Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The Onion makes me laugh.. but scares me
Preemptive Memorial Honors Future Victims Of Imminent Dam Disaster
FYI I live DIRECTLY below the Folsom Dam. What an article.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Tool
A Tool tour and a new DVD coming out in December... I really couldn't ask for more. Maybe a preview of the DVD? Oh hey, they have that too.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
LD Talking Points
The topic for the first semester of LD debate is: "A just society ought not use the death penalty"
..sooo much room for confusion. So negative on this resolution means pro-death penalty. Who dreamed that up? Anyway, when I started research for this case I didn't honestly have a personal conviction. I decided to write both using the best information and philosophy I could find, and kinda feel it out. After running the case a few times, I decided what I really like to say about it.
First of all, the topic here is not whether the death penalty is effective or humane - the key word is just. To be SURE that the clash in this debate is over justice and not merits of the death penalty, I came right out and used "Justice" as my value. I threw in my token morality argument and talked a bit about the fundamental purposes of criminal punishment. Then I brought in a little bit of an offbeat theme: economics.
The contention says: If human life is to have the highest value, it should cost the most to take it. Like purchasing a material item, you should have to pay more for higher value things. Among those receiving life sentences are drug dealers, gangsters, and even people who have had "three strikes." By giving murderers a life sentence, we establish that taking a human life is as costly, and therefore carries as much value, as violation of the "three strikes" law. We must make these criminals pay the highest price for the highest crime.
..sooo much room for confusion. So negative on this resolution means pro-death penalty. Who dreamed that up? Anyway, when I started research for this case I didn't honestly have a personal conviction. I decided to write both using the best information and philosophy I could find, and kinda feel it out. After running the case a few times, I decided what I really like to say about it.
First of all, the topic here is not whether the death penalty is effective or humane - the key word is just. To be SURE that the clash in this debate is over justice and not merits of the death penalty, I came right out and used "Justice" as my value. I threw in my token morality argument and talked a bit about the fundamental purposes of criminal punishment. Then I brought in a little bit of an offbeat theme: economics.
The contention says: If human life is to have the highest value, it should cost the most to take it. Like purchasing a material item, you should have to pay more for higher value things. Among those receiving life sentences are drug dealers, gangsters, and even people who have had "three strikes." By giving murderers a life sentence, we establish that taking a human life is as costly, and therefore carries as much value, as violation of the "three strikes" law. We must make these criminals pay the highest price for the highest crime.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
September/October Topic
"A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment"
Still don't know how I feel about it.
Still don't know how I feel about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
