The Parkland High School Shooter, Gets LIFE!

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (69 posts)
  1. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/16190902.jpg
    A verdict has been reached in the Nikolas Cruz case. This pathetic excuse for a human being gunned down students and staff members of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in my State of Florida, as if he was at a carnival shooting gallery! A school he had previously attended, where students knew him.

    Nevertheless, at least one juror, felt that the death penalty is much too harsh and so, Cruz gets LIFE in prison, instead!

    Seems to me that the only death penalties being carried out these days are on the most innocent, vulnerable, voiceless and defenseless of all, the preborn. They are denied LIFE, while monsters like this, get a pass.

    To be clear, I am not all in for the death penalty in all cases, but this one, leaves zero cause for uncertainty or doubt!

    I call it as I see it, what say you?

    1. profile image0
      savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      In some prisons, death row inmates have more privileges and better food than those who get a life sentence, strange as it may seem. Some inmates, who received a life sentence, have gone so far as to kill another inmate so that they can have their sentence "upgraded" to death row. Given those circumstances, a life sentence for a young person is a worse judgment, in my estimation.
      In that sense, the boy may have gotten what he deserved.

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I think he deserved a better shot at life from the get-go but he didn't get it. This country needs to seriously start looking at the precursors to events like this. We hear about them trial after trial yet we do nothing or very little in the way of prevention. Seems we  Would rather House people in prisons for the majority of their lives.  I know that not every child who was born addicted and with fetal alcohol syndrome turns out to commit mass shooting but it's an awfully tough road to navigate without family or support. But I suppose we should praise his mother for seeing her pregnancy through to the end for better or worse knowing that she was going to drink and do drugs all the way through it.

      2. abwilliams profile image68
        abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        The Parkland parents wanted the death penalty for this disturbed young man. He is why we have the death penalty, although rarely carried out. I hope his time doing LIFE leaves him, at least, as miserable, as he has left so many!!!

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I think his birth mother assured that his life would be more than miserable when she decided to drink and do drugs throughout her pregnancy that she brought to term. Maybe the government should monitor pregnancies?  Or should the mother have been brought in on this case? Where is the accountability in terms of the damage that she did to this individual during her pregnancy??
          We will have many more of this kind especially in States like mine that ban abortion completely and we have an opioid crisis with some women that will not give up their drugs for pregnancy.
          It may cross some parkland parents' minds how their lives would be different today if the shooters mom would have chosen abortion realizing she was a drug addict.

          1. abwilliams profile image68
            abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            So kind of you to show such concern for the victims and their families!!
            Rather than talking about a missed opportunity to abort...perhaps we should be talking about how the many warning signs were ignored repeatedly. Because people are so afraid to speak out against weirdos, out of fear they'll be called names. We are expected to embrace the weirdos, right? We are expected to cater to the weirdos, right? Well you woke folk should be happy, he will continue to be catered to for a long, long time.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              You must have missed when I talked about the ignored  warning signs of a mom taking drugs and drinking all throughout her pregnancy. I have no idea who the weirdos are that you speak of.

    2. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      This is a tough one,

      Many say that the death penalty is a barbaric expression of vengeance that would not solve anything. Vengeance while not codified is a part of our existence and reality.  I think of the anger of the  bereavement of not just immediate families but extended ones. How many people believed that this young man has merited the ultimate penalty for such a heinous crime?

      As the preeminent liberal on this forum, I say that there is a place for death penalty. Its application carefully and narrowly applied for only the most heinous of crimes where there really isn't any mitigating circumstances in the perpetrators defense. There can be no convictions based on circumstantial evidence, he or she is proven beyond a doubt to have committed the crime.  Mass murder would be included. I would grant leniency for mental illness that can be proven to have been profound enough a factor and not just pop-psychology. I would grant leniency for mental retardation if it can shown to be profound enough to impair judgement. The accused is to be given every benefit of the doubt and we are forced to acknowledge the conclusion of his or her guilt. We should focus on a fair jury selection as another protection for the accused.

      I could not help to have noted that in Japan, which I consider to be a civilized society, they did not waste anytime sending the perpetrators of that Sarin attack a few years ago to the gallows for their crimes. So, there is a place among civilized people for the death penalty.

      I may well not have accepted the verdict for Cruz, as I would lean toward a death penalty for these senseless massacre kinds of crimes.

      But as it is, I wasn't there to evaluate all of the evidence and will except a life sentence with NO POSSIBILITY of parole. In other words, erosion will wear down the walls of his prison before he ever sees the light of day again. Such may be the case with Sirhan, the assassin of Robert Kennedy.

      1. abwilliams profile image68
        abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you Cred for this thought out, insightful response.

        When I was a much younger version of me, I was all about the death penalty for the bad guys. My thinking, what better way to terrify, deter, nip the potential life as a bad guy, in the bud!?
        We have come so far with forensics, I've no doubt that in the past, innocent men have been put to death, while the guilty party has gone free.
        Things aren't always as they seem, but, as stated, this particular case, leaves no doubt!
        Cruz should be on death row, for about a week or two or the time required for one appeal.

        What deterrent exists, if the death penalty is never handed down or when and if it is...death day is drug out for decades?

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You are welcome, AB

          As I said, I would give the condemned the benefit of the doubt as far as possible and that would include appeals. But once this procedure is done, it is time to meet 'ole sparky' and time to 'check out'.

      2. GA Anderson profile image82
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I hold the opinion that the death sentence is not a deterrent to those whose crime would deserve it. That same opinion holds that there are criminals that deserve it. The sentence is nothing more than vengeance and that should not be the motive of our justice system.

        Criminal penalties should serve one of two purposes; punishment or removal from society.

        Consider your 'qualifications.'  I think juries that give a death sentence would feel they have met the bar you describe, yet exonerated death sentence recipients have shown those juries were wrong.

        If an error can't be corrected then there shouldn't be a choice to make it.

        GA

        1. DrMark1961 profile image99
          DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          It may or may not be a deterrent. That is impossible for you to say, just like it is impossible to show statistics revealing how many homes were not robbed because of gun ownership. (Just an example here. My neighbor does not have a gun. I do. Which do you think a theif would choose to rob? There are no statistics on that.)

          What the death penalty is supposed to do though is kill those people so that they do not get out and commit another crime. Death is not the same as life in prison. You are old enough to have seen many changes in the way things work where you live, and who knows that some woke congress will come along in 20 years and pass a federal law that the maximum sentence is 30 years. Never happen? It has already happened here. Even serial killers only get 30 years.

          The death penalty can avoid those mistakes in the future.

          1. GA Anderson profile image82
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yep, it is impossible for me to 'prove' my opinion is right. However, I don't think a murderer considers the difference between a life sentence and the death penalty as a deciding factor in doing the act. That seems logical to me.

            I'm not against a death sentence for a deserving criminal, but I am against it for an innocent man. As human judges, we are not perfect, and killing cannot be reversed, so the question for supporters boils down to how many innocent men is it worth killing to make sure we get the deserving ones.

            GA

            1. DrMark1961 profile image99
              DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I do not think logic is the deciding factor when someone is about to commit murder. But hey, maybe I am wrong. I do not know and hang out with murderers.

              You do realize that things change, right? A life sentence does not always mean a life sentence. There are going to be innocent men, women, and children killed in the future by those released. Their deaths cannot be revered either.

              1. GA Anderson profile image82
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                The logic wasn't the murderer's, it was mine thinking that the difference in penalty wouldn't deter them.

                As to the lost lives due to the murderer not being caught and killed . . . that's the murderer's decision, not our decision, killing an innocent man because of a wrongful conviction would be ours.

                That seems to amount to justifying killing a bad man so he won't kill more innocents and killing an innocent man so we have the tool to kill the rightfully convicted bad man.

                What if you were that innocent, wrongly convicted man sentenced to death, how many dead bad men would it take to justify losing your life?

                To your point about life sentences changing, I think a life sentence is more wrong and cruel than a death sentence. Locking someone in a cage for life is crueler than ending their life. But, that decision is reversible, so I choose life sentences over the more appropriate clean-removal-from-society death penalty.

                GA

                1. IslandBites profile image90
                  IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  ^This.

                2. DrMark1961 profile image99
                  DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  There was a case here in Brazil where a serial killer murdered over 100 children. So you think allowing him to stay alive until society decides that life imprisonment is cruel is fair?

                  https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%C3%ADaco_da_Bicicleta

          2. abwilliams profile image68
            abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I can see this same thing happening here {*maximums of 20/30 years for a serial killer etc.} if we do not stop putting "woke" District Attorneys into office! George Soros has made it his mission to destroy us, he is invested in it up to his eyeballs!!! He is pumping so much money into the Democratic Party every election that they may very well be calling him the Godfather by now!
            Getting back to my initial thoughts on this topic, it is so very warped to me as to which lives are valued (no matter what!!) and which are devalued, but when one attempts to make the case for the devalued, people come out of the word work, just so they can say, How Dare You!!!
            IMHO, Warped!

        2. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          As I said, this is a 'tough one'

          You are right it is a vengeance in a form.

          And it can be both a punishment and removal from society, the latter based on the possibility of further criminal activity from the condemned in the future.

          I am in a quandary because of the sordid record of the death penalty as too often applied unjustly.

          But on the other hand, what do I do with the Eichmanns, Himlers, Goerings, Hitlers, Megeles, Pol Pots, Idi Amins, etc?  Watching some of the proceedings of the 1946 Nuremberg trials, I was of the opinion that civilization demanded that these men, committing crimes against humanity far beyond activity associated with war and combatants, should be executed.

          So, yes, it is punishment, removal and vengeance.

          I speak of the use of the death penalty sparingly, but there are times and situations where it is warranted and justice demands it.

          1. GA Anderson profile image82
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Your examples, "Eichmanns, Himlers, Goerings, Hitlers, Megeles, Pol Pots, Idi Amins, etc" seem to make the point that as a society we are willing to kill a few innocents so that we have the legal tool to kill the deserving.

            Is there another way to understand that rationalization?

            My only point is that we can't use the death sentence "sparingly" because when it is warranted it is necessary, and we cannot make the determination to use it objectively. Every death sentence is the result of the subjective judgment of a jury. As you say, our history shows how wrong that subjective judgment can be.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, there is another way to see this, we should not be willing to kill innocents if there is ANY doubt as to their guilt. But that does change not the fact that those guilty of heinous crimes reserve for themselves the ultimate penalty.

              It is as you say, considerably subjective. Yet, Sirhan Sirhan shot Robert Kennedy before scores of witnesses, is there any doubt as to his guilt?

              I see nothing gained by allowing these beasts from my previous post whose guilt is witnessed by all any leniency.

              There is something to be said about being imprisoned under highly spartan conditions for life with no chance of parole or reprieve as being for many worst than death. I am reminded of Rudolf Hess who spent the remainder of his life (40 years) in prison for his role as part of the Third Reich. Life inprisonment, meant just that, life imprisonment.

  2. Stephen Tomkinson profile image81
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

    The death penalty is barbaric - even in cases as clear-cut as this one.

    1. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      But abortion not so much, right Stephen?

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        If abortion is not acceptable because it's taking a life then how do you justify the death penalty?   I mean if you're standing on a pro life  moral conviction then doesn't that include all life?  Or maybe it's more accurate to say you are anti-abortion but pro death penalty rather than pro-life.  You've made room for some exceptions where it is acceptable  to take someone's life. A value judgment is made between the lives of the two?
        I haven't really looked at any sort of statistics but maybe you're an outlier. I suppose it's possible that most who have a pro-life stance also oppose the death penalty.

        1. abwilliams profile image68
          abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I don't justify the death penalty in all cases, no more than you justify abortion in all cases.
          Can you justify the death penalty in any case?

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I am 100% against the death penalty. The government putting to death a cognizant individual doesn't really sit right with me. Abortion is needed in this country. The greater majority happen before 13 weeks which is preferable but sadly there are instances that later term abortions are necessary for different medical reasons.  I sure would like to see a lot more effort to address unwanted pregnancy before it actually happens. We just don't seem to be very good at solutions in this country.   Politicians don't seem to embrace much that just makes common sense.

    2. GA Anderson profile image82
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Barbaric isn't as condemning as the fact that it is not reversible.

      GA

  3. Stephen Tomkinson profile image81
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

    My personal circumstances should suggest that I would be against abortion. However, I strongly defend a woman's right to choose. You might see an inconsistency here - I don't.

    1. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Plenty, there's another person involved, one who is innocent.

  4. Stephen Tomkinson profile image81
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

    This rather depends on definitions of "a person".

    1. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Here we go, Bill Clinton, depends on what the definition of is is?

      Well, I define a person as a human being and I definitely gave birth to human beings (aka: babies, persons, little people), more than once!

      What I have a hard time accepting is that while you will play these little word games with me about what is a person - you'll defend the life of a "barbaric, clear-cut case" mass murderer of children. I have to ask...at what stage/age do you recognize personhood (aka: a human being) ?

  5. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    Aborting babies "is needed in this country" but ridding this country of unrepentant serial killers, mass murderers, school shooters, etc. is not?
    So babies get the death sentence instead. Okay, that's creepy!!!

    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You'd rather Force women to carry dead fetuses? Fetuses that have no brain? No heart? No viability? Catastrophic chromosomal abnormalities that are only discovered later term? Okay sounds reasonable

      1. profile image0
        savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "Late-term" abortions are not medically safe or needed. It is easier for a woman to give birth according to medical professionals. Therefore, the so called "reasonable justification" for waiting until a baby is 6 to 9 months old to abort a child because the "woman's life is at stake" is invalid and makes no reasonable sense.
        Rather, this justification is a talking point for Planned Parenthood which profits off of ignorance (and convenience) and for Leftists who do not know any better and are thus, willing and "useful idiots" who happily regurgitate emotionally charged statements while choosing to ignore medical science.

        Furthermore, women have "late-term" abortions for the same reasons they have early term abortions, that is to say, they do not wish to interrupt their lives with the burden of a child.

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          clinical research shows that some serious fetal health issues are not observable until the third trimester of pregnancy. 
          But late-term abortions are also very rare.  In reality 91% of abortions take place at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy. But again, your language is so aggressive and so condescending. Do you not know how to Converse in a normal manner???
          And you say that late term abortions are unnecessary? And you say this based on what? Your medical knowledge?  Stop already with your rhetoric and maybe realize that there are real people out there suffering with these heartbreaking pregnancies. Babies that are planned for, wanted and already named but will be carried to term Dead on arrival.  My god, have some common sense and put aside your petty partisan crap for once.

          https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/20 … pregnancy/

          1. abwilliams profile image68
            abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            You are the one participating in petty partisan crap {as you put it} but you don't see it, you are much too concerned with how the tone of those who disagree with you, makes you feel. You take it personally, rather than really listening to what they are trying to convey.

          2. profile image0
            savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Late-term abortions are never medically necessary. They are harmful to the mother. If a woman is in danger, a doctor can deliver the child through a cesarean section in minutes.

            A late-term abortion entails dilating the cervix to an unnatural proportion to accommodate a large, viable baby; this takes many days and is extremely painful for the woman. The mother is then given medication to begin contractions. Generally, she is set up in a hotel room (after she has paid $8000 to $10,000) and after 10 days, she delivers the dead child alone.
            Again, the myth you believe... that abortion is necessary for late-term abortions is a lie. 
            Sometimes, a baby must be terminated early due to cancer or an ectopic pregnancy. But even then, medical science has become so sophisticated that it can sometimes take care of mothers and babies in such cases.

            Regardless of the laws you may cite, no doctor is ever prevented from terminating a pregnancy to save a mother's life.

            Abortion is a different matter as it is the decision of a layperson, usually without medical knowledge, to end the life of a human being for various reasons, often concerning self-interest.

            Again, a medical professional is never prevented from terminating a pregnancy for medical reasons in any state at any time.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              "Late-term abortions are never medically necessary".

              Oh good lord, really? Thank you Dr Savvy. You are absolutely painful.
              What is the difference between delivering a catastrophically damaged fetus through cesarean or abortion???  Please, with your medical expertise enlighten us

      2. abwilliams profile image68
        abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        If only that was the truth. Perfectly healthy full term babies are aborted every day. Does that sound reasonable?

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this
          1. abwilliams profile image68
            abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Whenever I see Crump's name, I cringe! He is a horrible person, I don't know that I can trust this story, at least not in its entirety.

            The fact remains, no matter how many of these sensationalized stories you find, perfectly healthy babies, many full term, are aborted every day!!! Because the primary reason for abortion IS belated birth control.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Let's just stick with the facts and not what people like to believe is happening.

              The vast majority of abortions,around nine-in-ten,  occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2019, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester, that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to the CDC. An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation.

              Additionally,

              72% of clinics would be willing to do the abortion process for 12 weeks gestation period. At 20 weeks gestation, this number fell to 25%. Only 10% of clinics offer abortion services for women at 24 weeks gestation period.

              Also, states that allow late term abortions only allow exceptions for life of the mother and catastrophic circumstances concerning the fetus. These  states  also require a second physician to attend an abortion that takes place after the state’s gestational age limit.

              1. abwilliams profile image68
                abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                As I've already stated, the primary purpose for abortion IS belated birth control.

                Which, unfortunately, means a death penalty is handed down, followed through on and then the victim is disposed of, sometimes intact, other times in parts and pieces. No trial for these defenseless little human beings, no Attorney Crump to the rescue with a camera crew in close proximity, no mercy being shown by any jurors, no RIGHTS for him or her, whatsoever, just the death sentence which comes via abortion. sad

                1. wilderness profile image89
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  When does a zygote (a fertilized egg) become a human being, and why at that point?

                  1. abwilliams profile image68
                    abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    My body always somehow knew with my pregnancies, when life began within. I don't know how to explain that any better. A Mom thing?! A woman thing!?
                    That's why I am adamant about unwanted pregnancies being nipped in the bud with the morning after pill.....literally, immediately! Preferring a pill or some other contraception, before the little budding bud or buddette.
                    What is your thinking...are you with the "Depends on what the meaning of is is" crowd?

                  2. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    A very thought-provoking question.
                    A bioethicist may say that brain death indicates the end of human life as we know it and that that full "humanness" begins when the brain starts functioning. When does consciousness begin?
                    Of course every religion has their own unique view also.

                  3. profile image0
                    savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    According to biologists, life begins at conception. The zygote you speak of is a human being from the beginning. It is not like women give birth to zebras. 

                    Any biologist will tell you that human life begins at conception. That is a simple fact.

  6. Fayetteville Faye profile image61
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago

    And now we have breaking news of a child shooting at least five people in Raleigh North Carolina. And when this individual is brought to trial, how much will you wager that this child has a whole lifetime of horrendous experiences ? Trial after trial these are the things we hear. The abuse from a parent, the drug addiction of a parent or the defects at birth due to such use.  Yet we sit on our hands and do nothing to address these issues in the hopes of at least preventing some of these senseless killings. Will this just be another case of send this child to death?   When will people actually hold their politicians accountable for doing things that actually work for the common good of us all?  Nah, it's more fun just to mud sling and call names back and forth.  This is the muck of two Party politics.

    1. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      But we can't play God and abort every child we think will not stand a chance or that may go rogue.
      Mass shootings weren't happening prior to 1999, why are they happening so frequently now? My theory, we broke the covenant, we turned our backs on God, we've devalued God-given life and now we are paying the price for it.

  7. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    Good to know. I am sorry to hear that she has been through so much, as have you, because as we all know, in marriage, we are in it together, for the good times and the bad.

    As for our areas of disagreement, on this subject, on God things, etc., it got me thinking. Conservatives, Libertarians, anti-Party-pro Americans, Republicans, etc. Let's say, right of center and leave it there, disagree on many subjects. It happens here in the forums, all of the time. But with the Dems, let's say left of center and leave it there, that's not the case. I've never seen disagreement among them.

    We approach each and every subject uniquely, as individuals, not as Party members. Whereas, those, left of center, glom on, pile on, stick together. Propping up the Democratic Party no matter what! Propping up their pathetic, destructive so-called "leaders" no matter what, they do it in unison.

    Just an observation, I am so far off topic now, but I initiated, so it's all good. wink

    1. wilderness profile image89
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      LOL  I would have put it just the opposite.  Conservatives agree on most things, with religion being nearly the only hold out and then only with the far right.  Small differences of opinion here and there, of course, but can always get along.

      Liberals, on the other hand, Can't make up their mind.  As soon as they have turned the world upside down they repeat the process, extending the original though 10 fold.  Nor do they agree; the flap over transgenders participating in women's sports is a case in point.

      It is a little comical (to me, at least, with my twisted sense of humor) just how differently we view the "opposition" compared to how they view themselves.

  8. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    Savvy explained herself in great detail, there is no reason for you to attack her personally.

    Do you believe that it is a large percentage of "catastrophically damaged fetuses" which make it to "late term" or full term Faye?

  9. Miebakagh57 profile image70
    Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

    I'm just coming out of a cave, a very big one...and I extended an invitation to all to come and see white male lion. Okay. After me, right?

    1. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, go back into the cave Miebakagh, with the lion, it is much safer there! wink

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)