 |
|
Perhaps there is some miscommunication here.
Posted on: October 4, 2016 at 13:54:46 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72858
Member For:
21.61 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Perhaps I am not understanding what you were saying.
Here is a subsection of our dialogue on this thread:
Spanky: “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?"
tmcats: i'm not sure they're connected, actually(nm)
JeffB: How could they not be? If your government has a bill of rights guaranteeing your liberty but feels it has the right to kill you... are they really protecting your liberty?
GA Tiger: I'm a little surprised you're against capital punishment.
There seem to be many with your views who are for capital punishment. That is inconsistent by definition.
JeffB: How is my belief that capital punishment is not needed to protect society inconsistent? What is it inconsistent with?
tmcats: valuing life(nm)
This is probably where the confusion comes in. GAT brought capital punishment into the conversation & that is where those who are pro-choice to deliberately kill innocent unborn human beings often believe that pro-lifers are inconsistent. They seem to believe, though I think some are just trying to throw up a smoke screen, that a human life is a human life and if you are against killing a human being in one circumstance you must be against killing all human beings in all circumstances.
To my mind that is absurd. The key differences are "innocent" and "self-defense".
But unlike some others, GAT seemed to be saying that my belief that the death penalty was not necessary in most western cultures was inconsistent... but I wasn't sure if he was saying that my belief was not consistent with that of some other pro-life people, or maybe inconsistent with something else?
When you chimed in that it was inconsistent with ~ "valuing life", I assumed you meant that being open to the death penalty as a sentence for some crimes was not consistent with "valuing life"... a position taken by many liberals... who quite inconsistently are pro-choice to deliberately kill innocent unborn human beings at any time for any reason by any means no matter how brutal.
But I'm thinking now that you were instead trying to say that my position that the death penalty is not consistent with being pro-life... (because it is necessary to protect innocent lives in society from the criminals on death row?).
Here is a subsection of our dialogue on this thread:
Spanky: “If you can’t protect life then how can you protect liberty?"
tmcats: i'm not sure they're connected, actually(nm)
JeffB: How could they not be? If your government has a bill of rights guaranteeing your liberty but feels it has the right to kill you... are they really protecting your liberty?
GA Tiger: I'm a little surprised you're against capital punishment.
There seem to be many with your views who are for capital punishment. That is inconsistent by definition.
JeffB: How is my belief that capital punishment is not needed to protect society inconsistent? What is it inconsistent with?
tmcats: valuing life(nm)
This is probably where the confusion comes in. GAT brought capital punishment into the conversation & that is where those who are pro-choice to deliberately kill innocent unborn human beings often believe that pro-lifers are inconsistent. They seem to believe, though I think some are just trying to throw up a smoke screen, that a human life is a human life and if you are against killing a human being in one circumstance you must be against killing all human beings in all circumstances.
To my mind that is absurd. The key differences are "innocent" and "self-defense".
But unlike some others, GAT seemed to be saying that my belief that the death penalty was not necessary in most western cultures was inconsistent... but I wasn't sure if he was saying that my belief was not consistent with that of some other pro-life people, or maybe inconsistent with something else?
When you chimed in that it was inconsistent with ~ "valuing life", I assumed you meant that being open to the death penalty as a sentence for some crimes was not consistent with "valuing life"... a position taken by many liberals... who quite inconsistently are pro-choice to deliberately kill innocent unborn human beings at any time for any reason by any means no matter how brutal.
But I'm thinking now that you were instead trying to say that my position that the death penalty is not consistent with being pro-life... (because it is necessary to protect innocent lives in society from the criminals on death row?).
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Perhaps there is some miscommunication here. - JeffB MU - 10/4 13:54:46