Nobel Prize vs Proof that the Death Penalty MUST kill innocents

Yet... So it is part of the equation. And then... Which you say is... and... But for schiavo pulling the plug certainly led to irreversible death. You yourself admit... So then what option gives us the GREATEST future flexibility? Pulling the plug so that she could never be revived (btw you are putting words in the doctors mouths to say "restore to life") if such a technology develops, or keeing her in her ongoing state just in case technology is there.By the way, I like how you skim over that what her wishes were were not clear and formed a good part of the trial... again based on evidence which could be flawed.In any case, you avoided the main question posed to you which was about differing levels of tentativity between types of cases. Why is medical diagnosis (established by court finding) set to a different bar than criminal conviction?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I understand your subjective reasoning behind the two differences and I happen to agree with you. I think the confusion boils down to: THere is obviously no application of tentativity with regards to both procedural issues such as "will of the subject" or technical issues such as "really was dead already".I can only concieve of two ways you can properly argue against this. One would be to point out the tentativity that I am not seeing. The other would be to explain the disparity.I feel that holmes might be putting you off by seemingly calling you a hypocrite. I hope I am not doing the same.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

No, not at all. As I have said to Holmes, all I can do is try to explain my perceptions. That's all.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So just plainly you feel that the different situations subjectivly require different degrees of tentativity?If no is there an abstract reason that eliminates the subjectivity?

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

bah. Posted before reading the SUPER LONG thread. LOOK AWAY! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! IT'S EVIL!This message has been edited by docpotato, 01-17-2006 04:18 PM

---

"In Heaven, everything is fine."
The Lady in the Radiator
Eraserhead
One Movie a Day/Week/Whenever

Sure. Every situation carries it's own needs and weights. I have said throughout that the two examples given were unique, and should be judged individually.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Finally getting around to posting on things I haven't had time for... I don't know. Reading through jar's later comments, it seems he's being straightforward.I find jar to be pretty responsive to questions. And I know he strongly believes that a belief which isn't examined isn't worth holding. So if something that he says doesn't make sense, I'd continue to ask about it, where it comes from, why that makes sense, etc.Sometimes there's a failure to understand. I just assume that's what's happened between jar and I here. It wouldn't be the first time that happened. But I don't feel it's been through obfusciation.Or just go into chat and ask jar there. He's usually around. Maybe that'd help in understanding where he's coming from. Well, one thing is that ... it's the Coffee House. Things are less about formal debate here. So in the Coffee House... I think we choose our roles in participation much more, and don't need to feel obligated to follow through 'till the bitter end, or to substantiate beliefs before stating them over and over.For me, jar was just trying to explain his POV. I understand the POV, but I don't understand why he holds it. Could be a failure to communicate, could be it's just irrational, could be that he wanted to state his ideas in his terms, could be lots of things.But it's the Coffee House. And I think jar tried to make things clear. I just chalk it up as a failure to connect. That seems fine to me. We failed; better luck next time. Maybe I'll figure it out through indirect means sometime later. I don't feel any sense of urgency to understand jar's view on the death penalty better. In time is fine.

Mmmm... not wanting to create some subthread on jar. I will explain my position and leave it at that. In general I find him to be an okay poster. But like many here, there are some issues where there is no response to questions and indeed obfuscation. This to my mind seems one of them. I don't see how I can get any more out of him than as I have tried already.It is certainly not that I think Jar is some atrocious example of this behavior, only that he is engaging in the exact same behavior which does get criticized in others. I do not believe people like buz, rand, or faith are any less straightforward, and they seem pretty responsive to questions. I do see an inconsistency in believing they would be less honest than jar. Anybody that comes on and says, "I feel X", I have no issue with and will not make commentary or criticism about. However Jar is using his position to refute arguments against other positions, and also implying the use a logical system to reach his conclusion.IF his position is arbitrary or just "an opinion", then the overall argument ends in my favor. He will not concede that reality. Therein lies the problem.I mean maybe he does have some logic he is not exposing, and maybe it makes everything okay, but the point is an argument has been advanced and as far as he is allowing to be examined, his position does not hold up. And then he later reasserts the original claim/opinion which was in dispute, only to wave "opinion" again when it comes into question.That technique does not hold water for anyone else. I'm not asking him to be censured in any way, just pointing it out.

---

holmes
"If you're going to kick authority in the teeth, you might as well use two feet. " (K.Richards)

quote:

---

Am I correct that this would be enough for us to be certain he is guilty and that there is no chance (beyond him setting himself up) he could be innocent?

---

It seems like you are mildly advocating for the death penalty's effectiveness in a given situation.You forget the fact that all of us are innocent, and that the death penalty, is a primitive method of dealing with those who go against moral codes designed by man. A method that lacks forgiveness, and is cruel. I don't agree with your statement because it makes it seem like there is no other viable option to deal with a murderer, why would you murder a murderer, it doesn't make any sense to me. As much as I enjoy Clint Eastwood, and the ruggedness, the fear put into into individuals by laws of this kind to murder, or to go against society, I still think that these kinds of laws are outdated, primitive, and that type of ruggedness displayed in these laws is a Hollywood characteristic.Yet then again, I would not want to see anyone I know and love, murdered, I would not have them killed though, that is unjust, because all people are innocent in the eyes of God.This message has been edited by prophex, 01-25-2006 10:50 AM

I hate that we have an abreviation meaning "If I recall correctly".

I have no problems with your position. I do not suggest that everyone has to agree with the death penalty, and indeed may disagree on moral grounds.This thread was about whether systems could be put in place such that someone who did not actually commit a specified crime would not end up being executed. Its a procedural question rather than a moral one.If you want an explanation of why I think capital punishment is worthwhile, I view it as an appropriate method for removing a proven ongoing threat to society. It would not be because of a "moral" code violation. They specifically have to have killed someone, and the reason involving a complusion to do so again. Its the same as if one has a nation sitting outside which has already attacked and is shown to be readying for another.You may still find this explanation not compelling, especially if you follow a strict "thou shalt not kill" ethic. I have nothing to say against that. I wish all people were like that.

---

holmes
"If you're going to kick authority in the teeth, you might as well use two feet. " (K.Richards)