von neumann were involved in numerous types of think tanks, on a wide range of subjects. Von Neumann even said we should bomb the USSR as a pre-emptive strike.

Just in case you come up with something pithy...McNabb!

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly the chance that a innocent man dying should be reason enough to stop killing our criminals. IMO, one innocent man dying is just as bad as an innocent child being murdered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proponents of the death penalty often point to the deterant value of the death penalty. They claim that, even if innocent people are put to death, but that fear of the death penalty saves a greater quantity of people from being killed, then the death of innocent people is justified.

I personally disagree that such a deterant value exists in the current application of the death penalty in the United States; but imagine that we could murder 1 innocent person and, by some miracle, discover the cure for cancer. This would concievably save millions. I could argue that it's a categorical imperative we murder 1 innocent person, if it meant discovering the cure for cancer (and saving millions of lives). Certainly, then, we could leave room in the debate for the notion that innocent deaths could be justified, if they lead to some greater value (in the case of the death penalty, the prevention of a greater quantity of murders). I don't agree with this, but the debate certainly should not end with, "if 1 innocent person dies, then the death penalty is unjustifiable," because there's room for much more to be said on the matter.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
Einstein also said (paraphrasing from memory) that he had no inherent objection to the killing of bad and useless people

[/ QUOTE ]

I thinnk the use of the word "useless" here is quite troubling.

I also wonder why there hasnt been a thread devoted to Einsteins thoughts on zionism...hmmmm...hmmmm

[MMMMMM]

Well, "bad and useless" in this regard is quite different than "bad or useless".

Also, as I said, it is from my memory and is a paraphrase. I'm reasonably sure he used the phrase "bad and useless", or an equivalent, but I'm not 100% positive.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
We already have innocent people convincted "beyond all reasonable doubt"



[/ QUOTE ]

As a simple example, a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt can be reached on circumstantial evidence. I would say that any such conviction should not qualify for capital punishment.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
As a simple example, a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt can be reached on circumstantial evidence. I would say that any such conviction should not qualify for capital punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good idea.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
But I hardly feel that them standing up to us, and trying to suggest an alternative to a war, makes them "spineless". To the contrary, I think they took the most active role in pushing a path to avoid a war. One could reasonably argue that it was quite courageous of them to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

They presented no alternative, other than endless rhetoric about what a bad person Saddam was, and let's tell him one more time to shape up. They kept voting for resolutions against Saddam, and never had the spine to enforce them. If he didn't comply, they just wanted to pass another resolution.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

Apparently an IQ similar to Einstein’s doesn't preclude senseless generalizations about nationality.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reference to IQ, an apparently failed attempt at humor, was to show that the worth of an idea is independent of the source of the idea, and should stand on it's own merits. You chose to attack the source rather than the idea.

And in your failed attempts at sarcasm, you also missed the point on the comparison of the US and France. I was talking about the recent behaviour of the countries, while you chose to misconstrue that as a slur on individuals. I talked about the actions of countries. "Nationality" was your word, not mine.

Whether or not you agree with the underlying morality, the United States has acted in line with it's principles over the last few years, while France has not acted in accord with any principles other than political expediency. The French government does not act on principles, other than the principle that it wants to present itself to the world as the alternative to America. France is the anti-America. That is as spineless as Kerry positioning himself as the anti-Bush to such an extent that there was no longer a Kerry there.

[[censored]]

I personally don't give a [censored] if works as a method of prevention. I support revenge executions. The best most logical way to innact these without complete mayhem is through the courts and conducted by the state. I suspect that most people who support the death penalty do so for the same reasons I do, yet for some reason don't say so.

No system is perfect, we should continually strive to improve it. However that does not mean it should not be used.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't give a [censored] if works as a method of prevention. I support revenge executions.

[/ QUOTE ]

In early tribal society, if you committed certain crimes, you were deemed as no longer worthy of living within the society, and you were banished. Because of the nature of life and the environment, that was virtually a death sentence at the time, since the odds were stacked against an individual living alone very long in a hostile environment.

In the modern world, there is no place to banish people to. We have become too civilized. So the death penalty is the modern equivalent of banishment, when you are considered to be too evil to live in society.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Being brilliant at science does not make [Einstein's] opinions on morality more valid than anyone else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being brilliant in physics (Einstein called himself a "poor mathematician") implies exceptional intelligence, overall. Einstein offered an argument for the elimination of the death penalty based on intelligent observation. The justifications of his argument are also based on logic. The morality part you should consider a bonus.

Instead of putting up silly posts with silly little emoticons in order to dismiss Einstein's argument as "no more valid than anyone's", you should perhaps be trying instead to refute that argument -- with logic or morality or whatever else drives your brain.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
A conviction beyond a reasonable doubt can be reached on circumstantial evidence. I would say that any such conviction should not qualify for capital punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but isn't the vast majority of decisions based on "circumstantial evidence" ? Isn't it the rare exception rather than the rule when we have eyewitnesses* who have seen the crime being committed and can competently testify to that end in court?

--------------
* Unus testis, nullus testis.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I also wonder why there hasnt been a thread devoted to Einstein's thoughts on zionism...hmmmm...hmmmm

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop making those silly noises and start one yourself.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A conviction beyond a reasonable doubt can be reached on circumstantial evidence. I would say that any such conviction should not qualify for capital punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may be wrong but isn't the vast majority of decisions based on "circumstantial evidence" ? Isn't it the rare exception rather than the rule when we have eyewitnesses* who have seen the crime being committed and can competently testify to that end in court?

--------------
* Unus testis, nullus testis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think (I dont know for certain) that physical evidence is considered circumstantial. This includes things like finger prints, DNA, etc. I think (again I don't know for certain) most cases are decided on physical evidence.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the difference?, my opinions of both subjects are correct

Seriously, sorry for derailing and being a nit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, smart guy, prove you're correct, it's really easy.

Show me an "opinion" that belongs to the Science of Physics.

Let me help you with the definition

Opinion : a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?"

And you should show how it is clear that the opinion belongs to the Science of Physics. That is, how it is clear that the "opinion" is accepted by all the Physics community as to be an integral part of the field.

Science has very strict standars. Not every sentence around physics qualifies as an opinion from the field of Physics.

Examples of "opinions" that don't qualify as opinions from the field

1- Quotes from Science Fiction books
2- Quotes from the Bible or any other sacred book (even though they are interesting opinions about Cosmology)
3- Even quotes about physic fantasies from respected people in the field. If they are not supported by their colleagues, they are just opinions about Physics not opinions from Physics. Can you understand the difference?

I didn't say, people don't have opinions about Physics (I have some of my own). I say Physics doesn't have opinions and you say I was completely wrong, now is your chance to prove it.

And yes you're a nit, but lets play your game, I feel bored.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Hi,
Prepare to get tackled . /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I discussed this with physicists at CERN. They said that the current physics model will probably be proven wrong, due to the fact that they observe phenomenaes that contradicts it.

All discussion about what will replace it is until proves are found, opinions.

P.S. Example of such phenomenea is two particles that move away from eachother even if they have no reason to do this for any reason in current physics.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy bread from a butcher.
I don't buy meat from a baker.

Now if Einstein wants to give his opinions on physics, then I'll listen with extra respect. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess he wanted to talk sense about something imporant instead.

Mack

[sirio11]

There are all kind of interesting opinions in the physics world. I was fascinated one time when reading pretty interesting ones about time travel (not science fiction).
There are some about the homocentric principle, and how is possible that the universe exists to please us. These are very attractive for the religious people.
But my point is, they are still opinions until proven. And once proven they're not opinions anymore. So basically almost by definition, Science cannot have opinions. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

David

[[censored]]

saying science can have opinions is akin to saying hammers can have opinions. science is a man made tool to help understand the universe. because it is man made science is also fallible. I think it is anti-productive to attempt to argue morality using science, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
But my point is, they are still opinions until proven. And once proven they're not opinions anymore. So basically almost by definition, Science cannot have opinions. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Nit /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Einstein had opinions on death penalty and on physics (much of his works was not "proved"). Proved is a senseless term in Physics as it is a science mainly focused on finding a model of physics as close to reality as possible. They don't believe that they have unlocked all the locks to the secret of the universe.

[InchoateHand]

What "early tribal society." Apparently you genius IQ people aren't terribly literate. I'm really curious about "early tribal society" because I wasn't aware they were all the same. Jackass. You are so incredibly pompous mr IQ boy, and horribly educated. You are probably in the hard sciences, read American Spectator, and think you know something. I love febrile little minds, but sometimes you pricks just piss me off.

[ACPlayer]

Item 1 is a suffient reason.

It is not necessary -- in that if the irreversibility or possibility of error were removed it would -- the elimination of death penalty would still be "desireable".

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
In early tribal society, if you committed certain crimes, you were deemed as no longer worthy of living within the society, and you were banished.

[/ QUOTE ]

Number one, I'd like to think we have become more civillized than early tribal people.

Number two, as Hannibal Lecter said in "Red Dragon", any reasonble society would put the criminal element to good use. Namely hard labor for those with strong backs and mental labor for those with strong minds.

This was supposed to be the initial stage of rehabilitation for criminals. Get them working and perhps instill some of them with a sense of pride in their work and lives. But in modern times it seems the penal system is only meant to get a person into jail and keep them there for as long as possible as a consumer of the correctional facility business. It's become a revolving door for lower class minorities at the benefit of private institutions who run their jails like Bill Gates runs Microsoft.

Capital punishment is the equivilant of every so often sacrificing a convict to God in the name of morality. To any alien visiting this planet for the first time it would appear that humanity is ironically not humane at all.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The reference to IQ, an apparently failed attempt at humor, was to show that the worth of an idea is independent of the source of the idea, and should stand on it's own merits. You chose to attack the source rather than the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, well, I didn't attack the notion that we ought to judge ideas independent of their sources. I attacked the idea that one 'nation' has intestinal fortitude/special moral knowledge and another doesn't; as if that's even measurable (or coherent). I guess people with Einstein equivalent IQs just use red herrings to argue with the rest of us peons.

[ QUOTE ]
And in your failed attempts at sarcasm, you also missed the point on the comparison of the US and France. I was talking about the recent behavior of the countries, while you chose to misconstrue that as a slur on individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, by this logic, countries aren't actually led by individuals; the state is just inherently cowardly. Jacque Chirac may or may not have intestinal fortitude. He doesn't set policy or anything. He's just taking orders from the flag or something; because when France acts, it's automatically lacking intestinal fortitude. Individual actors don't matter.

Perhaps you merely mean that individual French leaders aren't setting policy; they're just faithful civil servants, carrying out the will of the French people. The French people, as individuals, don't lack intestinal fortitude. That would be a 'slur on individuals'. They're just collectively spineless.

Care to rethink this?

[ QUOTE ]
People who say things are obvious generally lack any objective foundation for their pronouncements. As a quick example off the top of my head, compare the US (with capital punishment) with France (without it). I would argue that the US is head and shoulders over France in terms of morality and intestinal fortitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway...

[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not you agree with the underlying morality, the United States has acted in line with it's principles over the last few years, while France has not acted in accord with any principles other than political expediency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please go ahead and prove your two assumptions, those being: 1) The US only acts on principals and never out of political expediency and 2) France never acts on principals and only out of political expediency. Obviously, citing one or two foreign policy decisions won't suffice in proving anything. You'll need to do a comprehensive study, measuring the thousands of foreign policy decisions made by each country every year. You'll probably also need a preface concerning each country's historical heritage, and how they're meeting/failing to meet the principals upon which they were founded.

You don't even have to do all this. Just go ahead and cite a study, or a similar one, done by any competent scholar.

This next one is priceless:

[ QUOTE ]
France is the anti-America. That is as spineless as Kerry positioning himself as the anti-Bush to such an extent that there was no longer a Kerry there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry is spineless! I thought he was an American! According to your previous post, Americans possess a heroic amount of intestinal fortitude. Oh. I guess you mean only some Americans possess this quality and not others? I guess having an IQ like Einstein’s means you don’t have to make sense; just use un-provable assertions and ridiculous generalizations.

Not that I agree with anti-Americanism...but how does the logic flow that opposing America = spinelessness? Maybe we can agree France is wrong; that's certainly open to debate. But it's cowardly to oppose the strongest nation on the planet? I think Ben Franklin is rolling over in his grave right now that his name is being used to spout such horrendous logic.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
are Einstein's reasons by themselves a sufficient argument against capital punishment?

[/ QUOTE ]

one of them is.

fim

[The Dude]

Cyrus, circumstantial evidence is the type that shows the accused had the opportunity, was at the scene of the crime, had the expertise to commit the crime in the fashion it was committed, etc. One cannot be convicted on cirumstantial evidence alone.

This differs from things like a fingerprint on the murder weapon or the accused's blood under the victim's fingernails, in addition to eyewitness testimony.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus, circumstantial evidence is the type that shows the accused had the opportunity, was at the scene of the crime, had the expertise to commit the crime in the fashion it was committed, etc. One cannot be convicted on cirumstantial evidence alone.

This differs from things like a fingerprint on the murder weapon or the accused's blood under the victim's fingernails, in addition to eyewitness testimony.

[/ QUOTE ]


This isnt quite true. Many convictions are are obtained based on a large amount of circumstantial evidence alone.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Many convictions are are obtained based on a large amount of circumstantial evidence alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
Name one.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many convictions are are obtained based on a large amount of circumstantial evidence alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
Name one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scott Peterson