Get your priorities right America!!!!!!!!!

Great Debates
21

Don’t be too hard on her; she’s only 17 and that’s a tough place to be in. At that age you can’t seem to be able to tidy your room or get a handle on your simplest affairs so it is obvious to you that your qualifications must be more suited to running the world… or a least a major country.

Reality, if you dislike the death penalty, I suggest you pick on China who execute many more people than the rest of the world combined. Not only do they execute people who have committed common crimes but also people who have done nothing wrong by our standards. They also eat dogs and speak Chinese so nobody can understand them. That is just plain rude if you ask me. If you run for the the office of Queen of China I promise you my vote. China is a good country for that as there would not be other candidates running for your office. Here in the US it is a problem because they always have two guys already running and one is terribly disappointed when he doesn’t win so you have to be ready to get into catfights, console the losers, etc. China is also closer to your home so you could go back to your parents’home on weekends.

Oh, and don’t worry about being 17, before you realise it it will be a sweet memory in the distant past. Your daughter will tell you how the world should be organised and you’ll smile and remember when you were her age.

22

What’s a “senior collage”? Is that a form of art in which you glue a bunch of elderly people to a piece of paper in an artistic and meaningful manner?

I think the suggestion to “right” something about your family is quite appropriate.

-L

23

Classic. :smiley:

So true it brings a tear to my eye. But don’t forget that they would rather work for meager wages than die starving, too. Now that’s a strange custom!

24

We could dump them all on an island somewhere and…oh wait…thats where we got Austrailia from.

25

sailor.

Being 17 is no excuse for being a self centered morally imperalistic whiner. Please. I started here at 18. I have celebrated 2 birthdays since and I’m still a self centered morally imperalistic whiner. But I try to take pains to communicate my whining.

Reality’s whining is not quite coherent, not because she is 17, but because she chooses to comminicate in such a fashion.

Don’t knock the teenagers who really do know how to fix the world. (We use complete sentences…)

26

Wow, after all this, no one’s pointed out the first flaw in the argument. Sure, two wrongs don’t make a right. But you haven’t bothered to show that capital punishment is a wrong. It was simply asserted without any reason. I could just as easily say “two wrong don’t make a right…yet women I act like an asshole to still refuse to have sex with me.” (Note: this is purely hypothetical, I have never acted like an asshole)

You could argue that killing people is a crime, but so is pretty much every punishment that any judicial system metes out. If you actually believed that argument, you’d be opposed to any sort of legal consequences for misbehaviour.

Actually, weren’t all the moon landings done when capital punishment was illegal in the US? Maybe there’s something to this argument.

27

Reality, while superficially quite similar, there are some substantial differences between our culture and that of the US.

Even those living in the US are divided over the issue of capital punishment, as you’ll see if you search for previous debates on the topic. Who, specifically, are you disagreeing with? Those US states which retain CP on their statute books (you probably don’t recall that not all Australian states abolished capital punishment at the same time), or the federal government of the US for retaining it as a punishment for certain federal offences?

The right to bear arms is written into the US Constitution; gun control there is a far more complex issue than it is here because it can’t simply be implemented by an agreement between the states in the US - the kind of gun control laws we have introduced here would probably require an amendment to the US Constitution. It was difficult enough for us to get agreement between the 6 six states and two territories on our national gun control laws - it’s extremely difficult to envision the 50 US states being able to reach such an agreement, even if the majority of their population was in favour of gun control and their right to bear arms wasn’t constitutionally guaranteed.

I’m curious what workable alternatives you believe the US has to their current laws? Can you think of a country whose punishment system or whose weapon control system might work in the US?

woolly’s forlorn hope as expressed at Dopers Downunder is that :

It’s a hope which will remain forlorn as long as we make no attempt to understand the origins of that culture.

28

George W. Bush

You can write to him at:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

I’m sure he’ll love hearing from someone who knows how to get things done around there. Lord knows they’re having difficulty right now as it is. [sub]I love hijacks…[/sub]

I’m imagining a big pit filled with scoundrels and all 270 million of us are tied to a rope as it descends into the horrors below.

STOP THE PRESSES! REALITY IS FROM THE FUTURE!. See, in my timeline, Australia banned the death penalty in 1985. So Reality is from the year 2015, at the very earliest. Hey Reality, can you give me some sports scores? A stock tip? When do all five of the Backstreet Boys become alcoholics?
I’m just wondering if this is how they type in the future. Was MTV really that influential in the downfall of worldwide literacy?

Shows what you know. We faked the moon landing!

If you had only used one question mark, no it certainly wouldn’t be. Even two question marks would be tolerable. I think I could handle three. But with five, I dunno. I think it is a bit too much to ask.

I am so previewing the vB on this sucker…

29

:eek:
Oh Dear. Erm…Reality, from one Aussie to another, umm… well, all of what reprise said, m’kay?

Yeah, Americans are a weird lot. They don’t like Vegemite, a few of 'em voted for Dubya, they drive on the wrong side of the road, their spelling’s dodgy, and they understand the rules of baseball. But they’re kinda cute, they say “please” and “thank you”, and they don’t mess on the carpet. Oh yeah, and if you diss 'em, stand by to be dissed back.

[sub]And, ahhh… welcome to the boards.[/sub]

30

TheLoadedDog wrote:

Except for why they put “hits” and “errors” up on the scoreboard next to “runs.”

I mean, sure, hits and errors an important stat if you want to gauge how well a team is doing over the course of the season, but so are bases on balls, bases stolen, batting averages, on-base percentages, slugging percentages, and even number of times per game you have to make a pitching change. Why elevate hits and errors to the same holy status as runs? It’s not like hits and errors are used to determine who wins the game.

31

Well, Tracer, errors are fun to have on the board:

“Ha! They’ve got three errors already! The bums!”

“Well, sure we’re getting our asses kicked, but it’s just because of those three errors. Two of them were just plain bad luck, as as for the third . . . I knew we shouldn’t have paid so much money for that bum A-Rod.”

32

Now see, what’s really ironic is that one of the major priorities of almost everony on this board is proper punctuation when you post.

Because, see, if you have crappy punctuation, no one takes you seriously . In fact, even those who agree with your beliefs (and I’m not one of them) will deride you and try to distance themselves from you.

Incidently, even if you had just gone off on this with proper punctuation, no one would believe you, because you ain’t(grammer police!) citin’ nothing.

33

everyone

grammar

Gaudere’s Law.

34

also ‘divorced’. And there should be a space between the parenthesis and ‘ain’t’.

35

“Incidentally”

36

I am actually checking up on this thread with some interest, sort of analagous to the sandbagging drivers, the accident hounds. I am terrified that someone is going to let that ill-phrased OP develop into some sort of… debate.

And yet I can’t turn away.

Wait, you say there is no debate there? Why, fantastic [wipes sweat off brow]. I can sleep easy tonight.

37

Loaded Dog: but even we still don’t get the “infield fly” rule. I mean, we understand how it works, but we just don’t get it. Must be a sneaky underhanded foreign import from freedom-hating subversives.

I suspect Canada.

This country ain’t been right since the infield fly rule was enacted.

38

ExTank wrote:

The idea behind the infield fly rule is this:

  1. A fly ball that’s going to land in the infield will not take nearly as long to land as a fly ball to the outfield.

  2. It will take such a short time, in fact, that a baserunner starting from first base – even if he has a lead off of first base – will be nowhere near second base by the time the ball comes down.

  3. Normally, when a defensive player sees a fly ball, he catches it and the batter is out and the baserunners have to go back and tag their bases (if they’re not on their old base already). This gives the baserunners a huge incentive, if they see a fly ball that’s obviously going to be caught, to stay right there at their old base so they won’t fall victim to a force-out.

  4. Now think: what would happen if the infielder who was supposed to catch the ball “conveniently” dropped it? Then the batter would have to advance to first, and the baserunner at first would have to advance to second, right? Which means that the infielder who conveniently dropped the fly ball now has plenty of time to throw the ball to the second baseman for a force-out at second, and the second baseman then would have plenty of time to relay the ball to the first baseman for a force-out at first. It would be a super-easy double play.

  5. In fact, there would be so much time to throw the ball around and make force plays that, if there were runners at first and second, the infield could easily create a triple play.

  6. “So,” I hear you cry, “If the baserunners know that the infielders could nail 'em on a triple play if the infielders intentionally drop the ball, why don’t the baserunners just advance?” I’ll tell you why, smarty-pants. Because then, if the infielder does catch the ball, the advancing baserunners have to get back and tag their old base, even though they’re now halfway to their next base. Again, this gives the infielders an easy triple-play if there are runners at first and second: catch the ball to put out the batter, throw to second before the baserunner at second makes it back, then throw to first before the runner at first makes it back.

So if the baserunners at first and second run, the infielder will catch the ball and get force plays on them at second and first. If the baserunners at first and second don’t run, the infielder will let the ball hit the ground and get force plays on them at third and second, followed by a force play on the batter at first. It’s a no-win scenario.

And, worse, it rewards the infield for not catching a fly ball.
Thus, the infield fly rule came along to protect those poor, innocent baserunners at first and second from the evil tyrrany of an infielder that might drop the ball. It only comes into play when there are runners ar first and second, and when there are less than two outs. They did it for you, man! Bow down and worship the gods of baseball rulemaking, O insignificant worm! You are not worthy!

39

There, see? Case in point

40

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear …

Irrefutable evidence that the Ugly Australian “We know what’s best for youse” attitude is precisely as obnoxious and profoundly unhelpful as the Ugly Anybody Else’s.

My apologies to US dopers for the effrontery, nea temerity of my compatriot.
Anyhow, a couple of clarifications to points raised during the refutation

** Australia abolished the death penalty in 1985 **
The Government of the Commonwealth of Australia abolished the death penalty in 1973. I couldn’t find any record of an execution being carried out under Commonwealth authority. This Act of the Federal Parliament also abolished the death penalty in the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory.

The State of Queensland abolished the death penalty in 1922, the last execution being in 1913; followed by New South Wales (1955 and 1940); Tasmania (1968 and 1946); Victoria (1975 and 1967); South Australia (1976 and 1964) and lastly Western Australia (1984 and 1964).

The NSW statutes did retain some residual offences (relating to piracy and treason) that carried the death penalty, though jurisdiction for these offences was passed to the Commonwealth Government on Federation. These anomalies were abolished in 1985, hence the published figure.

Since Federation in 1901, 114 persons have been legally executed in Australia. The last execution in Australia was that of Ronald Ryan in February 1967. IMHO, it became a case of political imperative overriding justice. I think there is a substantial body of evidence that Ryan did not commit the crime for which he was executed (shooting a prison warder during an escape from prison).

** Australia’s skyrocketing crime rate **
FWIW the most recent figures I’ve come up with are: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Recorded Crime, Australia 30/05/2001 and Homicide in Australia 1999-2000 Australian Institute of Criminology Feb 2001

For example from the AIC report in the year 2000 there 300 homicide incidents and 337 deaths
throughout Australia. A deliberately lit fire in a youth hostel in Childers, Queensland contributed almost 5% of the national total. Just under 20% of all classes of homicide (or 65 deaths) involved use of a firearm.

There is certainly an increase in property crime, predominantly drug related as in most of the western world. Oversimplistically, a substantial proportion of this results from gangs involved in the control of the heroin trade centred in a single suburb of Sydney.

Others might well think these figures represent crime skyrocketing out of control.

I don’t, but I just live here.