Inquiring minds already know. You knew exactly what you were doing when you posted the insult that I said would end our conversation; it ain’t my fault you deliberately took the easy way out.
Daniel
Huh? If the penalty for terrorist acts, as you propose, is death, and by statute, “terrorist act” is defined to include “determined, repeated attempt to intimidate and threaten an individual” by tire slashing, then so long as someone is tried for “determined, repeated attempt to intimidate and threaten an individual” by tire slashing and the jury determines that the elements of the crime of “determined, repeated attempt to intimidate and threaten an individual” by tire slashing have been proven by the prosecution by whatever standard necessary such that a conviction for the crime of “determined, repeated attempt to intimidate and threaten an individual” by tire slashing is in order, then the penalty AS PROPOSED BY YOU is death - death for the crime of “determined, repeated attempt to intimidate and threaten an individual” by tire slashing. What have I missed? I have in no way discounted the phrase “tried and convicted.” I have presupposed it so that we may skip ahead to your proposed punishment – how is that not clear? I’ve not employed a strawman or a weak debating tactic, either. You have proposed a punishment for terrorism – death. I have asked you what your definition of terrorism includes and provided some examples. It is the height of logical reasoning to conclude that if all terrorism is punished by death, and “determined, repeated attempt to intimidate and threaten an individual” by tire slashing is terrorism, then “determined, repeated attempt to intimidate and threaten an individual” by tire slashing is punishable by death. Your talk of “tried and convicted” meaning “a lot, a whole fucking lot,” is a stupid diversion – people are tried and convicted of all kinds of shit every single freaking day. The fact that it would be preposterous to most to execute someone for tire slashing only underscores the point being made by some – that the term terrorism is being watered down through its application to all sorts of acts of disobedience. I don’t want to get all scatological on your ass, but you make it difficult. Just come out and say, “No, even though I do consider the ‘determined, repeated attempt to intimidate and threaten an individual’ by tire slashing to be a form of terrorism, I do not consider it to be the sort of terrorism that should be punishable by death.” Do that and you will resurrect whatever dignity you might have entered this debate with.
As I’ve previously said, I’m well aware that the definition I advocate is not the definition used in the US legal system. I am arguing that it is a superior definition, not that it is the legal definition.
Daniel
Any definition that excludes the bombing of Manchester or the London Dockland bombings from being terrorism is a pretty poor definition, if you ask me.
What part of “why not” are you having trouble understanding?
I don’t know the details of these bombings, but yes, if they were carried out in a way that deliberately did not target human life, I would categorize them as among the myriad reprehensible acts that are not terrorism.
Daniel
Ah Danny, Danny, Danny. Weaseling out really is a way of life, isn’t it? I ignored you when you started to fling out the insults and responded to the “substance” (what little there was) of your posts. You too chickenshit to do the same, or have we found the ultimate Danielbane? Call you a tampon stain and you fold up like a little girl facing a spider. I don’t respect you much here, and I’m not even sure I’d like you if we met in real life, but I honestly expected better of you.
The ultimate Danielbane is saying, “I no longer wish to continue this conversation with you.” That’s what you said, only nastier; I’ll acknowledge that. I’ll still carry on a conversation with folks who can keep a civil tongue.
Daniel
this part,
If it’s the penalty, then it gets carried out, right? Or do you support putting laws on the books you don’t intend to be enforced?
You might want to focus less on criticizing how someone else debates (especially when that criticism is unfounded) and more on putting some content into your debate. You are either incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid.
I don’t think I’m either. I’m simply living in the real world. The death penalty isn’t some marvelous, instant process. One doesn’t get arrested for slashing tires and have the policeman who arrested you say “uh-oh! Terrorism!” and George W Bush appears and shoots you in the back of the head. It’s a long, drawn out, incredibly complex process that results in about 60 people being put to the death each year in the U.S. out of millions of crimes committed. I can quite comfortably say that I support the DP for terrorism and ignore people who say inane things like “well, what about slashing tires? Should that get the DP?” because *it’s never going to happen. * The chance of someone being executed for slashing tires is nada. Zero. Zip. Zilch. It just ain’t gonna happen. Why should I spend any time discussing it then, or take the suggestion seriously?
Aww, come on Danny. Don’t run away. You’ve flung way more insults than me in this thread. I said one little thing, and you huff and run home to mommy. Stay. Defend your position (if you can). Sack up and answer the questions I asked you rather than pouting and fleeing.
Then you agree with LHoD, that the word “terrorist” should only apply to people who commit politically-motivated murder? I was under the impression that you were arguing in this thread that terrorism can include much lesser acts, such as vandalism or arson. The guy who torched a parking lot full of SUVs? Terrorist, or not, in your view? And if he is a terrorist, should he get the death penalty, even though his crime, while recklessly dangerous, did not actually cause physical harm to another person?
Uh, yea, I already said that. Terrorist. Boil him in oil. My post in response to Whole Bean is directed at the ridiculous tire slashing argument.
Really? Death penalty for crimes in which no one has been physically harmed? Ooookay. Moving along:
whole bean’s question isn’t ridiculous at all. It has been argued here that slashing tires can, under certain circumstances, be considered a terrorist act. You’ve said that you consider acts of vandalism to be terrorism, again under certain circumstances. So, it’s entirely reasonable to ask if you’d support the death penalty for slashing someone’s tires, if that act has been determined to be an act of terrorism. I assume what you’re saying is that you don’t think that slashing tires can be an act of terrorism under any circumstances. But since you’ve agreed that acts of vandalism can be terrorism, the question becomes, what is the minimum level of vandalism that you think should be considered terrorism? How is destroying a lot full of SUVs different from slashing the tires on a lot full of SUVs, to the extent that one is deserving of the death penalty, and one isn’t?
It’s not ridiculous. Fucking re-read it if you must, but it is not ridiculous. It is you who is being ridiculous with your “nobody’s gonna get the death penalty for tire slashing” crap. No shit, because right now, as far as I know, neither the federal government nor any state in the US punishes tire slashing with the death penalty. But if, and god forbid this ever happen, we end up living under Weirddave laws where all terrorism is punishable by death and tire slashing is considered terrorism, then the logical conclusion is that tire slashing is punishable by death. You simply cannot say, “I think all terrorism should be punishable by death” and "Under certain circumstances, tire slashing is terrorism, " and then argue that under your “all terrorism punished by death” system, tire slashers wouldn’t be subject to the death penalty. Christ, this is like debating a young child. You bounce back and forth between hypotheticals and the real world. Look we’re talking about your “terrorism should be punished by death” statement and asking if certain instances of tire slashing fall into this new category of capital offenses. For you to say on the one had, yes and on the other but no one will ever be executed in the real world is just stupefying, unless, you have just enough sanity to realize how disconnected you are from the rest of the civilized world and how your ideas only fly in your head. But don’t say my argument is ridiculous when it is simply an assembly of your own statements, held up against one another.
Why? If someone slashed someone’s tires and left a note on the window that said “Today the tires, tomorrow we’re gonna slash your throat for fucking a white gal, nigger” I’d be perfectly fine with them being executed. That is MY personal opinion, I am perfectly aware that most people don’t share it. My response to you about the reality of the death penalty is again a recognition that while I would be fine with it, in real life it ain’t gonna happen. The only point in bringing it up is in an attempt to trivialize my personal beliefs by making wilder and wilder analogies. You also have no clue as to how my abstract beliefs (DP is OK) translate in the real world (If it was up to me how would I implement it-you might be surprised). The two are related but separate, and you keep jumping from one to the other depending on what point you’re trying to score.
Uh, dave, I think the point in bringing it up is to try to figure out what your personal beliefs* are*, not to trivialize them. Although considering what we’ve learned about your personal beliefs, I can see why that would be a valid concern for you.
Uh, dave, I think the point in bringing it up is to try to figure out what your personal beliefs* are*, not to trivialize them. Although considering what we’ve learned about your personal beliefs, I can see why that would be a valid concern for you.
Thank you for the answer – honestly, I never would have guessed this was what you were really saying, that last bit in my post about being out of synch with civilized society was sarcastic. I am a bit frightened by your willingness to impose the harshest of penalties on property crimes, but hey, you’re entitled to your opinion. Now at least your posts are internally consistent – tire slashers get the needle and all – it was just that bit about “it’ll never happen” that threw me.
Many thanks and praises to all of you.
Specifically LHOD and WHOLEBEAN for reading and commenting with honesty and courage. Quite nice to see that debate and discussion is still possible in this fast becoming fascist state. I am sorry about the quality of my posts, I will do better. Also sorry that WEIRDDAVE is so angry and vindictive, but as the christians see every sin as a chance for redemption perhaps there is hope.
