John,
Quote:
I guess I am getting a little frustrated. Like when I'm trying to help someone with a script. I can only explain it so many ways. Usually they get it the first or second time. If not I'll give up after 4 or 5 tries.
The difference between this and a script is that these are all opinions; a script is usually more or less a right-or-wrong situation, with one answer that works.
By that I mean to emphasize that just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand or don't respect your opinion.
Quote:
Really parking tickets? You can bounce back from a parking ticket.
The point I was making was that your argument against the death penalty applied to parking tickets as well. Your reaction to my comment shows clearly that your argument against the death penalty [that one] isn't the real reason-- it's because the death penalty is such a big thing, final and so forth. If that's the reason, that's fine. But that's exactly what I was trying to clarify before.
Quote:
I just don't see how you can justify unfairness when the penalty is irreversible and it's been demonstrated time again that innocents are put to death.
I've said I agree with you that it's implemented badly-- I wouldn't oppose suspending it as you suggested a while ago. Indefinitely probably.
Quote:
You even state that it's inefficient, not a deterrent and not cost effective.
Yes. We agree on this as well.
Quote:
It's just that there's some part of you that seems to want or need to hold onto the death penalty. Like it's sexy, or exciting to you in some way. Regardless of all the logic and good morals you have against her, she's still so much more fun to be with than that dull life in prison chick.
I'm more interested in working out the details of the argument and finding the position that makes the most sense than to advocate one position or another. As far as I can tell, my position is that I don't find enough evidence against the death penalty to eliminate it-- suspend for practical reasons, yes, but not to eliminate it entirely as an option. I don't even think it needs to be used "sometimes" for some vague reason-- if it's never used that's fine. But to eliminate it as an option doesn't make sense to me. So the "sexy chick" metaphor doesn't apply to me (not sure about the others, but I think you're addressing only me here).
Quote:
Whatever the case may be though, I probably should bow out of the discussion. I think your 4 o 5 tries at understanding are up for now.
That's fine if you don't want to discuss it, and you're welcome to your opinion. I disagree with your implication, though, that there's some reason it's my job to understand your opinion (and accept it?)-- in fact, I do understand it and have from the beginning (although perhaps not in some details-- and thanks for clarifying), but I still have objections to it. I don't take your objections to my points to show that you don't understand mine, but rather that you disagree with them; the same is true for me for your points. I don't intend at all to suggest that you should chance your views to match mine, especially if I'm not convincing to you.
I'll admit that my perspectives tend to be highly theoretical rather than effectively practical-- I have no problem with literally everything you've said as purely a practical reaction to the problems in the system. I just don't stretch that to mean that then the idea is a bad idea in itself or that it could never be useful. I hope that makes sense.
