when I say historical examples, the examples I was referring to don't have anything to do with technology, since we do not have the technology to make police and prosecutors infallible.
i don't know what part of this you're not getting, but i'll try again.
if the DNA "found" at the crime scene was planted, it doesn't matter how accurate the science of DNA testing is: it still doesn't prove that the accused committed the crime.
that's not a tough concept to grasp, so I have to assume at this point you're pretending you don't understand it to justify your belief that it's ok for the government to murder people.
and, err, yes, video isn't proof. video can be faked (and has been). prints and dna evidence can be planted (and have been). pick an evidentiary method that you simplistically claim is perfect and I'll show you an actual real life example of it being faked or planted.
That doesn't mean all video is faked, nor all DNA is planted. It simply means that since you cannot discount that it has been, you cannot claim that we're 100% accurate, and since your support of the death penalty is predicated, you said, on it being 100% accurate, you can no longer use that excuse to support the death penalty.. so what's your excuse now?
Are you in fact saying that there is an acceptable margin of error? that it's ok for us to murder a few innocent people as long as we murder some bad guys too?
Funny that people are quite happy when voting away other people's lives. I somehow doubt that were you in that situation you'd be as sanguine about it.
I may be wrong, however: you may have the balls to say "yeah, if I was innocent and executed for a crime I would still support the death penalty". I'll accept that as an argument if you are willing to pay the price you're quite cheerfully expecting of others. If you're willing to kill innocents for your political beliefs, you need to pony up. So, go hang yourself, and then I'll accept that you're quite entitled to expect it of others.
Jaysus, someone has an opinion that varies from yours and you vent off. Are you on death row or something? Firstly, i didn't claim any system was perfect and i am aware of human error or setups. Since you can't be absolutely certain taking into account everything i do believe there is an acceptable point at which you say someone is guilty based on the evidence presented. If we went by your idea that nothing is certain no criminals would ever be locked up, everything is too circumspect. People are looked up when they are guilty beyound reasonable doubt, your arguments to assume all dna and fingerprint evidence are planted are unreasonable. You would say that the german canniball might not be guilty when everyone else would look at the evidence and say he was. He should be gased. And yes, i would be happy for the goverment to use special ops to sneak around and bump people off they knew but couldn't prove were involved in terrorism like members of the IRA. People have different opinions and see the same information different, your entitled to your view but don't try and force it on me as i have made my own mind up and you won't convince me otherwise. One last thing... >"I may be wrong, however: you may have the balls to say "yeah, if I was innocent and executed for a crime I would still support the death penalty"." Be abit hard to say that after i was dead :p feel free to reply but you'll only be talking to yourself, i couldn't care less what your opinion is.
do), proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not safe enough to kill someone for, making everyone who supports it a willing murderer by proxy themselves. That's fine, if you're willing to live with that: just don't try and pretend that isn't the nature of the beast.
So now we've gone from "absolute proof" (in which you get to pretend you're not a murderer by proxy) to "beyond a reasonable doubt" (in which you do not get to pretend that)
This ironically puts you in the same category as the people you think should be killed. Funny, eh, when you think about it.
"If we went by your idea that nothing is certain no criminals would ever be locked up, everything is too circumspect"
Here's a tip. When you run into an argument you have no answer to, the appropriate course of action is not to make up a completely fictional argument and reply to that instead.
If we "went by my idea", no-one would be killed by the state. Nowhere do I argue against custodial sentences.
"your arguments to assume all dna and fingerprint evidence are planted are unreasonable."
You're just not reading now. I specifically stated that you don't assume all evidence is faked,. Look, here it is:
"That doesn't mean all video is faked, nor all DNA is planted."
so there's another strawman.
My argument rests on the fact that you can't assume evidence is never faked, which is not the same as assuming it's always faked. There is a choice other than "it's all fake" or "it's all valid". I deliberately made that explicit, knowing the conservative mind's trouble grasping anything not divided into "black/white" or "good/bad" but it still slipped by you - a feat of mental maladriotness which I find slightly frightening.
Did you ever read this?. Think of it as a really long horoscope, just for you.
"your entitled to your view but don't try and force it on me"
It's not "my view" that the system isn't perfect. It's reality, so quit snivelling.
"i have made my own mind up and you won't convince me otherwise"
I'm sure no-one can convince you of anything.
However, I didn't think I'd change your mind about your support for state murder: in fact I was almost certain I wouldn't change it. I've found that pro-death penalty people are remarkably immune to reason.
But then the point wasn't to change your mind. It was to get you to frantically backpedal away from the ridiculously self-serving fiction you invented to make yourself seem more human; that you can be pro-death penalty and at the same time claim your hands are clean. Since you've most entertainingly done that while trying to pretend you haven't, we're done.
i don't know what part of this you're not getting, but i'll try again.
if the DNA "found" at the crime scene was planted, it doesn't matter how accurate the science of DNA testing is: it still doesn't prove that the accused committed the crime.
that's not a tough concept to grasp, so I have to assume at this point you're pretending you don't understand it to justify your belief that it's ok for the government to murder people.
and, err, yes, video isn't proof. video can be faked (and has been). prints and dna evidence can be planted (and have been). pick an evidentiary method that you simplistically claim is perfect and I'll show you an actual real life example of it being faked or planted.
That doesn't mean all video is faked, nor all DNA is planted. It simply means that since you cannot discount that it has been, you cannot claim that we're 100% accurate, and since your support of the death penalty is predicated, you said, on it being 100% accurate, you can no longer use that excuse to support the death penalty.. so what's your excuse now?
Are you in fact saying that there is an acceptable margin of error? that it's ok for us to murder a few innocent people as long as we murder some bad guys too?
Funny that people are quite happy when voting away other people's lives. I somehow doubt that were you in that situation you'd be as sanguine about it.
I may be wrong, however: you may have the balls to say "yeah, if I was innocent and executed for a crime I would still support the death penalty". I'll accept that as an argument if you are willing to pay the price you're quite cheerfully expecting of others. If you're willing to kill innocents for your political beliefs, you need to pony up. So, go hang yourself, and then I'll accept that you're quite entitled to expect it of others.
Reply
>"I may be wrong, however: you may have the balls to say "yeah, if I was innocent and executed for a crime I would still support the death penalty"." Be abit hard to say that after i was dead :p feel free to reply but you'll only be talking to yourself, i couldn't care less what your opinion is.
Reply
So now we've gone from "absolute proof" (in which you get to pretend you're not a murderer by proxy) to "beyond a reasonable doubt" (in which you do not get to pretend that)
This ironically puts you in the same category as the people you think should be killed. Funny, eh, when you think about it.
"If we went by your idea that nothing is certain no criminals would ever be locked up, everything is too circumspect"
Here's a tip. When you run into an argument you have no answer to, the appropriate course of action is not to make up a completely fictional argument and reply to that instead.
If we "went by my idea", no-one would be killed by the state. Nowhere do I argue against custodial sentences.
"your arguments to assume all dna and fingerprint evidence are planted are unreasonable."
You're just not reading now. I specifically stated that you don't assume all evidence is faked,. Look, here it is:
"That doesn't mean all video is faked, nor all DNA is planted."
so there's another strawman.
My argument rests on the fact that you can't assume evidence is never faked, which is not the same as assuming it's always faked. There is a choice other than "it's all fake" or "it's all valid". I deliberately made that explicit, knowing the conservative mind's trouble grasping anything not divided into "black/white" or "good/bad" but it still slipped by you - a feat of mental maladriotness which I find slightly frightening.
Did you ever read this?. Think of it as a really long horoscope, just for you.
"your entitled to your view but don't try and force it on me"
It's not "my view" that the system isn't perfect. It's reality, so quit snivelling.
"i have made my own mind up and you won't convince me otherwise"
I'm sure no-one can convince you of anything.
However, I didn't think I'd change your mind about your support for state murder: in fact I was almost certain I wouldn't change it. I've found that pro-death penalty people are remarkably immune to reason.
But then the point wasn't to change your mind. It was to get you to frantically backpedal away from the ridiculously self-serving fiction you invented to make yourself seem more human; that you can be pro-death penalty and at the same time claim your hands are clean. Since you've most entertainingly done that while trying to pretend you haven't, we're done.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment