Obi Heed Kenobi
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 10,918
- Display Name
Display name:
iBo Deeh Ibonek
I fail to see any connection between the two.
The connection is that the process used to impose the death penalty on a person [alleged] to be guilty is practically identical to the process used to determine the [alleged] existence of GW.
What you're saying is that you have no questions about the use of the former, but do about the latter, despite the similarity of the processes. Why is the result reached by one OK, but the other dubious?
Have you ever challenged an execution on the basis of: 1) they didn't look at the right facts; 2) somebody's lying somewhere; 3) this is totally just a political stunt to get face time; 4) this is simply an industry designed to enrich lawyers; or 5) everything else?
If not, what makes it different from global warming?
But for the record, no I do not buy into the AGW nonsense. Thankfully global warming hasbreduced the ice sheet the once was a mile thick over my home to the point that we only slip and slide for a few months out of the year. Anything we can do to reduce that is a plus....but I'm not holding my breath.
As for the death penalty, those who show no regard for the life of another (which is the only time we impose the death penalty), and deprive them of their life, should automatically forfeit their life. A very simple principle and consistent with a pro life position.
This isn't an issue of whether use of the DP is, in terms of principles, appropriate. The issue is: if the death penalty is OK, then why wouldn't you be OK with the result reached by a process that is incredibly similar?