This is something people seem to be really concerned about, and I really can’t figure out why. So don’t call me anti-death-penalty, I don’t care. Call me Simon the Wishy-Washy, that’s okay. I’m mapping out a particular position regarding the death penalty, and if you don’t want to call that position anti-death-penalty, that strikes me as immaterial.
The question was, can you see how I’d distinguish between, “Bob set a Koran on fire, and a lot of people want him dead for it” and, “Fred murdered a bunch of people, and a lot of people want him dead for it”? Again, I’m not asking if YOU consider the two cases relevantly distinct; I’m asking if you can see how someone else would draw a distinction between the two cases.
I’m not sure about the answer to any of these questions.
Yes, I can see a distinction between those two cases, and I’m pretty sure everyone else on earth can see that distinction, regardless of whether or not they would support the death penalty in either case.
Excuse me. How can you imagine anyone who speaks English and has a modicum of intelligence wouldn’t be able to distinguish between the two situations you describe?
Are you asking whether John Mace is an idiot? I’m pretty sure he’s not. I’m pretty sure he can imagine that some people would advocate for or against the death penalty for either or both perpetrators.
How is this going to help you realize or rationalize anything at all?
It doesn’t sound as though you’ve followed the conversation up to this point; if you have, I can’t see how you’ve accounted for the back-and forth in posts 66, 67, and 75. Of course I’m not accusing John of being an idiot, any more than I’m suggesting that the civil rights movement is suspect.
If you (the generic you) think I’m suggesting something totally moronic, I’d appreciate it if you’d reread the thread, because I like to think I’m not a total moron, and maybe I’m not saying the thing you think I’m saying.
Excuse me again, I’ve read the thread in its entirety, and NO ONE understands what you are getting at. Perhaps you should read it again.
I don’t think you’re suggesting something moronic, I think you are asking a silly question with a blindingly obvious answer, and refusing to explain what that answer (or any other) would mean to you.
It’s not something people are really concerned about (at least I’m not), but you titled this thread “Death Penalty Opponents: Afghan massacre an exception?” and declared yourself to be a death penalty opponent when it’s clear as day that you are in fact not, and act as if everyone pointing this out to you is somehow doing it to irritate you. They’re not; they are answering your question on if there should be an exception (no) and letting you know your position isn’t actually one of opposition to the death penalty, it’s a position in favor of it. I don’t know why you can’t figure out why people are telling you this. You also apparently favored the death penalty during the Civil War. There’s nothing really wrong with not being opposed to the death penalty; intelligent people disagree about a great many things.
Your position on the death penalty is essentially the same as proclaiming yourself to be a pacifist with the exception of defense of self or others. There’s not anything wrong with a position that force is acceptable in defense of self or others, but that’s not pacifism and is going to raise a few eyebrows if you claim it is.
Not quite true - I think I understand what he is getting at, whether I agree with it or not. He is asking if there can ever be exceptions to opposition to the death penalty, and others are saying no, there can’t be, and if you allow for any exceptions you can’t say you are anti-death penalty.
Which strikes me as a little silly and absolutist. Why can’t there be any nuances about anti-death penalty?
It’s like politicians who say “I am anti-abortion, but I feel the decision to abort should be left to the woman and her doctor”. Are you going to try to disallow that position as part of the continuum of opinions on abortion?
Okay, it’s a new day. If you want to post about my lack of purity on the anti-death penalty position, or whether my opposition to all executions in the US in the last 150 years is enough to call myself anti-death-penalty, or what my emotional state is when I’m posting, or anything like that, I’ll continue to be appalled at your poor behavior and absurd approach to debating, but I’ll no longer respond.
I do appreciate folks like John Mace and Marley23 and Buck Godot and Shodan and others who have dealt with the issues in the OP. Y’all have given me things to think about.
Honestly, I don’t see a relationship between a death sentence mandated by a court, and a question of abortion as an individual choice. I don’t think the there is any inconsistency is stating that "While I wouldn’t choose an abortion for myself, I support the right of others to make that choice for themselves.
Perhaps it’s a meaningless semantic quibble as to whether being in favor of a death sentence under some conditions and not under others can be characterized as being ‘opposed’ to the death sentence. I don’t think it is, as I would argue that the most ardent supporters of the death penalty don’t argue that it is a suitable punishment for every possible crime. No one (IMO) would seriously argue that jaywalking should be punishable by death. So every single rational death penalty supporter is in favor of it in some cases and not in others.
Many or most of the participants in this thread (you included Shodan) have argued that LHOD is using incorrect (or unacceptable?) criteria for drawing the line between when it should or shouldn’t be used. I think we all understand this, but LHOD seems to be insistent that somehow we are disagreeing with the position because we don’t understand it. That’s incorrect – we DO understand it, we just think it’s wrong.
It’s totally fine to argue I’m using unacceptable criteria for drawing the line; I’m not convinced of the position in the OP, and am interested in exploring it. What’s not fine is to keep on about some purity test about what comprises opposition to the death penalty, since that doesn’t help explore the OP. Certainly some people understand, and disagree with, what I suggested in the OP; see my last post for a list of folks who have engaged with the OP substantively. The only folks I’ve said don’t understand my position are among those who I didn’t list there. Note that the list includes mostly people who disagree with me.
Meaningless to you or not, it is a distinction that, once you recognize it, makes this debate as defined one that nobody except one person so far is qualified to take part in. It’s addressed to opponents of the death penalty, but opponents of the death penalty, unless they fit in the narrow window LH is interested in, are barred from responding because if they offer the only logical response available (that being “No, because I’m against the death penalty”), then they get snide responses about “smugness” and “moral superiority” and roll-eyes faces and “that sure is a meaningful remark.”
This isn’t a conversation that most people who are opposed to the death penalty are actually welcome in. People who are opposed to the death penalty are being invited into the thread by the title, offering the only response they can, and getting insulted for it. It’s not a particularly effective trick to try to frame this as a conversation where the OP is being victimized.
Of course we see the distinction that’s being made. The reason we aren’t only talking about that distinction is that it was only raised after it was made clear that we’re assholes for answering the question that was asked. I think I speak for several people when I say that we’re sorry you solicited our opinions, too.
I gathered as much. Actually, I said as much. And yet there I was giving a good faith effort to clarify the difference between our positions while you were belittling mine.
If you were wondering up to this point why people may have been speculating about your emotional state, by the way, the fact that you’re providing a list of cool kids and that you had to get the last word in to point out that I’m not on it is a good start.
The death penalty is wrong, always and everywhere. Had the Romans remembered to take this fact into account 2k years ago, we wouldn’t have that pesky death-and-cannibalism cult nonsense today.
I hope you see the irony in this some day. The people you are referring to have been responding to your OP, and it was your responses to them that was appallingly poor behavior and involved an absurd approach to debating.
Well said.
They are nuances to be sure, but they are nuances about being pro-death penalty. Only being in favor of the death penalty for say, treason, mass murderers and serial killers is a perfectly valid position to take, but it is a position in favor of the death penalty. Nobody is trying to disallow the position on the continuum of opinions on the death penalty, but calling it an anti-death penalty position is absurd on its face. I’d add in ‘when terrorists might kill more of us if we don’t execute this guy’ onto that list, but I don’t consider that to be a valid position but rather a ridiculous one.
I don’t hate the Dutch. I love the Dutch. That’s why I hold them to a higher standard.
I guess I can see how LHOD can consider himself against the death penalty. In the matter of abortion, for some people it’s like a trained response, “I’m against abortion exceptincasesofrape,incest,orwhenthemother’slifeisthreatened.” and no one seems to be bothered by that particularly and accuse them of being pro-choice with extremely strict qualifiers. That being said, as someone who is against the death penalty, I don’t see LHOD’s arguments as being particularly persuasive. As much as it sucks, being part of the military means facing lethal dangers. That doesn’t mean that the government shouldn’t worry about increasing the risk soliders are in but certainly we shouldn’t put our ethics on hold to appease oppositions, especially when there’s no guarantee that such an action would actually appease anyone.