Firing squads called for by US politicians

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

In theory, no, but not all lifers are in solitary, so the argument is false.

You are mixing your tenses, deal with what is written.

That's a good argument for executing them now.

So you are in favour of removing safeguards that aim to prevent irreversible miscarriages of justice?

I very much doubt that given your stance on capital punishment.
But I see again that you still don't understand what you are argueing for or argueing against.

But it has been adequately shown that the alternative solution does indeed offer opportunities for the convict to get out and kill again, so the claim is true.

Since that is irrelevant as it doesn't fit the bill all you are showing is that you havn't understood the initial statement.

A one-liner, even if not meant to be funny, is not the asked-for explanation. This is no more than banter.

No, you are just failing to read.

More banter. You haven't explained anything; you've just declared it to be so and expected everyone to understand. Still waiting for you to actually explain something.

All explained, you just keep missing it.

That refreshes nothing. You make declarations, but you don't show facts. Please prove the truth of your claims.

The proof there on that angle is self evident.

Still more banter. I'm waiting for you to actually show something. Anything. All you've given so far is claims.

Nope, you still havn't read and comprehended have you.

No mind-reading involved. You used a personal appelation to enforce a point, something that is only done when the user is talking down to another. Not becoming, not polite and certainly not warranted.

As I said already , don't rely on your mind reading, it doesn't work.

So you say, but again you don't actually bother to explain why it is so.

It has been explained repeatedly , you have missed it from the first and still keep building on your miss instead of stopping and thinking.

Again a good argument for performing the execution now, rather than later.

No, that is irrefutable proof about the "only" being a false claim

Only, as you have pointed out, after the execution is accomplished.

Indeed.

Only if you are actually jailed for the rest of your life.

Bingo
So that's life without parole meaning life without parole
I think someone may have mentioned that repeatedly

Actually August's quote was "the only iron clad anti recidivist criminal penalty there is."

Yes, your problem seems to be that you are missing on the bolded words.
All your attempts without dealing with both of those is nothing but banter and bluster.
And lets face it all of your attempts have shown that you don't get the second, as in the same way as your previous Bundy theme you are getting events out of sequence

...and as long as "without parole" can have flaws in it, it still is

Which flaws?
Those you are bringing up which fall outside those defined in the statement in question or those which can be fixed.
So are those actually strawmen you are building?

Not one single counter or argument in all of that, just condescension.

Really ? I thought all of them countered the positions put forward in the post.
The last bit is fitting too as "every" can have the same problems as "only" does.

@donna

Tribesman, you don't even live in the USA, so don't worry yourself with what we do with our criminals. Worry about your own.

Isn't it amazing how often something along those lines is trotted out when someone is unable to counter.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You are mixing your tenses, deal with what is written.

You're prevaracating. Present a real argument.

So you are in favour of removing safeguards that aim to prevent irreversible miscarriages of justice?

Attack by homily. Present a real argument.

I very much doubt that given your stance on capital punishment.
But I see again that you still don't understand what you are argueing for or argueing against.

Attack by dismissal. Present a real argument.

Since that is irrelevant as it doesn't fit the bill all you are showing is that you havn't understood the initial statement.

Still more dismissal, yet still no argument.

No, you are just failing to read.

And yet again dismissal. Are you ever going to actually say anything?

All explained, you just keep missing it.

A good way to avoid actually having to present an argument, but it starts to get old.

The proof there on that angle is self evident.

It's your job to provide the proof, not tell the other person to go look.

Nope, you still havn't read and comprehended have you.

Obviously not. Why don't you try explaing it to me. With facts.

As I said already , don't rely on your mind reading, it doesn't work.

As I said already, not mind-reading. But you don't care about that, do you?

It has been explained repeatedly , you have missed it from the first and still keep building on your miss instead of stopping and thinking.

Good job of dodging actually having to explain it. You don't seem to be able to do that, do you?

No, that is irrefutable proof about the "only" being a false claim

Not irrefutable at all. But we're playing games again.

Indeed.

I throw you a bone and you bite hard.

Bingo
So that's life without parole meaning life without parole

But it doesn't always mean that, so it's not really a guarantee, is it?

I think someone may have mentioned that repeatedly

The problem is that it doesn't always work, so your repeated mentionings are only nice theory.

Yes, your problem seems to be that you are missing on the bolded words.

Question: How is bold different from CAPSLOCK?

All your attempts without dealing with both of those is nothing but banter and bluster.

More arrogant dismissal. Are you my teacher? Am I your student? You have yet to present a real case. Maybe when you stop talking down to people we might be able to have a real discussion. I'd like that. I don't see it ever happening, but I'd like it.

And lets face it all of your attempts have shown that you don't get the second, as in the same way as your previous Bundy theme you are getting events out of sequence

If it's obvious to you that I don't get something, perhaps rather than just tell me how obtuse I am you should write an actual treatise, with explanations, facts and reasons. It might bring about an honest debate for a change.

Which flaws?

The ones where prisoners are freed or escape. Dead prisoners don't do that.

Those you are bringing up which fall outside those defined in the statement in question or those which can be fixed.

The "only" in the original statement is based on the concept that living prisoners may find the oportunity to kill again. Dead ones can't. To use your own words, you seem to have missed that.

So are those actually strawmen you are building?

I was unaware that I was building anything. Maybe you should explain that to me as well.

Really ? I thought all of them countered the positions put forward in the post.

You asked a lot of questions. You didn't offer any counter.

Present a real argument.

Done already.

Present a real argument.

Done already.

Present a real argument.

Done already.

yet still no argument.

Done already, you missed it , you joined in without even understanding what you were defending.

And yet again dismissal. Are you ever going to actually say anything?

Its said, perhaps you need a dictionary as you seem completely lost on definitions.

A good way to avoid actually having to present an argument, but it starts to get old.

Its presented.

It's your job to provide the proof, not tell the other person to go look.

The proof is provided.

Obviously not.

No kidding.

Why don't you try explaing it to me. With facts.

Done, why don't you try actually reading?

As I said already, not mind-reading. But you don't care about that, do you?

You are claiming to read my mind. Not the first time either is it.
Like I said you ain't very good at it.

Good job of dodging actually having to explain it. You don't seem to be able to do that, do you?

It isn't dodging when it is already explained.

Not irrefutable at all. But we're playing games again.

Of course it is irrefutable.
If it not the only solution which can produce the same result then it cannot be the only solution.

I throw you a bone and you bite hard.

Sorry, you make no sense at all there.

But it doesn't always mean that, so it's not really a guarantee, is it?

Read what is written.

The problem is that it doesn't always work, so your repeated mentionings are only nice theory.

Of course it always works and will always work, unless of course by some miracle you are able to find an individual who went on to commit a crime after they died in prison.

Question: How is bold different from CAPSLOCK?

I don't know how to break it to ya, but they are different buttons

More arrogant dismissal. Are you my teacher? Am I your student? You have yet to present a real case. Maybe when you stop talking down to people we might be able to have a real discussion. I'd like that. I don't see it ever happening, but I'd like it.

Until you actually read the words you are getting nowhere.
Until you stop throwing in red herrings and building strawmen you are not having a real discussion.

If it's obvious to you that I don't get something, perhaps rather than just tell me how obtuse I am you should write an actual treatise, with explanations, facts and reasons. It might bring about an honest debate for a change.

Should I be so bold as to again highlight what you are missing completely?
It has been explained repeatedly.

The ones where prisoners are freed or escape. Dead prisoners don't do that.

Well done. Missed by a mile again.

The "only" in the original statement is based on the concept that living prisoners may find the oportunity to kill again. Dead ones can't. To use your own words, you seem to have missed that.

I missed nothing.
What is the word you are missing again, you know the one that puts that out of the scope?
Would you like it bolded again?

I was unaware that I was building anything. Maybe you should explain that to me as well.

You are attacking irrelevant things instead of dealing with what is written.
Focus.

You asked a lot of questions. You didn't offer any counter.

A question can be a counter all by itself

[u crank]

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Done already etc etc etc

When and where? No links, no facts, no proofs. Just talk.

Its said, perhaps you need a dictionary as you seem completely lost on definitions.

Still no proofs.

Its presented.

Not by you.

The proof is provided.

Not by you. Lots of talk, no proofs.

Done, why don't you try actually reading?

You haven't given anything to read yet.

You are claiming to read my mind. Not the first time either is it.
Like I said you ain't very good at it.

Where? I've never said anything of the kind. Sometimes you telegraph your punches, then accuse me of that. You can be obvious sometimes.

It isn't dodging when it is already explained.

Where have you explained anything? Show me.

Of course it is irrefutable.
If it not the only solution which can produce the same result then it cannot be the only solution.

If the living prisoner can escape and kill again, the you are refuted. It's that simple. You just won't admit it.

Sorry, you make no sense at all there.

Only to you. But I'll make it simple. I don't actually disagree with you as much as I seem to. So I give one example of that, and you jump on it like a dog on a bone. My problem isn't with the whole death penalty thing. My problem is with your ongoing habit of telling people they're wrong without ever actually providing any links, any proof or even any discussion. If you learned how to debate without insulting and without talking down to people it might make for some very pleasant and enlightening discussion. But you've never done that, so I can't really be sure.

Read what is written.

August was clear in his intent. You're the one who keeps trying to prove it wrong, and failing.

Of course it always works and will always work, unless of course by some miracle you are able to find an individual who went on to commit a crime after they died in prison.

You mentioned straw men? We know people don't commit crimes after they're dead. That's why you're wrong. People do go on to commit crimes after they've been incarcerated "for life". That's the failure in your argument that you keep trying to twist away from. You say that "life" is also ironclad, but it's not. Not always. So you're wrong.

I don't know how to break it to ya, but they are different buttons

But you used it for the same reason you kick others for using the capslock. So how do they fail when doing it and you don't?

Until you actually read the words you are getting nowhere.
Until you stop throwing in red herrings and building strawmen you are not having a real discussion.

Since when have you ever had a real discussion? It's always insulting and talking down to people? I'd love to have a real talk with you. As I said, I don't think you'll ever go for it.

Should I be so bold as to again highlight what you are missing completely?
It has been explained repeatedly.

Where? Show me.

Well done. Missed by a mile again.

You saying it doesn't make it so. Show me where. Show me how. Show facts. Show reasons. Show me anything. So far all you've done is contradict people. You haven't shown anything. At all.

I missed nothing.
What is the word you are missing again, you know the one that puts that out of the scope?

Playing games again? Can you just say what you mean, rather than trying to be tricky?

Would you like it bolded again?

Bold, like capslock, equals autofail.

You are attacking irrelevant things instead of dealing with what is written.

Again you choose not to present an actual case, but to insult. It's only irrelevant in your own mind.

Focus.

I'm not as slick as you. I can't focus on something that's twisting, dodging and mostly not there.

A question can be a counter all by itself

Not when it's presented in the form of an insult.

My offer of a real discussion is still open, if you think you can do it.


@ U Crank: It may not appear so, but I'm having just as much fun as you are.

Unless of course you're not having fun.

[Admiral Halsey]

Could you two stop it!? You're both adults so act like it!

[Tchocky]

They are acting like adults! Someone throw a pie for God's sake!

...what the hell did I just read?

As for capital punishment, many socially backward countries practice it and I am glad to live in a country that does not rely on radical principles inspired by some fairytale book(s) that are thousands of years old anymore, but a country that learned from history, partially, and at least tries to develop in these matters... like the rest of Europe as well.

As much as I understand the temptation, the wish to simply put a bullet through some guys brain who just did something terrible, there is always that inner liberal-hippie-leftist-PETA-treehugger-scum voice (because that is what you are, automatically, if against CP, right?) that tells me it's friggin' wrong.

Oh and no, life without parole is, against common believe, not more expensive as to keep someone on death row/execute him... since someone mentioned money as a factor when we talk about a human beings life (yes yes, worthless humans who gave their rights away, I know), I thought this might be interesting to know.

But since I am neither 'Murrican not do I live in the most glorious of all countries, I have to shut up it seems.
What an argument.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Admiral Halsey

Could you two stop it!? You're both adults so act like it!

I suppose so. It's just that it's so much fun.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

@ U Crank: It may not appear so, but I'm having just as much fun as you are.

Oh I can tell you are.

Unless of course you're not having fun.

Yes I am.

[Wolferz]

Executing an overhand right.

[Oberon]

[Tango589]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

They are acting like adults! Someone throw a pie for God's sake!

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Lots of the same nonsense

You really are not doing very well.

Where? I've never said anything of the kind. Sometimes you telegraph your punches, then accuse me of that. You can be obvious sometimes.

The proof of that is in your own posts.

Where have you explained anything? Show me.

Read the topic.

If the living prisoner can escape and kill again, the you are refuted. It's that simple. You just won't admit it.

Still tilting at your strawman aren't you

You saying it doesn't make it so. Show me where. Show me how. Show facts. Show reasons. Show me anything. So far all you've done is contradict people. You haven't shown anything. At all.

Rubbish, you just went off on one without reading the initial post, the fault lies with yourself.

Only to you. But I'll make it simple. I don't actually disagree with you as much as I seem to.

I know , but the fact still remains that you are arguing on something where you have been on the backfoot from the very start and have advanced backwards at nearly every step.

So I give one example of that, and you jump on it like a dog on a bone.

Fail.

My problem isn't with the whole death penalty thing. My problem is with your ongoing habit of telling people they're wrong without ever actually providing any links, any proof or even any discussion.

Ah, so you actually off topic and just indulging in personal attacks, naughty moderator

If you learned how to debate without insulting and without talking down to people it might make for some very pleasant and enlightening discussion. But you've never done that, so I can't really be sure.

You really should avoid absolutes, by now you must know how easy they are proven false.

August was clear in his intent.

Yep , crystal clear, it was that which made it so simple.

You're the one who keeps trying to prove it wrong, and failing.

What has been proven is that you havn't read his words and refuse to read his words, that is why you are failing miserably.

You mentioned straw men?

Yes, you do seem to build a lot, and spend time chasing red herrings you set loose yourself.

We know people don't commit crimes after they're dead.

Correct.

That's why you're wrong. People do go on to commit crimes after they've been incarcerated "for life".

Irrelevant.

That's the failure in your argument that you keep trying to twist away from.

No, that has been addressed, it comes back to you being on the backfoot from the start.

You say that "life" is also ironclad, but it's not. Not always. So you're wrong.

Sorry but it is in this case, so you are wrong again.

But you used it for the same reason you kick others for using the capslock. So how do they fail when doing it and you don't?

You are getting that backwards, the bold emphasised someone elses words.
People call on the god of CAPLOCK when they go all shouty emphasising their own words.

Since when have you ever had a real discussion? It's always insulting and talking down to people? I'd love to have a real talk with you. As I said, I don't think you'll ever go for it

Absolutes again, instant fail.

Where? Show me.

You are the proof, read through the topic.

Playing games again? Can you just say what you mean, rather than trying to be tricky?

Its already said, many times. Its all about the words, it all hinges on what they mean.

Bold, like capslock, equals autofail.

You had better circulate a memo about your new invention.

Again you choose not to present an actual case, but to insult. It's only irrelevant in your own mind.

It is all presented.

I'm not as slick as you. I can't focus on something that's twisting, dodging and mostly not there.

You need to focus on the initial statement, those twisty dodgy things which are not there are the strawmen and red herrings you put in yourself.

Not when it's presented in the form of an insult.

You are transferring your interpretation. That doesn't neccessarliy work.

My offer of a real discussion is still open, if you think you can do it.

For that to work you have to start afresh and fix the fundamental flaws you have carried so far since the outset.
Read the initial statement and understand exactly what the words mean.
Then you need to remove all the irrelevancies, strawmen and red herrings you introduced and work with what remains.
Though you should note that you will have practically nothing at all left when you do that.
I suppose you could fall back on some more personal attacks though if that floats your boat.

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

...

Nice post, plenty of humour and very cutting points