[hannigaholic]

What is SWAT protecting that justifies execution? LIFE.
The value of LIFE does not change after the murderer takes it.
Or in your world is there a double standard on the value of life?

Life imprisonment is as effective as the death penalty for protecting the citizens from the murderer once you've caught him and he is not imminently likely to take a life. SWAT taking out a target is preventing the imminently likely loss of life. The two situations are completely different and you know it. There is no double standard, there is only a judgement that it was necessary to take the life in the SWAT scenario, and unnecessary in the death penalty scenario.

The death penalty is nothing more than emotion-driven revenge and thus should have no place in the penal system.

[DanDaMan]

Life imprisonment is as effective as the death penalty for protecting the citizens from the murderer once you've caught him and he is not imminently likely to take a life.

The death penalty is nothing more than emotion-driven revenge and thus should have no place in the penal system.

I cant see the death penalty as an equal penalty since I am seeing such a strong defense for banning execution!
Especially since many argue they fear the possibility of wrongful execution ( to themselves, especially)!

SWAT taking out a target is preventing the imminently likely loss of life. The two situations are completely different and you know it. There is no double standard, there is only a judgement that it was necessary to take the life in the SWAT scenario, and unnecessary in the death penalty scenario.

What are you protecting in order for a justifiable execution by swat based on an assumption of what the criminal will do?
I say it's LIFE.

My position is this.... Life is not the equal of milk from a cow.
Your position is not to cry over spilled milk and not execute one who steals a life.
I do not honor the value of life by thinking it's milk and worthless after it's taken.

With that... why do you devalue life and make it the equal of spilled milk?

[SpecialOlympian]

DDM, how do you have the balls to go around calling people incompetent discriminators when you can't even see how ridiculous your SWAT example is?

I hereby revoke your license to discriminate for reasons of malpractice. You are hereby restricted to hunches, guesstimates, gut-feelings, and coin flips until a panel of competent discriminators hears your case.

[DanDaMan]

DDM, how do you have the balls to go around calling people incompetent discriminators when you can't even see how ridiculous your SWAT example is?

I see my SWAT example as perfectly good.

Maybe I should use history where Obama and the Navy executed (took the heads off with bullets) three black men (pirates) while they were in good faith negotiations. Would that be better?

[SpecialOlympian]

I see my SWAT example as perfectly good.

Why?

Maybe I should use history where Obama and the Navy executed (took the heads off with bullets) three black men (pirates) while they were in good faith negotiations. Would that be better?

You are talking about law enforcement and the application of the death penalty under American law and how opposition to the death penalty is supposedly at odds with the use of force during an armed standoff. Your first example contained law enforcement agents on American soil while the second is a military action in international waters.

So no.

[DanDaMan]

Quote:
I see my SWAT example as perfectly good.

Why?

Because they are proactive executioners that are judge, jury and executioners making a statement on what price must be paid for the threat of taking an innocent life.

Tell me, do you, like others here, think life taken is the equal of spilled milk and not worth crying over? Do you have a double standard on life like it were spilled milk?

[Lightman]

DanDaMan, do you believe also that it is okay to execute someone without trial because SWAT would have killed him if he hadn't surrendered? Your analogy fails.

[DanDaMan]

DanDaMan, do you believe also that it is okay to execute someone without trial because SWAT would have killed him if he hadn't surrendered?

Until you come up with a plausible scenario... No

Your analogy fails.

Probably because I am not satisfactorily articulating my point on the value of life.
I see it as equal before and after someone steals it form another.
It does not change value like spilled milk does.
Doing so degrades what human life is worth and what one should pay even after destroying/stealing it.

[SpecialOlympian]

Dan, can you not see the difference between an imprisoned convict and a man holding a hostage in a public place?

This is one of the questions the Council of Competent Discrimination is going to ask you in your hearing, so I would give it some though.

[DanDaMan]

Dan, can you not see the difference between an imprisoned convict and a man holding a hostage in a public place?

I do.
But do I let it change the value of the life taken? No.
You can treat the murdered like spilled milk... I can not.

[hannigaholic]

With that... why do you devalue life and make it the equal of spilled milk?

I think that about sums it up.

[SpecialOlympian]

But do I let it change the value of the life taken? No.

So basically you'd make the same decision, but you're better than everyone else because you'll cry over spilt milk?

I don't think anyone here would ever want that decision thrust into their hands.

[DanDaMan]

I agree . There are few men of character and strength here.
They all seem to want the government to take care of them.

[Rei Murasame]

I agree . There are few men of character and strength here.
They all seem to want the government to take care of them.

And you don't?

[SpecialOlympian]

DDM is right.

The next time I see my local police engaged in any kind of dispute I will not just sit back and watch. I will force myself upon the situation as I shout nonsensical slogans about taking my country back from the socialists.

A real American doesn't stand by and let the police "do their job". That's the kind of thing a socialist does.

[DanDaMan]

DanDaMan wrote:
I agree . There are few men of character and strength here.
They all seem to want the government to take care of them.

And you don't?

Taking care of me? No.
Providing enough protection so my property is still there when I get home from work? Yes.

That is what all classic Republicans want... A government just big enough to provide equality under Law and protection of their property.
We do not want the government telling us our neighbors have the right to our property (wages) so they don't have to do what they should do for themselves.

[Rei Murasame]

That is what all classic Republicans want... A government just big enough to provide equality under Law and protection of their property.

That's pretty funny, DanDaMan, seeing as you as presently arguing with me in another thread about what message the government ought to be indoctrinating children with in regards to sex.

You change stripes on demand, the deep truth is that American Republicans have a love affair with both anarchism and gemeinshaft at the same time, just they are not honest enough to admit to themselves or others that they have no idea which one they prefer; because they are not sincere in either idea -- they are in fact just taking orders from Evangelical preachers who make it up as they go along.

Are Republicans really conservative, or are they just evangelicals trying to legitimise the arbitrary rules of their religion by imposing them on a nation?

[SpecialOlympian]

If I understand correctly, DDM's argument is that both Conservatives and Liberals would make the same choice to kill the hostage taker in his SWAT example. Except the Conservative would feel worse about it, while the Liberal would presumably derive perverse joy from killing something.

DDM is effectively arguing that conservatives are better than liberals because they're weepy, Byronic pussies who cry over their own decisions and think themselves better than others due to their extraordinary ability to feel guilt and pain. While liberals are probably overjoyed by the fact that they got to kill something larger than a fetus. They probably would have killed the child too, if there weren't so many damned policemen around.

"Booo hoo hooo I had to kill him. I had no choice but at least I'm conservative enough to possess the basic human emotions which make taking a life difficult. Unlike those evil liberals, who are inhuman monsters."

[Genghis Khan]

While liberals are probably overjoyed by the fact that they got to kill something larger than a fetus. They probably would have killed the child too, if there weren't so many damned policemen around.

Just because I drink the blood of babies doesn't make me evil. I just like to experiment.

[DanDaMan]

If I understand correctly, DDM's argument is that both Conservatives and Liberals would make the same choice to kill the hostage taker in his SWAT example. Except the Conservative would feel worse about it, while the Liberal would presumably derive perverse joy from killing something.

DDM is effectively arguing that conservatives are better than liberals because they're weepy, Byronic pussies who cry over their own decisions and think themselves better than others due to their extraordinary ability to feel guilt and pain. While liberals are probably overjoyed by the fact that they got to kill something larger than a fetus. They probably would have killed the child too, if there weren't so many damned policemen around.

Your name is in no way a fluke or coincidence is it?
You have it backwards.