its about ethics in gaming journalism

From the article listed above

Every day, about 30 people are killed in the U.S. in gun homicides or gun accidents (not counting gun suicides or self-inflicted accidental shootings). And every day, likely about 30 people are killed in homicides where the killer was under the influence of alcohol, plus alcohol-related drunk driving accidents and…

In a debate about the second amendment, Eugene Volokh made, what I thought was a pretty compelling argument for gun rights.

Its not even about the constitution. Its that you have a right to own guns, whether the constitution says it or not.

But if someone dies of natural causes in prison, and that person was later found to be innocent, in effect that is the same as the death penalty innocent. So, in effect, we shouldn’t be imprisoning people for life as well. But we can improve the system so that we remove wrongful convictions. That is something that can…

Yes, innocent people are sometimes executed and that is a travesty of justice. But that calls for reforms within the criminal justice system so that innocent people don’t get wrongfully executed.

Three parts to any criminal justice system: reformation/rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution. The death penalty is not about rehabilition, and even if we concede the point on deterrence (which I don’t), you still have the retributive aspect of the justice system to contend with

I have never understood the economic argument against the death penalty. I mean a lot of things we do cost money, and if the state cuts back on it we can save money there too. The state can probably save money by reducing the number of appeals that can be filed, or by eliminating the entire justice system, or by…

Like Obama, who was pro death penalty?

No, two wrongs can never make a right. But, then, the death penalty isn’t a wrong, so it doesn’t really apply here.

1) Whats with the name calling? Really, why is it that people who clamor on about intolerance are usually the ones that are the most intolerant.

1) You should read the article. She compared the current influx of largely Muslim migrants to Nazi occupation. That is a nazi comparison and she was jailed for it. So yes, people are being jailed for making Nazi comparisons.

“Occupied by the Nazis” is a fairly ambigous term when talking about France during WWII. Sure, some of it was occupied, some of them resisted their Nazi occupiers, but then you also had the Vichy government, which was given large independent area to govern in Southern France.

And you don’t understand that if we start jailing people for making Nazi comparison, then that is terrible idea. “Where they burn books they will burn people.” If you find some ideas and words so offensive that you think they require the use of state’s power to silence them, then you are a believer in a totalitarian…

If the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, then we need to change the laws or the constitution so that those barriers are removed.

What I am saying is if these exceptions already exists, then we need to change the laws regarding these exceptions.

Jailing people for making a Nazi comparison isn’t good in any sense of the word.

Well there ought to be no barriers to free speech. If the Supreme Court rules otherwise, then we ought to be more selective in appointing Supreme Court justices, to make sure we don’t appoint statists who believe in curtailing free speech.

Saying that you ought to listen to more conservatives, than just one small section of it, to get a full idea on the ideological diversity of conservative is not a “no true Scotsman” fallacy.