In this case, one would have to evaluate the intent of the person who wore the shirt. If the intentions of the person were to to express himself through that ancient Hindu symbol, then one cannot argue based on how the rest of society will perceive that symbol if it has been established that this symbol belongs to a peaceful religious group and is part of their ancient history. Lets assume that terrorists have abused the Islamic symbol that represents their religion which is also ancient by bombing down towers and buildings ending in the loss of thousands of innocent lives. Does this mean that simply because someone else has abused a symbol, we as a country should prohibit anyone from using that symbol or expressing themselves when the foundation of that symbol is based on a message of goodness? While Hitler's actions have changed the meaning for billions of people, there are still billions and possibly trillions of people around the world who believes in this symbol as spiritual expression and guidance through their religion. The United States is a pluralistic society, founded on the beliefs of diverse groups of cultures and origins which are protected by the constitution.

And to begin with, any symbol that could mean murder or holocaust could actually mean something else and even if it did mean murder or holocaust it still does not promote violence using fighting words, it does not create an imminent threat and it is not an obscene word. I believe when you are talking about hurt you are referring to emotional hurt. If any concerns should not be voiced simply because they have the potential to hurt others then we wouldn't need the constitution at all. If the intention of the person at the time of wearing this symbol was to spread a message of goodness associated with Hinduism, then society cannot argue otherwise.

This symbol is not a hate symbol hence it is protected by the 1st amendment. There are indeed other limitations on freedom of speech. This symbol does not qualified to be included in those limitations.

And if you read my prior arguments, a person with logic would know I was referring to the specified period of time.

You seem to forget that all these women were charged because they failed to performed their abortions within the specified period of time before it attains personhood. And so goes for the rest of your list as well.

To begin with, a mother cannot be charged even if she performs an abortion on herself. Various means of abortion includes using abortion pills and morning after pills which would require the mother to ingest the pill so yes through this process she is performing it on herself. No where in the laws define this as a crime.

Would you agree that murder is the intentional and unjustifiable taking of one human life by another?

Why would consent only be relevant to abortion when the statute you quoted relates to the absence of the mother's consent as it relates to homicides?

And if consent is not given then it becomes murder. Isn't that why this statute was created?

Lastly, I fail to see your argument because if lets assume that the fetus was a child, this clause was passed so that it may be applied to situations in which consent of the mother was not given. That is, if the life of the fetus is taken at any stage by another person without the consent of the mother. It does not address the issue of whether or not the fetus is a person. It only addresses the issue of scenarios where consent of the mother is not given. This clause addresses consent, not the question of personhood.

Yet again, you fail to realize the core of my arguments. CONSENT WAS NEVER GIVEN BY THE MOTHER TO TAKE THE LIFE OF THE FETUS SO HENCE THE ACT ITSELF IS A CRIME BECAUSE ONLY THE MOTHER HAS THAT RIGHT. Secondly, those articles failed to mention what stages the fetus were at the time of their deaths.

Again, I fail to see a substantive argument. Only the mother has the right to terminate the life of her fetus. No one else has that right so you actually did me the favor of proving my previous arguments. In all those cases you mention, the life of the fetus was taken A) during the commission of a homicide to the mother and B) without the consent of the mother outside the scope of abortion.

Lastly, what legal definition are you referring to? Because if that was the case then abortion would be a crime and it is not.

I assume those laws you refer to are relevant to cases of double homicides where both the fetus and the mother is killed. This is a different situation because consent was never taken from the mother to engage in such action. You fail to grasp my point. My argument was not that the fetal stage is not entitled to rights but rather that there is certain period during which rights are entitled. Even the U.S Supreme Court has argued, using medical facts that the fetus is not a person unless it reaches a certain point. Science would describe the fetus as a mass of cells undergoing development but which has not attained the stage of personhood.

But you are assuming that every reward will be a material. Words of encouragement and exposure to the community can cause the student to become a role model for other students. Such status is obtained as a reward for gaining outstanding accomplishment. This in turn, will motivate other students to work harder. Even in the work place and in society, employees and citizens are rewarded for good behavior in several ways. In teaching these students about rewards and motivating them to excel, we are also creating a more competitive society where competition and rewards are key factors of financial success.

A fetus has not attained personhood so no they not not have rights under the constitution unless the fetus develops past a certain period.

I argued that most people who commit gruesome crimes are psychopaths because statistics and science have shown there is a strong criminological correlation between the two concepts. At no point did I use the term, "all." You have no qualifications within criminology nor have you been put to death row so how can you argue that death row affects freedom of guilt when in fact, science has shown that there is no guilt as it relates to psychopathy. Even if I am not a psychopath, I have studied and analyzed criminal behavior and patterns as it relates to gruesome crimes. And based on previous patterns of criminal behavior and gruesome crimes, psychology would argue that it is a strong possibility in the face of fact unless you can prove otherwise.

And how would you know this for a fact? What if through death the criminal is still not able to get rid of his guilt because he is a psychopath and psychopaths feels no emotion nor guilt. Rather their execution is enforced as a safeguard against society and even other inmates. You have never committed a crime nor have you been put on death row so how can you argue that it gets rid of all guilt when most people who commit gruesome murders are actually psychopaths who feels no emotion nor guilt.

Nothing about death is a gift. We live in a democratic society where the principles of the constitution must be reflected within our legal system and its philosophies. Torturing people and forcing them to suffer, regardless of the crimes they committed is a reflection of the many unfair practices within previous society. If as a nation, we argue that life is sacred and that it must be treated with respect, then that applies to all categories of people regardless of their actions.

But who is saying anything about the worth of life? Torture does not have to involve death. It can be used in a manner that allows for the retrieval of information. And to further expand on your statements, the safety of a thousand lives is powerful enough to outweigh the life of one person who is terrorist and is willing to die anyways. Its the power of a thousand lives when compared to the power of one life who is willing to die. What if a thousand children are left orphans on that day? How would you feel if you were the officer that allowed this to happened had it occurred?

I was referring to people with authority such as medical examiners or qualified medical professionals. By legal actions, I would argue that assisted suicides should be permissible only upon applying for a court order to terminate life. In such cases, assisted suicide will only be allowed to take place upon the permission of the court which has the power and authority to carefully examine the circumstances relating to that person. I beg to differ that there is no way a court would allow an innocent person to die. Many people who are brain dead are not necessarily dead and there may be a slight chance of approval but yet courts have granted approval by means of court orders to terminate the life of that person.

Are you referring to Oscar Pistorious? Because if you are, that case is still in trial and the defendant has not been found guilty. Witnesses are currently being cross examined so I believe your facts might not be accurate. But lets set aside the example you used and lets assume that he was found guilty indeed. Psychology still plays a role in EVERY case and plays a powerful role in bringing the defendant to justice. Psychology involves the manner in which the judge, prosecutors and members of the jury view the facts and evidence of the case and their interpretation of the circumstances which they may relate to their own personal experiences or values. Without forensic technology, society would be crowded with criminals and dangerous offenders. It is science that helps to determine whether a person die by murder or other suspicious means so yes science plays a powerful role also in bringing an offender to justice. Psychology has to be backed by scientific data before it can even be allowed in the courtroom or it becomes unsupported facts which are often instructed by the judge to be disregarded. Our court system has failed in the past but it does not mean we have to let the past affect the present and the future when our constitution constantly evolves.

But in order for persons with authority to assist in suicides, the law needs to permit assisted suicides thus legalizing it anyways. Don't you think that the law would outline what elements needs to be present when determining if the act itself was an assisted suicide? Take for example, rape is a crime of forced sexual intercourse but yet while many often argue that it was consensual, science and developments in forensic technology and psychology have helped in solving many extraordinary cases and continues to do so.

So what about this act makes it a crime? How is this act different from a justifiable killing?

Yes. What do you think about the question now that it has been clarified?

Assuming that assisted suicide was a crime and you lend someone your gun for the purposes of hunting or passed a note to his or her mom without knowing the contents of such note does not mean you can be charged with the crime of assisted suicide because in order for there to be a crime of assisted suicide, there must be two elements present. These elements are known as 'mens rea' and 'actus reus.' The mens rea basically states that the person has to possess the mental intent to commit the crime knowingly and voluntarily.

Tax payers pay money towards the maintenance of prisons and that also harms the economy so is it logical to say we should eliminate funding towards prisons then? Because without welfare programs, the prison population will double or triple as we are already seeing.

I agree that this country was founded on individuality as it relates to decision making but there is an extent to which that decision making is allowed. I agree that welfare programs' money comes from taxes but such spending is allocated towards programs which have been proven to benefit society in the deviance, economic and educational sectors. You are arguing that spending should be allocated towards the military when in fact, reports show that in 2011, 20% of the budget equivalent to 718 billion USD was allocated towards the military and other international security defense measures. There needs to be a balance within society where the different sectors are financially funded accordingly or else the social issues that will be created can create havoc within society thus increasing more government spending than would be required to spend on welfare programs.

Also, no one is supporting or paying for poor people. The taxes you pay is actually an investment into your own future in cases of old age or disability. No one on welfare is taking away that benefit from you because in the end, you will still enjoy the benefits of your payment. You seem to think that tax spending goes towards welfare programs when in fact, the larger amount of that goes towards so many sectors. Societal balance should involve adequate consideration to all sectors because as a nation we strive for economic development and welfare programs provides the stepping stone for such accomplishment. Maybe it does not work for all but it works for most.

But won't you agree that taking steps to retrieve information when the lives of thousands are in danger is better than doing nothing even when it involves torture? How do you weigh the life and well-being of one terrorist against a thousand innocent lives? Where is the balance? Where is the duty to protect society against evil and wrong-doing?

They will win especially when the defense of marriage act is discriminatory in that it defines marriage based on one's sexual orientation. If sex between two people of same sexes is not a crime, then why is same sex marriage illegal? And how does this violate the equal application of all laws?

I disagree with your argument. The media has highlighted many cases of bullying that became criminal in nature thus exposing this issue among the general population. Also, the issue of bullying and its consequences are often discussed in schools, on internet, at work places, etc. Blaming immaturity or lack of understanding is not enough to excuse criminal behavior that may result in the death of another.

Yes! Bullies who are involved in bullying others should be punished severely by the law. Many seem to be under the common perception that they can violate the rights and privacy of another and be treated favorably by the law. And we have seen it happened where victims of bullying has committed suicides while their alleged perpetrators enjoy the protection of the law and due process. If laws fail to provide deterrence, then what good is that piece of law when it is looked at with fear by perpetrators? What good is law that fails to preserve the safety of the helpless ones?

I think prostitution should be regulated as a business sector and should be legalized. The spread of diseases and increase in abuses of prostitutes without regulation of the government can be damaging to society. Besides, prostitutes are often victims of crimes and treated as criminals at the same time. If the government cannot provide proper and stable employment alternatives, then it becomes the responsibility of these individuals to provide for their families. Also, pornography is considered legal even though money is involved for the act of sex so why can't the same logic be applied to prostitution? Why should the government be able to control my body if the act itself is mutual among two people?

The right to own guns was created so it could apply during the times of war when every male civilian could have been drafted to serve in the war. So yes, the military is excluded from this group because the amendment was created to preserve the ability of the military. And you are right. The black market will always exist but let me ask you another question. Should we allow rapists to continue raping simply because they will do it anyways? If you are suggesting that we should not place stricter laws on gun possession simply because it will still take place through the black market, then you reason is flawed for a surety.

Yes there should be. There should be laws allowing for a psychological examination of the person who is applying for firearm possession because many of the heinous crimes committed by firearm owners are committed by mentally disturbed people.

I believe that would be a violation of the 8th amendment to the U.S Constitution and various underlying principles of applying punishment in a swift manner.

Do you see a difference between someone who kills another civilian for their selfish greed and blatant violation of law from the state that executes someone for the greater good of the people they serve?

No we should not ban dangerous objects just because it has the potential to be dangerous because in actuality anything can be dangerous. Guns are more dangerous because it is capable of causing mass murders within minutes and it seems that killers prefer to use guns in the execution of their plans. Guns are also the most focused weapons in the black market making it a more dangerous threat than other threats.

So lets say a terrorist planted a bomb in an unknown location and it is likely that the explosion of such bomb will involve thousands of deaths. You as a police officer is interrogating the suspect who refuses to give you information and he is your only source of information. Would you resort to torture to save the lives of thousands and possibly millions?

Thank you. For me, a discussion should be a learning experience for both parties. My discussion with you has been a valuable and a learning experience.

I actually agree with you. I think if welfare programs are combined with self-advancement and empowerment programs, it helps equip beneficients with the tools they need to improve themselves economically which in turn can create an economically beneficial cycle that is passed on from one generation to the next. This will also help to ensure there is an increased level of accountability within the system. The implementation of these programs should involved various dialogues shared among governments, communities, leaders, sociologists, NGOs as you mentioned and careful analysis of the failures and successes of previous systems and protocols relating to these programs.

Like you, I think the welfare program should be modified but not eliminated because it impacts every sector of society. Without any welfare program, the prison population increases which increases government spending towards the maintenance of prisons and jails, increased health diseases due to lack of medications and nutrition thus also increasing healthcare spending. Unfortunately, welfare programs are often view through political lens by people who barely have any understanding of such system.

The constitution is a living document so it is always being interpreted and the difference is certainly apparent in society which is reflective of many significant caselaws including Miranda v. Arizona and Roe v. Wade. Being equal does not mean you give everyone the same punishment because then you violate the proportionality of punishment clause of the 8th amendment. Different situations call for different responses which is typical of a democratic society. Science has clearly proved that the child is not mentally developed so I would argue the issue of proving the mental competence of the child is already addressed and solved unless you can prove otherwise.

The question is not whether they understand law but rather, do they understand law, emotion and nature in the same way that an adult would understand these? Trauma can be psychologically damaging so it depends to what degree and whether that would severely affect the ability of the person to comprehend the nature of their action. Isn't our constitution based on mental awareness to comprehend the nature of the crime itself and the criminal justice system? Even if a child understands the difference between right and wrong, do they understand it in complex ways that the law views it? I doubt not. Faking insanity and immaturity often takes place with adults, not children as previous case patterns have shown. Even if you can show that these children carefully planned to execute their crimes, how can you show that they were acting based on their perception of reality or a "made-up world" of delusions. Actually, we are not excusing anyone so I have no idea what you are referring to. They will still be answerable to the jurisdiction of the family court with a combined rehabilitative and punitive approach. And oh yes, being equal is about giving fair consideration to certain groups based on strong evidence. Faking immaturity and insanity are often detected via several law enforcement and forensic psychological testings designed to detect malingering which is significant among adults.

Even though there might be 12 year olds that are known for developing faster than other children from that age group, science has shown that it is still not possible for a 12 year old to fully mentally at that age nor do they possess the mental capabilities as that of an adult. Being incredible does not have to mean that you are mentally complete with compared to adults.

I am sorry. I believe you meant to respond to markmcd9929 but you accidentally responded to my argument. That user outlined the points you are referring to which I offer rebuttal points as well. I sincerely apologize for the confusion but I am on your side so my bad.

How does me requesting statistics from you in support of your argument makes me a recruiter? Do you even understand the nature of my argument? The standards of the army is irrelevant when compared to the standards of society and welfare programs. And joining the army is not plain black and white as you may see it.

While I sincerely respect and value your opinion, I would argue that the centralization of power to a single global body of authority is incompatible because each country has a unique make up that is distinct from other countries. Also, the centralization of power leads to more destruction on a global basis. The root of global corruption stems from the centralization of power and authority. Governments must be created from among the people. People need a government who understands their needs instead of a foreign body that fails to understand the structure and needs of their country. Independence was gained from struggles and sacrifices. Placing our government in the hands of a centralized global body is similar to giving away the independence our ancestors so fought for.

I disputed your example because medical facts and science have shown that even at 12, a child can lack the mental capacity to comprehend the nature of their actions. A depressed adult is different from a depressed 16 or 12 year old because the depressed adult still understands the nature and processes of the criminal justice system and hence, should be treated differently.

Do you even have any facts or statistics to support your argument other than your own blind perception?

However, the original premise of your argument was based on a 12 year old. Also, because the thinking patterns of someone changes as they become older does not mean they have become fully mentally developed given the fact that many teenagers are affected by psychological disorders such as depression that affects their mental judgement.

While I respect your opinion, I believe that the crime should fit the mental capacity of the person. Hence, one cannot argue that the mental development of the child or adolescent is equivalent to that of an adult. We have to take into consideration the several factors that can affect teenagers and children as they develop including abuse, peer pressure, etc. The nature of the crime should be evaluated depending on the context in which it was committed and the underlying reasons.

Welfare programs are a necessity depending on the context of the situation. Let's not forget there are single parent families who struggle to prepare their meals every day while they try their best to find employment and provide for their families. For these people, these programs are necessary to prevent them from being homeless or going by without a meal. I believe your definition of necessity is quite different from how the affected person would define such a concept.

I am assuming by lazy people, you are referring to everyone on the program with absolute certainty. Such a broad and unsupported generalization. Don't you think?

So lets assume you were in charge of modifying certain elements of the program to make it more effective; what recommendations would you make to ensure that these programs are not mismanaged?

It depends on the nature of circumstances surrounding the person's age. The key word in your title argument is "discrimination" which is the underlying factor in an unjustifiable decision or attitude in which the person is treated with prejudice solely because of his or her age. This type of scenario, unless not justified by a legal reason cannot and should not be tolerated in society and the resulting consequences for those who indulge in it should be exposure to civil liability.

I recently concluded a debate where i combined theories with statistics to prove that the death penalty is a deterrent. You cannot ignore other factors that may contribute to the crime rate depending on the geographic location of where the death penalty is enforced. Statistics from the bureau of criminal justice showed that the death penalty when enforced more often deters crime and when hardly enforced, will have none or hardly any effect (s) on the reduction of crime.

There is a difference between murder and being legally killed because of issues relating to self defense or for the greater good of society.

Whether you are growing tired of 9/11 stuff, then that's merely your opinion. That does not change the fact that it still is and still will be one of the major controversies that exists in our society. And you did mention you created 300 intense debates but how relevant are they to provide education on the position and progression of societal and philosophical development?

Only a hypocrite would act as if he is perfect. Neither me nor you are perfect. We as humans are prone to mistakes no matter what our intelligence levels are.

Suicide is not banned but at the same time, the state has every right to keep a person in custody if there is a chance that the person will hurt himself or there is a strong likelihood that the person is at risk of committing suicide. Let us not concentrate on the federal level as we are concentrating on state levels. The duty of the federal level is to prosecute and regulate laws that are in the best interest in the people of America not just a specific state. In other words, the federal government cannot and will not intrude upon the laws of a state. Prostitution and suicide are minor issues for them when the security of their country is at stake.

I was referring to when as person is at risk of committing suicide. Sorry for the mistake.

Inmates that are not on death row has even killed other inmates in the prison environment. I watched a documentary based on one of the most violent and worst prisons in the US which is in California. I will give you the name of the documentary. Inmates who were there on non death row killed other inmates and even attempted to kill corrections officers. These are inmates who were convicted of murders. One of them even tried to kill a prosecutor infront of a jury as he was prosecuting a case in court. What we are talking about here is not a death row population but a non death row population. So?

People no longer have to be released before the commit another murder. If you research the maximum security prison in California you would find out that most inmates there are serving life sentences and many of them have committed murders of other inmates and even corrections officers. So?

The constitution itself was created so that the government was created then the checks were put into place. If you accept that state and local governments have the power to regulate the flow of guns, then you are accepting that not all citizens are entitled to guns.

And governments regulate guns so that not all citizens will have access to it. And secondly, it is impossible for governments not to have any powers when the constitution itself gives them power and when they derive powers from the people they are governing. Isn't that why we call them governments and every year there is new law passed? Your if is nothing more but a hypothesis upon which no proof of solid evidence exists.

But if you are pointing to the constitution, then you seem to be forgetting that the constitution was created for the sole purpose of creating a government so since governments were created from the constitution, and the constitution itself grants you the 2nd amendment then it would logically follow that the constitution permits government to regulate guns granted to citizens which therefore leads one to conclude again that all citizens are not entitled to guns. If there was no constitution then there would be governments and if there were no governments then we would not even need constitutional rights. But the fact that the constitution itself permits the rise and creation of governments would lead an ordinary person like me to assume that we are all not entitled to guns as citizens.

In your argument you are acknowledging that not all citizens are entitled to a gun. Do you think that since the local and state government are responsible to regulate a gun that they will just go by the 2nd amendment and make guns available to every citizen that applies for a gun? One thing that you should be aware of is the fact that our constitutional rights are not absolute which means that they cannot cover us in certain instances and those categories of citizens that i covered are not eligible for guns. So regardless if the state or local government regulate gun policies, the regulation is so that guns do not fall in the wrong citizen's hands or that guns are not issued to citizens who may use it for the wrong purpose. Therefore, my conclusion again is that sole fact that not all citizens are entitled to gun.

The amendment did say "the right of the people" but like all other amendments, there is a limit to what it covers. It mentioned the right of the people but the U.S Supreme Court has interpreted this as the right of the people who were soldiers and served in the war to carry weapons for their own protection as this amendment was created in a time of war. The Court also agreed that because of the nature of this amendment and the time of its creation, all citizens are not entitled to guns. Just like we are not covered by the 4th amendment if there is evidence in plain view or the 1st amendment if there is any form of violent action or speech, there is a limit to what the 2nd amendment covers. If all citizens were entitled to a gun, don't you think that all citizens would have applied guns at the federal, state or local level?

That is true. The constitution is a living document that adapts itself to a constantly changing society. Also, the constitution is interpreted in different ways by the U.S Supreme Court justices and others society which relates to it being a living document. If we do give the government the power to change the constitution, then we are giving them the tools they need to take away our basic rights to which others will think of the constitution itself as a "laughing stock".

Which leads one to conclude that all citizens are NOT entitled to guns.

I do support your argument but i would also argue that all citizens do not have a right to arms. My reasons would be based on the fact that the amendment itself does not cover citizens who have been convicted of a serious felony, who are not in a proper mental state of mind, juveniles or even citizens who were arrested or convicted for domestic violence. Therefore, since the rights guaranteed by the constitution itself are not absolute then it would logically follow that not all citizens are entitled to a gun just like even though a person has freedom of speech they cannot yell fire in a crowd, because there is a limit to what the constitution itself covers and also yelling fire in a crowd has its devastating effects. It can be logically reasoned that in a similar way, giving guns to anyone by arguing that all citizens are entitled to a gun would have its devastating effects and thus lead to more harm than the intended purpose it may have intended to achieve.

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that a group of people can protest at a funeral because it is part of their constitutional rights regardless of the fact that the parties involved may be private. If the group that is protesting stays within the confines of the present statute in the state, then no action can be taken from the party who is being protested. And to answer your question, if the protestors stays within a reasonable distance away from the actual funeral scene and obeys the laws, then they are not liable for civil lawsuits because they are to the full extent practicing their 1st amendment rights.

In this case, i don't think justice can ever be served because those family members will never come home to their family again. However, in this case, i think that sentence was too lenient because there is still the possibility of him committing future crimes and then if he serves good time in prison there is also the possibility of being released based on good time credit. Those victims will never see their family again and worst of all, they died in pain. His family will still see him again and worst of all, he will be given meal in prison, a place to stay and a bed to sleep on. Do we consider these justice? And do we know if other people will fall victims to him in prison considering the fact that he is highly dangerous? Such a criminal deserves nothing less than the death penalty or in place of the death penalty; life imprisonment. But then again even with all these punishments, will justice ever be served? Certainly not. For the lives of those innocent people can never be restored to them and all their opportunities in life were stolen from them.

Hate Speech i think should be considered free speech. If i say something about person x then person x is not obligated to listen to what i am saying and neither can i use force to compel him to listen to what i am saying so therefore it should be considered free speech. I am merely expressing my views and opinions about a particular subject or person to which i am entitled to especially if we all would agree that we are living in a society where we are entitled to our basic rights.

Also, we all have our differences in society because we all think and act differently except in rare circumstances. We cannot expect everyone in society to be perfect when our leaders and rulers themselves are not perfect. Hate speech is not bad for the public. It is rather a tool to speak out against the unjust actions of a particular group or person.

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that a group of people can protest at a funeral because it is part of their constitutional rights regardless of the fact that the parties involved may be private. If the group that is protesting stays within the confines of the present statute in the state, then no action can be taken from the party who is being protested. And to answer your question, if the protestors stays within a reasonable distance away from the actual funeral scene and obeys the laws, then they are not liable for civil lawsuits because they are to the full extent exercising their 1st amendment rights.

And lastly, why do heterosexual couples engage in anal sex as well?

If heterosexuality has to do with sexual attraction then it takes hormones and body reactions for someone to be sexually attracted to the other sex. It is the same with homosexuality, where the body hormones and chemical reactions causes one to be sexually attracted to the same sex. Hence, i conclude that homosexuality is natural just like any other forms of sexual orientation. Let me ask you this, would you have sex with the same gender of your group? I am certain your answer would be no because there is in no way that you can have sex in that way. It is the same with a homosexual guy who cannot be sexually attracted to a woman or has no erection when it comes to having sex with a woman and that is natural. Furthermore, you just confirmed my theory. You said it is "unnatural." I take you are using that term from a religious text.

So would you say that heterosexuality is something that we choose to be instead of being born like that?

So how come people are born heterosexual? While there is no gay gene, our genetic make up can influence whether one acts as a boy or girl and too much of either can lead one to act in either way a little too much which can further increase the chance of one doing things that the other group would.

True, but in this case, the study will be varied, meaning that different age groups, religious backgrounds, geographic regions, race, and more other factors. The responses gained in this category will then compared to other responses to establish a relationship of similarity. You are drawing a hasty conclusion. You have no idea on how far this survey focuses on. This study focuses on the past that leads to the present. Thus, there is a difference. And we focus on specific questions that will help us to draw a conclusion. If somebody's opinion changes in the future, then that's different but we want to understand why the past lead to the present and how did this came about. And what is the source of this belief.

I fully support your argument and as a matter of fact that is the assumption upon which my hypothesis rests. When someone gives you their opinion on homosexuality, they may do so because of fear of rejection, bully, or even becoming an outcast to a group. However, my study is a little different. Is your opinion really your opinion or are you forced to that conclusion because of mitigating factors?

I would like to ask you a question but before i do, i must first begin by asking you whether or not you agree with me in what i stated above. Do you?

I am sorry about that. I did a description but for some reason it is not with the debate. I will create a new one. Thanks for pointing it out.

It is in the process of creating more wealth that we tend to destroy the environment. You mentioned that the source of the economy is wealth but in fact the source of the economy is the environment. Where do you think we get all the products to actually produce goods and services? It comes from the environment. If there is no environment there is no economy.

And no need to take further notes for me on the good faith doctrine as i do have notes on it. I just misinterpreted it but after reviewing my notes, i fully understand the concepts and various aspects that relates to this doctrine. Thank you very much for your assistance though.

You are absolutely right so thank you very much for rectifying the good faith doctrine and bringing it to my attention. The good faith doctrine would not be applicable to present case at issue on this site so i agree with your arguments pertaining to the good faith doctrine since the prosecutor in the case described above knew that the search itself was illegal but still took steps that would have exposed the state to torts and a risk of further appeals.

One such case precedent dealing with the good faith doctrine in search and seizure cases is Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S 79 (1987) dealing with police and search and seizures relating to the 4th amendment.

You are right, i just did some research into it and the good faith doctrine is not applicable in this case because the error had to be committed by the police, and court employees but at the same time, they must show proof to believe that the information they obtained was believed to be honest and reliable before the good faith doctrine can be applicable. However, i am not sure where you received your information from but according to Criminal Procedure: Law and Practice: 8th Ed., good faith can be involved in cases where the police received information that they honestly believed to be accurate or where they entered a premise after honestly believing that the person who gave them permission to execute a search had the lawful authority to do so.

Thank you for clarifying it. The law is indeed very technical. That is why many people often gets confused and even attorneys do at times.

You are missing two important factors pertaining to search and seizure and i was very confused as well when i was taking my criminal procedure classes.

First of all, the mother has legal standing to challenge the search but she never did. The motion to suppress evidence was filed by the defense but the Court throwed out the motion filed because according to the Court the property of the defendant was never searched. The fact that the prosecutor lied can cause her to be sanctioned but if the mother declines to file a motion then that illustrates that she does not wish to challenge the evidence. First of all, if her permission was never obtained for a search to be executed, she would have had the choice to file for a hearing before the evidence could be presented against the defendant. No action can be taken without a fair hearing and she never filed for the motion to suppress so there was never a suppression hearing.

As mentioned before, good faith is an exception to the exclusionary rule. In this case, the prosecutor lied because of good faith to bring justice for a victim and to prevent a pedophile from making more children his prey so there was no bias towards the accused on the part of the prosecutor.

The reason why the mother did not file a motion is because the evidence put the pedophile away, revealed more other victims and help to prevent more child sexual assault cases.

That is the point i was trying to make. When a person has legal standing it means that a person has a reasonable expectation to privacy and in this case the defense did not.

In order for a person to formally challenge a search and seizure, a motion to suppress the evidence obtained had to be presented at the Court of hearing. The fact that this woman did not file such a motion after the search was executed clearly illustrates that this woman did not wish to challenge the search and seizure. Furthermore, the fact that her consent was not obtained prior to executing this search would be a factor that would have had an impact on the motion to dismiss had she challenged the search and seizure. However, there was never a motion to dismiss filed by the woman.

But in order for it to be ruled fruit of the poisonous tree, there had to be challenge or motion to suppress filed by the mother since she is the only one with legal standing. Fruit of the poisonous tree is therefore not applicable because the challenge to the search is coming from the defense whose property was not included in the search and therefore has no legal standing to challenge the search itself and as you are aware, the 4th amendment would protect the accused from unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore as mentioned before, there was no bias involved in this case so the evidence obtained can be ruled admissible due to good faith on the part of the prosecutor which is one of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule. The issue here is not where the tip came from, it is the fact that the search was executed without the consent of the mother who has legal standing. That case you quoted is clearly referring to the premise of the defendant which was searched. However, in this case, it is the premise of the victim that was searched so thus the case you quoted as well as the fruit of the poisonous tree would be information from unreliable witness that would lead to a search to be executed on the premise of the defendant.

Exactly but the mother did not challenge the search and seizure after the evidence was obtained so the evidence discovered at the scene would still be admissible since the only person with legal standing which is the mother did not challenge the search and seizure. Also the prosecutor was acting with good faith and not bias and as you may already be aware, good faith is also one of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule.

That very piece of evidence convicted the accused and there is one crucial factor in that case that played a major role despite the actions of the prosecutor.

The case was never dismissed and evidence was ruled admissible because of one crucial factor which is evident from the details of this case described.

In this case, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine is not applicable because of one crucial factor which stems from the 4th amendment. If you read carefully, you will see the point in the case described above.

Actually the defendant did not and the evidence was ruled admissible for trial.

Both are in this category because they both relate to freedom of choice over your body and the source of both of these disputes extends deeply to the view on morals.

Rights have always been decided by the majority because it takes the cooperation of the majority to put it into effect. But anyway since we both agree that rights exist but we disagree on the sources of rights i will address that. Th constitution is a document that was written and preserved and handed down from one generation to the next. It is a living proof that we are protected by rights which guarantees protection from the government. Before that constitution, was created, majority of the people voted for it to be put into effect. If you don't believe that rights come from the majority then how come laws are created with the approval of majority of the population? How come before we can over throw a government, majority of the votes from the population needs to outweigh the minor? How come when a Supreme or Appellate Courts decides a case, it takes majority of the votes to make a decision in that case? The human society was and is constructed in such a way that the larger population decides what is a right and hardly have they taken away a right from somebody else. Didn't majority of the population voted for certain actions to be labelled criminal, so would you say that is unfair because majority of the population took away the right from another civilian to commit a crime? That is the very reason why a document has power, because it is made up of the power THE PEOPLE gave it that power which serves as a proof against governmental infringement of our rights. Furthermore, at that time the constitution was created, there was no opposition to it from the people.

I am surprise you were arguing earlier that the constitution is privileged but yet in the same document you are disputing you cannot point to one specific word pointing to privilege meanwhile at the same time you will find many amendment such as the 4th amendment beginning with "the right of the people."

It is interesting that you do not see "certain rights" as related to the 2 amendment as i am explaining and repeating myself for the 3rd time which goes back that firearms CANNOT be restricted to people especially since it is designed in a way that is useful for self defense (Automatic firearm). If you don't understand government monitoring to be legal ownership then i advise you to put your critical thinking skills to work before responding to an argument.

Your argument and the evidence you introduced is weak. The source i introduced is a source that is valid and is being used by all schools offering law and pre-law countrywide. Moreover, the author of that textbook is the chairperson of John Jay School of Criminal Justice as well as a professor at many other law schools. He is also a criminologist and one of the most recognized authors. Secondly, how do you know that these surveys were completed via telephone? How do you know that these researchers were not representing a government funded research? I see no point in a rebuttal that has nothing to do with the source i have introduced.

He said that he would like to introduce information pertaining to gun control and introduced sources which were from religious sources and other sources that all demonstrated campaigns against firearm rights in general. Why did you not answer the part where i asked you why he did not introduced statistics from the supporter researches of gun rights and why does he fail to mention his name? We are in a debate but he is introducing factual information, thus there is a difference between my method of debating and his method of presenting information.

Sources that are religious tend to produce bias information because their emotions prevents them from accepting logical information in terms of issues pertaining to social structure. I did not in any way mentioned they are illogical or logical. My point i am trying to establish is that they have a religious view on certain logical issues that causes them to produce information to satisfy their logic. Take abortion and prostitution as examples. Also if you recall my point i said MIX RELIGION WITH LOGIC. What part of that statement points to what you are illustrating?

Low crime rates can be the result of better social structure and not just low gun rate. It could be the result of a smaller population and better availability of education and jobs. These are all issues pertaining to crime so hence, your argument is merely opinionated rather than factual.

The point that you are failing to understand that illegal firearms will contribute to more people owning guns illegally without the government having any knowledge thereof and can cause a increase in crime. Therefore the best form of system is a system of monitoring firearms users, not restrict them.

It amazes me that you seem to be having a hard time to grasp the point i am trying to make. If the rights come from the people, then it takes majority of the people to put that right into effect. Rights do not just come from anywhere, they come from the people. One senior prosecutor examined your argument last night and told me to ask you, if you do not need a document to prove that you have rights, then how come you need a document to prove in a court of law that you are innocent when you are already innocent and also said that you should point to any specific part of the constitution that states the term "privileges." Why would the people write a document to take away somebody else rights when the same rights that they have created for themselves would apply to all citizens of that country. Do you know how ridiculous that argument sounds?

If there was a crack down on illegal firearms, then that points out to the fact that if government monitors the using of firearms by civilians then the level of firearm crimes will decrease. This is a form of monitoring in which certain requirements are not met, so the government seizes hold of that firearm until the requirements are met. If most gun crimes are committed by illegal firearm holders then it means that legal ownership of firearms combined with government monitoring can have a positive effect.

The site that you provided me with seems to be lacking impartiality since it seems to be biased. At the beginning of the site, the author did not post his name (i wonder why nor the date the information was last updated or published) and because of his bias and lack of impartiality, any information obtained would be biased since he is obtaining information to satisfy his level of bias. In all of his argument or evidence, he introduced sources who were biased to gun rights which leads me to wonder why did he not introduce sources favorable to gun rights and then produce counter sources to counter act the point made by those sources?

Secondly, some of the sources were from religious sources which is an issue since sources that are religious in nature would tend to mix religion with logic.

Thirdly, some of the results in the research were conducted in different countries, which is unacceptable for me to read since you cannot in any way compare a country to the United States because there can be more than one factor that can be causing the gun crime rate there and also there is a difference in the size of the country and the population as well as social issues.

"Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz have found that as many as 400,000 people per year use guns in situations in which they later claimed that the gun almost saved their lives. Even if these estimates are off by a factor of 10, it means that armed citizens may save 40, 000 lives yearly" (Siegel, Larry J. (2008), Introduction to Criminal Justice (12th Ed.), pg. 70)

Also the source of the problem is illegal firearm ownership because according to the National Crime Victimization Center, illegal firearms are used in about 20 percent of robberies, 10 percent of assaults and 5 percent of rapes. Therefore, if you outlaw automatic guns criminals will still have access to these guns because there are still gangs who have access to these guns and can sell them to earn a profit.

"Banning the use of firearms will lead to that gun having more value which can lead to an increased trafficking in gun as well as other illegal substances (Siegel, Criminology: Theories, patterns and typologies 10th Ed. pg. 50)

I think you are misunderstanding the perception of what importance that document serves. You are forgetting that since we do not get our rights from the government, there needs to be a document which is the ultimate source of rights that serves the purpose of preventing the government from infringing upon our rights since government tends to act in conflict to the interests of its people. Let me remind you that when this constitution was created back then, it first had to be approved by the people before it could become effective and to this day, it still is accepted and approved by the majority of the population. You are failing to understand that there is a difference between what you referred to as being a crime and what is actually a right. How can we have a right to commit a crime when the example you gave is clearly a crime? Governments are not limiting our rights because the right you are referring to is not a right but rather a crime, therefore that cannot be found in the source of rights because it is a violation of the laws.

If you said to me that you MAY pass me the cheese, you used the term MAY because you are not certain if i will. If you used the term PLEASE, then you are displaying a sign of politeness.

Finally, i did take a look at those statistics you sent to me and there is one major problem that i observed. Why is it that your graph fails to point out what proportion of these crimes were committed by legal or illegal firearm holders? As far as i am concerned, all these crimes could have been committed by illegal firearm holders because the graph itself fails to refer if these gun crimes were committed by illegal and or legal firearm holders, thus the proof you sent me still do not justify the point you are trying to make. I am surprised that you questioned my faith in a government by trusting their statistics when your argument illustrates a low level of faith in the government, but yet at the same time, you are using government statistics. And like i mentioned, your studies make no distinctions of gun crimes committed by illegal and legal firearm holders so how are we supposed to figure out which category makes up the larger portion of those crimes committed?