Not at all. Just trying to be informative.

Unfortunately the legal costs related to the death penalty are rather absurd and I'm sure a lot is wasted with the lethal-injection method. Bullets are cheap and rope is cheaper.

In my opinion it says more about flaws in our legal system (that such cases can be dragged out for decades) than a specific flaw with the notion of having a death penalty for the worst of criminals.

Resorting to insults is being an asshole, yes.

Sorry, I'm not really interested in your country's politics, certainly not to feed your ego and continue pointlessly arguing with you

Michael Moore rearranges the truth to further his own personal ends, which calls his credibility into question. If there is one thing he says that is true, then it's Scandinavian Justice systems are more humane than the US but any college drop out could tell you that.

True, about Breivik. Terrorists paragraph in Scandinavia is wobbly case, even more so because je comitted he conciously comitted his crime so they can't convict under any isolation charges.

Interesting, I don't recall insulting you? Perhaps you felt upset about our last argument, it's hard to say.

Why did you assume I was? We are talking over each other here, I'm pointing out that there is a marginal difference between being in prison in San Quentin to that of a Scandinavian prison. By comparison, the latter will seem like attending a hotel. Though I'm saying in Denmark it is not a picnic, because it isn't, if you say it is in Norway then I pray you never get convicted to find out yourself regardless.
The only one interested in prolonging this argument is you because your ego won't allow to drop it before you are affirmed to be right, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered to engage. Trust me, you don't win anything for it,

Had you dropped the asshole attitude then I might have given it my time of day. You can still argue your case without it, and yes I don't really care for Michael Moore's opinion.


How very American of you.

A surveyed imprisonment without any conviction is better than any life time imprisonment because the inmate won't get a date for release and court can keep prolonging it. To me, that is one of the harshest punishments you can give a man.

A person who can't argue without resorting to insults is not someone worth my time. So I don't think we'll get along,

Not really, some discussions aren't worth it, and nothing obligates you to respond beyond your own ego.

Hah, I would go insane from that. Not knowing when you're gonna get out, if ever, would be the worst kind of punishment even more so if someone else is dictating your sentence as well as your routines. Sociopaths have it easier to cope with their actions and punishment due to a lack of empathy and their general misanthropic nature.

'That's rich coming from you' in response to 'If you have no clue what you're talking about.." A response that was in line/tone with yours.

My original post wasn't a reply to you? When it comes to politics and trying to uselessly convince the opposite party that you are in the right it is ultimately all about your ego. Choosing not to respond to some reply's doesn't defeat the purpose of a forum. You wouldn't try to engage anyone trying to consciously bait you. Some would, but they can suit themselves.

As long as Breivik is kept far away from any normal people I couldn't care less about him. My taxpayer dollars doesn't go solely to supplying Peter Lundin with an armchair, as much as healthcare insurance, free education, humane justice system etc. Even so prison ain't a vacation here and I prefer to stay out of it. Even without the PS4 Breivik still couldn't care less cause he is a sociopath.

Not really, since I wasn't even arguing the politics of Norway, I was talking about the effects imprisonment can have on a person based on what I've heard. Then you started talking about the conditions in Norway, and I pointed out that yes there is a marginal difference between being imprisoned in Scandinavia as opposed to a prison like San Quentin. I admit it, I don't know nothing about your country's politics, and don't particularly care as I wasn't interested in talking about it. The problem being you assumed I wanted to, or misunderstood what I was saying. You are perpetuating this ridiculous witch hunt even still because you want to proven right as your ego won't allow anything less.

The pointlessness lies in how it is claim against claim. My sources in Denmark says it's not a vacation, yours says the opposite. So, what? You want to prove which country is more in the right?

If I said I liked the latest Dragon Age, and someone said I'm wrong for thinking so would you take the bait or realize there is no point to try and needlessly prove how wrong they are about their opinion. I mean, you could argue why you think you like the game, but most of the time it becomes a dick waving competition as opposed to a real discussion. Even less so, because it is grounded in personal tastes. But no I would happily discuss with you on anything Star Wars or anything else, if you want. 

Also, Gotham is blergh in general.

That is what you wanted to talk about, true. Not what I was talking about in my original post but apparently that is what we are arguing now?

If you telling yourself that makes you feel better then I'll sign it.

I didn't say that. I said that Michael Moore is a hack, and I wouldn't take his word for anything less than a nickel. Michael Moore's agenda is to point out the flaws in the US justice system by comparing it to a European. And yes, he is right about that but any college dropout could tell you that is the case. I for record, made it clear I wasn't saying the opposite. I would have conceded to your other sources had you not resorted to insults. 

Why, yes, it's worth remembering that all reviews are subjective personal opinions, and if you personally enjoy the game then anyone who says anything to the contrary shouldn't really get to you. Unless of course there's a despicable little niggling doubt in the back of your mind, that maybe you're not having as much fun as you've convinced yourself you're having, which doesn't go away no matter how many times you try to slap it down with the wet flannel of weak excuses

The problem with Gotham is the weak characterization of the Bat characters, and its need to force in the presence of Batman's famous villains despite how much they contradict the notion of how Batman is defined by his villains and vice versa. The premise is good for backstory building but not an entire show.

Chris stop being such a child you "lost" an argument on the internet you should just accept Rawgrim is "right" because he's acting like such an adult by pointing out how childish you're acting by continuing this argument when you've "lost".