This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Magician22773
I would agree with you, but in a society that places so much weight on eyewitness testimony and other sorts of circumstantial evidence
The problem is not with witness testimony and most circumstantial evidence, its with the way the entire prosecution and defense system operates in a court.
Prosecutors are judged, and thus their job depends on, getting convictions. It is a prosecutor's job to take a weak case and present in the best way possible to get a conviction. That means that if a prosecutor knows their is evidence that may help exonerate a defendant, they will try to get it thrown out of court. They will take small pieces of "evidence" and bolster them with "expert" witnesses, that are really just people that work for the state to aid in convictions.
And the same goes for defense attorney's. How is it "justice" when a defense attorney gets a confession thrown out of court because of some technicality? Or attacks the credibility of a witness based on some unrelated past arrest? Evidence is thrown out of court all the time because someone didn't fill out the proper paperwork, or didn't sign something in the right spot.
IMHO, no evedence should ever be thrown out of court because of a technicality. Let the jury decide if it is or isn't proper for the case, not the judge. I think you would find that there would be a lot fewer wrongful convictions, and a lot fewer criminals walking free if cases were actually decided on based on just evidence, and not on who has the better attorney.
I would only agree with a person's execution if it were based on a conviction with particularly strong evidence.
To have a case with the type of evidence you want, requires the criminal to not be smart enough to commit the crime without making a mistake. I could guarantee you, without any doubt, that i could commit a murder and leave no forensic evidence. But if I take out a million dollar life insurance policy on my wife, and she gets shot to death a month later, I should at least be expected to be a major suspect in the crime. And if some crackhead sees me do it, and testifies in court, than I deserve to fry. Just because I was smart enough to not leave my DNA or fingerprints, does not mean I should go free.
Post by
Skreeran
To have a case with the type of evidence you want, requires the criminal to not be smart enough to commit the crime without making a mistake. I could guarantee you, without any doubt, that i could commit a murder and leave no forensic evidence. But if I take out a million dollar life insurance policy on my wife, and she gets shot to death a month later, I should at least be expected to be a major suspect in the crime. And if some crackhead sees me do it, and testifies in court, than I deserve to fry. Just because I was smart enough to not leave my DNA or fingerprints, does not mean I should go free.Did I say go free? No, of course not.
Rather, I said that I wouldn't feel right executing you for it. As compelling as that evidence may be, without irrefutable proof, there is still a possibility (however remote) that you're innocent. If you are locked up for the rest of your life, you can still be acquitted if new evidence surfaces. If we kill you, we can't un-kill you.
Again, I only say this because
it has happened before.
There are real people, in America, who have been executed for crimes they did not commit.
I agree that there are many flaws in our justice system, but I don't pretend to know how to most fairly fix it, so I take it a piece at a time. Right now, I'm just arguing about the death penalty and when I believe it is right to be enacted.
Post by
SquireKel
Generally, the manufacturing costs are about the same, so the on-road is where hybrid vehicles again take the lead in having less detrimental effects on the environment.
My understanding was that there was a significant environmental cost associated with battery production. Any of the currently-used materials for batteries are found fairly low in volume in the environment, and can't easily be recycled in a cost/environmentally friendly manner.
Actually, they're fairly close to the same. To explain further, let's ignore electric cars for a moment and look at how other alternative fuel sources match up against gasoline.
Here
is a figure of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of the full lifecycle of a vehicle, from manufacturing to end-of-life impacts. Gasoline is compared to 2 types of reformulated gasoline, diesel, 2 types of compressed natural gas, and 3 types of biodiesels, where SIII and SIDI are types of engines, while H, W, and Credit refer to the manufacturing of biodiesel. As you can see, there is only slight variation in the manufacturing, service, and fixed costs, while the fuel cycle and operation show much greater differences. It can easily be seen that the biodiesel options are less detrimental to the environment in terms of GWP, due to their lessened or nonexistent contributions during the fuel cycle and vehicle operation.
Unforunately, GWP is not the only factor to consider.
Here
we can see a graph comparing the percent relative impact of various environmental effects between petrol, diesel, and biodiesel. Within each effect, the highest is set to 100% and the others are given relative to it. In all but inorganic respiratory effects, biodiesel demonstrates a lower impact on the environment than gasoline, and generally shows a lower impact than diesel. The weighted overall effects can be seen
here
, where biodiesel easily trumps both gasoline and diesel. It should be noted that the ecosystem quality (middle band) is about equal for all three.
Ok, now that we've looked at the other ways to power vehicles, let's return to the possibility of electric or hybrid-electric vehicles. Examining the charts
here
and
here
demonstrate the fuel life-cycle emissions in the US, Europe (EU), and Japan (JP) of CO2 for regular driving, full charge, and partial charge vehicles where the electrical drivetrain and internal combustion engine drivetrain are connected either in series or parallel, respectively, using electric and gasoline. These figures are admittedly more difficult to read than the first ones - across the horizontal are the different driving tests in the varying regions, while each bar contains the results of the fuel types. The black portion is the CO2 contribution from electricity, while the two grey portions are contributions from gasoline from manufacturing and operations. It should be noted that the contributions from electricity take into account not only those emissions caused by operations, but also those from charging the vehicle, with the assumption that the electricity generated is not always produced from renewable sources.
From those figures, we can see that CO2 generation from electricity is consistently less than that from gasoline, since the grey sections must be summed.
TL;DR
: Hybrid-electric vehicles have an advantage over other engine types in terms of environmental effects, because they lessen the duration a gasoline-powered engine is in use while driving. Biodiesel fuels, however, also demonstrate lessened effects on the environment while allowing consumers to utilize their current vehicle with little to no alterations made to the engine.
Resources (listed in order of image use):
MacLean, H., L. Lave, R. Lankey, S. Joshi. A Life-Cycle Comparison of Alternative Automobile Fuels. Journal of Air & Waste Management Association (2000), 50:1769-1779.
Nanaki, E., C. Koroneos. Comparative LCA of the use of biodiesel, diesel and gasoline for transportation. Journal of Cleaner Production (2012), 20:14-19.
Silva, C., M. Ross, T. Farias. Evaluation of energy consumption, emissions and cost of plug-in hybrid vehicles. Energy Conversion and Management (2009), 50:1635-1643.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#21: Can teens under the age of 18 have any serious relationship?
I'm going to say yes; based on personal experience. I was seventeen when I met my partner. Have lived with her for all but the first 4 months and that was only because we lived in different States at the time. I'm 23 now, still with her and though we have had our trials as a couple; we've remained happy. We have our own home, a daughter and support each other. So yeah, I think you can have/be in a serious relationship younger than 18. Though, it does depend on each person, their morals/principals, what they want in life and their maturity.
Post by
392412
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
SquireKel
#21: Can teens under the age of 18 have any serious relationship?
On average, no.
As you state, Fatal, it does depend on the persons, especially their maturity levels. I'd wager a guess that both you & your partner were fairly mature and independent for your ages when you started dating.
But generally speaking, I'd say that those < 18 cannot sustain a serious relationship due to factors such as maturity, family, principles, goals, (in)dependence, and a lack of self-knowledge. They're still figuring out who they are, and trying to do so while in a relationship with someone in the same position can easily lead to more problems than benefits.
This also raises the question as to whether both persons have to be under 18 for your scenario, or if merely one suffices. I'd hazard that one under & one over has a better chance of lasting long term than one in which both are under the age of 18.
Post by
Levarus
#21: Can teens under the age of 18 have any serious relationship?
Not answering that question.
Post by
Adamsm
#21: Can teens under the age of 18 have any serious relationship?
They can...but the real question is should they: as I live in a town that at one point had the highest pregnancy rate per capa(we rated higher then Toronto((provincial capitol)) and Ottawa((countries capitol)) ) when I was in high school, and a lot of those mothers from back then are now unwed well.....
But as the others have said, it depends on the couple in question.
Post by
Interest
#21: Can teens under the age of 18 have any serious relationship?
They can...but the real question is should they: as I live in a town that at one point had the highest pregnancy rate per capa(we rated higher then Toronto((provincial capitol)) and Ottawa((countries capitol)) ) when I was in high school, and a lot of those mothers from back then are now unwed well.....
But as the others have said, it depends on the couple in question.
I think I would be on the same boat here. I personally never bothered but some people I know have.
Rarely did they turn out well.
Post by
Squishalot
@ SquireKel - in relation to electric vehicles, I wasn't purely referring to the CO2 cost of manufacturing, but the materials used and the damaging nature of batteries on the environment, as opposed to the CO2 cost of producing them.
#21: Can teens under the age of 18 have any serious relationship?
I'm going to say yes; based on personal experience. I was seventeen when I met my partner. Have lived with her for all but the first 4 months and that was only because we lived in different States at the time. I'm 23 now, still with her and though we have had our trials as a couple; we've remained happy. We have our own home, a daughter and support each other. So yeah, I think you can have/be in a serious relationship younger than 18. Though, it does depend on each person, their morals/principals, what they want in life and their maturity.
If you're defining 'serious' as "planning to settle down and spending the rest of your lives together", then probably not, or at least, they shouldn't be.
If you're defining 'serious' as "loving one another and paying respect to each other as befits someone who represents an important part of your life", as opposed to the (trivial) primary school "let's go out and hold hands", then absolutely.
Post by
Levarus
Squishalot how are all your words green? I want green words.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
OverZealous
If you're defining 'serious' as "planning to settle down and spending the rest of your lives together", then probably not, or at least, they shouldn't be.
If you're defining 'serious' as "loving one another and paying respect to each other as befits someone who represents an important part of your life", as opposed to the (trivial) primary school "let's go out and hold hands", then absolutely.
I agree with this.
Post by
612548
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
So, how does this help the argument for subsidies?
Free market fantasies
.
Salient
,
likewise
.
Any of the currently-used materials for batteries are found fairly low in volume in the environment, and can't easily be recycled in a cost/environmentally friendly manner.
Battery toxicity is a concern, although today's hybrids use NiMH batteries, not the environmentally problematic rechargeable nickel cadmium.
As for serious relationships: there is at least one country in the world where the mean marriage age for women is
below 18
, I'd wager there are several where the median age is below 18 and there are or were probably significant numbers of communities where it is or was expected to marry young and remain married.
Post by
pioneers14
#21: Can teens under the age of 18 have any serious relationship?
This is purely based on the couple! Many young people get married and stay together. My mom was 18 when she got married to my dad and they just celebrated their 30 year anniversary last year.
Post by
345624
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#21: Can teens under the age of 18 have any serious relationship?
I'm going to say yes; based on personal experience. I was seventeen when I met my partner. Have lived with her for all but the first 4 months and that was only because we lived in different States at the time. I'm 23 now, still with her and though we have had our trials as a couple; we've remained happy. We have our own home, a daughter and support each other. So yeah, I think you can have/be in a serious relationship younger than 18. Though, it does depend on each person, their morals/principals, what they want in life and their maturity.
If you're defining 'serious' as "planning to settle down and spending the rest of your lives together", then probably not, or at least,
they shouldn't be.
May I ask why you say they shouldn't be? If you merely said no you believed they couldn't, I'd understand. But who are you, or anybody for that matter, to say whether someone under the age of 18 should or shouldn't be in a serious relationship?
My mom had her doubts, fears if you may, as I was her only daughter and youngest child. Seeing her baby enter any relationship that young and leave the nest to live with a partner was scary. Add to that, I was moving in with a
female
who lived
2000 miles away
; you can imagine how a mother would feel.
But she never told me I shouldn't.
Sure she talked to me at length, asked me to consider all angles and to evaluate if my partner was the one I truly felt I was meant to be with. Any mother should do as much; father too. I didn't live with my father at the time so it wasn't as big of a thing to him as he was used to not having me in his house.
So again, I ask why shouldn't one under the age of 18 be in a serious relationship? One that has the intent of settling down, starting a family, etc... And if you say that one is still figuring out who they are, what they want out of life and time to be themselves. Maybe they already figured it out, know what they want and don't want
'time to be themselves'
or party, etc...
Post by
Adamsm
Which just goes back to the whole 'it all depends on the couple' part of this discussion: Sure, one half of the couple could be completely ready for something this deep and meaningful...but the other half might not be, and could bolt once they realize that this is 'forever'. Honestly, I've never understood the whole 'get married' right out of school mindset, even if you have found the one. Fine, you want to be together, and end up going to the same post-secondary school education; but there was always the chance it could tank and explode.
But as I've seen my fair share of relationships do that(not all my own), I could be looking at it from the wrong angle.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.