Death Penalty

The biggest argument against the death penalty is that no justice system can be perfect and sometimes an innocent person will be killed.

The big flaw of this argument becomes obvious when we consider a hostage situation. Suppose a criminal threatens to murder innocent people. One of the police snipers has the hostage-taker in his sight. All evidence strongly suggests that this person is indeed the hostage-taker and that he is about to kill the hostages. All other available options have been exhausted. Most people would probably say that the sniper is therefore justified to shoot the person. However, there can never be a 100% guarantee that it's the right person. That doesn't change the fact that the sniper is justified to take out the person.

Now people will probably say "Sure, but this is an extreme situation. When we put criminal into prison, there is no immediate need to kill him." That, however, is a common misconception. Allowing a criminal to live does lead to the death of innocent poeple. A criminal in a prison gets food, medical care and shelter. All of these things are scarce on this planet. Millions of innocent people die because they lack those very things. For every criminal who we feed, we could feed a starving child.

In short, it's better to keep innocent people alive instead of murderers and rapists. As long as innocent people die in this world because they lack basic necessities, criminals should be killed without mercy. We have a limited amount of compassion and innocent people deserve it more than criminals. Yes, sometimes this means that we will kill an innocent person. However, that is better than killing a lot of innocent people by letting criminals live.

Other urls found in this thread:

watchseries.ac/link/vodlocker.com/3962558
thelocal.de/20150619/germans-waste-18m-tonnes-of-food-yearly
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Maybe I'm just a barbarian, but I can't imagine why anyone is opposed to the death penalty those convicted of murder.

The cost of a humane execution outweighs massively the cost of food and toilet paper that the average prisoner needs.

It's not barbaric if you want to kill him for the right reasons. Killing people just for revenge is barbaric. Killing them because of the reason I described is rational and compassionate.

I also think that there needs to be a death penatly for other crimes, such as rape or taking illegal drugs (fuck potheads).

The biggest argument against the death penalty to me is that if the government is killing people, this in a way justifies the act of murder itself, which cannot be permitted. It potentially makes murder a little more "acceptable" to people not of sound mind.

There is also the worry that people could begin demanding it be extended to punishment for other crimes i.e. rape.

Then there is also the fact that it seems barbaric and terrifying when the government kills people in such a ritualistic, sterile manner for "justice".

Fuck the death penalty.
Vote Trump.
Yay Brexit.
Fuck mudslimes and jews etc

Does most of Sup Forums disagree with me on the death penalty though?

There must be some flaw in the system if decades of food, medicine and shelter costs less than one bullet to the head, a rope or a syringe filled with poison. Killing mammals for food could not be profitable if it's that expensive to kill a mammal.

Equality is the cornerstone of justice. Justice can be dispassionate.

Probably
I'm very pro death penalty
>in b4 mudslime
Incarceration is with the goal of rehabilitation
Failing that, maybe jobs in prison
Failing that (as that guy is just that fucked up), welfare forever? No way

Not all killings are murder. Killing a person in self-defense, for instance, isn't murder. Nor is it murder when a soldier kills an enemy combatant. Murder is a legal term and only illegal killings are murder.

>There is also the worry that people could begin demanding it be extended to punishment for other crimes i.e. rape.

Yes and it should be extended to other crimes such as rape. However, it's a slippery slope argument to say that this will ultimately lead to people getting killed for petty things like parking violations.

Death penalty is actually less corruption prone because it doesnt involve massive prison system interests. Also weight of decision is much greater thus requiring prosecution to present a strongest case with direct evidence.

>We should kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong

What a great argument.

But jesus christ man, we didn't choose where we were born. Being born into a state you don't want to be a part of only for that state to exterminate you because you aren't fitting in is terrifying.

Well ok, if they're a mass murderer then its not a matter of "fitting in"...I still hesitate to support a death penalty for these kinds of people though. Forced labour or something for life. Hesitate being the key word, though.

Murder is killing. Killing by the government for ritualistic purposes of justice can justify killing to an extent in peoples' minds. This was my point and I don't want to get into semantics.

>es and it should be extended to other crimes such as rape
Fuck right off. Rape should absolutely not be punishable by death, not even life imprisonment. Harsh yes, lengthy perhaps. But rape does not extinguish a person's consciousness. I understand rape is a terrible thing but I don't think taking someone's life is acceptable "justice" for rape. Especially since the majority of rape in western nations is absolutely not the kind involving someone being jumped and have intercourse quite literally forced on them.

> All of these things are scarce on this planet.

Holy fucking shit you are retarded.

A humane execution isn't a bullet to the head.

So we don't kill animals humanely after all?

Which brings me to my next point: Don't just kill them and waste their meat. Eat them.

Why should we kill an innocent cow or pig to eat them if we could kill a murderer or rapist instead?

I'm retarded because I point out an inescapable fact of life? The resources on this planet are limited. Virtually all human conflicts exist because of this very fact. The very scarcity draws people into contact with eac other, destroys almost all area for individual maneuver, and forces people to elbow each other in order to move forward.

The tragedy of scarcity, beyond the deprivations necessitated by the scarcity itself, is that scarcity tends to make each one’s gain someone else’s loss. One can act for oneself only by acting against others, since there is not enough for all.

Enjoy your prions.

Just roast it properly. Problem solved.

You'd basically be eating shoe leather if you roasted enough to destroy all prions.

I'm fine with death for murderers. Their victims cannot enjoy life, why should they? There is no amount of restitution that can bring a life back. Don't want to be executed? Don't kill, how fucking difficult is that.

>Inb4 your ok with the government killing? That's hypocritical.

Yes I am, there are a lot of things governments can do that private citizens cant.

I think you misunderstood. The problem with granting your government the power to kill isn't that it's hypocritical, it's whether you trust your government (and its justice system) enough to trust it to correctly decide who's guilty and who isn't. Ultimately, how do you justify killing innocent people?

I have no moral objection to the death penalty for particular circumstances - cases where there is absolutely zero question of guilt and where the convicted shows no remorse for their actions or would continue killing/raping/whatever if they were ever released or escaped.

Execution should be made as humane as possible, personally I favor nitrogen asphyxiation, and the appeals process should be reformed to streamline the process for cases like the one described above.

Win some, lose some

>cases where there is absolutely zero question of guilt

All criminal justice is based on this. The problem is that humans make the decision and it's way too easy for a couple of crooked fuckers to get someone prosecuted falsely.

You're right OP. In my teens, I was totally against the death penalty. Growing up I realised how weak our justice system is. How most walk free or get a pathetic sentence. Many live better in jail than many students/poor and at the end can certainly walk away with less damage to their future than their victim's :(

Killing one innocent people every ten criminals is a net profit

Read the OP.

Also: How do you justify putting innocent people into prison? How do you justify it when an innocent person is killed by a speeding ambulance?

The answer is: You don't have to. Those things are accident. Accidents happen and nothing will ever change that. If you've done all that can be reasonably expected of you to prevent accidents, then you aren't doing anything morally wrong.

It's your country but I imagine your reaction to being falsely convicted for something warranting the death penalty would be closer to crying bitch than stoic pragmatism.

And if you were run over by a car, then you would be a bleeding bitch on the street. So should we ban all cars? They do cause fatal accidents after all.

Death penalty paradox:
If you sentence an innocent man to death and after his execution he is found out to be innocent the judge, jury and executioner/s are all guilty of murder.

Also I'd choose death over the rest of my life behind bars any day.

>Read the OP.
It's shitty logic, you're confusing finite with mutually exclusive.

>How do you justify putting innocent people into prison?
You can release them from prison. I'll take a strong re-evaluation of my position on the death penalty when we're able to raise the dead.

>How do you justify it when an innocent person is killed by a speeding ambulance?
It's necessary to save an actual (rather than hypothetical) life.

No they are not. This is akin to saying that people who accidentally run other people over in their cares are murderers. In both cases, it is an accident. Unless the judge/jury/executioner deliberately killed this person despite knowing that he was innocent, they are not guilty of murder.

choosing a quick death would be nice, but in america death penalty means 30+ years of sitting in solitary confinment with no movement or priviledges other prisoners get. That's worse than the death part, imo.

t. ex-convict

There currently isn't a practical alternative to cars. If they were just cruising randomly around over all open spaces for no purpose I'd object to their presence rather strongly.

>you're confusing finite with mutually exclusive.

Elaborate.

>You can release them from prison.

That doesn't give them the time they spend in prison back.

>It's necessary to save an actual (rather than hypothetical) life.

It's hypothetical in both cases. You say that sometimes innocent people will be killed if there is a death penalty. Sometimes innocent people are run over by cars. It's the exact same situation. We always accept a certain level of risk. It's hypocritical to say that we must make 100% sure to never kill a person via the death penatly by outlawing it but at the same time say that the same shouldn't be true for all the other things that potentially kill people, such as cars or fireworks.

>Elaborate
Killing one person does not automatically equal saving another.

>That doesn't give them the time they spend in prison back.
You can compensate them and the best of a bad set of options doesn't make a worse alternative better.

You can make that choice for yourself, it's called a bootlace and a light fitting.

>nitrogen asphyxiation
add some nitrous oxide and we got a deal

jailing criminals is wrong

killing them is wrong too

anyone who commits a crime is not fit to live in society and should be dumped in a barren remote island where they are free to do w/e they want

You can outlaw all cars. That IS an alternative.

What you're saying is that this alternative is too costly.You simply accept the consequence that a certain amount of innocent people are killed each year by them because you value their utility.

I would rather have one innocent man die than see 1,000 guilty men go free.

The high is much the same, it's just that nitrous oxide is used for analgesia/anaesthesia because you can achieve intoxication while maintaining life sustaining blood oxygenation at ambient pressures.

Cool, will you be the innocent man? You could make things cheaper by just killing everyone in an area when a crime occurs, no need for costly trials or temporary incarceration, just carpet bombing.

Even your justice system doesn't work that way, criminals walk free all the time based on lack of evidence.

>Killing one person does not automatically equal saving another.

So? My point was that we can redistribute resources and labor accordingly. That's the entire point.

>You can compensate them and the best of a bad set of options doesn't make a worse alternative better.

What makes it the best option? Your only argument is that you don't want to punish innocent people. Nobody argues that we should do that. It only happens by accident and accidents can always happen.

what's the utility of a death punishment vs life sentence (it's not cheaper btw)

neat

Right, there's a utility in cars. There's basically no utility in killing criminals unless you're willing to adopt a very trigger happy criminal justice system, one far more trigger happy than any which exists outside of Islamic State.

You rather have thousands innocent people die than ban cars.

Cool, will you be one of the innocent people?

>You could make things cheaper by just killing everyone in an area when a crime occurs, no need for costly trials or temporary incarceration, just carpet bombing.

Slippery slope argument. Dismissed.

The most important thing is to remove dangerous people away from society, not kill them.

>What makes it the best option?
As I said, it's as reversible as it is possible to be. You acknowledge that accidents happen, why make an accident in a system which is designed to protect people a fatal one? As I said here:
unless you want to fatally compromise your justice system, it's never going to be cheaper to execute criminals.

Plus, the executions themselves cost alot of money, and they don't even make any change. Dead of alive in prison, the criminal is removed from society anyway.

I describe the utility in my OP. Criminals waste space and resources. By getting rid of them, these resources can be redistributed to people who deserve them more.

So far, your only counter argument to this was that we cannot risk killing innocent people. Apparently, you do think that it's ok to risk killing innocent people. So this argument is gone now. Got another one?

You can easily make it cheaper.

Yes they are.
"You did something wrong so we are going to kill you" is different to your car brakes failing.
There will be family lawsuits and another nail in the death penalty coffin.
The amount of innocent people arrested is astounding. Kill them and you are a murderer; it's no different to a robbery gone wrong where the robber says "whoops I panicked and pulled the trigger"

watchseries.ac/link/vodlocker.com/3962558

Vid related.

>Cool, will you be one of the innocent people?

Yes, I accept that risk every time I leave the house.

>Slippery slope argument. Dismissed.
You're the one arguing for the utility of execution. You'd be a lot closer to carpet bombings than 'justice' in its current form in America if you devised a system where less resources were actually consumed by killing prisoners.

>You can easily make it cheaper.
The main costs come from the rigorous legal process involved in actually giving out the sentence.

To process is longer and tedious to minimize the chance of an innocent person being killed.

Even with these rigorous processes innocent people still have gotten the death penalty because no system is perfect.

Making the process quicker and cheaper will ultimately result in more innocent deaths. So to use your innocent lives and cars analogy it's like arguing to remove speed limit laws because people would get to their destinations faster at the cost of increasing traffic accidents.

>I describe the utility in my OP. Criminals waste space and resources. By getting rid of them, these resources can be redistributed to people who deserve them more.

If you want to kill people in a way that's at least as fair as it is in the USA (a pretty low standard) it won't be cheaper and the resources consumed won't be lower because of all the extra appeals needed to prevent at least some executions of innocents.

>Apparently, you do think that it's ok to risk killing innocent people. So this argument is gone now.

Not so fast, buddy. It's acceptable for a certain number of innocent deaths as the unintended result of a much larger utility (this is how the world works and the reason we're not all locked in metal boxes on life support). However, it's silly to kill people for a false economy and it's equally silly to give the government this power. You're essentially arguing for allowing people to drive their cars directly through homes, not only is it a waste of resources, it's unnecessarily murderous.

>it's like arguing to remove speed limit laws because people would get to their destinations faster at the cost of increasing traffic accidents

I'd take it a step further, it's like removing the concept of roads entirely because that's on the level of the only 'justice' system where it would be cheaper to kill criminals.

>it's as reversible as it is possible to be.

Not at all. Letting all go free is another option. Or you could just give supposed criminals a slap on the wrist. That's easier to compensate than inprisonment.

>You acknowledge that accidents happen, why make an accident in a system which is designed to protect people a fatal one?

Because the alternative is to let innocent people die due to a lack of resources. You also could spare the life of other innocent mammals by using the meat and other usable parts of a criminal's body.

Or you could use criminals for scientific experiments. That would be another great benefit for society. Think about all the advances in medicine we could make by using murderers and rapists instead of innocent animals for experiments.

>it's never going to be cheaper to execute criminals.

Nonsense. Killing mammals for meat wouldn't be profitable if it was that expensive. The trial etc. is done for every criminal anyway.

The cost comes from the trial itself.

How would you minimize the charges? Just give the police the legal right to immediately just shoot all the main suspects in the head?

Worth it.

Furthermore, the cost we are talking about here is money. Money that is paid to innocent people, such as judges, lawyers, police officers etc.

I have no gripes with employing these people and giving them money. They can support a family with it and grow the economy by spending it. No big deal.

What I have a problem with is the resources that are used for murderers, rapists and potheads. These resources are truly wasted and the shorter their lives are, the less resources are wasted on them.

See I gladly pay 500 Euros more in taxes to create a big judical system if this means that less resources are wasted on criminal scum. Lawyers and judges are people too. What's wrong with creating jobs for them?

>Or you could just give supposed criminals a slap on the wrist.
That sort of harms innocents by letting them free to commit crimes. As you said:
>Slippery slope argument. Dismissed.

>Because the alternative is to let innocent people die due to a lack of resources.
People aren't dying because a criminal is getting a meal and even if they were you'd have to kill criminals a heck of a lot faster than first world countries with the death penalty do.

>Killing mammals for meat wouldn't be profitable if it was that expensive. The trial etc. is done for every criminal anyway.
Cows generally aren't given trials and you'd be killing a lot of people if everyone who'd been convicted of a death penalty-worthy crime were executed after their first trial. Also, on the whole eating criminals bit: prions. Your meat would be somewhere between leather and ash if you cooked it enough to eliminate them.

Which resources are spent on murderers?

I mean very few countries have Norway tier prisons where the prisoners get PS4 and internet time.

The cost on food drink spent on prisoners serving life sentences aren't really major or something a government cannot afford.

My gut instinct has always told me it's the right thing to do but after coming to Sup Forums for a while I'm more on the border for the death penalty since I'm not that comfortable giving the government the authority and power to choose who to execute

OP

I'm pretty sure she thinks that every meal a prisoner eats is literally grabbed from the hands of a starving African (who wouldn't be starving in the first place if their parents didn't have 24 children after international aid saved them from their last over-procreation created famine).

The problem with anyone who thinks they're smart enough to quickly decide who lives and who dies is that if they were, they probably wouldn't.

It's not a slippery slope argument. You said that locking people up is "as reversible as it is possible to be". Slapping people on the wrist is more reversible. So what you said is simply wrong.

>People aren't dying because a criminal is getting a meal

They are dying because of a lack of resources and every consumption of resources contributes to this. We need, however, to have a moral code which is not too far beyond the capacities of the ordinary man, for otherwise there will be a general breakdown of compliance with the moral code. Hence, we cannot demand that every innocent person consumes as little as possible in order to not impose opportunity costs on others. That would be an excessive demands on the will. However, it's not excessive to demand that people not murder and rape each other. Those who do simply lost their right to consume.

>trials

As I said, I have no problem with providing work for innocent people who want to be judges, executioners or lawyers.

And if you don't want to eat them (I would), at least use them for scientific experiments instead of animals.

The big problem with your argument is the glaring solution:
>Death penalty for those who can be proven, without a doubt, guilty of crimes warranting the death penalty
>Life with possibility for parole for those who cannot
You're welcome.

It's all good until it's you or your son getting killed by mistake.

There's not a limited source of food in the world or there wouldn't be an obesity problem in the first world or an overpopulation problem in the third, the problem is getting certain places to produce food for themselves.

Meanwhile in reality if the state just kills all le criminals you'll have a civil war on your hands since most people know someone who's been arrested which is what happens in third world shitholes when some dictator actually does this.

Even the relatively sane death penalty the US uses makes things worse since it actually raises the murder rate wherever it's implemented as criminals are really stupid and think it means they have to start murdering witnesses now.

If you want to save resources there's a hundred other stupid things the state could stop doing.

That's rich. You think people deserve to die because they have sex but not because they are murderers and rapists?

The same lame arguments can be used for all accidents. You want to ban cars? No? It's all good until it's you or your son getting killed by a car.

>Slapping people on the wrist is more reversible.

You're taking it to extremes, ergo, slippery slope. I'm sorry that I have to spell it out for you (I hope it doesn't damage your pride too painfully) but 'as possible' entails while still preventing harm to the general population.

>They are dying because of a lack of resources and every consumption of resources contributes to this.
The resources are there, they're just in the wrong place. Look at food and medical resource waste, it's several orders more than what prisoners are consuming.

We don't live in a world where everyone is a fucking murderer worthy of a death sentence. Thankfully those events are pretty rare (except if you're American I guess)

If you implemented the death sentence for literally any minor crime the resulting resource savings would be irrelevant compared to the BILLIONS of humans that are being spawned and will spawn mostly in the third world.

I just don't understand your argument. What is the exact utility of all this? Countries like Germany and the USA have fucking obesity problems, their average citizen clearly isn't lacking in basic resources like food and water there's plenty of it to go around.

That isn't the most compelling argument against it:

1. It is more expensive to kill someone than to keep them alive.

2. In countries which have the death penalty the murder rate is higher. Why? Because the government has justified killing 'under certain circumstances' so if someone feels they can justify it, then it's okay.

>muh banning cars

This is more akin to driving with the lights off at night.

Are you that cucked that you would happily accept your own death, as the real killer goes free, for a crime you didn't commit, as a necessary collateral damage?

I think she's like this Indian kid I saw in a documentary a few years ago. They claimed they had figured out how to cure cancer but, when questioned on it, displayed a very basic understanding of the disease and basically described 'a substance which kills the cancer cells but leaves the healthy cells unharmed' which is neat but they had fuck all understanding of why this idea didn't equal curing cancer.

>as the real killer goes free
This is another excellent point. Since formal legal proceedings stop after an execution you've let a very dangerous individual remain at large if the person you murdered was innocent. I wonder what mental gymnastics she'll have to use to justify literally leaving murders free to kill again.

>You're taking it to extremes, ergo, slippery slope.

No. My argument isn't "Oh this will eventually lead to people only getting a slap on the wrist." My argument is that what you said is simply wrong. It's not the most reversible thing. End of story. You simply stated a falsehood.

>but 'as possible' entails while still preventing harm to the general population.


It doesn't. Perhaps that's what you wanted to say. But you didn't actually say it, honey.

>The resources are there, they're just in the wrong place.

No they are not. They are all being used in one way or another. What you're probably trying to say is that they can be used more efficiently or distributed more fairly. Ok. So what? That doesn't mean that therefore criminals deserve a portion of them. If they are used more efficiently (easier said than done), then there should be more left for all innocent people. Only when there is so much left for everyone that not a single innocent person is needy should we even consider to waste them on criminals.

Car accidents do happen even when people drive with their loghts on.

No. Neither would I deliberately jump in front of a car. However, I don't want to ban cars just because I COULD become the victim of a car accident. The same is true for the death penalty. I happily accept the risk, not the consequence of a worst case scenario.

>muh oversimplification
>End of story

>But you didn't actually say it
I apologise for severely overestimating you.

>They are all being used in one way or another.

I wouldn't describe rotting in dumpsters because they're expired as being 'used'.
thelocal.de/20150619/germans-waste-18m-tonnes-of-food-yearly

That makes no sense, honey. If the wrong person is convicted, then the real culprit will go free regardless of whether the innocent person is locked up or killed.

If anything, the chance of the real killer getting away is far lower when there is a death penalty because, as you said, the trial is far more rigorous in this case.

Is your daddy a rapist or why do you like criminals so much, honey?

>If the wrong person is convicted, then the real culprit will go free regardless of whether the innocent person is locked up or killed.

>Someone who's alive is less able to protest their innocence than someone who's been murdered by the state

Have fun being euthanized because some rabid feminist claims you stare raped her.

Holy shit you are fucking retarded.

False equivalence. An execution is a very deliberate action, unlike a car accident.

Question about your "hostage" analogy. Suppose the criminal is using a hostage as a shield. Do we happily kill the hostage to stop the bad guy?

I suppose we should just round up all possible suspects and kill them all. That way we make sure we get the right one and we can all sleep safe and sound.

>I wouldn't describe rotting in dumpsters because they're expired as being 'used'.

People don't like to buy expired foods. That's why the supermarkets throw them away. As I described here , it would be an excessive demand on the will of people to expect them to live perfectly efficient lives. Attempts to improve efficiency are noble, but lets not kid ourselves by acting as if they were easy. They are hard precisely because there is virtually nothing left that isn't used. These resources in the dumpsters are used for a very high living standard which involves people not risking buying food that might've gone bad. You think people aren't entitled to such a high standard of living. Fine. Argue for that. But don't pretend as if there is enough for everybody just lying around to be picked up. Sacrifices are inevitable. Every consumption imposes an opportunity cost on seombody else. Criminals should not have a right to consume. They should be used for scientific experiments until they die.

Yeah because somebody protesting in prison surely will somehow magically get the real person convicted. How is life in cloud cuckoo land?

Insulting people is an indication of lack of arguments.

>People don't like to buy expired foods.
I'm sure a starving African wouldn't object to eating slightly soft watermelons. It would be a lot cheaper to set up a system whereby expired (it's a best before date, not a do not eat after date) food is shipped out than a justice system capable of processing death penalty hearings speedily enough that prisoners don't have to be kept alive for decades while still being fair.

>They are hard precisely because there is virtually nothing left that isn't used.
18mt of food PA in Germany alone isn't 'virtually nothing'.

>An execution is a very deliberate action, unlike a car accident.

Executing an INNOCENT person is not a deliberate action when you think that the person is guilty. Both are accidents.

>Suppose the criminal is using a hostage as a shield. Do we happily kill the hostage to stop the bad guy?

How is that relevant for the issue at hand?

>Yeah because somebody protesting in prison surely will somehow magically get the real person convicted.

>Pushing for the death penalty
>Doesn't understand how the appeals process works

>Executing an INNOCENT person is not a deliberate action when you think that the person is guilty.

Sure, if you're stupid enough to believe the justice system is infallible.

Keep fighting the good fight, Swissbro.

>How is life in cloud cuckoo land?
>Insulting people is an indication of lack of arguments

Nice trips. I'm bored now. It's not my shitty country and Germany's heading for a dystopian nightmare one way or the other so there seems little point in continuing to highlight the logical inadequacies of an edgy retard.

You're once again talking about money. As I said, I have no problem with paying lawyers and judges. The money that is paid to these people doesn't disappear in a void. They use it for their purposes.

I'm also not sure whether it's a good idea to flood foreign markets with cheap or even free food. You just destroy their own agriculture with this. It's about the people who want to come here. When great numbers of refugees stand in front of our borders, the argument is that "we cannot help everybody". Well, that is true. But we will have more room if we make some room by getting rid of criminals. Even if it's just a few thousands, a life is a life.

You also seem to greatly underestimate the great benefit of human experimentation. Using humans instead of animals could speed up the research for life-saving medical procedures dramatically.

>18mt of food PA in Germany alone isn't 'virtually nothing'.

It is used for the high standard of living I described. Can't you read, criminal lover?