Facebook-economy conundrum: How many likes is a comment worth? How many to a share? Do you count likes on shared content as well? Do I give away more likes than I get? Am I a loser or a winner? Or do you even count likes? Do you only count shares? God! I think I’m a loser!
At the doctor’s office
Doctor: We’ve found a shadow on your MRI. We can’t be sure exactly what it is before we operate, and that operation will be painful, but there is a very high risk this is a malignant tumor. You could die!
Patient: What are we waiting for! Let’s act now!
At the IPCC
Scientist: We’ve found some very disturbing links between carbon dioxide emissions and temperature rise. We recommend immediate action, even if that action will be painful. Temperature rise is bad news and there is a very high risk that several hundreds of millions of people will die if we do nothing.
Politician: Let’s wait and see what happens.
Now swap the answers!
Do you trust a politician that has not been able to do what must be done when hundreds of millions of lives are at stake, but will (if they are wired like any sane person) risk suffering to save their own life?
The death penalty is almost as dumb as letting murderers get off without a consequence.
Here’s the reasoning:
The death penalty is a 100% permanent punishment. You cannot take it back. Once a person is executed they are dead.
So, it stands to reason that if a country wants to use the death penalty the judicial process for sentencing people to death in that country should also be 100% — correct, fair and fault free.
This means 100% correct and honest witnesses and evidence. 100% honest and competent police officers, judges, lawyers, and prosecutors.
In case you were unaware; the people listed above are also human beings. They are not gods, so, they are not 100% correct 100% of the time.
So why use a 100% permanent punishment and allow people and systems that aren’t 100% fault free decide when and on who to use it?
Is the reasoning that a few innocent people sentenced to death and executed are an acceptable cost?
If you answer yes to that question, remember the murder victims were also innocent.
Why spend all this money on a justice system, trials, and retrials, lawyers and prosecutors, just to risk sacrificing some more innocent people?
Why not just drop the whole prosecute-murderers-thing and tell the victims families that some innocent people dead is an acceptable cost?
OK. That’s obviously an exaggeration. I am sure in most cases actual murderers are executed.
The problem is that nobody knows who’s innocent and who’s guilty with a faulty justice system (not 100% correct 100% of the time, you know, like, run by imperfect humans).
I think it’s common sense and decency to not dole out 100% permanent punishments in an imperfect world.
To do list:
- Write bestseller
- Buy an… Iceland
No… that doesn’t sound right… hmmm…
To do list:
- Learn more English
- Write bestseller
- Buy a … whatever a piece of land surrounded by ocean is called…
I know, step 3 might indicate places like Britain… but then again… who knows how much it would be worth after Brexit…
I’m just saying… It could happen!
Having carefully scrutinized all twenty-seven words of the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution I see nothing that would prevent the introduction of a National Nuclear Arms Association that would fiercely protect the American people’s right to arm themselves with nukes!
After all. There are Russians and North Koreans in the world!
Alas, District of Columbia v. Heller states:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”
You might have convinced me to become an American if it hadn’t been for your totally wussy amendment interpretations.
Since the world we see today have been turned into what it is by normal people, abnormal should be very attractive…