Re: Death penalty

>>You appear to have made up your mind that, regardless of the
> situation, my refusal to kill another human being makes me a "moral
> coward" (whatever that means). I see no reason to continue debating
> this particular point, as you don't appear to be interested.<
>
> That isn't what I said at all.  I have no problem with your unwillingness to
> kill another human being, for the umpteenth time I respect true pacifism.
> What I have a problem with it your willingness to employ the life and skill
> of another in order to maintain the aura of pacifism.

Okay, okay. In the interest of cooling things down, I'll acknowledge
here that perhaps we simply have different expectations for "calling
the police."

I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that the police will kill
a home intruder. If they DO kill someone, that is an issue between
them, their boss, and God. I will not include myself in that circle of
responsibility, because I do not wish or expect them to kill anyone
who is not trying to kill them first. I also believe this is a common
civic expectation.

On the other hand, it seems you feel that they might do just that, and
also believe that this a common civic expectation. So when *you* call
the police, you're including yourself in that circle of
responsibility, should something tragic happen.

How we can resolve this, I don't know. I guess there's no way of
determining what the true "common civic expectation" might be. So
where does that leave us? I can only say that I would be shocked and
outraged if I called the police to report a home invasion, and they
showed up and killed the guy instead of simply taking him to jail. (I
am assuming here that the odds of him forcing them to kill him are
very, very low -- and that would create an entirely different set of
questions anyway).  You wouldn't be shocked or outraged.

Have I described that accurately? If I have (and that's an emphasized
"if" -- I don't want to make the assumption that you agree)... I won't
speak to your motivations for calling the police, if you won't speak
to mine. I think that's fair.

> Please quit making this a John Wayne vs John Lennon mentality kind of
> thing.

I'm not sure I've done that. I may be misremembering something, but I
don't think I've accused you of being a gung-ho shoot-em-up guy.

> But if your pacifism
> wasn't anything but a feel good stance that lets you fool yourself into
> thinking you are living life on a higher moral plane than others, you would
> be willing to live out the principle of pacifism all the way.

Well, here we're getting into the question of what constitutes
"pacifism." As I said before, I don't believe it means you stand by
and let people do whatever they like to you or your family. My
conviction is that I'm not going to take the life of another person if
I can help it. That's as far as I'm going here.

> It's not the hypothetical you were trying to suggest in your insulting "If, as I
> suspect, you want to whittle this down to some kind of fantasy where it's a
> "him or me" battle stand-off to the death," comment.

I've been trying to keep this civilized, so could you please explain
to me how that's insulting? It read to me like you were trying to
force the issue to a decision point. In the interest of not ducking
that question, I was cutting to the chase. It wasn't my intention to
be insulting.

> Home invasions in an occupied dwellings are very serious
> situations.  An officer responding to such a situation, especially if the
> intruder still might be in the home, will enter the home with his/her gun
> upholstered.  If an officer unholsters his/her firearm they are trained that
> they better be ready to use it.  There is even the possibility that the
> officer may use deadly force that later turns out to have been unjustified,
> or even when justified, later haunts the officer, (I guess its ok if that
> happens to an officer at least you don't have to deal with the guilt).
>
> You apparently are not willing to acknowledge this and in fact appear to
> insist on discounting the possibility beyond any reasonable standard.

Again, I'm not discounting the possibility. *Anything* is possible.
But I don't feel it's a reasonable expectation.

> I'm already repeating myself so I'll stop.  I don't have much hope of you
> "getting" it, but for as long as you refuse to get it I will continue to
> take serious umbrage at your holier than thou attitude, condescension
> towards those apparently haven't reached your level of enlightenment , and
> condemnation of others for not following Christ as well as you.

You know, I've really gone out of my way to assure you that I do *not*
consider myself holier than or anyone else, and that I am *not*
condemning you for for "not following Christ as well as I do." Your
relationship to Christ is your business, and I can only speak to the
proclamations you've made.

As for my "level of enlightenment," we *all* feel we have a superior
position, don't we? If you didn't feel you had a higher level of
enlightment than I do, you wouldn't be arguing with me. That's what
conflicts of ideas are about.

-- 
-pcg
 [email protected]

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