Sip

Dan I think now you are asking the tough question. I think I made certain of not saying who I think is more valuable than another! Social status (i.e. homeless versus rich) doesn't by itself indicate human value. I think no matter how we look at it, "punishment for past actions" is a fairly rediculous notion by itself since past actions have been done. The way I look at it, "punishment" (given by the "state") is meant to deter future bad actions. Some go looking for "revenge" ... that is part of human nature. But I don't think the "state" should ever be looking for revenge. For determining revenge and compensation for damages done, we have civil suits. And I don't think civil suits should result in death penalties although anything can have an exception! Now at some point, it becomes rather clear that any sort of punishment will probably not deter an individual from committing more bad actions. An example would be a serial killer that has already killed 14 people. The 15th one is undoubtedly coming (I agree that no one knows the future) but this is a "high probability situation". This is where the serial killer in my opinion is not only worthless, but also has negative worth and we are better off putting him to rest and save everyone the hastle of his existance. Am I adovcating punishing people only based on possible future actions? Absolutely not. Am I making a point that punishment is designed to deter and prevent future bad actions? Yes! The past is always done and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. Now to answer your question ... the guy who kills a homeless ... we have to look at the motives and analyze to determine the killer's worth to society. His victims worth will play a role but it is not the only determining factor. In other words, for the killer's punishment, focus on the KILLER's worth as a human

What? When did I say that?

I don't think human life is precious in and of itself. And certainly some lives are more precious than others. Obviously the relative values can vary greatly from the utilitarian and egoist perspectives. By the way, assuming that human life has a value, that value is certainly not infininte. Thus, there will be cases where we will have to make tradeoff decisions based on the relative "values" of a human's life. In case this is confusing, a simple scenario is the battlefield example. One guy is left in the middle in severe danger. You are a comander. How many other soldiers will you risk to recover him? If that guy was infinitely valueable, you would risk ALL your soldiers ... but I am certain you won't.

Who guys? All guys in this thread? To clarify my position, I do agree that the death penalty is the easy way out for the criminal compared to life imprisonment. Also, in the US, it is also currently unclear which is the cheaper way out ... however, my argument FOR death penalty in general is from the perspective that at certain points, there is no benefit of keeping an individual alive as their cost of existance by far outweighs the benefits gained from their existance. In many cases, the benefits of their existance is not only none, but also "negative" (very negative too ) Note that you can extend my way of thinking and extrapolate it as a vote in favor of euthanasia and pulling the plug on veggies.

Armat each person is different. You have to see what works best for you. In my case, I can sometimes visualize things and sometimes "hear" things. I think I remember random strings of numbers and letters best by the auditory method. For example to memorize my credit card numbers, driver license and bank account numbers, etc, I repeat it several times and then after a while, it "sounds" natural to me! I was at the bank a few months ago and the teller lady wanted my driver license and savings account numbers. I couldn't write it down from memory but she was shocked to see that after a couple of tries, I was able to say it out loud! In other cases, when there is "structure" to data, I learn the structure. That is the best way to memorize complicated things. It is hard to explain but for example how can one memorize the steps required to accomplish a task (for example a computer algorithm or something as simple as "loggin on to hyeforum"?) There is often a logical and natural sequence of steps that is easier to memorize than random letters and numbers. By the way, in my experience, some people are extremely visual, some people extremely auditory, some people must write down something to remember ... for me, I think I am a combination of those in different cases. Also, remember that just because there is no inherent structure to the "data" you are trying to memorize, that doesn't mean you can't artificially create and impose a structure on it!

By the way, I don't mind the "rotting in hellhole" part ... there is just something about the daily raping by over grown neadertals for more than twenty or so years that is not very appealing.

I can't wait for more snow!!! Then I'm going to go drive around looking for people to pull out of ditches.

Was your PC on? That is the only sure way to know is if your PC was off. Look in what programs are running and see if you can recognize any strange processes (assuming you are running win2k or xp) ... other than that, good luck!

Dan use Spybot or Adaware to check for these things ... not sure if they would detect it but you could well have a dialer and not know about it.

It is always amazing to see how "no doubt" can exist behind such completely incorrect conclusions! Either way, I have no personal interest (nor a strong stance) on this but I was curious to know your position ... So let me see if I understand this: You are advocating the use of the Church/Latin influenced Grapar over the use of the "russian" influenced Eastern Armenian which is already widely in use and works quite well from what I understand.

I agree with the common language ... I just don't agree that Grapar is the right choice. I think the official Armenian spoken in Armenia should be the main language adopted, learned, thaught, and used by all Armenians.

You call it stupid, I call it practical.

I think if Domino were here, he would argue that often also we don't know the real truth which makes "honesty" and "telling truth" be two very different concepts. I would agree with him in this case.

I'm just curious to see if the names of any ladies posting pictures on this forum would show up in there.

name 17 of them.

I have never been married myself but I'm told the answer to the "Do I look fat" question is ALWAYS "NO". Dear Armat, I think it is impossible to be "honest" all the time. Many times we may believe something but act and say another way since we KNOW that is the correct thing to do. Our minds aren't always pure ... anyone who claims to have a pure mind IS a charlatan. But our actions and the person we are can certainly be pure and righteous. In other words, always telling the truth about what is in one's mind doesn't make one a good person. Otherwise I would be walking up to every single good looking girl I see and telling them all the stuff I want to do to them. That would be honest but not right.

If I were over 40, I'd chose death, unless I could get a internet connection in prison.

My brother just taught me this one: "Hi! If you were homework, I'd be doing you right now".

I would agree. I think the discussion here is on "traditional" ways and "new" ways.

I did a slight cleanup here. Please let's leave personal insults and comments out of the discussions. Thank you.

Whereever I go, there will ALWAYS be at least one Armenian around

No but not that I've really tried I doubt there are too many here in Madison but supposebly in Milwaukee (about 70 miles east) there are a few and a church.

As much as I can't resist making a stupid comment about that, , I think you raise a very valid point. The behavior of the christian church hasn't necessarily been in-line with the teachings of Jesus and the turn the other cheek mentality. That's why I personally appreciate Jesus as a person and mentor a lot more than the "church" as an institution. Although I personally wouldn't turn any cheeks when the "gay" issue is concerend. Ok another stupid joke I had to get out of my system ... but I personally would not condone the gay lifestyle as that is none of my business. However, I do think the church should be allowed to set guidelines for membership. They shouldn't "come down hard" on certain lifestyles, but if that lifestyle is not in line with the requirements of the church, then the church should be free to not be forced to be inclusive. It's a two-way game ... no pun intended. Point: Church shouldn't come down hard on gays and gays shouldn't expect to be part of church if the church doesn't want them like that.

I still have no idea what that means and I don't want to know either.