Then your moral compass is flawed.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but you’re not supporting it very well.
Our legal system, and most of our citizens I believe, understand quite well there are various degrees of severity in killing, like legally justifiable, accidental, negligent, intentional. That’s why we have laws that cover various circumstances, like manslaughter vs murder, for example.
Before I respond to this one, just curious: do you ascribe to a particular religion?
Are Obama-voters complicit in the killing of Osama Bin Laden in your eyes? Are all people that didn’t denounce it?
[Quote=HurricaneDitka]
Are Obama-voters complicit in the killing of Osama Bin Laden in your eyes? Are all people that didn’t denounce it?
[/QUOTE]
I’ll let you waste your own time on the truth teller but this is a bullshit question. Not every Obama voter approved of this assassination. Beren Erchamion said “supporting a killing” not "ever supported a guy who at one point ordered a killing ".
I’m trying to explore how far his “morally complicit” definition extends. I’m certainly not claiming every Obama voter is a “killer”. I’m asking him what he thinks.
ETA: just curious, if you were to guess at a %, what % of Obama voters do you think approved of “this assassination”?
Aren’t you also making a claim? You said, and I quote:
Yet, you haven’t made a case for this.
Oh wait, you were given cites, but they didn’t fit your definiton of “demonstrably innocent”, which, btw, you never gave in your initial post. A wee bit weaselly wouldn’t you say?
Your logic is flawed here. You’re ignoring false convictions.
I can’t really speak for Shodan, but I understand the core of the argument to be: if one’s position is that no innocents should die, then both the for- and against-death-penalty positions are imperfect: in the case of the for-death-penalty viewpoint, there’s a possibility that some innocent person will be convicted and executed, and in the case of the anti-death-penalty viewpoint, there’s a possibility that someone who would’ve been executed but was spared because the abolition of the death penalty kills an innocent person (perhaps a prison guard or uninvolved citizen in the case of an escape) who would have survived if their killer had been executed. Neither viewpoint can guarantee that no innocents die. I don’t see the flaw in the logic there.
Please dial back the personal commentary and focus on the debate at hand.
[/moderating]
What god are you talking about? It can’t YHWH form the bible. That guy loves him some good killin’.
(Bolding mine)How can you possibly state this as a fact? You have no idea if any death penalty supporters have ever “repented” or not.
Oh, I wouldn’t feel comfortable with a guess. Just rather confident that it’s well below 100%. Americans love their righteous revenge killings but I’m sure a fair few Obama voters thought he’d be changing the game plan in that regard. What’s your % guess?
Pretty sure that’'s how it worked in some Soviet countries.
Did you actually bother to read the part you bolded? Because I explain it there.
If they’ve repented for their support of the death penalty, then pretty much by definition they’re no longer a death penalty supporter. They were one in the past, but they’re not now, so they don’t fall in the category of “death penalty supporters” since at the moment, they’re not.
And so they’re at least as morally upright as any other former killer who has repented for their sins–which is to say, more so than a killer who has not repented, which is the thrust of #2.
He was one of the West Memphis 3.
I was going to guess 80%+, but now I’ve gone and looked up a poll, and I’ll up that to 90%+.
I’m asking you what it would take to challenge your claim that not one innocent person has been executed. You clarified the claim – you insisted on definitive proof of innocence. I’m asking for an example of such proof.
You said the DNA mismatch is the kind of evidence that “would help.” Did you mean it was sufficient?
Hokay, let’s focus on the debate at hand.
Shodan, please answer the questions:
[ul]
[li]Do you favour executing first time drunk drivers?[/li][li]Do you favoour executing employers convicted of serious safety violations?[/li][/ul]
There have been 157 people on death row who were found innocent and released. Those people were in jeopardy of being executed and could have been put to death before proving their innocence. If one were taking score with your logic, it would be at least 157 or more to 3.
Now, take into account the fact that not everybody on death row has people working for them tirelessly to prove their innocence and that some courts will deny even hearing the evidence of their innocence and it seems likely that innocent people have been executed.
Here are 13 people who were executed but who were likely innocent and if you click “Also Noted” on that last page, it goes to a list of 10 or so people who were pardoned after their execution due to being innocent, although a couple go back 100 years.
Your entire premise is highly suspect.
As a reminder, if you are a judge who has just imposed a restraining order that barred the execution of a condemned man and you hope to have that restraining order stand then it is probably a bad idea to attend an anti-death penalty protest and lay on a cot in simulation of the lethal injection procedure in protest.
Restraining order overturned. Arkansas Supreme Court has barred him from further death penalty cases. He is being referred to examine if his action rose to the level of judicial misconduct.
And I’m going to call the descriptions and such of Baron Erchamion and his argument-style to be out of bounds. Such posts are a hijack away from the discussion. If you must, please do so elsewhere.