The Biology Thread

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I would also like everyone to take a moment and imagine what human society would look like if human males raped themselves to death at puberty.

This is a science-fiction story just begging to be written.

Well, in a manner of speaking...

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Wow. Way to go, evolution. Just... way to go. http://www.wired.com/2014/05/absurd-creature-of-the-week-this-marsupial-has-marathon-sex-until-it-goes-blind-and-drops-dead/

Complicated though it can be at times, humans have a better way of doing it.

Twid,
Understating

This is the first thing that popped into my head when Sam Harris claimed that morality was an inherent trait.

You know what? Evolution don't give a fuck. We have a species here where the males literally rape themselves to death. If morality confers an adaptive benefit, it might be inherent, but given the way different societies have defined moral behavior at different times, I'm gonna go with nope. Morality is a human invention that changes with society, and I am actually completely comfortable with that because I am lucky enough to live in a society where not only do I get to be a scientist and homeowner even though I have a vagina, but also the likelihood of everyone else just being OK with my son being murdered and my daughters carried off for breeding stock over a border dispute is HIGHLY unlikely.

If he wanted to make the argument that altruism was inherent, then yeah. But altruism gets prioritized in ways that aren't always moral. Morality is nothing more than a human endeavor (whether through philosophy or religion) to codify altruism (instinct). My pacifism is a philosophical extension of my natural altruism (as well as a recognition of the wastefulness of expending lives and resources to acquire resources). That's not something that I was born with, nor any human, as is evidenced by, well, everything we know about humans. And of course, I would kill a man if he was a direct and immediate threat to my own survival, or that of a loved one. That's also instinct.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I would also like everyone to take a moment and imagine what human society would look like if human males raped themselves to death at puberty.

This is a science-fiction story just begging to be written.

Well, in a manner of speaking...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I would also like everyone to take a moment and imagine what human society would look like if human males raped themselves to death at puberty.

This is a science-fiction story just begging to be written.

Well, in a manner of speaking...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wow. Way to go, evolution. Just... way to go. http://www.wired.com/2014/05/absurd-creature-of-the-week-this-marsupial-has-marathon-sex-until-it-goes-blind-and-drops-dead/

Complicated though it can be at times, humans have a better way of doing it.

Twid,
Understating

This is the first thing that popped into my head when Sam Harris claimed that morality was an inherent trait.

You know what? Evolution don't give a fuck. We have a species here where the males literally rape themselves to death. If morality confers an adaptive benefit, it might be inherent, but given the way different societies have defined moral behavior at different times, I'm gonna go with nope. Morality is a human invention that changes with society, and I am actually completely comfortable with that because I am lucky enough to live in a society where not only do I get to be a scientist and homeowner even though I have a vagina, but also the likelihood of everyone else just being OK with my son being murdered and my daughters carried off for breeding stock over a border dispute is HIGHLY unlikely.

If he wanted to make the argument that altruism was inherent, then yeah. But altruism gets prioritized in ways that aren't always moral. Morality is nothing more than a human endeavor (whether through philosophy or religion) to codify altruism (instinct). My pacifism is a philosophical extension of my natural altruism (as well as a recognition of the wastefulness of expending lives and resources to acquire resources). That's not something that I was born with, nor any human, as is evidenced by, well, everything we know about humans. And of course, I would kill a man if he was a direct and immediate threat to my own survival, or that of a loved one. That's also instinct.

Yeah, there's a body of evidence to indicate that altruism and empathy are inherent traits that express to a greater or lesser degree depending on environmental pressures. From there you can even argue that an ethical sense is inherent in humans as a species. But as you say, morals are comprised of the codification of ethics as they are perceived by a social body, be it religious or secular.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Wow. Way to go, evolution. Just... way to go. http://www.wired.com/2014/05/absurd-creature-of-the-week-this-marsupial-has-marathon-sex-until-it-goes-blind-and-drops-dead/

Complicated though it can be at times, humans have a better way of doing it.

Twid,
Understating

This is the first thing that popped into my head when Sam Harris claimed that morality was an inherent trait.

You know what? Evolution don't give a fuck. We have a species here where the males literally rape themselves to death. If morality confers an adaptive benefit, it might be inherent, but given the way different societies have defined moral behavior at different times, I'm gonna go with nope. Morality is a human invention that changes with society, and I am actually completely comfortable with that because I am lucky enough to live in a society where not only do I get to be a scientist and homeowner even though I have a vagina, but also the likelihood of everyone else just being OK with my son being murdered and my daughters carried off for breeding stock over a border dispute is HIGHLY unlikely.

If he wanted to make the argument that altruism was inherent, then yeah. But altruism gets prioritized in ways that aren't always moral. Morality is nothing more than a human endeavor (whether through philosophy or religion) to codify altruism (instinct). My pacifism is a philosophical extension of my natural altruism (as well as a recognition of the wastefulness of expending lives and resources to acquire resources). That's not something that I was born with, nor any human, as is evidenced by, well, everything we know about humans. And of course, I would kill a man if he was a direct and immediate threat to my own survival, or that of a loved one. That's also instinct.

Yeah, there's a body of evidence to indicate that altruism and empathy are inherent traits that express to a greater or lesser degree depending on environmental pressures. From there you can even argue that an ethical sense is inherent in humans as a species. But as you say, morals are comprised of the codification of ethics as they are perceived by a social body, be it religious or secular.

An ape comes across a turtle flipped on its back. What does the ape do?
Well, how hungry is the ape?
If the ape is not hungry, or at least not starving, then, it'll pick up the turtle and put it on its feet. Because that's just a nice thing to do.
I the ape IS starving, well, turtle's fucked, and the ape just got free lunch.

Troop of apes come across another troop of apes of the same species. What do the apes do?
Well, how hungry are the apes?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Wow. Way to go, evolution. Just... way to go. http://www.wired.com/2014/05/absurd-creature-of-the-week-this-marsupial-has-marathon-sex-until-it-goes-blind-and-drops-dead/

Complicated though it can be at times, humans have a better way of doing it.

Twid,
Understating

This is the first thing that popped into my head when Sam Harris claimed that morality was an inherent trait.

You know what? Evolution don't give a fuck. We have a species here where the males literally rape themselves to death. If morality confers an adaptive benefit, it might be inherent, but given the way different societies have defined moral behavior at different times, I'm gonna go with nope. Morality is a human invention that changes with society, and I am actually completely comfortable with that because I am lucky enough to live in a society where not only do I get to be a scientist and homeowner even though I have a vagina, but also the likelihood of everyone else just being OK with my son being murdered and my daughters carried off for breeding stock over a border dispute is HIGHLY unlikely.

If he wanted to make the argument that altruism was inherent, then yeah. But altruism gets prioritized in ways that aren't always moral. Morality is nothing more than a human endeavor (whether through philosophy or religion) to codify altruism (instinct). My pacifism is a philosophical extension of my natural altruism (as well as a recognition of the wastefulness of expending lives and resources to acquire resources). That's not something that I was born with, nor any human, as is evidenced by, well, everything we know about humans. And of course, I would kill a man if he was a direct and immediate threat to my own survival, or that of a loved one. That's also instinct.

Yeah, there's a body of evidence to indicate that altruism and empathy are inherent traits that express to a greater or lesser degree depending on environmental pressures. From there you can even argue that an ethical sense is inherent in humans as a species. But as you say, morals are comprised of the codification of ethics as they are perceived by a social body, be it religious or secular.

An ape comes across a turtle flipped on its back. What does the ape do?
Well, how hungry is the ape?
If the ape is not hungry, or at least not starving, then, it'll pick up the turtle and put it on its feet. Because that's just a nice thing to do.
I the ape IS starving, well, turtle's fucked, and the ape just got free lunch.

Troop of apes come across another troop of apes of the same species. What do the apes do?
Well, how hungry are the apes?

Which is, as a matter of fact, a really good basis for the argument for a socialized minimum standard of living. It's not that poor people lack the capacity for moral behavior (according to their society's standards of morality), it's that the environmental pressure of being poor makes survival, in its most basic forms, take priority. Add social shaming/exclusion to the equation and there is yet another pressure, and a significant one, which can lead to a whole host of negative behavior expression.

Make everything better for the poor, and there is a trickle-up effect in which the not-poor now no longer have to worry as much about the frequent side-effects of poverty in society. But a part of the moral construct of our society is a punishment fetish; a belief that not only can socially destructive behavior can be resolved through punishment, but that those who have behaved badly deserve punishment; we have created a moral imperative for punishing, in which it is morally wrong to withhold punishment and morally right to administer it. Therefore, we can elevate ourselves morally by meting out, or even merely calling for, punishment to those we have concluded deserve it.

[minuspace]

A moral imperative for punishment can only be mete by just punishment.  This is only just if the punishment is not exclusively punitive.  For this to obtain, the punitive action must also be corrective.  Meaning, the just desert cannot only restrict the individual's freedom without also mitigating incarceration by way of rehabilitation programs.  Ideally, there would only be positive reinforcement, and a few more difficult cases.  In reality, our correctional facilities have a very different agenda.  The point of Justice is to provide the conditions for human autonomy, not to take them away.  Without autonomy there is no freedom.  Without freedom there is no justice (or responsibility, for that matter).  Or so my Neo-Kantian house-guest insists.  The biggest crime is to intentionally create the conditions that force people into deleterious conflict.  That one's not on me.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

A moral imperative for punishment can only be mete by just punishment.  This is only just if the punishment is not exclusively punitive.  For this to obtain, the punitive action must also be corrective.  Meaning, the just desert cannot only restrict the individual's freedom without also mitigating incarceration by way of rehabilitation programs.  Ideally, there would only be positive reinforcement, and a few more difficult cases.  In reality, our correctional facilities have a very different agenda.  The point of Justice is to provide the conditions for human autonomy, not to take them away.  Without autonomy there is no freedom.  Without freedom there is no justice (or responsibility, for that matter).  Or so my Neo-Kantian house-guest insists.  The biggest crime is to intentionally create the conditions that force people into deleterious conflict.  That one's not on me.

Eh, you're conflating morals with ethics, which is a frequent error.

[minuspace]

A moral imperative for punishment can only be mete by just punishment.  This is only just if the punishment is not exclusively punitive.  For this to obtain, the punitive action must also be corrective.  Meaning, the just desert cannot only restrict the individual's freedom without also mitigating incarceration by way of rehabilitation programs.  Ideally, there would only be positive reinforcement, and a few more difficult cases.  In reality, our correctional facilities have a very different agenda.  The point of Justice is to provide the conditions for human autonomy, not to take them away.  Without autonomy there is no freedom.  Without freedom there is no justice (or responsibility, for that matter).  Or so my Neo-Kantian house-guest insists.  The biggest crime is to intentionally create the conditions that force people into deleterious conflict.  That one's not on me.

Eh, you're conflating morals with ethics, which is a frequent error.

Although morals are based on ethical principals, to be fair, what he meant by "just" was that the practical reasoning must be understood in terms that also conform to pure reason.  Because:

All moral concepts have their seat and origin completely a priori in reason, and indeed in the most common reason just as in reason that is speculative to the highest degree...

And there I just cut him off because I detected some thinly veiled snark?  This one's a feisty little cracker, all he does is bitch and then throws a fit when he loses at cards.  What a sport.  Lovely specimen.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Wow. Way to go, evolution. Just... way to go. http://www.wired.com/2014/05/absurd-creature-of-the-week-this-marsupial-has-marathon-sex-until-it-goes-blind-and-drops-dead/

Complicated though it can be at times, humans have a better way of doing it.

Twid,
Understating

This is the first thing that popped into my head when Sam Harris claimed that morality was an inherent trait.

You know what? Evolution don't give a fuck. We have a species here where the males literally rape themselves to death. If morality confers an adaptive benefit, it might be inherent, but given the way different societies have defined moral behavior at different times, I'm gonna go with nope. Morality is a human invention that changes with society, and I am actually completely comfortable with that because I am lucky enough to live in a society where not only do I get to be a scientist and homeowner even though I have a vagina, but also the likelihood of everyone else just being OK with my son being murdered and my daughters carried off for breeding stock over a border dispute is HIGHLY unlikely.

If he wanted to make the argument that altruism was inherent, then yeah. But altruism gets prioritized in ways that aren't always moral. Morality is nothing more than a human endeavor (whether through philosophy or religion) to codify altruism (instinct). My pacifism is a philosophical extension of my natural altruism (as well as a recognition of the wastefulness of expending lives and resources to acquire resources). That's not something that I was born with, nor any human, as is evidenced by, well, everything we know about humans. And of course, I would kill a man if he was a direct and immediate threat to my own survival, or that of a loved one. That's also instinct.

Yeah, there's a body of evidence to indicate that altruism and empathy are inherent traits that express to a greater or lesser degree depending on environmental pressures. From there you can even argue that an ethical sense is inherent in humans as a species. But as you say, morals are comprised of the codification of ethics as they are perceived by a social body, be it religious or secular.

An ape comes across a turtle flipped on its back. What does the ape do?
Well, how hungry is the ape?
If the ape is not hungry, or at least not starving, then, it'll pick up the turtle and put it on its feet. Because that's just a nice thing to do.
I the ape IS starving, well, turtle's fucked, and the ape just got free lunch.

Troop of apes come across another troop of apes of the same species. What do the apes do?
Well, how hungry are the apes?

Which is, as a matter of fact, a really good basis for the argument for a socialized minimum standard of living. It's not that poor people lack the capacity for moral behavior (according to their society's standards of morality), it's that the environmental pressure of being poor makes survival, in its most basic forms, take priority. Add social shaming/exclusion to the equation and there is yet another pressure, and a significant one, which can lead to a whole host of negative behavior expression.

Make everything better for the poor, and there is a trickle-up effect in which the not-poor now no longer have to worry as much about the frequent side-effects of poverty in society. But a part of the moral construct of our society is a punishment fetish; a belief that not only can socially destructive behavior can be resolved through punishment, but that those who have behaved badly deserve punishment; we have created a moral imperative for punishing, in which it is morally wrong to withhold punishment and morally right to administer it. Therefore, we can elevate ourselves morally by meting out, or even merely calling for, punishment to those we have concluded deserve it.

It's a bit dismaying. You see it anytime someone is on death row. Then lethal injections aren't enough because they're humane. We need to make our executions brutal and prolong the convict's suffering. They didn't show their victims any mercy. Never mind that bit about cruel and unusual punishment. The Bill of Rights only applies when We The People^TM, who I speak for entirely, say it does.

What it all comes down to is revenge, and not wanting to have to feed prisoners. We really are sadistic freaks here in the US.

[minuspace]

Wow. Way to go, evolution. Just... way to go. http://www.wired.com/2014/05/absurd-creature-of-the-week-this-marsupial-has-marathon-sex-until-it-goes-blind-and-drops-dead/

Complicated though it can be at times, humans have a better way of doing it.

Twid,
Understating

This is the first thing that popped into my head when Sam Harris claimed that morality was an inherent trait.

You know what? Evolution don't give a fuck. We have a species here where the males literally rape themselves to death. If morality confers an adaptive benefit, it might be inherent, but given the way different societies have defined moral behavior at different times, I'm gonna go with nope. Morality is a human invention that changes with society, and I am actually completely comfortable with that because I am lucky enough to live in a society where not only do I get to be a scientist and homeowner even though I have a vagina, but also the likelihood of everyone else just being OK with my son being murdered and my daughters carried off for breeding stock over a border dispute is HIGHLY unlikely.

If he wanted to make the argument that altruism was inherent, then yeah. But altruism gets prioritized in ways that aren't always moral. Morality is nothing more than a human endeavor (whether through philosophy or religion) to codify altruism (instinct). My pacifism is a philosophical extension of my natural altruism (as well as a recognition of the wastefulness of expending lives and resources to acquire resources). That's not something that I was born with, nor any human, as is evidenced by, well, everything we know about humans. And of course, I would kill a man if he was a direct and immediate threat to my own survival, or that of a loved one. That's also instinct.

Yeah, there's a body of evidence to indicate that altruism and empathy are inherent traits that express to a greater or lesser degree depending on environmental pressures. From there you can even argue that an ethical sense is inherent in humans as a species. But as you say, morals are comprised of the codification of ethics as they are perceived by a social body, be it religious or secular.

An ape comes across a turtle flipped on its back. What does the ape do?
Well, how hungry is the ape?
If the ape is not hungry, or at least not starving, then, it'll pick up the turtle and put it on its feet. Because that's just a nice thing to do.
I the ape IS starving, well, turtle's fucked, and the ape just got free lunch.

Troop of apes come across another troop of apes of the same species. What do the apes do?
Well, how hungry are the apes?

Which is, as a matter of fact, a really good basis for the argument for a socialized minimum standard of living. It's not that poor people lack the capacity for moral behavior (according to their society's standards of morality), it's that the environmental pressure of being poor makes survival, in its most basic forms, take priority. Add social shaming/exclusion to the equation and there is yet another pressure, and a significant one, which can lead to a whole host of negative behavior expression.

Make everything better for the poor, and there is a trickle-up effect in which the not-poor now no longer have to worry as much about the frequent side-effects of poverty in society. But a part of the moral construct of our society is a punishment fetish; a belief that not only can socially destructive behavior can be resolved through punishment, but that those who have behaved badly deserve punishment; we have created a moral imperative for punishing, in which it is morally wrong to withhold punishment and morally right to administer it. Therefore, we can elevate ourselves morally by meting out, or even merely calling for, punishment to those we have concluded deserve it.

It's a bit dismaying. You see it anytime someone is on death row. Then lethal injections aren't enough because they're humane. We need to make our executions brutal and prolong the convict's suffering. They didn't show their victims any mercy. Never mind that bit about cruel and unusual punishment. The Bill of Rights only applies when We The People^TM, who I speak for entirely, say it does.

What it all comes down to is revenge, and not wanting to have to feed prisoners. We really are sadistic freaks here in the US.

Apart from botched attempts, what about the innocent that have died by execution?  By it's own logic, should the process of execution be tried for murder, it would be found guilty and summarily terminated.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Wow. Way to go, evolution. Just... way to go. http://www.wired.com/2014/05/absurd-creature-of-the-week-this-marsupial-has-marathon-sex-until-it-goes-blind-and-drops-dead/

Complicated though it can be at times, humans have a better way of doing it.

Twid,
Understating

This is the first thing that popped into my head when Sam Harris claimed that morality was an inherent trait.

You know what? Evolution don't give a fuck. We have a species here where the males literally rape themselves to death. If morality confers an adaptive benefit, it might be inherent, but given the way different societies have defined moral behavior at different times, I'm gonna go with nope. Morality is a human invention that changes with society, and I am actually completely comfortable with that because I am lucky enough to live in a society where not only do I get to be a scientist and homeowner even though I have a vagina, but also the likelihood of everyone else just being OK with my son being murdered and my daughters carried off for breeding stock over a border dispute is HIGHLY unlikely.

If he wanted to make the argument that altruism was inherent, then yeah. But altruism gets prioritized in ways that aren't always moral. Morality is nothing more than a human endeavor (whether through philosophy or religion) to codify altruism (instinct). My pacifism is a philosophical extension of my natural altruism (as well as a recognition of the wastefulness of expending lives and resources to acquire resources). That's not something that I was born with, nor any human, as is evidenced by, well, everything we know about humans. And of course, I would kill a man if he was a direct and immediate threat to my own survival, or that of a loved one. That's also instinct.

Yeah, there's a body of evidence to indicate that altruism and empathy are inherent traits that express to a greater or lesser degree depending on environmental pressures. From there you can even argue that an ethical sense is inherent in humans as a species. But as you say, morals are comprised of the codification of ethics as they are perceived by a social body, be it religious or secular.

An ape comes across a turtle flipped on its back. What does the ape do?
Well, how hungry is the ape?
If the ape is not hungry, or at least not starving, then, it'll pick up the turtle and put it on its feet. Because that's just a nice thing to do.
I the ape IS starving, well, turtle's fucked, and the ape just got free lunch.

Troop of apes come across another troop of apes of the same species. What do the apes do?
Well, how hungry are the apes?

Which is, as a matter of fact, a really good basis for the argument for a socialized minimum standard of living. It's not that poor people lack the capacity for moral behavior (according to their society's standards of morality), it's that the environmental pressure of being poor makes survival, in its most basic forms, take priority. Add social shaming/exclusion to the equation and there is yet another pressure, and a significant one, which can lead to a whole host of negative behavior expression.

Make everything better for the poor, and there is a trickle-up effect in which the not-poor now no longer have to worry as much about the frequent side-effects of poverty in society. But a part of the moral construct of our society is a punishment fetish; a belief that not only can socially destructive behavior can be resolved through punishment, but that those who have behaved badly deserve punishment; we have created a moral imperative for punishing, in which it is morally wrong to withhold punishment and morally right to administer it. Therefore, we can elevate ourselves morally by meting out, or even merely calling for, punishment to those we have concluded deserve it.

It's a bit dismaying. You see it anytime someone is on death row. Then lethal injections aren't enough because they're humane. We need to make our executions brutal and prolong the convict's suffering. They didn't show their victims any mercy. Never mind that bit about cruel and unusual punishment. The Bill of Rights only applies when We The People^TM, who I speak for entirely, say it does.

What it all comes down to is revenge, and not wanting to have to feed prisoners. We really are sadistic freaks here in the US.

Apart from botched attempts, what about the innocent that have died by execution?  By it's own logic, should the process of execution be tried for murder, it would be found guilty and summarily terminated.

Yeah, but they were probably black. I agree with you though. When you put capital punishment on trial for its own merits and drawbacks, it fails. It's hypocritical, fails as a deterrent, more expensive than life imprisonment, disproportionately sentenced, etc. But these are all logical arguments. Punishment freaks don't care about logic. Logic gets in the way of maximizing the suffering of criminals who got caught.

[minuspace]

Wow. Way to go, evolution. Just... way to go. http://www.wired.com/2014/05/absurd-creature-of-the-week-this-marsupial-has-marathon-sex-until-it-goes-blind-and-drops-dead/

Complicated though it can be at times, humans have a better way of doing it.

Twid,
Understating

This is the first thing that popped into my head when Sam Harris claimed that morality was an inherent trait.

You know what? Evolution don't give a fuck. We have a species here where the males literally rape themselves to death. If morality confers an adaptive benefit, it might be inherent, but given the way different societies have defined moral behavior at different times, I'm gonna go with nope. Morality is a human invention that changes with society, and I am actually completely comfortable with that because I am lucky enough to live in a society where not only do I get to be a scientist and homeowner even though I have a vagina, but also the likelihood of everyone else just being OK with my son being murdered and my daughters carried off for breeding stock over a border dispute is HIGHLY unlikely.

If he wanted to make the argument that altruism was inherent, then yeah. But altruism gets prioritized in ways that aren't always moral. Morality is nothing more than a human endeavor (whether through philosophy or religion) to codify altruism (instinct). My pacifism is a philosophical extension of my natural altruism (as well as a recognition of the wastefulness of expending lives and resources to acquire resources). That's not something that I was born with, nor any human, as is evidenced by, well, everything we know about humans. And of course, I would kill a man if he was a direct and immediate threat to my own survival, or that of a loved one. That's also instinct.

Yeah, there's a body of evidence to indicate that altruism and empathy are inherent traits that express to a greater or lesser degree depending on environmental pressures. From there you can even argue that an ethical sense is inherent in humans as a species. But as you say, morals are comprised of the codification of ethics as they are perceived by a social body, be it religious or secular.

An ape comes across a turtle flipped on its back. What does the ape do?
Well, how hungry is the ape?
If the ape is not hungry, or at least not starving, then, it'll pick up the turtle and put it on its feet. Because that's just a nice thing to do.
I the ape IS starving, well, turtle's fucked, and the ape just got free lunch.

Troop of apes come across another troop of apes of the same species. What do the apes do?
Well, how hungry are the apes?

Which is, as a matter of fact, a really good basis for the argument for a socialized minimum standard of living. It's not that poor people lack the capacity for moral behavior (according to their society's standards of morality), it's that the environmental pressure of being poor makes survival, in its most basic forms, take priority. Add social shaming/exclusion to the equation and there is yet another pressure, and a significant one, which can lead to a whole host of negative behavior expression.

Make everything better for the poor, and there is a trickle-up effect in which the not-poor now no longer have to worry as much about the frequent side-effects of poverty in society. But a part of the moral construct of our society is a punishment fetish; a belief that not only can socially destructive behavior can be resolved through punishment, but that those who have behaved badly deserve punishment; we have created a moral imperative for punishing, in which it is morally wrong to withhold punishment and morally right to administer it. Therefore, we can elevate ourselves morally by meting out, or even merely calling for, punishment to those we have concluded deserve it.

It's a bit dismaying. You see it anytime someone is on death row. Then lethal injections aren't enough because they're humane. We need to make our executions brutal and prolong the convict's suffering. They didn't show their victims any mercy. Never mind that bit about cruel and unusual punishment. The Bill of Rights only applies when We The People^TM, who I speak for entirely, say it does.

What it all comes down to is revenge, and not wanting to have to feed prisoners. We really are sadistic freaks here in the US.

Apart from botched attempts, what about the innocent that have died by execution?  By it's own logic, should the process of execution be tried for murder, it would be found guilty and summarily terminated.

Yeah, but they were probably black. I agree with you though. When you put capital punishment on trial for its own merits and drawbacks, it fails. It's hypocritical, fails as a deterrent, more expensive than life imprisonment, disproportionately sentenced, etc. But these are all logical arguments. Punishment freaks don't care about logic. Logic gets in the way of maximizing the suffering of criminals who got caught.

The thing that gets my goat is how egregious punishment ever developed a mechanism of positive reinforcement to have already survived this long.  That's probably why they also call it "time" (s)erved.  It reminds us that when dealing with crime, we use the multiplication (times) table to perform calculations.  Ergo, one negative (crime), times another negative(time served), results in a positive.  Hooray.  Math > Logic 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To switch gears for a moment, Twid, I was wondering (what with the diversity of your research background) whether you have had occasion to learn much about Huntington's Disease? If I get into the Honors College I am thinking about researching some aspect it as part of my senior thesis. I'm not sure I can shoehorn it into the "urban" theme, but I can try!

I'm also considering seeing if I can document the disappearing small towns of Oregon as a side effect of the urbanization process for my thesis. It's a bit of a stretch but might be more directly applicable to the urban theme than Huntington's.