Tookie executed

[Ophiolite]

Extremely well put. Why do I always overestimate the need for clarity when writing?

Thank you for your kind words. This is off-topic, but after such concision I am feeling garrolous. In the 1960s I was reading book reviews in the Observer, a quality Sunday newspaper in the UK. This was one of the reviews.

 

The Art of Brevity Author's Name Publisher

 

Excellent.

 

 

I rarely achieve the standard such a review sets, but from time to time I try.

[H W Copeland]

This is where we differ. I would have a problem "excusing" myself for ANY killing. That's not to say I wouldn't do it' date=' just that I would not easily shrug it off just because I saved lives doing it.

 

This last statement is a classic syntax252, where you straw man the argument I'm trying to make by changing it to one you can more easily defend. You are not listening to or responding to what I'm saying, and so you are derailing the thread by making me clarify, over and over, my position.

 

Whatever value I place on one life over another doesn't make killing anyone any more just. Legal exoneration aside, I would still mourn the neccesity of having to take the life of anybody, and would not try to excuse myself of responsibility for their death by the easy expedient of "he had it coming". No one is more entitled to live than anyone else, and I may make a decision to end someone's life based on my own survival or that of others, but I refuse to excuse myself from responsibility for my actions. I may not go to jail, but I won't sleep easily for a long time after, no matter who I saved.

 

If I don't take responsibility, won't my next killing be easier to justify?[/quote']

 

Well, you are right about one thing - we disagree.

 

In my code of ethics, whenever I have a chance to save someone's life, and the person in jeparody appears to be perfectly innocent of any crime or wrongdoing, I have a duty as a member of the human race to save that life - even if that means I have to kill the one who is about to take this innocent's life. If I were to fail in that duty because of some warped sense of equity, then that would be the thing that would keep me awake at night, not the fact that I had eliminated a piece of human garbage from our midst.

 

If you lack the fortitude to do your duty without agonizing about it, that is, after all, your misfortune, but please don't try to make yourself look superior in the bargain.

 

You are wrong, however, about the "strawman" and the syntax252.

 

I did a search on this syntax252, and it looks like this guy was guilty of providing a little more in the way of an argument that you were capable of handling, so you simply banished him.

 

That is some method of countering an argument--banish the one who is refuting your position.

 

Tell me, what is the difference between burning books and banning someone who beats you in a discussion?

[H W Copeland]

Don't get me wrong' date=' if it was on video tape, or they caught him at the scene, I would say shoot him in both kneecaps, file his teeth, bamboo under the nails and then shoot him in the head the next day. Torture would be a much better deterrent than death.

 

But, if we are not 100% sure, then it takes too much hassle with lawyers, etc. to be effective. So, that is my reason for the proposal, to get something out of keeping these people behind bars. If they are innocent, they can still work like the rest of us.[/quote']

 

And with this, I agree.

 

This is why I too oppose the death penalty. It is simply too much trouble to go through all the appeals and the process of making certain that the convicted is indeed the guilty party. By the time we get done with the appeals process, it is so far removed from the crime that execution has lost most of it's meaning. On the other hand, it would be foolish to just trust the state to have gotten the right guy, so these appeals are quite necessary.

 

It is not because of any sympathy for the likes of this Tookie, or because of any crackpot idea that he has some sort of a "right to live," he forfited that when he murdered the 4 people that he was convicted of murdering.

 

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[Phi for All]

If you lack the fortitude to do your duty without agonizing about it, that is, after all, your misfortune, but please don't try to make yourself look superior in the bargain.

If you lack the humanity to see that taking ANY life is something to anguish over, it's no wonder you're worried about someone else looking superior.

 

You are wrong, however, about the "strawman" and the syntax252.

 

I did a search on this syntax252, and it looks like this guy was guilty of providing a little more in the way of an argument that you were capable of handling, so you simply banished him.

 

That is some method of countering an argument--banish the one who is refuting your position.

Mental masturbation, syntax252? How long before I get a filthy PM from you telling me off?

 

Tell me, what is the difference between burning books and banning someone who beats you in a discussion?

When you beat the argument I'm making instead of one you want me to make, I'll let you know.

[H W Copeland]

If you lack the humanity to see that taking ANY life is something to anguish over' date=' it's no wonder you're worried about someone else looking superior.

 

Mental masturbation, syntax252? How long before I get a filthy PM from you telling me off?

 

When you beat the argument I'm making instead of one you want me to make, I'll let you know.[/quote']

 

It is not a lack of humanity to prevent a murder, even if you have to kill the one who is about to commit the murder. If you cannot see that, then it is you who is lacking in humanity - not I. That is not a superior position, it is a totally unrealistic and unhumane position.

 

And please stop with this syntax252 nonsense. As I said before, I did a search on this syntax252 and all I could see that he was guilty of was in providing more fight than you could handle.

 

Now, that I have had the gall to respond to your patent drivel, I suppose I will be banished from this forum like syntax252 was? If so, I can live with that, but just rember, "he who starts by burning books, will end by burning men......"

 

You, as a moderator are no better than any other tyrannical despot.

 

Quick now, erase this post before others see it.

[ecoli]

It is not a lack of humanity to prevent a murder, even if you have to kill the one who is about to commit the murder. If you cannot see that, then it is you who is lacking in humanity - not I. That is not a superior position, it is a totally unrealistic and unhumane position.

 

By killing to prevent a murder, you are acting morally responsible and humanely... that doesn't mean that you shouldn't feel regret about it. Killing, even when you're justified is a terrible thing to have to do.

 

 

You, as a moderator are no better than any other tyrannical despot.

 

That's a harsh overstatement... don't be so dramatic.

[Phi for All]

Other than his insistance on strawmanning I actually like the POV that syntax252/darth tater/H W Copeland brings to the board. I think he provides a much needed perspective. But it takes so much time correcting him! I can't stand leaving bad information stay unrefuted.

 

You don't provide more fight than I can handle, H W, you just choose not to follow our rules. You take up too much moderation time. Most of us are here to learn, not to win arguments by any means possible.

 

If anybody has more to add to the Tookie executed thread, PM me and I will reopen it.