Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tchocky
*reads threads growth since last visit*...
(...)
..." and "crybaby" out of it
|
I admit I posted a long first sentence, I tend to produce "Schachtelsätze" (multi-clause sentences) in Englisch, however, if you read the first sentence in the opening posting from A to Z, you read it like this:
The flawed logic of understanding the killing of a man as a penalty, while a penalty in modern understanding is not to rebalance a cosmic scales by a principle of "an eye for an eye", but is understood as a sanction by which the behavior of the deliquent is to be influenced and changed, ...
Quote:
...would be a topic for itself. Also if longterm jail sentence fit into this description.
However, let's ignore that debate. This is the story:...
|
etc etc
So, in my first, my very first sentence I already said that all that old debate (that we repeatedly had over the years, if you remember) would be a thread for itself - and therefor should be excluded from this one.
If I would just have demanded these old debates being ignored without refering to them and explaing that it would lead beyond the scale of this thread, you or somebody else would have complained again, too, for being mastered around and being told what he should think and say.
(In the quote I just corrected a mismatched word, "Also where longterm jail..." corrected to "Also if longterm jail..." The old sentence didn't make sense due to that wrong word.)
BTW, you are right, your first reply included a related answer. I even red it but then forgot it due to the anger meanwhile.
August and me partially agree, for the most disagree - and still were able to exchange our differing views in a reasonable way. I was willing to think about what he said, and replied to it accordingly, and I think he gave some thought to what I replied, judging by his latest answer. I must not agree, but this is the way this thread was planned: focussing on the item, not using an old bone to attract dogs from the past to get them balking and biting again about something different.
-----------------------
Answering August's latest, and Tchocky's first,
the rejection of Florida, Kentucky and Texas to positively answer the request to replace chemical execution due to it's (at that time: assumed) irreliability does not seem to indicate that there is a wide national support on adressing this contradiction between the demand of the 8th amendement not to execute in a torturing manner, and the unpredictable risk of severe and long agony caused by chemical execution. Of five states asked to consider it, three said no, two said yes.