NoGenlefBhind said:
sundin13 said:
First of all, how does the Death Penalty do anything that Life Without Parole doesn't do towards the goal of insuring that the individual is unable to commit further crimes? There is of course crime commited in prison, but there are of course non-lethal steps that can be taken to combat this.
Second, the vast majority of cases don't actually contain DNA evidence, and often DNA evidence doesn't prove a crime so much as an interaction, so it isn't quite as infallible as you make it out to be.
As for your view on life, it seems rather contradictory. If we are simply apex predators and our lives arent really any more meaningful than those of a spider or a dog, than why do you believe that we should so fiercely protect human lives in the first place. Anyways, my argument throughout this thread almost exclusively relied on facts and objective statements, nothing about the mysteries of life, so I'd rather you not put words in my mouth. Life and what it means however is fairly abstract and interpreted differently by different individuals, so I don't really see how any singular perspective holds more weight than any other in this discussion.
And again, your Hitler scenario is inherently flawed. You presented a situation which was extremely divorced from the discussion in an attempt to somehow prove your point. You did so by restricting the situation into a binary in a ridiculous hypothetical situation. I merely suggested that the reality of the discussion does not demonstrate the options that you presented. Your Hitler example was extremely flawed and I think it could be argued that the intelectual dishonesty here is on your side by trying to mischaracterize the argument to make it seem more black and white than it actually is.
|
that's actually a really good point and an excellent counter, in contrast to ACE's last offering where he let his frustration and inability to reply with something similarly intuitive get the better of him and resorted to questioning my sexuality.. lol... I knew there was a good reason to stop replying to him. Did you happen to notice how he uses the word 'fallacious' in every response to me, he really likes that word, or how he confuses an agenda with an opinion.. well, whatever.
Back to your highlighted remark from above.
I would have really liked to answer that honestly, it's a fair question given my stated belief system toward life and an interesting perspective I haven't given much thought to.
But here's where your refusal to play this game in a straightforward manner comes back to bite you, figuratively speaking, in the cerebral ass and why the simple rules of conversation need to be followed in order to arrive at some sort of mutual conclusion.
You chose to avoid directly answering my question, you changed it to fit your argument and then answered it. Like I said, that's a cowardly way out of a discussion and the first indication that your oppostion has found a hole in your logic that you're not willing or capable of defending. And if you can't defend your view with complete conviction, if the person you're discussing something with poses a question that scares you into dodging around, than obviously there is something wrong with your viewpoint.
So as much as I'd like to, because it honestly is a good counter question and would certainly move the conversation along, I'm not going to answer it. You don't deserve it. You didn't demonstrate the ability or desire to answer my prior question honestly so what makes you think you have the right to ask a following query of me? You don't. By your own actions, you lost that option... hmm, there's something hauntingly applicable in that last sentence, don't cha' think?
Later Sundin, think I'm gonna go find a more personally rewarding contest, win or lose, doesn't really matter to me.. as long as I can respect the person i'm playing against.
|
