XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
   From: spam@hotmail.com   
      
   Don Swayser wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Then she wouldn't value the life of the person that carries   
   out the punishment?   
      
   > 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 is the lie I'm talking about. "We" are not making such   
   a statement.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   I understand how you need to feel that way.   
   --   
   David V.   
   Yosemite Llama Ranch   
      
   UDP for WebTV   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)