Comments by "Mark Armage" (@markarmage3776) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
144
-
80
-
63
-
49
-
39
-
29
-
23
-
13
-
@bobdonda Sorry, but you're just a really stupid person, pal. The laws needs to based on actual principles, norms to be count as a law. Yours aren't based on anything.
You support on what basis? The basis of slavery is considering human as property, what norm goes against that? All human are equal? If you are against slavery then you're also against abortion. The fetus is count as a human, human DNA, stage of human body, traits of a human being.
Use your brain, it's not your choice if the biological feature of your body goes against your will. Men doesn't want to die on the battlefield but we have to, so deal with it. It's an absurd thing when we gave women the right to vote even though they don't have to register for the draft. So when you go against the basis of human being, it's no longer your right or choice, that concept can only exist when you've accepted the norm. Use your brain.
8
-
6
-
@Britannic hayyomatt No, the problem with you, kid, is that you can't distinguish between actual norms and your own norms. Not the other way around, your right in the real world isn't defined by your definition of anything, it is defined by what others decide what it is. That's how a society is formed.
Womens aren't affected that much in war, kid. Losing a husband isn't the same as getting shot, want to know why? Study Geography, there's a specific chapter on population pointing ot why the gender structure can be balanced even though people have more preference to boys. Guess what? Wars killed a few millions of men, not women. Bombing? Kid, if there are bombing, they kill all people, not just the women, 10 soldiers = 1 nurse, nice try, kid. A movie recommendations? Too see whether medic in the fields are women or men, idiot.
You're arguing the basis of life on an absolute basis, and that's just ridiculous. Here's the shortened version for you, if you want your baseless opinion be taken into account, then others baseless opinion shall also be taken into account, a serial killer wish to kill you as he doesn't consider you life is okay, right? Different opinion, true? Use your brain, unless you. An unknown, probably not that smart person can come up with an absolute definition with actual proof to form a new society that allows for random killing based on opinions, then we, the smart ones shall followed the previously agreed rules of the free world. Which is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, which we're compassion enough to include you in it, protecting your right to live, your right to liberty and your right to pursue happiness even though you think that you have no such rights, as in how you decided that laws varied in individual.
If it's too long, here's the shortened of the shortened version. IF YOU DON'T CONSIDER A FETUS A LIFE, AND THAT'S THE ONLY BASIS FOR YOUR ARGUMENT, SO THINK WHY SHOULD WE CONSIDER YOU A LIFE, IF WE DON'T CONSIDER YOU A LIFE, WE CAN JUST KILL YOU?
You'll probably be desperate enough to type something totally irrelevant to the question trying to save face, but tell yourself what you wanna hear, smoke what kind of substance you want to smoke, it can't change the truth. Think it your way, well, go into space, that's where laws varied from people to people, and that's actual space, not inside spaceships.
Your place where laws can be defined on your own "opinion" doesn't exist on Earth.
5
-
5
-
@Liam No, but time is irreversible, doesn't matter whether 50 years or 2 years.
The point here is that, if your nonsense is in "most of the case", well, in "most of the case", regarding the death penalty, we got it right. So your argument fell apart again.
Your argument for not enacting the death penalty is because it might damage the person's life forever if it is a mistrial or such. My example shows that if that argument can be made, the entire prison system, or any sort of punishment that can not guarantee a perfect outcome should also be abolish.
Prison itself can be a place where people gets kill, it's a "maybe", just like the "maybe" in your death penalty argument.
Loosing your life innocently happens in every sort of activities, those are called risk. Paragliding, Scubadiving, Driving itself can be deadly, those are called risk, pal.
Deal with it, we as a society deems the risk of having undeserving punishment for severe crimes to be much dangerous than the slight possibility of making a mistake in trial.
If your argument is "because it's not perfect" then you should destroy it, that argument has been rejected centuries ago.
5
-
@Liam Wrong again, if you think that the capital punishment is unnecessary, many people think otherwise.
It's called fairness, those who commit the utmost crime is way more severe than any other crime, but faces the same sentence, that is just unfair to other criminals.
So I guess this is a different on principle.
My way of thinking is that you need a fair punishment for any crime. And of course, that is laid out in almost every civilization in the world. Those who shed blood of men, whose blood shall be shed by men.
Not just Christianity, it's in every civilization, Egypt, Persia, China, even today it's very obvious that it's a fair punishment to murderers and terrorists.
You disagree, fine, but we think that it is. And we surely have a stronger logical ground than yours.
You can not explain why it is unnecessary, why would a murderer not be killed? His victims didn't get the luxury of living a life at all.
Human from ancient times, to now have considered death to be the most severe punishment, because death or death like-status are also the most tragic accidents.
So it's only fair if the most horrendous crime be met with the most severe punishment. Life in prison is not that bad compared to death, if you're a hitman or a gang banger, who do you think runs the gangs in prison?
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Reedskiii But that compensation is never fully equal to the time they have lost, and certainly, if a person is wrongly executed, their family can also be compensated.
The fact that risk happens in everything, pal, it happens with driving, diving, flying.
Even imprisoning people have risks, and I don't know where you get the 4% number from, that is insane.
There is no data on the nonsense 4% number.
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230/tab-article-info
I suspect you get that 4% fictional number from these sites. 4% doesn't mean 4% people are executed wrongfully, it means that 4% of people being convicted to death penalty have been deferred to other means of punishment, while 1.6% are exonerated and released, they generated the extra 2.4% by lying about how if the person is no longer under death row, then it must be false conviction, this is definitely a lie.
Because even if you're no longer under death row, the factor can not be solely contributed because you didn't commit the crime, it could be due to you cutting a deal and testify in other cases.
They indicate that because they're no longer facing death row, then people wouldn't try as hard to solve their case. That is correct, but unfortunately, that is also correct to every other inmates in the system.
So your number of 4% false conviction, that is wrong. The actual number of false conviction is 1.6%, and the number of false executed people is even less, because the wrongly convicted people shall be released if their cases can be proven wrong.
Like I say, risks happens in everything, and the risk of wrongly execution here is not 4%, pal, don't lie about it.
It's much lower and the people accept that risk. If you don't accept it, go vote, other people voted against you, game over.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Liam Like I pointed out in another reply,that number 4% is wrong to the utmost extent. They took a 1.6% exoneration rate of death row inmates and raise to 4% by assuming that inside the pool of death row inmates which were changed to life sentencing or such, there are still innocent people. This is true, but those people are no longer on death row, so the obvious rate for false conviction here is the same as any other prisoner serving a non-death row sentence. And that is a risk we have to take, unless you want to abolish prison due to the imperfection of the system.
I'd prefer no prison at all if I had committed a crime, but sorry, that's now how it works, that is why you don't commit crimes.
People who run gangs in prison lives a fairly mundane life, it's not comfortable, but it's infinitely better than their victims, their victims are usually dead.
Like I pointed out, that 4% number is a lie, the best you can get to is 1.6% of inmates being released after proven innocent, it has nothing to do with the rate of wrongfully executed prisoners, there might be some, in history, you can pointed out 8 cases. And that's out of nearly 16000 execution. So the risk here is much smaller than the false number.
And you're also ignoring the consequences of having an unfitting punishment towards a crime. If a criminal know that he can't die killing all sorts of people, in the case of desperation, why wouldn't he kill a bunch of people? He'll still live, still get to meet his family and such,in prison there are gangs, friends, maybe. All these factors has to be considered.
Whether the danger of having small rate of wrongfully executed people or the danger of having an unfitting punishment for a crime is bigger. That is up to vote, if you don't like it, vote against it. Other people voted against you, game over.
World has imperfections, people accepted this imperfection, you don't, that's your problem. You haven't made an convincing enough argument for people to accept your idea.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@englishfury1544 Now this your false logic here, you misunderstood.
The video doesn't mention any particular god, god here is understood as a higher being, beyond natural "facts".
Tons of science don't based on any natural facts but they're just theories which can explain partially the facts, science is just human understanding of something, and the question the video proposed is the absolute truth. Do you know everything to solely claim that only your theory applies here? And how do you prove your theory that there is no god?
There isn't any theory about electrons before it was discovered, doesn't mean it's not there. Belief wise, you can't disprove any of those beliefs, society wise, you don't apply it on laws because not all people feel the same despite what the truth can be.
So the main point isn't to prove what god there is, the main point is to say to people like you that if you don't know everything, don't claim that you do.
Think a bit, pal.
2
-
2
-
@Liam Multiple people will say that they won't commit crime so that they won't be facing any punishment.
The death penalty is essential, pal, according to people who vote for it, it is essential. The determination whether something is essential or not is from a personal standpoint, and they put it to a vote.
There are still innocent people being jailed but that's the imperfections here. There are innocent people dying due to driving, people have accepted that.
The underlying facts here are not facts. Those are your assumptions.
Whether something is "essential" is your assumption. Because it's essential to what? People say that it's essential to maintain a low crime rate on certain behavior. In Asian countries, the death penalty is applied widely to drug dealings, and of course, they stop the drug dealings there.
Sure there are drugs, but people were way too afraid to commit the crime. It doesn't completely stop it but it reduces it much more than in America.
So whether the death penalty is essential is due to the measurements of each individuals.
You are thinking with emotions, not facts.
Driving kills innocent people, prison jails innocent people. Electricity itself can kill people. Like I pointed out, it is a risk.
Your entire argument relies on your opinion of the death penalty not being essential. You based this assumption on what? Essential to what? Certain people say that it is essential to maintain order and reduce crime.
Death penalty is a punishment, pretty much like prison itself, but on a much severe level. How do you distinguish prison and death penalty? To certain people, people who have been raped in prison, death might be the better solution than life sentence. It's all subjective when it comes to adjective of the matter, pal.
And to determine whether a certain standard be applied, people vote.
You say it's not essential, other people say it's essential. And other people vote for it, you voted against them.
They win, you loose, that's life.
Let's admit the fact that you have no basis to say that the death penalty is non essential. Because it's only non essential to you.
To Asian countries, it's very essential. Who are you to say that they're wrong?
They say that abortion is a disgusting act, who are they to say that the US is wrong.
There are subjective facts, and there are your opinion.
Whether something is essential or not is opinion based.
To you, food security might be essential, but to a Budhist, only minimum to survive food is enough, they prefer quiet time of enlightenment than food security. Who are you to say that they're wrong?
Get down from your high horse and get back to reality pal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Liam It's your opinion that people rejected. Sorry. If people voted for the death penalty, which means to them, the death penalty is essential, then it means the basis of your "anti death penalty", which is how the death penalty is not essential, that basis of yours have been rejected.
You can only make argument based on the pre-accepted grounds, pal.
You need to base your death penalty argument on certain pre-agreed upon basis. Such as the right to something, the unalienable rights to life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. If the death penalty conflict with those certain agreed upon value, then you have a case. Such as the case for abolishing slavery, it's easy due to the "all men are created equal" philosophy.
You need a contradiction to convince people that they're conflicting.
The argument based on how you "feel" that the death penalty is non-essential is not a convincing one. Just saying.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnnypenso9574 Yes pal, that's what I'm saying. The majority of Asian students come from poor families, and that's not actually poor, just not high enough to be adequate in the American society. Therefore admitting them in force the school to provide aids, and why should they give out money to 10 exact people with no major difference, are you Asian, I'm Asian. Went to Columbia, there are Asians who got in because they're different than the rest, it's just that the population of Asian is too much so that those who got it can't change the graphic. Clear?
People with gold medal IMO, international Physics from my country did get in because those are actual achievements, example, Ngo Bao Chau, Fields Medal winner.
But getting high grades in an intellectually poor education is not. The SAT, any Asians rooted students could get 800 on Math easily, because we studied in a different manners. But do those manners can translate into excellence, no.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@englishfury1544 No, it's not how it works. You're just lying to yourself, you can't prove or disprove something that you have no information about, so you by default saying that it doesn't exist in the society. But when talking about absolute truth, as I said, you have nothing. It's up to people's belief.
And with the electrons, maybe a few thousand years before that experiment, there was no theory, but electrons still exist, again, your argument crumbled.
Like I said, the absolute truth, you can't prove it, you can't prove any of modern physic theory, it's a theory, if you found that it is correct, than it's correct, you can't prove it. Which is why so many theories are only hypothesis and got rejected every year, and also countless previous theories are replaced by newer ones.
Nobody claim God, they claim that you don't know everything and claiming no God is just as stupid.
Don't try to lie because you've been destroyed.
1
-
1
-
1