Has me confused with Marushi.
Is a red head. Spoiler
Speaks for the trees.
You know what will help? [spoiler]
[spoiler]
Um... in general population 1/150 people have autism. That's about... 0.667% as opposed to 50% of the people done in the case study cited. A difference of nearly 100 times over. We were discussing if it was a sexuality. Even if it is a sexuality, the fact that its nearly 100% times more likely to be linked to autism is something we cannot ignore. As for those other case studies, you admit they are not as formal. Was questions about autism even asked? Also, there are variety of different degrees of autism. Perhaps those not diagnosed with autism, may be at a very light degree of autism? Nearly 50% out of 21. If memory serves me (it gets glitchy with statistics) only 9 of the 21 didn't have aspergers or Autism. Although my mind may have flipped it and it may actually be 9 of 21 who did have it. And... yes. I am using my deductive reasoning skills to make the assumption it is linked. Um... there is the .667% vs 50%. Are you ignoring data I highlighted from the case study? I mean... you're complaint all along has been that data isn't provided. I am using the data on the table. BTW: I -did not- place that data on the table myself. If you do not see that big of a difference as alarming, I must say my friend, you are ignoring the case study entirely... and I can go back to my old argument that its a traumatic self destructive pattern of expecting love from something that will never love you in return. Which... also is in the case study BTW... that they believe the object is loving them. I dropped that argument because of the case study had a very low percentage of abused people who were into OS.
So... you agree with everything I said, you just don't like the word justice, so picked an argument over it? How odd...
Ok Makaze. Let's use your thinking for a second. How would you propose dealing with someone dangerously psychotic, who's every intent is to inflict harm to others? Its not a common situation, but such people do exist. Your proposal?
I always liked Numa Numa for the music. Its good to finally see the original vid.
I typically have a phone, a wallet, and keys in my pocket. None of them are on the list... unless you count them as "*A lot of random things that shouldn't really be in a pocket.*" but they really should be in my pocket at all times I intend to go somewhere. But right now I have nothing... wow... the poll options are hating on me...
With the exception of someone being completely selfish and greedy... everyone is a hero to someone. For example: The Crusades. The Crusaders were warriors blinded by religious zealotry to claim the Holy Land in the name of Christianity. For some Christians of the era, they were heroes. To the Muslims and Jews of the same era they were mass murderers. Even some Christians were slaughtered brutally in the name of Christianity. In hindsight, we know they were evil. Another example: The Nazi Party. To Germans, they were the solution to the major economic problem. Within a few decades, they took Germany from what could best be described as a dead empire on its last leg, to a new empire stronger than it ever was. They brainwashed their citizens into a fervor towards cleansing the human race of all its flaws. The most loyal, truly believed they were doing good. In hindsight, they were one of the cruelest, and evilest empires in history.
I am merely stating why the justice system itself was built. I never said it was the only method, I just stated why it exist. I made no argument for it being efficient or inefficient. As for your response to the case of death penalty specifically: Often, the individual is killed for revenge. The policy of killing them exist for society. If no individual was punished for criminal actions, it would be to the detriment of society. I believe we agreed on this in the past.
Quoted for truth. Even if Anons attack fails completely... the fact that we watched this video gets their point across. People who would not have viewed Fox as polarized are giving it a second look now.
Oh... so -THAT'S- what you believe... suddenly it makes a little more sense... It's incorrect Makaze. Which is why we shall never agree on justice. Justice is a combination of revenge, threat reducing (as you mentioned), and threat deterrent. Clicketh for verbose on my views of justice in general, not specifically the death penalty: Spoiler Revenge: "They deserved it." Its a very simple premise built into justice. In its purest form, someone who does something evil, gets repaid with evil. Someone commits a crime, something that would otherwise be considered a crime is done to them under the banner of "justice" and is legal. People may reason "Oh, its to give them time to think about what they done" but that is just an excuse. Threat Reduction: Sadly, our justice system needs to be reworked on this sense. It reduces the individuals threat to society whilst they are in prison/jail/dead. Only the last one has any lasting effect on society. Granted, a minority of people who have been to prison/jail actually reform, and then, more power to them. But a majority come out worse. I believe our justice system needs to be reworked with more emphasis here. Threat Deterrent: This is another good factor. To an extent, its pretty effective. Its not perfect... but it works. Its the one I believe you have the biggest issue with Makaze. Basically, its the principle of, if someone does something not socially acceptable, and it has a minor detrimental damage to another (such as burning a CD, but lets not go into -that debate- here) and the punishment is clearly understood to you at the time you did the crime, you brought the justice onto yourself. Essentially, you made the decision yourself. Enforcement is not 100%, but there is always a chance of being caught. So, if it prevents one person from doing a crime because the punishment is so severe, then its working as a deterrent. Now... my opinion on the Death Penalty? If they cannot be reintroduced into society and make themselves a threat to society without any possibility of placed into a productive role in society, then justice should be served. I see no reason to keep someone who is something extraordinarily dangerous (such as extreme cases of sadistic behavior) locked in a cage forever. Its more cruel to keep someone alive locked in a cage than to kill them.
I don't like anon. They are essentially cyber terrorist. But in this case they are right. However, I must point out that most news is polarized. Either extremely conservative, or extremely liberal. They should know better. They will not change anything. Its a waste. Additionally, did they say, "Can't no longer be tolerated" at about :50? Isn't that a double negative? If they really wanted to take down Fox, they will. Its as simple as that. They do not need to compromise the content of Fox News, but rather, just attack them. Something as simple as bombarding their website with inquiries will overload their server. Fox can do little to stop that. They did not threaten to penetrate their security, but rather declared them a target. For every barrier setup, someone is trying to outwit it. You get enough people working on a problem, it'll be solved. We do not know how long they were preparing. They may have been working on this for a while. Yes, extra people are a liability... but assuming a minimum criteria of skill is established, extra angles of attack being attacked at once will yield more flaws faster.
I don't see anyth- Spoiler
according to the case study (which is hard to cite back due to posting from cell phone) over 50% of those studied had some form of autism. Whether it be asbergers or actual autism. The actual percentage of overall people with autism is much lower. How do you respond british?
