XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
   From: swayser@optonline.net   
      
   David V. wrote:   
      
   > Chris wrote:   
   >   
   >> "David V."  wrote   
   >>   
   >>> Marie A. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> ... When we don't execute those who have willfully   
   >>>> and premeditatedly taken the life of another, as a society we make a   
   >>>> statement that we value the   
   >>>> murderer's life more than that of his/her victim[s].   
   >>>   
   >>> Which simply is not true. Why do you have to lie like   
   >>> that to support your argument?   
   >>   
   >> Care to explain to us how a belief in ideals can be a   
   >> "lie"?   
   >   
   > Huh? Where did "ideals" come in anywhere?   
   >   
   The ideal she spoke of is apparent. She values the victims life more   
   than she does that of the person who terminates that life. He mistake is   
   in believing that when we reject the death penalty that we are making a   
   statement as she explained very clearly and concisely. That you can't   
   see that makes manifest that you can't recognize principles and ideals.   
   I'm having a bit of difficulty in keeping track of the things you are   
   making known about yourself. Let's see, so far you're an unprincipled,   
   ignorant, habitual liar.   
   --   
   If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an   
   equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.   
   Carl Schurz (1829-1906)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)