This was the sequence:
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill: I demand that the state enforce the laws of the people and keep society safe from perpetrators. I "trust" the peer jury system and the legal advocates on all sides to administer justice judiciously.
Ionesco: That is very trusting of you.
Bill: Your solution is what, anarchy?
Ionesco: That's a rather strange thing to say. Are you under the impression that there is a dichotomy- it's the death penalty, or anarchy? If so, it's no wonder you support the DP. I think that's one of the oddest things anyone has said to me on SI.
------------------------------------------------------------
So what we have here is someone who trusts peer juries to administer justice and someone else who trusts no one, apparently. Then we have the logical question that if our type of justice system is not to be trusted, what is the solution, anarchy?
Now, if one were interested in continuing the discussion and of better explaining oneself, a logical response would be that you don't actually favor anarchy, but perhaps a different type of justice system (if that's what you believe). Or you could have mentioned that your trust in the peer jury system stops at life in prison, followed by an explanation of why. And if you bristled at the word anarchy, you might even chide me for using a bit of hyperbole. All of that was in the flow of conversation and logically connected.
However, instead, you sententiously chose to make my anarchy question into some sort of seminal point in your SI career. I've noticed that you have many of these types of moments, and they all seem to occur after someone has tied your illogic around your neck. They serve not only as a distraction from the core issue, but also as a means for you to attribute arguments to your opponent that weren't made by him.
It isn't necessarily that you aren't smart enough to defend your positions, it is that you aren't humble enough to admit any inconsistency or mistake in your beliefs. When the argument progresses to the point where your fallacy is obvious to all, your core character flaw, dishonesty, manifests itself in your posting behavior. And that's where we are in our little discussion about the death penalty this morning.
So, the discussion is over. We'll both write on it another day I'm sure. |
