Killing is wrong. And bad. There should be a new, stronger word for killing. Like… badwrong, or badong. Yes, killing is badong. From this moment, I will stand for the opposite of killing: gnodab!
But seriously, Pjen, using made-up/loaded terms does not help your argument. It’s like people who argue politics using words like Rethuglican or Democrap. Nobody takes such people seriously. I’m on your side of the argument, and I don’t take you seriously.
I wish people would stop using euphemisms. The only obviously correct term is “make bad man dead now”.
Why? I mean, sure, yes, the extremists (of any cause whatever) tend to work against their cause, but does chatting with even moderate abolitionists firm up your stance?
I’ve always found moderates to be relatively persuasive. They don’t tend to ask for the moon…and they usually put forward the best arguments.
Ha, I saw what you did there.
Speaking of spokes and wheels, could the old-time European custom of breaking murderers on the wheel make a comeback (surprisingly, it only died out in the 19th century)?
Well, my problem here is with the arguments, not with the tone. Pretty much the only arguments against the death penalty that I find at all compelling are 1) the one about the risk of executing innocent people, and 2) the Scriptural one. (I don’t think the death penalty should be abolished, but I do think it should be dialed back and reserved for a narrow class of political crimes, on the basis of those two reasons).
I don’t agree that it’s barbaric, I don’t agree that retribution (or revenge, however you want to refer to it) is an illegitimate purpose of punishment, I don’t agree that it’s cruel, I don’t particularly care whether the ‘liberal democracies’ of Europe approve of it or not, and I certainly don’t agree it is unjust (it is, in fact, pretty close to perfectly just).
I do agree that there’s a strong Biblical and Traditional witness against the death penalty, and I personally am much more sympathetic to the abolitionist arguments that are made on the basis of scripture and tradition.
Actually, there’s strong Biblical support for the death penalty (both in the Old and New Testament, not that I’m swayed by that).
Speaking of (non)-euphemisms, “death penalty” seems pretty clear-cut, unlike “judicial killing” which sounds like you’re talking about killing judges.
Actually until 2008 rape of a child under age 12 was a capital crime in Louisiana. It still is (along with a host of other non-homicide offenses) punishable by death under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Fair enough. I’m an abolitionist, but would certainly accept that as a workable compromise.
I don’t rely at all on the religious argument, but I would introduce the issue of the excessive costs of capital punishment, as well as the proportionality problem. (Non-whites are more likely than whites to be sentenced to die for identical crimes.)
I’m also still a little horrified by the Texas case where the actual gunman got life in prison, while the getaway driver, who never even saw the shooting victim, was executed. That flies in the face of common sense.
All of these are, possibly, better arguments for reform than abolition, but they are important ones.
I’m a North American and I’ve never heard “stick in the spokes.” It’s always been “a spoke in the wheel”.
**bolding **mine
So what does the Michigan Department of Corrections do? What do they judicially kill?
Or Alaska DOC? CT? Why do most states without the death penalty still have an entity named “Department of Correction(s)”.
Do you have a problem with English or Logic?
Some Supermarkets sell alcohol; that makes Supermarkets a soft drug provider.
It is reasonable to say that “Supermarkets then are soft drug providers.”
However some Supermarkets do not sell alcohol because of State Laws.
Some Supermarkets then are not soft drug providers.
It is still valid to say that Supermarkets are soft drug providers.
Not “All supermarkets sell Alcohol” because I did not say that.
Nor did I say “All Departments of Corrections do judicial killing.”
Departments of Correction carry out Judicial Killings. End of.
Allow me to introduce you to someone who disagrees with that statement;
I’m sure the two of you have lots to discuss.
You misunderstand the Eu- in Euphemism.
Euphemism is not just using words that are similar in meaning to a concept, ut specifically using words to make the concept more palatable.
So “Termination of Pregnancy” is a Euphemism for the act of killing a Foetus,
But
“Murdering a Child” is NOT a Euphemism for the act of Termination of Pregnancy.
Euphemism is providing a less shocking version of reality, not a different version of reality.
I am using its opposite- dysphemism- using striking and posssibly offensive words for an offensive act.
Where abouts are you? (I’m in eastern Ontario) That link above said it’s a British or Australian saying and I honestly never heard spoke in the wheel in the monkey wrench sense.
With Canadians I suspect the more recent one’s last British forebear, the more British colloquialisms will have survived. A few generations ago many Anglophone Canadian would have had a grandmother/father who was born in the UK but that has now changed. Such sayings pass down families and slowly get overtaken by dominant cultures such as US via TV.
Try Health Alteration Committee if you want a euphemism.
The problem with vilifying terminology such as “Department of Corrections” is that it is so widely used by those who do not support the activity you mean to condemn. Try a little harder to find an us vs them split and complain about those terms.
But states in the United States don’t tend to be particularly meek about calling a spade a spade when it comes to the death penalty. Tennessee has a state-run webpage page that, no nonsense, provides Death Row Facts. Texas too. No terms obfuscating that. Many other states are similarly blunt.