Re: Death penalty

----- Original Message ----
From: pcg <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, November 9, 2010 9:43:41 AM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Death penalty

>> Wow, the life of a guilty murderer is more worthy of protection than that of
>> a man/woman doing a job.
>
>>Mike, you're not this stupid.<
>
> Obviously I am in your arrogant and enlightened opinion.  But I'm fine with
> that.

>Nobody here said or implied that the life of a murderer is "more
worthy of protection" than anyone else. Introducing a ludicrous
argument that nobody has made is unhelpful.<

Straw man again.  I didn't anyone implied it.  But I obviously inferred it.

It was directed at Thurman's rather blithe statement about prison guards, to the 
effect that "they knew wha they were getting into".  To me it demonstrated a 
rather cavalier attitude about a guards safety in juxtaposition to his 
overwhelming concern about the safety of a convicted and unequivocally guilty 
murderer.  Accordingly I don't think my inference is unreasonable at all.   

>It wasn't a "straw man." You might recall that I brought it up and
*conceded* it. Seems like an awful waste of a straw man, doesn't it?<

I don't think a straw man can be wasted.  The very term implies they are 
something of very little value in the first place.  I think it might be proper 
to say it *isn't* a straw man any longer but I think it was certainly a straw 
man when you brought it up as an argument against a point that no one 
was making.    


>> >From a faith standpoint, I can't support anything that puts vengeance in
>> the hands of human beings.<
>>
>> You keep saying it is vengeance.  I will keep saying it is not.
>
>>I'm afraid you'll have to do better than "saying it."<
>
> I see.  And that only works for when I'm saying something?

>Er, no. I've already explained why it amounts to vengeance. You've yet
to explain what other purpose it serves.<

And I reject your explanation.  You saying it is vengeance doesn't make it so.  
I think the difference between our positions is that I acknowledge that my 
saying something doesn't make it so, whereas you seem to keep insisting that 
your saying it does.


>>You don't get to determine when God's grace is finished. To be so
> presumptuous is not only terrifying, but contemptible. It's truly
> difficult for me to imagine greater hubris. God commanded you not to
> murder, and you're going to demand that He step aside while we exact
> our vengeance? Count me out, please.<
>
> So you get to speak for God, but I don't.

>How am I "speaking for God," please?<

C'mon.  If I don't get to determine when God's grace is finished neither do you, 
yet your position is obviously that it doesn't end until someone's life is 
over.  Are you so enlightened on the metaphysical realities of God, time, 
eternity, etc. that you can say that with any certainty?  That you are willing 
to seems to indicate that you are comfortable, if not speaking for him, then at 
least pronouncing upon things that are within His purview.  



>> Are you against the use of deadly force in self defense for the same
>> reason?
>
>>Of course. Make your position clear, please: does our obedience to God
> end where our lives are endangered?<
>
> Again your willingness to speak for God, especially as it pertains to me is
> rather disconcerting.  Not only would you choose pacifism but you would force
> that choice on me.  (Talking about the self-defense aspect).

>You're leaping to all *sorts* of conclusions today. At what point did
I say I would force my choice on you?<

If you aren't then please choose your words more carefully.  What else are you 
doing but judging my position on an issue when you include me in your question 
of what constitutes obedience to God.  If you only mean it to apply to yourself 
then make that clear.  As it was you used the word "our", and I'm assuming that 
includes me.

> Give me one scintilla of evidence that defending oneself is disobedient to 
God.

>Matthew 5:39 is a good place to start the discussion. We should
clarify, however. You've changed your language from "use of deadly
force in self-defense" to "defending oneself." I have no objection to
defending oneself. I have objection to use of deadly force.<

Read nothing into that change other than short hand.  In the context of this 
discussion when I said defending oneself I am implying that deadly force is part 
of that equation.  I'm not critiquing you for pointing that out because I saw 
that when I wrote it and hoped it would be clear.  Hopefully it is now.

As to the verse: Jesus also told his disciples to carry a sword and isn't there 
also the parable about defending against robbers?  In short, I don't believe 
that verse can be used to make the point that self defense, deadly or no, is 
unequivocally, disobedience to God and I believe there is a fair amount of 
historical context which defies a simplistic approach to the passage.   


> And didn't you say you would call the police to aid you in a crime situation?
> IF, please note the if, you are against self defense but would call the police
> to aid you during a crime, knowing that calling the police may involve their 
>use
> of deadly force, (don't make the bullshit argument that it doesn't - they 
carry
> guns are empowered to use deadly force, even in situations where a civilian
> might be prohibited from doing so), you are engaging in a most despicable form
> of moral cowardice.  In essence you are asking another to do your dirty work 
>for
> you and that is reprehensible.

>Yeah, you've made this argument before, and it still doesn't hold any
water. .<

Keep bailing there's plenty of water in this boat.


>If a burgler breaks into my house and the cops come and *kill*
him, I'd be rather upset, and so would lots of other people<

Yet, knowing that is a possibility, you would still call the police to defend 
you, deadly force or no, rather than remaining defenseless or taking the 
responsibility yourself to insure that deadly force wasn't used by the intruder, 
(of course you can't insure what level of force the intruder choose to use).   
Put it this way, I'm relatively confident that you can't call 911 and ask for 
police response but only if they promise not to use deadly force under any 
circumstances.  *If* out of your claimed principle of pacifism you would refuse 
to defend yourself or others, but would still call the police to do that for you 
you are a moral coward.

Mike F.   

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot