My first thought too. I remember as a kid how many times my halfassed "life hacks" ended up with me catching a hit to the face, or other places....

It's loaded with stimulants like caffeine. It also has sugar, and various herbs and extracts which are supposed to support focus, energy, and alertness. It has a similar effect to coffee. It makes some people jittery or anxious, can make you more alert, and temporarily elevate energy or perceived energy or mood. Many people used to drinking coffee caffeinated soft drinks regularly will notice little actual difference in the effects over these drinks. As with any chemical mixture different people will be effected differently, and the placebo effect can't be ruled out for any perceived effects. Also some people I've talked to claim it has caused them stomach or digestive pain or caused more frequent or intense use of the toilet.

They most likely did. It was a joke. Sorry if I offended you.

"And there's more!"

Ive seen some of these where I went "again?" And they weren't too good, but I've seen some real good ones too so I'm ok with it. It's not so much political humor as generic humor about a politician. It has no political stance or agenda. Both Bushes, Carter (for his brother) Bill Clinton, etc were all mocked as being idiots. You'll find they all were mocked as childish in maturity, shady, etc. mocking the standing president goes back almost as far as the office, and mocking heads of state has been a thing even longer. If you look you'll see rephrasings of jokes from the 1800's on about the president still in use, and I've heard the same joke through 4 administrations where people just changed the names and a few details and used it on the president. Being president means people won't like you, people love and hate Bieber too but making fun of him doesn't mean their saying you should listen to One Direction or whatever. It just means he's a public figure.

The idea doesn't thrill me either. We've discussed all the ways that harsh sentences can't and don't undo any of the wrong, and how things can be circumstantial, but here's one we didn't touch. People are bad at math. Most premeditated murderers either don't care about the consequences anyway at the time, or don't think they'll get caught, so the sentence doesn't deter them either way. But almost all people are bad at understanding statistics intuitively and abstract concepts like death or infinity. Without experiencing something we literally can't understand it. We know "death" and "prison" are bad, we know 25 years is a long time, but until you experience it you don't KNOW. I'm all for death when there's a clear continuing and likely danger, where crimes are so intentional and horrible to deem their lives worthless. But if you set that bar set it high and the standards of proof higher lest you make a system worse than those it punishes and a slippery slope.

That's what's called a self fulfilling prophecy. This may not be your shot, but if you look at every shot and decide it's not yours none of them likely will be. You can sit around being a Steve if you like, people like Steve. He does things for them and doesn't ask for anything. In fact the only person who's life Steve doesn't make better is.... Steve's. But you know, if you accept the fact that failure is just a part of life, that you will fail and that's ok- then you can get back to trying. It's possible life will just drop things in your lap, but I wouldn't rely on it. We each have from the day we are born to the day we leave this world to try and find hapiness, to try and do better. You didn't get a say in being born and no one gets to opt out of death, so that space in between- you're here wether you want to be or not, might as well try to make the most of it.

Yes. Scott Evil.

Ah. No worries. That clears up what I was seeing as inconsistencies in the stance. While I'm not against the death penalty per se: I will say this: What separates a killer from an idiot is a moment. Anyone who has ever struck another person in anger could have killed them, it only takes the right hit at the right time to kill a person. As suicide statistics show pulling a trigger is instant and in a swell of emotion people will do so when without the weapon they would have cooled off. Picking that knife up off the kitchen counter- sometimes we don't realize the gravity of things until we are out of the moment and then it's too late. Is it really in that light a service to kill a 19yo kid or lock him up his whole life for one bad choice before he could even legally rent a car in many states? If justice is fairly uniform by nature of our system, should we treat the worst of a group with the lesser, or punish the lesser as though they were the worst?

Then we can agree, they have every reason to believe their actions were a direct danger to that persons life. They cannot claim ignorance. Regardless of their simply stabbing wildly. They knew a knife was a deadly tool, they have no excuse at not having been educated and aware of not only the very real possible danger of their action, but also the fact that other people have been killed or injured by similar actions. The lack of purposeful intent on their part is irrelevant as it was not unavoidable or unforseeable. They knew. So then why if you kill someone drunk driving- meeting all these criteria, is it then manslaughter and worthy of a second chance in your definition?

Malice or intent is a general criteria. As you're aware specifics vary by jurisdiction, but I wasn't interested in the law but in your definition, as we are discussing not the legal punishment for murder but your proposed punishment. Why? Well- Would you still consider it murder or manslaughter if their intention was not to kill them but they just decided to stab randomly and the first place they stabbed was that person neck?

I think that's a pro move. That's one of those things like loud shoes or cowboy boots not everyone can pull off, but if you do you really make an impression.

Second degree murder requires malice aforethought even if not premeditated. If there is no motive, no proof of intent to kill, and no malice provable malice- do you still call it murder?

Very true. Success and hapiness as very amorphous concepts. If we define success for an organism as survival, any living organism is successful until it dies. Likewise if success is to pass your genes you're successful once you procreate and then passage is up to them if success is accomplishing a goal- if your only goal is to have no rent, homelessness is success. If you define success as hapiness then all factors are irrelevant so long as you are happy. Of course money tends to aid most people in both, as one can create opportunity with money, and being able to not worry about basic needs is generally beneficially to well being and pursuing life. A fulfilling career can give purpose and sense of accomplishment many seek, and can also in ideal provide money and satisfaction. But neither are required in general. Many things in life can't be bought by the richest person, hapiness and beauty are in the mind and unique to us all, so is where we find it.

@famousone- if two strangers are standing in a kitchen, one picks up a knife, sticks it into the others heart, and the victim dies do you consider that manslaughter or murder? Considering there is no statement of intent to kill, no motive.

@hammerhead- the more I see your posts the more I like you.