Death Penalty

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ummm... no I didn't attack anyone here. I attacked a political/moral view and talked figuratively in my historical example. People shouldn't take offense at such things. So if I would say (another topic), that if you support the American government that kidnaps people and hands them over to countries who specialize in torture, you are supporting an inhuman, barbarian practice, would that also be an infractable offense at the Backroom + the thread locked? Anyway, I chose a different point of view in this thread, so can we carry on with this one? Thanks.

Your first thread was specifically offensive. Boil down your post and it read:

A is very bad. Even ancient society C moved past the use of A. If you still support A, you are no more "advanced" than a low-echelon member of society C. This clearly labels any supporter of A as low-echelon type. Indirect attack to any and all readers. Not permissable.

Your US Government example boils down to:

USG does evil act A. If you support USG, you are implicitly supporting A.

There is no direct component of attack on the reader. You are besmirching the USG, but that does not constitute a personal attack, only a politically viscious comment. The key here is in the 2nd example you do not define a negative personal state for the reader, only suggest that they might want to rethink things in light of your argument. Different in tone entirely.

Now, having dealt with the inevitable "why was my thread closed" riff in the nearly-as-inevitable follow on thread, please, all, DO discuss the death penalty. Further "meta" discussions on moderation should be in a thread in the BR watchtower -- the correct venue for such concerns/complaints.

Play on!

[Strike For The South]

I'm pretty much pro-death, Execution, Abortion, youth-in-asia. Do it all, preferably in the same time in the same room.

I'm also willing to take it much further than most people as I consider Joe Horn a Great American

[PowerWizard]

Your first thread was specifically offensive. Boil down your post and it read:

A is very bad. Even ancient society C moved past the use of A. If you still support A, you are no more "advanced" than a low-echelon member of society C. This clearly labels any supporter of A as low-echelon type. Indirect attack to any and all readers. Not permissable.

Your US Government example boils down to:

USG does evil act A. If you support USG, you are implicitly supporting A.

There is no direct component of attack on the reader. You are besmirching the USG, but that does not constitute a personal attack, only a politically viscious comment. The key here is in the 2nd example you do not define a negative personal state for the reader, only suggest that they might want to rethink things in light of your argument. Different in tone entirely.

By these standards the Republicans and Democrats couldn't argue with each other sincerely on public forums, simply because they would be compelled to say "please rethink your position dude" instead of saying X government (f.e. the Bush administration) committed insupportable crimes, and if you support them, you are claiming these crimes not to be crimes. Better yet, claiming that it is a crime would be a crime in itself! The same goes with positions in certain policies like gun control or capital punishment.... Nevermind.

[rory_20_uk]

By these standards the Republicans and Democrats couldn't argue with each other sincerely on public forums, simply because they would be compelled to say "please rethink your position dude" instead of saying X government (f.e. the Bush administration) committed insupportable crimes, and if you support them, you are claiming these crimes not to be crimes. Better yet, claiming that it is a crime would be a crime in itself! The same goes with positions in certain policies like gun control or capital punishment.... Nevermind.

Look, if you expect us to sink to the level of politicians I'm afraid many members will need lobotomies as they are clearly too well read and able to think for themselves and not just emote and spew rhetoric like a North Korean peasant.

[Hax]

We don't know fully the consequences of anything. But we do know for certain we all eventually die.
Ergo, death is a more natural punishment than incarceration as few are locked up for long periods, but all die.

But at least we can oversee the consequences of locking someone up for a period of time; perhaps incarceration compels people to review their deeds done in the past; while when you kill them you throw them into the unknown.

I do agree with you that we may be unable to oversee all consequences of our actions.

[PowerWizard]

Look, if you expect us to sink to the level of politicians I'm afraid many members will need lobotomies as they are clearly too well read and able to think for themselves and not just emote and spew rhetoric like a North Korean peasant.

No one expects you or anyone to "sink" to the "level of politicians" (whatever unfounded claims those implications may lead to), don't distort please what I said.

[rory_20_uk]

No one expects you or anyone to "sink" to the "level of politicians" (whatever unfounded claims those implications may lead to), don't distort please what I said.

Aww bless... it warms my heart to hear such sentiments uttered without sarcasm. A blast of fresh air, young blood, greenhorn, etc etc...

Distort? Where do you think you are? This is the BACKROOM!!! (300, how I love that film )

[Seamus Fermanagh]

By these standards the Republicans and Democrats couldn't argue with each other sincerely on public forums, simply because they would be compelled to say "please rethink your position dude" instead of saying X government (f.e. the Bush administration) committed insupportable crimes, and if you support them, you are claiming these crimes not to be crimes. Better yet, claiming that it is a crime would be a crime in itself! The same goes with positions in certain policies like gun control or capital punishment.... Nevermind.

I'm not moderating the GOP or the Dems. Nor would they like me to do so. Round about the 3rd time I said "X, you just spewed 3 talking points without answering the question, please answer the question, ma'am." I'd probably get the toss. I am moderating the Backroom. I will have something resembling -- at least vaguely -- polite debate here or I will shut the thread down. If you find that troubling, you have my condolences.