Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (20161)	8/27/2002 10:15:36 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

No evidence in this E-longated discussion has been put forth to refute my statement That's because we can't prove a negative. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. We can only demonstrate to you the flaws in your assertion. I was asked to provide an example. It's not an adequate example. Yes, it vaguely leans in your direction, but the example is of a child, which is different and which the link acknowledges is different suggesting another option, that a child can be rehabilitated. So we now have death, life without parole, release to kill again, and rehabilitation. Your example is also one example from one "liberal" organization, which is hardly adequate to support your broad accusation about liberals, in general. In the event that answer wouldn't count, you chose B, which was death Any sane person, when pushed into that tight a corner would choose B. That includes liberals. That includes AI. Asserting otherwise is demonizing them. The fact is that there are other options that reasonable people can and do choose. In preference testing, subclasses do not necessarily have to be related, and thus it does not satisfy the elements of a false dichotomy. May I suggest that, if what you're trying to do is to make a point by forcing an artificial choice, that you frame your point that way--"if you (of the typical liberal) had to choose between x and y,..."--rather than as a charge against a class of people.

To: Bill who wrote (20161)	8/27/2002 10:17:22 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Respond to of 21057

it will be my last post on it. (...the audience cheers loudly!) <CHEERING LOUDLY>

To: Bill who wrote (20161)	8/27/2002 10:35:13 AM
From: E	Respond to of 21057

You poor thing. AI has never taken the position about the death penalty that you attribute to it. It advocates life in prison without parole as the alternative to death in the heinous cases now tried as capital crimes. You are in in cloud cuckoo land. (AI is pushing for a juvenile sentence meaning he'll be free in four years) to kill again You misread. (I'm being charitable.) Check the link. It's your link, you should have read and reread until comprehension set in. The governor may or may not commute the death sentence of this juvenile (who was, btw, only one year older than the age at which you, personally, think it should be illegal to execute juveniles) to life imprisonment without parole, but the notion that any proposal is on the table to let him out in four years, or that AI is "pushing for a juvenile sentence" that would result in letting him out in four years is entirely a product of your fertile imagination. AI has not asked for it. The only person who is saying "he'll be out in four years" is YOU. That is a highly emotional fantasy of your own design. If the governor decides either to let him out in four years or to flap his wings and fly over the zoo I'll sign my house over to you.