The death penalty would be great and very practical, but the duration of time it takes for a prisoner to eventually be executed is over a span of decades and there are hardly any peopleto be executed. That's how it is in America anyways. If the death penalty were to be in effect immediately when sentence, then it would be practical. But now? The whole idea sound far too vestigal and drawn-out. Make the guilty feel penitence for there misdeeds for the span of the lives, rather than going out in peace and closure after fifteen years of dwelling on it.

No, as awful as it is to say that. Most other people do not lose their jobs or have less of an opportunity at securing a new job if they are unfaithful or promiscuous. Though politicians are granted many unfair liberties and privileges themselves, the privilege of having a closed and personal marriage life is generally up to themselves. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had mistresses out of marriage, yet he was one of the greatest leaders that America had, and he did not act like Bill Clinton did in that whole ordeal. In fact, he and Eleanor did not even life with one another and she had mistresses as well. Few people can say that F.D.R. and Eleanor Roosevelt were not qualified to run the country at such a horrible and terrifying time, and certain no one who does believe so blames it on extramarital affairs.

From personal experience, I prefer the XBox, mainly for the sole purpose of the ease of control. While in most cases, the PS3 does have superior graphics and game play to the 360, the small, sleek controllers are far too small for my hands and I often cannot use the PS3 for long periods of time, as compared to the 360 which has pleasant bulk to it. Despite this, I truly believe that both systems have so many prominent pros and cons to the game play, graphics, games for the systems, and so on, that they are both in categories of there own.

Only if it truly is a joke, it cannot go too far. People have the choice of leaving an unpleasant joke situation most of the time, so the offense is there fault. However, if a 'joke' is truly malicious and sick, like chasing after somebody with a live chainsaw, then it is not a joke, it is a violation of another person's space and dignity.

That is quite sensible. I see how it is all societal and then goes to a sub-societal level, as then within one community a certain action or subject is supported while another is not. I am glad that you agree with that point I tried to emphasize.

I see quite simple. We can document, observe, and record the universe and most of its processes. From there, we can go on to calculate and at very minimum reproduce on paper these processes, including most of which happened at the Big Bang. There is no residual evidence of God in the universe. The most documentation of any God is in a few thousand year old books that were written by men. While there may be holes in cosmology, just like the evolution theory, it is the best and most recorded process we have. Spirituality has no such documentation or processes. Scientific documentation trumps theological rhetoric in this manner.

Some aspects of a band are stupid to one person, but attractive to other. In example, Angelspit, a cyberpunk industrial band, pushes hardcore BDSM fashion to an extreme, and many fans like it. However, many a bluegrass musicians would call that vapid and ridiculous. The mannerisms of a band enhance them to those who love them, and the 'haters' don't matter because there is little they can do against that. All of those aspects listed are just as subjective as the music itself. While many other those aspects certainly can be stupid, and most often are, they can be changed and the subjectivity of the aspects often changes them on its own.

It is also significant to consider if that music follows the rules and conventions of that genre in an appropriate fashion. This does not mean that unconventional music, ranging from American black metal (Abigail Williams) to electronic serialism compositions (Milton Babbitt) and on, is bad in that respect but rather that it keeps within genre boundaries. Milton Babbitt and Charles Ives take atonality to a whole new spectrum, though they still have a recognizable style of composition that is purposeful and clear, in both recording and live. However, if you were to take an amateur serialist composer who has switched over from tonal compositional technique, his music would probably be very awful, as very few atonal composition are outright pleasant to listen to and this person is absolutely new to the style. The level of compositional comprehension, and the level of performer skill, creates what one could consider bad music or a bad band.

Another reason music can be bad is due to subjectivity itself. You could even at Abigail Williams with there new style of black metal. They are almost too unconventional for black metal fans used to Emperor, Immortal, and the like. There fusion with deathcore leaves them with a MASSIVE deathcore fanbase but a limited black metal fanbase. The subjectivity of music itself creates 'bad bands' in this case, as people will sway towards what their ears have adapted to.