Mare's Mess

hey dude,

i'd say the difference between an innocent person being executed and spending many years in prison is that if we find out we made a mistake at some point we can let the innocent person free. can't so much do that with the dead guy we already killed.

i'm not really sure i understand the NORML analogy. you're saying they really want weed legalized so they can smoke it, but they try to legitimize their intentions by putting up phony reasons, right? so how does that apply to the death penalty discussion? we really want the death penalty revoked because _______, but most people wouldn't go for that so we put up the arguments of _________ to try to legitimize our stance. i'm not sure i know what you're saying would fill in these blanks.

as far as your statement that the death penalty is absurd because it serves no real purpose after the fact and isn't a deterrent, i totally agree. but my rant was aimed at christians who support the death penalty because i think it really goes against the teachings of christ. christians who support the death penalty are quick to point out that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" should actually be translated to say, "thou shalt not murder," the difference being that murder is killing an innocent person. so i was pointing out the fact that if we do execute innocent people then we are breaking that commandment. common sense and the smallest amount of honesty would lead anyone to realize that we already have and will again "murder" innocent people with the death penalty.

thanks, dude, for getting some discussion going. and by the way, i think marijuana should be legalized too. but not because i want to smoke it or use the rope. i just don't think it's the government's job to tell us what we can and cannot do with our land, time, money, etc. unless we're violating someone else's rights.

do we want to know what you're doing with that nylon rope that you curse it so frequently?

whoa, dude! i want to read your blog. if you don't have one, you should get one. . . today! you bit off way more than i'm able to chew at this point. i guess i'm not much of a pragmatist. i have a guiding principle that makes my political decisions for me. the government exists to protect it's citizens from force and fraud, to protect our rights to life and property. other than that, it should leave me alone, unless i'm violating someone else's rights. i don't even have to go into gun control or drug legalization or any other issue because that principle will explain my view on any issue.

as far as diverting from the real issues and arguing sub-issues, i think the art of persuasion is like the art of comedy. you have to know your audience. if i'm trying to convince someone that gun control is wrong and they don't share my principle of the role of government, then i need to figure out another way to convince them. when i'm trying to convince christians that the death penalty is wrong, i need to argue it from the context of the bible or i'm not going to make any progress. you need to know what principles are important to people and argue from there.

you said so much, i'm not sure what to address and what to leave for another time. i guess the only thing i really have anything to say about is the whole "reproductive rights" issue. i stand by my principle, people should be able to have sex, not have sex, use birth control, not use birth control, use any kind of birth control they choose. none of this violates anyone else's rights. however, once a person is created it is quite a large violation of that person's rights to kill them because they are unwanted. there are plenty of kids already born who are "unwanted" (saw lots of them in ukraine and vietnam) but you certainly wouldn't say it's ok to kill them.

i had not heard the whole pharmacist news story, but you seem to contradict yourself in your disgust at these pharmacists. should the government force people to dispense drugs they feel are immoral? by refusing, the pharmacists aren't violating anyone else's rights because everyone is free to go to another pharmacist who will be glad to fill it. doesn't matter if i agree with anyone's moral beliefs or not, they have a right to them and a right to act on them - as long as they're not violating someone else's rights. doctor's have a right to refuse to perform procedures they feel are immoral. do you think that's wrong? i guess i don't see the difference.

keep the discussions coming. you probably don't know this about me, but i quite enjoy political and religious debate:)

meant to put this in my last comment. a very convincing argument could be made against the death penalty without ever mentioning God or religion. i'm against it for many reasons. just like to point out the God may not support it as well.

Just a comment on the choosing methods of birth control (as this has been a topic of much discussion in my home lately). You stated that anyone should be able to use any method of birth control they choose. I guess that would depend on when you believe life begins ( and that debate has gone on for a long time, as well.) Many do not realize the actions of some of the most common forms of birth control on the market. An IUD, for example, prevents the implantation of an already fertilized egg into the lining of the uterus. Now, do you consider a fertilized egg the beginning of life, or is it after implantation, or is after the heart beats,or is it . . . ? Just some food for thought on that little matter.

And a note on the legalization of marijuana - - Many who know me would be suprised to know that I am in support of the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes only. It would be ridiculous to have a base substance out there that could help people and not utilize it for that purpose just because there are those out there who wish to destroy their gray matter for pleasure. There are currently multiple medications out there that are legal by prescription that individuals misappropriate for there own pleasure. Should they stop prescribing ms contin to cancer suffers.

I brought up the NORML analogy because I feel that arguement, like the one innocent person arguement are really distractions from the true arguement. If one wants to smoke weed or execute criminals then lets discuss those topics and not worry about all these poor "innocent" people. I was in a jury a couple summer ago, and I tell you, I'd be shocked if the legal system ever got it right.

More examples include the pro-choice arguement of "what about a conception by rape" or the gun control folks bringing up exotic automatic rifles that are obviously not for hunting Bambi.

These tangents all frustrate me because we get tricked into discussing these exceptions to the rule rather than the fundemental rule itself. It discourages us having more productive discussions about why we feel that way rather than dreaming up these innocent people getting exececuted (which I connect to the multi-purpose hemp rope arguement. It is a relively indirect comparison and does not really lend itself into the blanks you have provided, you mad-libber.)

I have never talked at length with God to get his thoughts on capital pushment, but if we could guarantee Him that we would never execute anyone that was innocent, do you think he would go along with it since we are not murdering, only killing. I see that as splitting hairs and I have a hunch God would too. It is also hard for me to think God is too bent outta shape about these 13 innocent dead people when there between 100,000 and 200,000 innocent dead in the latest chapter of US v. Iraq.

I think the idea of a death penalty is bad because I don't like the idea of the government making a policy of executing human beings.

I think recreational drugs should be legal because I believe in personal liberty above all else and to protect an individual's decision to participate in self-destructive behavior.

I think a 9mm handgun is more absurd than any automatic assualt rifle since the only practical purpose of such a handgun is to conceal it and to shoot other people. Let's not make the assualt rifle's into the bad guys when it is the handguns that are used to murder everyone.

I think the reproductive rights should fall never fall into the realm of the government.

(Not sure if this is in the press down there, but the recent practice of pharmecists declining to prescribe birth control or emergency contraceptives because of their personal moral beliefs has me absolutle bewildered. Now any one person gets to play God rather than a beuracracy. I dream of a world where everyone minds their own business and stops trying to force their beliefs on everyone else. You don't get to dispense drugs if you are going to do it selectively.)

Surely most everyone has strong feeling on the 4 hot botton topics I have used for examples. But we need to be pragmatic when we try to legislate these things.

I think it would be a better world if all the guns disappeared, we had flawless birth control technology that reulted in zero unwanted conceptions, noone commited crimes warranting capital punishment, and everyone must abuse a chemical of their choice. But I don't get to decide what everyone else does, only the governement gets to do that.

I find the arguement about "If one innocent person is executed, we are murderers" totally irrelevant and boring. It is like the NORML people arguing to legalize hemp for medical purposes or to make that wonderful hemp rope. Let's quit making excuses and apologies for our opinions. NORML folks want to leagalize Mary Jane because they like to smoke it, not its medical or practical uses. (although I have found myself cursing at this nylon piece of rope too many times to tally)

I feel the same can be said for this one innocent person being executed theory. Personally I'd rather be executed than face life in prison so I don't really find that much distiction between a man imprisoned 34 years for a crime he didn't commit versus an innocent man sent to the electric chair. In either case the man screwed you over pretty good.

I don't think the US govt should be in the business of killing human beings. That statement could shoot off into a lot of tangents but it is certainly relevant to the death penalty discussion. Now if a madman is about to bludgen me to death with a tire iron, then by all means please provide a cop to shoot the perp dead. Likewise on a national security level.

But when the crime has already been commited, what does it really accomplish to execute this human? I think the lesson is probably wasted on the person executed. And I hardly believe it discourages others from commitiing capital crimes. (I would murder my wife's lover if a fit of jealous rage, but that is only because I live in a jurisdiction where I know they cannot put me to death for my crime!)

Avid Reader who does not even find life that precious, yet finds the death penalty absurd.