The Death Penalty - are you for or against it and why?

[reverendjeremiah]

I dont want to be a bitch..but your post kind of conflicts with your signature

It's called sarcasm. I noted earlier Epi had a habit of dehumanizing things, so I snapped up one that particularly irked me.

Perhaps you failed to notice the by line underneath my username ("Lost in the Collective")? Howbout the "Religious views"?

PM me if you have any further questions.

I'd prefer that my points be considered a non-entity, as I will no longer be maintaining them in good faith.

AHHH!!! I see now. I see that it is a quote from Epi.

there have been so many letters on the screen, it is easy for people to miss little things like that.

not to mention my doctor keeps telling me i need bifocals and I do not want them..LOL

Because all people are its.

It is correct.

No, no. I didn't consider what you said propaganda. What the Nazis "thought" was propaganda. You can't spread lies without knowing they are untrue. They knew it.

I appreciate that it doesnt consider what I wrote to be propaganda. sometimes I just make examples. Perhaps I should be a bit more detailed and point out that I am merely running the concept through some tests so it would not get confussed or misunderstand me.

Well, there you have it. Calling everyone its does not necessarily follow from calling serial killers its.

I agree with what it is saying. The word "it" doesnt necessarily follow that it is a serial killer, or not human.

Now you're jumping again. You are trying to say that one extreme follows another, simpler position. Now, you are saying people would probably stop themselves from going to the further extreme. Which is it? Are people who call serial killers it genocidal maniacs or not?

My apologies. I did not mean for it to go that far with my post. Like i said before, sometimes I just follow through on the concepts. In no way did I mean for it to think i was suggesting it would follow through in these situations. I merely suggested that these COULD happen. And no, I do not neccessarily think that calling people it means they will become genocidal maniacs. I merely suggest that such a way of identifying people is rude, and COULD be used as a stepping stone for greater persecutions and such. In no way would I suggest that it would become a promoter of genocide, and if it thought that way of my posts, then I apologize. I should have been more descriptive.

*sigh* Yes, but you brought in an analogy. I showed you that your analogy is ludicrous. Insulting a group of murderers does not mean you will insult everyone.

It does have a point. I agree. Every human is an "it", so it really doesnt even follow that "it" is an insult either, as we have both come to agree.

Rev, you brought in all of these other scenarios and, when I address them, you act like I am going off-topic. We weren't talking about executions being self-preservation. We were talking about dehumanizing being a defense mechanism. You followed that it would then extend to races, which is silly considering hating a murderer doesn't make you a racist. I then said that I don't agree with having to be PC about it and you then said the above statement. It doesn't follow. Are we talking about the "it" thing or the death penalty thing, because I'm relatively certain our conversation has been on the former.

..and now I see that it has a point. These are the reasons why I have conversations, to open my mind. I now see the concept of "it" a bit differently now. "It" isnt really meant to be an insult. All people are "its". I now agree with you. I still dont agree with execution, but I no longer think that calling them things "it" is not insulting.

I wouldn't tell him what language to use. If he were writing something for me, I would ask that he change it to suit AP style, but, I assure you, AP is not the only grammatical style. Some allow for the it factor.

As it shouldnt. I agree with it. I just wanted to make sure that it was consistent on this, and not changing it's mind on an individual to individual basis.

I don't believe I did use it, apart from making points in this conversation.

No, I dont think it did. It did defend Epi. I personally have never used "it" to describe a person before either. Now that I know that all people are "it's" I feel a bit more open about using "it" to refer to people.

I meant it in the fallacy sense of the word. It's a slippery slope that is entirely unlikely and backed up by absolutely no explanation on your part. A does not lead to C. If Epi were already a racist or a prick, I would say maybe it is likely for him to run around calling all sorts of people names, but I could call Stat an idiot and you don't jump all over me saying how, "If you start with him, you'll be calling everyone idiots!" Selective a bit.

I am glad that it was very clear about that. I dont want to be accused of slippery slopes, and it does make a good point. I promise it that I will be a bit less selective in the future.

You're not even making a good, sarcastic point. You are both objecting to two things that would, by necessity of consistency, warrant other objections that neither of you make. You can't call serial killers its, but you can call libertarians Nazis? Oh, there's a slippery slope. Next thing you know you will be calling all blacks crackheads and all Jews bankers.

That was me, and I now know better and I no longer do such a thing. I even made a public apology to it and all things involved in that. I promise no longer to call Libertarians "Nazi's".