No evidence in this E-longated discussion has been put forth to refute my statement dredged up from weeks ago:
"The liberal position has always been that it is better to let a killer back on the street to kill again than to allow the state the power to extinguish him."
We've heard about what a "disgusting" comment it was and that I'm a thread disrupter like TP. OK, if some are disgusted, I guess I'll have to accept that but know such a reaction was not my intent. And if I'm like TP in some people's eyes, they have a right to call me a hypocrite and end it there.
Kholt called the statement a false dichotomy, which, on the surface, might appear to be accurate. Yet, I intentionally left out "life without parole", OBVIOUSLY, to show the left's real objection to the DP is the fact that the state has the power to take a life. (In preference testing, subclasses do not necessarily have to be related, and thus it does not satisfy the elements of a false dichotomy.)
I was asked to provide an example. I did.
takeaction.amnestyusa.org
"The liberal position (Amnesty International is a liberal group which takes positions) has always been that it is better to let a killer (Toronto Patterson) back on the street (AI is pushing for a juvenile sentence meaning he'll be free in four years) to kill again (the recidivism rate for killers is high) than to allow the state the power to extinguish him (he is scheduled to die this week)."
Mind you, AI's official position on the DP is pretty consistent. No death. A state should not take a life. Nowhere does AI discuss the victims of killers or the consequences of its support for the release in four years of a Toronto Patterson. It's the position.
On the other issue of what you believe, I frankly don't know. It took you dozens of posts to answer my simple 2-part question. And then, you revealed that you're not a liberal, thereby obviating the rest of the question. You then chose life without parole, which wasn't offered as a choice in my question. In the event that answer wouldn't count, you chose B, which was death, proving once and for all, apparently, that you aren't a liberal. Then you contradicted yourself twice, once saying you have a problem with state power to execute (after you chose B) and a second time by supporting Patterson's appeal. So I don't know (or care) where you stand, and reiterate that you provided no insight to the liberal position.
So that's it. I hope I've touched upon all the relevant issues in this E-longated discussion, as it will be my last post on it. (...the audience cheers loudly!) I expect you and kholt will not be satisfied with my exit and will continue to undermine my character, honesty, intelligence, etc. That's OK, because in reality, such behavior says more about yours than mine.
Bye. |
