|
|
 | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) I see that you are rebutting my "equivocation" with a straw man. Nowhere do I claim that the murderer is blameless, but I don't equate his "blamefulness" (sorry about that malapropism) with some "right" to execute him. And the person (or (...) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| --SNIP-- (...) Preserving the sanctity of life by State-sanctioned killing. Interesting argument there. Tim (19 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) I reject your equivocation. In one case, the victim is an innocent, and in the other the "victim" is a coldblooded murderer. Being rendered "harmless" does in no way make a person "blameless". (...) No system is perfect. To criticize otherwise (...) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) Since I dragged Bruce back into this, I'll field the question for him (though he's welcome to refute or add to it, of course!) (...) Of course not! The execution of a person who has been rendered harmless is indistinguishable from coldblooded (...) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) So let me get this straight-- is it conditional for me to prove that everyone ever executed actually committed their crimes and then you’ll agree to the death penalty? What about the fate of a man who kills 5 women and children during a (...) (19 years ago, 4-Jan-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
|
