NASA's definition of water cannot be taken seriously as they would be looking for spectrographs which reveal the existance of molecules containing two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, in order to decree that there is water..and they dont mean you can drink it, cook in it, or swim in it ! and any mass has gravity ? no, sir ! gravity is a force exerted by the earth on objects around it, including the moon ..
On the other hand, the college atheletes should be made to pay for the chance to evaluate their worth in the real competitive world and it is from this stage they get the confidence to go pro or head towards the olympics or decide that their future lies in a different world. Paying college athletes would render them as professional students, which goes against the very definition of students. If you paid college athletes, then you should also pay college students for their performance as students, which is an idea that is on the border of ethics.
The moon ? NO WAY ! Have seen enough images to know that the moon is not a very hospitable place and is not good enough even as an adventure outing. It has no people, no animals, no birds, no trees, no buildings, no air, no water and not even gravity ! I wouldn't even go if someone paid me, leave alone a free trip
Going beyond the literary translation of the topic, the idea of a person who lives to eat is typically not the one who eats too much, but eats much more than he produces.. i.e., his contribution to the society in general is much lesser than what he takes from the society. They need not be eating too much, but exploit every chance of getting their meals free.
People who eat to live are those who contribute to the society by taking just enough for their requirements and in general leave a surplus for the society ( which gets swallowed up by the persons who live to eat ! )
"people, probably you included, take those chances everyday. There is a small chance that you would die in a car accident if you chose to drive somewhere, but people take that chance everyday." When you add all the possibilities of getting killed, road accident, lightning strikes, building collapses, etc etc etc, we already have a big probability of dying an accidental death.. the probability of getting killed by being mistaken ( or deliberately ) under this pretext would be adding to this possibility .. I could do without adding to this possiblity..
I have seen how evidence can be created / destroyed /tailored to suit a situation post facto. I have seen people turning a Nelson's eye to the incongruencies of evidence. and anyway, the evidences only go to rationalize an act which would otherwise be termed murder.
When someone kills me, and I'm dead, I have no doubt that people around me will say the same, i.e., that " Those police officers probably had a reason to shoot the man. I highly doubt that they did it just for the way he looked. " The sad part of it is that even those who have known me for years, will swallow it.
There are no universally acceptable morals. What is morally right in one society and at one period of time, may be totally wrong in another society and in another period of time. It may scandalize you, but even today, there are tribal societies in Assam, India, where it is considered morally right for a father of a girl to deflower his daughter. Sorry, that is disgusting, I know, but that is the dimension of morality. Think of the terrorists who think it is morally right to kill the infidels. Think of the church which sold indulgencies. Think of the church which imprisoned Galileo for his heliocentric theory. They, and along with them many near them, thought they were sane and reasonable people and that they had the right to do so.
"calculate the chance that you will be killed by someone who thinks that you are a terrorist and then see if you should keep acting like its reasonable to be scared of death by this mistake." In general, where there is even a .0001 % chance of my losing my life, then that is a chance, I would not like to take. My life to me is very very valuable and I love my life ! Secondly, 'evidence' is too specialized a subject for me to even think about, I've heard of concocted evidence, direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and fait accompli, mistake of fact, mistake of law .....I agree it is not a common situation, thank heavens for that, and I'd love for it to remain that way.
I wish I was really ignorant, but I have personally come across cases where even persons who were in positions of authority under law have been known to have abused their position to settle scores on some one in pursuit of their religious beliefs. I'm less fearful of looking like a terrorist, than I am of what is going on in the mind of someone who might think that killing me is their gateway to heaven !
"the chances of you running into a terrorist on a trip around the world is almost nothing. This world is not infested by terrorists." In an enterprising situation as contrasted with a gambling situation, one would think of what would be the consequence of the chance materializing, and one would avoid the risk if it can lead to death.
I wish I was really ignorant and not so cynical. I wish that when I hear the official version that the illegal immigrant shot dead a police officer and so they shot him dead 79 times using a full platoon, my mind gets suspicious as to whether the police officers were not acting on their hatred of illegal immigrants. When a person dubbed as a "terrorist" is found to have been shot in the back of his head at point blank range, I wonder what really was the motive..
" They would need ample evidence to suggest that your death would benefit society. They would have to see a bomb or some kind of weapon to even think about trying to kill you." I wish all people's minds were so clear and straightforward as that, but I know different, I know people can imagine ( in the name of god, yes, really ) that they have evidence that you are an "infidel", and that they see that in your death, their society will benefit !
I draw confidence to some of the most valuable provisions of law, which are : let a 100 guilty people escape, but not one innocent person should be punished. that governments should be of law, rather than of men.
It is not so much that I fear my appearance being mistaken for a terrorist that bothers me, as much as it bothers me that someone has the right to kill me because they think that it would benefit society. Murder, appearing to be a killing of a terrorist !
No way ! Google has taken computer information systems to the level of ( almost ) expert systems and decision support systems; and using this platform has made artificial intelligence come nearer to possibility.
Even after years of its existence, no other search engine has even come close to what is possible on google.
There is a saying "do unto others as you would be done by ". Living to an old age is indeed a blessing for anyone; you see more of life's bounteous beauty when you live longer. Part of the beauty of life comes in seeing your children grow up and have their own children and then their children having their own. If you are denied this you will never enjoy the extended life.
When you take care of your elders, notwithstanding the fact that they are helpless and sometimes a burden on your privacy, you are sending home a signal to your offspring that this is how you would also like to be treated when you grow old. If you even entertain the thought that you should subject your elders to euthanesia or inter them to old age homes, then that is the life you should also expect for yourselves when you grown old ..
I would treat our elderly people with respect and affection.
no, they are just wrongly distributed. China and India have a vast population which does not have enough land and resources to meet their needs and they are an ancient civilizatiion. On the other hand, US, Canada, and Australia which are relatively new nations do not have enough population to use the natural resources.
Sadly, there is a lot truth in the saying "those who can, do; those who can't, teach; '
While it is true that the teachers teach, it is also true that the students study and work themselves to the career as bankers or any other high paying jobs by dint of their hard work and application. And some students also make it to the top in spite of bad teachers. and some students become criminals in spite of the best teachers .
Nobody stopped the teacher from going in for top bankers' jobs, and certainly they knew as well as anybody else that teaching is a lowly paid job.
There is also another saying "don't brag. it is not the whistle that is pulling the train "
Public speaking is not a trade or a skill that you need in jobs or ever at all in your life ( except if you get to be an evangelist / politician ). But the discipline of thinking rigorously and articulating your thoughts is a trait worth aquiring for everyone irrespective of the walk of life he enters A public speaker is expected to prepare his speech, by analyzing his thoughts, organising them coherently and presenting them to an audience in a manner that they are able to understand what is being said. He has to be aware of whom he / she is talking to, what their thoughts are and then prepare his speech. He has to be good in his use of language. He has to learn to listen to others who may have an opposite view as his and appreciate the other view point. This exercise itself is of great benefit to people even in their own private lives, even when they 'talk to themselves ',
I feel that public speaking classes should be given as much if not more importance than other subjects taught in a classroom.
The very purpose of classroom teaching, as compared to being taught at home by a private tutor or governess, is to develop in the students an ability to work pleasantly and responsibly in a society. The asking of permission is not so much a show of power as it is of being polite and not disturbing / distracting to the teacher AND the rest of the class. There is a thing called 'decorum', the maintenance of which is the responsibility of all the members of that group and requesting for permission to leave the classroom is a requirement of decorum.
Indians will never learn from history. This nuclear deal that India has signed, is at the beginning of the cycle of history, when India lost its independence to the British. The British East India Company was a commercial outfit that came to India to buy Indian spices and gave the various kings of India arms and ammunitions as payment. To recover their debt , the Britishers East India Company took the payment in the form of rites for collecting taxes, and for which they needed to have their own soldiers and fortresses and clear control over the areas, and so on and so forth till they owned the entire country.
The nuclear deal is for supply of nuclear materials to India, so that India will be able to generate electricity.
Sounds very "reasonable".
The suppliers need to be assured that the supply will not be misutilised, by India, which naturally would entitle them to conduct "inspections" in India. And the intelligence would inform the suppliers that India is creating and holding weapons of mass destruction aimed at attacking the suppliers, and so they should go to India and remove another tyrannical leader ( of course the tyrannical leader has also murdered a large number of innocent people ! ) and hang him high and keep their armed forces till the country becomes democratic again ! (see the pattern ?)
Amen.
Terrorists thrive on the terrorizing, either by the killing they indulge in, or by the publicity they get for their acts, which makes people feel terrorized. Secondly, it is very demoralizing to the general citizens and enforcement authorities to know every time any meaningless killings happen, that the terrorists have scored. People always like to think that they have won, or dont like to think that they have been defeated. In fact, the US would like to send home the message to its own citizens and also to the terrorists that since the 911, no terrorist has ever been able to gain any success. So what if it means not telling the truth ? BTW, what happened about the Air France plane that disappeared for many days in June this year, and its wrekage was found many days later and they say they still don't know what happened ? ;-)
The very definition of sound propounded here is that "it is a sensation in the ear ' is a wrong definition and one that was made up many years ago when science was in its infancy and social beliefs were the law. It is no longer valid. It belongs to those days when it was decreed that the earth was the center of the universe.
Sound, like heat, light, and magnetism are forms of energy and whether humans or animals or any thing is effected by it or not, it exists.
Period.
It does not follow that if India cuts down its carbon emissions, then its economic growth will be compromised. Cutting down carbon emissions may require a build of new technology that will ensure that the carbon emissions are lowered, and the development and deployment of this technology could in fact spur a new economic activity, and in turn spur the economic growth. And in time to come India will have economic growth without carbon emissions, which could pave the way for a healthier nation.
I dont believe that more carbon emissions brings more economic growth.
So I hold that India should cut carbon emissions AND get economic growth.
Fantasizing about murdering people, is a recognized form of stress relieving in situations where you have felt extremely humiliated or wronged and you do not find a way of escaping that bad feeling. When you fantasize about killing that person who has harmed you, you are making it possible to continue with your life. In the absence of such an outlet, you would end up hating yourself and end up becoming a vegetable. It is an act of kindness to yourself.
This has been the theme of many a movie and novel, though presented in more covert ways and people are no longer shocked by the unveiling of such an idea.
There are things to do which the brain tells you to do, and there are things to do when the heart tells you to do. What is always beautiful is when you do what your heart tells you to do.
This idea that unwanted and inconvenient people should be allowed to die is something that the brains of people want done. It is not beautiful.
Have you seen the happiness in the face of some orphaned and hungry kid who receives something to eat ? something to remove the pain ? A hug ? That happiness makes life worth living for all !
No way ! If you got a problem with unwanted and unconvenient people, you got a problem, not them. Leave them to solve their problem, if you can't help them becoming wanted and convenient !
You own the land surface and the land underground and the air space above your land. You can construct underground rooms, and sky scrapers to any deapth or height and this would not be a violation of your rights as owner. This is the legal position.
If a person is merely transiting casually over your land, and you have no reason to believe that he is creating an "easement " over your land then you can not object to that. but you can raise objections to someone using the air space above your land.
For example, if some one in your neighbouring - adjacent land constructs a house which has a balcony which is designed to go over your land, then he is violiating your ownership. Similarly, if someone digs in an adjacent plot and then digs from the underground to under your land, then he is violating.
The only ones who would have the right of easement over your land ( since no one objected to them for so many years ) are the airlines who fly their airoplanes high above your land. Technically they are violating your rights, but they have got the right of easement to do so.
Elvis' style is passe.. nobody in the rest of the world even remember him and even if they do, they remember him more for his looks rather than his shivering voice singing. And he lived in an age when there was not so much television coverage and international audiences. And Elvis got his leg twist style from Forest Gump; Elvis lived at a time when the art of entrapment was not as fully developed as was used against Jackson. Elvis' dances and costumes were more effeminate / pansy /transsexual like. And he was never a born singer, had to use a lot of strategies to foist his singing.
In complete contrast, Jackson was a born singer and dancer, lived singing and died singing. He produced brilliant video songs. He totally destroyed his health and life over the music that he gave to the entire world, not just Memphis. He came up against all odds - being a black, with a father who was known to be a terror to him, and even won ( though a pyrrhic ) victory against people who just wanted to squeeze out the money from him.
Jackson is the King of Pop, Think about it !
Marriages between cousins come under consanguinous relationships and carry with them a greater risk of genetic and recessive disorders to the offspring. This is a risk that may not immediately materialize, but may be the cause of peoblems down the generations.
How I wish I could have convinced you to see that the whole purport of my writing was to convey to you the seriousness of misuse of such a power to everybody ! I can see that you feel that it is a very simple thing, and I have not been able to convince you that by making it morally and legally right to exterminate "terrorists" there is every possible chance of such a provision being misused by the very terrorists whom we are protect outselves from.
I must clarify, I do not subscribe to any conspiracy theory, and I mentioned about the various terrorist attacks to illustrate how difficult it is for any one - the law enforcement as well the would be victims - to decide about the terrorists.
We all have our paradigms about how a terrorist looks like or behaves like and to rely on our various paradigms could become dangerous for ourselves. I dont know if I look like a terrorist to some one, and I dont know what he may be thinking of me, which is alright so long as that person is not going to gun me down because in his paradigm I am a terrorist. He will see adequate evidences in me which will push him to believe that I am a terrorist. (I'm sure you have read about paradigm in Steven Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People )
My concern is that going around in a world infested by terrorists is itself bad; it would be worse to that extent, where I could be a victim of not only the terrorist but also someone who mistook me for a terrorist and who thought he would be saving other lives by killing me and that he had the moral right to do so !
Short hair has definitely may advantages over short hair. It is easier to comb, it is easier to wash and dry; would consume less water and shampoo; has a less heavy feeling on the head; is less harmful when it gets wet in the rain. Is less likely to be a grip when fighting..
I vote for short hair !
Short hair has definitely may advantages over short hair. It is easier to comb, it is easier to wash and dry; would consume less water and shampoo; has a less heavy feeling on the head; is less harmful when it gets wet in the rain. Is less likely to be a grip when fighting..
I vote for short hair !
I most certainly would have, ( killed the terrorists and maybe even their families !) but still i would not have been within my moral or legal rights to have done so, unless I was a law enforcement authority acting under proper permissions. I would be tried, and rightly so, for acting beyond the call of my duty as a citizen if I did kill the terrorists, because with persons, life would not be safe for a large number of innocent people, some of whom I might ( mistakenly ? vindictively ? mischievously ?) adjudicate as "terrorists " and kill them.
The question of whether I would have killed the terrorists if I had the chance, is a hindsight one. Nobody ever knew at that time ( and did not know till hours after the attack ) that this was an act of terrorism.
In hindsight things look very simple: why did the passengers not kill the terrorists ? why did the airforce not thwart the attack ? and even as we discuss this why did they not kill the Fort Hood killer ?
If you remember, there was an incident in the London rly station, where members of the law enforcement killed one person who they suspected to be a terrorist under the impression that they would save others' lives. It later on turned out to be that the person killed was a poor innocent law abiding citizen. I am glad it was not me, but I'm now scared not only of the terrorists but also of the law enforcement and other people who read labels on my forehead which is supposed to read "i am a terrorist, kill me and save other lives ".
What kind of a "sport" is it when a person takes a gun and goes about shooting an unarmed creature ? What kind of a pleasure does it give the so called "sportman" ? Like the games people play "let jim, james, harry and I go and lick tom ", killing animals is at best a cowardly and selfish act. I can understand the killing of animals for food, which, though is odd in a civilized society, is a hangover from the days of the cave man and we have to go still some distance in abandoning our natural instinct of killing for power.
No, i strongly urge that there should be a ban on any killing of animals and especially for sport.
Since time immemorial, and in all cultures, the Lion has been the icon of bravery and royalty. And not for nothing. It has a royal mein, lives a royal life and is a bold and daring animal.
Tigers on the other hand are those stealthy animals whose appearance has never caught the imagination of artists or kings of yore, and indeed can not stand up to a lion in appearance or bravery. Yes, they are very fierce fighters but thats about all that one can say about them. They are lonely creatures by choice.
I'd vote any day for the grandeur and majesty of a lion.
Different religious beliefs have different ways of coping with things that they dont immediately comprehend. Some would call it an act of god, some would call it act of satan and so on; whether these are true or not, is not as important as the fact that it bypasses - successfully - the stumbling block of reason. Human beings always fear the unknown, and want to know why a thing is happening or has happened, so that they can avoid the repetition of those bad happenings in their lives if possible, and it is here that such ideas as karma etc., help a person get over his fears. Having attributed his misfortunes to karma, he proceeds with his life.
Incidentally, karma is about action-reaction not only in this life, but even extends to your previous form of life, which may or may not have been a human form. In order to attain salvation, you ought to have squared all the actions-reactions over your several lives.
Yes, I believe in karma, else I would never be able to carry on with my life when things go against me.
Citizens are expected to be law abiding. Law abiding citizens ARE having more previleges and rewards than those who are not in that they have the protection of law for their lives. This is the way it should be, and there can be no question about it.
Also, it follows that those who are not law abiding citizens, should not have previleges or rewards of any kind. And that is the way it is.
What is left to debate is whether there should be a system of rewarding citizens who do things beyond the call of their duty as law abiding citizens.
The statement is misleading and more similar to the classical question of "have you stopped beating your wife ?' to which you'd be damned for either a yes or a no as your answer.
The medical syllabii have some subjects which are not purely medicine in nature.They have for example, a little bit of physics, a little bit of chemistry, bio chemistry etc., for which the persons who are more competent to teach are those who have a post graduate / doctorate in the relevant subject. Even pharmacy is a separate subject and there are people who are experts in pharmacy, who would be able to more justice to the job of teaching the subject than those who know medicine.
In fact it would be a very poor policy if one has to use medical doctors to teach physics and bio chemistry to doctors, when the services of doctors can be used to teach the subject of their profession viz., medicine.
It is not a question of whether non doctors are teaching doctors or not, it is a question of who is teaching what - a doctor teaching physics or a M.Sc Physics teaching physics.
A lot of things in communications go by convention and the usage of the ampersand symbol is not considered appropriate in formal or official communication. It is alright to use any symbol if you are communicating with your friends, and chatting etc.
But when you are writing something for formal communication, such as your resume, or an essay, poetry, or even a great speech, you just cant get the same effect in the mind of a reader by using the ampersand, what you would get by using the full word. Some sentences in writing begin with ( for effect / emphasis or power ) the word And and makes this conjunction very powerful. Consider this example :
Blood, sweat, tears AND toil vs,
Blood, sweat, tears & toil .
or
Burger and Coke or
Burger & Coke
I vote for And. And I think that suits me !
Education aims at developing the all round personality of the students. ( no pun intended ). It is not a system to develop or impart trades or skills in a person, but more towards developing the physical and mental power of the students. It is towards this end that physical education is important in all schools.
Just as learning the subjects ( no matter if they appear to be of no material use in later life ) is a source of strengthening your power of learning, physical education is a source of strengthening the physical power of your body and keep it physically healthy. Physicallly healthy persons will be less of a liability in the society and physical education is the investment that will yield good results in the long run.
I dont understand why fast food restaurants do any harm to their customers, and on the other hand they provide the possibility of saving up some time for you to spend elsewhere, if you are one of those whose priority for using time rests other than in eating.
The fast food restaurants save time in makng the foods, by already pre cooking the foods and making them almost ready in most cases and store them. They leave the final stage of the cooking unfinished, so that when a customer approaches, they would be able to make the required combination and serve it up to the customer as per his requirement.
Saving the waiting time for preparation of the food, is an efficient and productive way of using your time.
No, morally and legally it is not right for any one to kill any person, under any pretext. This is a safety for each and everyone, as otherwise, you could be that person killed by the moral decisions of others and their rationalisation of their act.
There was atleast one case ( i think in 1971 ) where an domestic aircraft crashed on the alps mountain, and there were about 70 survivors who had to wait for over 100 days before being rescued. During that time, first people ate the foods on the plane, then ate the dead bodies of a few people who died in the crash and later went on to kill and eat some of the survivors for their food. The aruments of the final survivors was in line with this proposition that "it was morally permissible to kill some people so that others' lives were saved " . This act was condemned all over the world.
For any document to be treated as a valid peice of evidence, it is necessary to be presented in original ( not copies ) and there should be someone who declares that "is fully aware of the circumstances of the evidence "or something to that effect. It should be presented in the court for examination and cross examination by a person who has either authored it or handled it during the course of his normal business.
But yes, when people claim to have done something in pursuit of their religious beliefs, they can quote from the bible to explain the circumstance of their doing something or not doing something, but that is only an explanation, and not necessarily acceptable as legal sanction for whatever act is committed and being adjudicated upon.
Thanks for giving an example. I hope my answer below wont make me look cruel and heartless ( which I am not ! ):
The fact here is that a person is killed. Thinking on the fact that the death was due to murder makes it bad; thinking that it was a loved one who died makes it bad. To a person who does not think it as a murder it is not bad; and so also to a person to whom the dead person was not a loved one also negates the "bad " ness of the act. The words "murder" and "loved ones " already connotations which includes a predecision that the act of murder is a bad kind of death.
Another way of looking at this would be to imagine you are not a human being but some other being incapable of thinking, would you still think of it as 'good' or 'bad'. Some people think that killing of animals is bad, others dont.
To specifically answer your question: If I later came to know, that the person was - in fact - not murdered but executed by parents of a rape victim, and that I realize that my love for the person was misplaced and undeserved, would that not be wrong ? Same incident, different think.
Yes ofcourse, good people can do bad things, especially those who are on the other side of the fence or international border. And the more bad things he does against what he/ she considers bad people, the more good he is in the eyes of his own people. Also, in certain times in the past, you were considered good if you hunted out and exterminated wild animals .. and now it is considered cruel and wicked and bad !
I wish the debate had been worded differently, I wish it had been "should it be made illegal for any one to hit their child ? "
In general parents have the responsibility of making their children responsible citizens. While hitting a child may not be a first recourse for any parent who has to discipline his child and prevent him from endangering himself and others, this remedy does work in situations when the child cannot be expected to understand why he should do or not do something. Parents will hit their children, no matter how loving they are towards their children, but these would be forgotten by the children themselves in later lives when they have their own children, and are faced with the task of their upbringing. To make it illegal, would be to take an unforgiving stance against a parent, which is not right. Often, a the fear of a child that he might be hit, is adequate to get him on the right path.
So, I feel that it should not be illegal for a parent to hit a child.
In his book 7 Habits of Effective People, Steven Covey talks about paradigms and describes how a paradigm of something can change in various situations. We think a drunkard bad till we realise that he has had some serious misfortune beyond his control and then we change our feelings for him from one of contempt to one of pity.
The problem we confront is when we try to evaluate or adjudicate something in a different time-space; some of us find some thing done in the past as bad and some find the same acts as good;
It is the same act, only the "think" for the act is different, and is a product of so many factors that made the thinkers mind.
So I feel that nothing is really good or bad, its only thinking that makes it so.. if you think pornography is bad, it is bad; if you think it is good , it is good. and so on and so forth.
Suicide cannot be a crime because a dead person cannot be punished. In many countries, attempted suicide is considered a crime and persons who assist or instigate others to commit suicide are also indicted. In Japan the " hara kiri " was permissible as a form of honourable suicide and in India, a suicide by a woman who became widowed was practised, before it was banned. Obviously various societies and cultures view the act of suicide differently and accordingly they legislate to discourage the act.
One of the very common reasons for suicide is chronic ill health, typically chronic stomach ache. Other reasons could include financial problems, jilted love.
According to Nadine Strossen, former President of the ACLU, "The idea of government making determinations about how you end your life, forcing you...could be considered cruel and unusual punishment in certain circumstances,
It is cruel to not allow a person to end his miseries through suicide, though suicide itself is a sad thing for any one.
It is not so much the invasion of privacy that bothers me as much as the fact that it can be misused by some person who thinks he is "more equal " than you, or that he is God almighty's incarnation come to set right the whole world, and cure it of all "evils", that is bothersome. Different people have their own rules of life and live by their own ideas of right and wrong, and so long as these ideas are not destructive or intrusive on others, it makes for a beautiful life for all. What is some enemy from within the government monitors and decides to take control of your life ? What is more disturbing is that once you build a social / political system around this chip, it would become an irreversible process. It simply is not worth taking this chance.
Here is an extract from Ogden Nash's poem Terrible People, which packs some wisdom, and which I subscribe to :
"Perhaps indeed the possession of wealth is constantly distressing,
But I should be quite willing to assume every curse of wealth if I could at the same time assume every blessing.
The only incurable troubles of the rich are the troubles that money can't cure,
Which is a kind of trouble that is even more troublesome if you are poor.
Certainly there are lots of things in life that money won't buy, but it's very funny --
Have you ever tried to buy them without money? "
No, in general it is not right for any country to go to war in another country, for whatever the reason. . In the case of Afghanistan, America and England have got their noses punched time and again, and got in there only because the (at that time ) USSR was going in there to spread communism. Why should America / England be bothered whether that Afghanistan or any other country becomes a communist ? Does it automatically guarantee that Afghanistan will be more favourably inclined towards them at a later date ? Post WWII, the only lesson learnt with these interferences is that no useful purpose is ever served by going to such wars. On the other hand, America and England have and would be accumulating more and more enemies and be responsible for creating "suicide bombers " which may be impossible to counter even on their own soil.
The veracity of the version given by the police officer i.e., that the police officer had been shot 8 times and that the police dog got shot is something that can't now be verified; it would have been useful to capture the suspect alive, maybe it would have given the police some insights as to how to prevent such things from happening in their own and others' interest .. and how do you really know that the police officer only was doing a " routine " check ? How did the police officer get shot at so close a range ? and what was the police dog doing there and how come it got shot ? Were these police officers who shot 66 bullets through the suspect acting desperately to hide the evidence ? Maybe that person was not really an illegal immigrant, but someone who had rubbed the police officer on the wrong side and the police officer wanted to show 'how strong is your fight ". Maybe the police officers would do the same to you next time you run into one of these 'routine checks '. Maybe there was a really different story, which no one will know. Passing judgements on the basis of only one side's version is a very unsafe method of judicial administration. How do you know this wont happen to you ? I mean you could just get shot by a police officer and his pals, and the version they could give to the public was that you were an "illegal migrant" who had shot at them ...
Jackson invented a new style of singing that is full of energy and stimulating to the audiences. The types of his songs deviated from the typical mushy mushy style that crooners had stuck to for years before him. His style of singing also generated new movements in dancing. It is easy to imitate Elvis' style of singing but quite challenging to do so with Jackson's
I'd vote any day for Jackson.
In judicial administration, there are basically three types of punishments awarded to people who have committed crimes: the first is what are known as "reformative " punishments, in which the purpose of the punishment is to enable the criminal to reform himself. Punishments here would be in the form of community service,jail sentence etc..; the second is what are known as retributive , in which the punishment is in the form of public lashing, cutting off hands or legs etc., which is expected to work as a revenge and should satisfy the person against whom the crime is perpetrated; the third is what is known as "deterrent" punishment, whereby the object of the punishment is to deter any other person from committing similar crimes. Death penalty is usually a deterrent punishment, and it can be argued that many would-be criminals would be deterred from committing the crime if they know the penalty that would meet them is their death.
Whether death penalty should be available as an option in a judicial system or not, depends upon the sensitivity of the society to the criminal acts. If some people in that society feel it is "worth it " to commit a crime, because they can serve some term in prison and come back into the society, then it may be necessary to put the fear of life ( death sentence ) into such people by showing that others who have done such crimes have been put to death.
The question of whether death sentence should be allowed to continue or not, is therefore dependent upon the society and in general a society that has evolved as a "civilized" society would not need such punishments.
America, has no doubt evolved as a civilized society, but it has terrible enemies who would work from within its society and this may be a reason for wanting to continue death penalty. But then, by awarding death penalty to such people, you make martyrs of them. Therefore life sentence would also serve as a better deterrent in such cases. So death penalty should be banned.
Fantasies are very important for human beings; we fantasize about being the James Bond, we look at well decorated presentation of foods to increase our appetites, and in the same way, we fantasize about sex to make it better. Porn, may be treated as a mild form of viagra, and in that sense, it does help people to enjoy their sex lives better. It can't be harmful, and it is equally useful for both the sexes. Some people get put off by porn, and these people would be in the category of unfortunate souls who can't benefit from viagra.
Good enjoyable sex is a gift of the fantasizing capability of the mind. People ( i.e., normal people ) do not get sexually excited at the sight of a naked dead body, or by the sight of naked destitute or mad people ...
