|
Post by bernard on Feb 1, 2016 9:44:51 GMT -6
The gentleman who wrote the comment quoted above is a pro-death penalty propagandist who contributes to a pro-death penalty website. It would not be possible for him to respond to an innocence claim in a web article without his casting some perfunctory doubt upon it. Cute but shallow and false. I was also an active opponent of the death penalty for decades. I have seen many claims of innocence that have been proven false. The innocence claim in the article cast doubt upon itself by its weakness. It is not an objection to your pro opinion that you are pro. Nor is it an objection to the author's anti opinion that she is anti. The question of whether there really is doubt about an innocence claim should be addressed using facts and evidence, not by casting aspersions of bias against the claimant.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Feb 1, 2016 13:23:21 GMT -6
The question of whether there really is doubt about an innocence claim should be addressed using facts and evidence, not by casting aspersions of bias against the claimant. BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! I completely agree with you on this point, Bernardo! But do remember that the claimant has the obligation to provide the "facts and evidence" to prove his claim.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 2, 2016 10:19:48 GMT -6
The question of whether there really is doubt about an innocence claim should be addressed using facts and evidence, not by casting aspersions of bias against the claimant. BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! I completely agree with you on this point, Bernardo! But do remember that the claimant has the obligation to provide the "facts and evidence" to prove his claim. I cast no aspersions. I considered first that she works for a fervently left-wing, activist propaganda organ. Then I read how the propaganda organ described her and looked at her other recent articles. Her bias is clear.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 2, 2016 12:33:55 GMT -6
BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! I completely agree with you on this point, Bernardo! But do remember that the claimant has the obligation to provide the "facts and evidence" to prove his claim. I cast no aspersions. I considered first that she works for a fervently left-wing, activist propaganda organ. Then I read how the propaganda organ described her and looked at her other recent articles. Her bias is clear. What's the difference, in your view, between being biased and merely having an opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 9, 2016 11:38:53 GMT -6
I cast no aspersions. I considered first that she works for a fervently left-wing, activist propaganda organ. Then I read how the propaganda organ described her and looked at her other recent articles. Her bias is clear. What's the difference, in your view, between being biased and merely having an opinion? A professional writer who works for a propaganda organ is almost certain to be biased. That can be confirmed by reviewing to writer's body of work. However, bias is often concealed. The avoidance of bias may be detected in reading an opinion expressed by a writer who honestly brings out the value of opposing viewpoints. I find it hard to believe that you don't already know all of that.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 9, 2016 14:03:43 GMT -6
What's the difference, in your view, between being biased and merely having an opinion? A professional writer who works for a propaganda organ is almost certain to be biased. That can be confirmed by reviewing to writer's body of work. However, bias is often concealed. The avoidance of bias may be detected in reading an opinion expressed by a writer who honestly brings out the value of opposing viewpoints. I find it hard to believe that you don't already know all of that. I don't know it because it is not true. You're biased if you START OUT with a one sided view. You're not necessarily biased just because you FINISH UP with one. A teacher is not obliged, for example, to present creationism in a biology class, just for the sake of being "unbiased". There is no need to "honestly bring out the value of an opposing viewpoint" when the opposing viewpoint doesn't have any value.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 16, 2016 19:31:36 GMT -6
A professional writer who works for a propaganda organ is almost certain to be biased. That can be confirmed by reviewing to writer's body of work. However, bias is often concealed. The avoidance of bias may be detected in reading an opinion expressed by a writer who honestly brings out the value of opposing viewpoints. I find it hard to believe that you don't already know all of that. I don't know it because it is not true. You're biased if you START OUT with a one sided view. You're not necessarily biased just because you FINISH UP with one. A teacher is not obliged, for example, to present creationism in a biology class, just for the sake of being "unbiased". There is no need to "honestly bring out the value of an opposing viewpoint" when the opposing viewpoint doesn't have any value. That was a poor straw man argument.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 17, 2016 14:06:30 GMT -6
I don't know it because it is not true. You're biased if you START OUT with a one sided view. You're not necessarily biased just because you FINISH UP with one. A teacher is not obliged, for example, to present creationism in a biology class, just for the sake of being "unbiased". There is no need to "honestly bring out the value of an opposing viewpoint" when the opposing viewpoint doesn't have any value. That was a poor straw man argument. To commit the fallacy of straw man is to present someone's view incorrectly, so that it may be more easily demolished. However, I wasn't presenting anyone's view, so I could not have presented it incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 26, 2016 11:58:06 GMT -6
That was a poor straw man argument. To commit the fallacy of straw man is to present someone's view incorrectly, so that it may be more easily demolished. However, I wasn't presenting anyone's view, so I could not have presented it incorrectly. No, another type of straw man is to construct an irrelevant shallow or false claim and then argue against it as though the false claim has some relevance to the initial discussion
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 26, 2016 20:58:59 GMT -6
To commit the fallacy of straw man is to present someone's view incorrectly, so that it may be more easily demolished. However, I wasn't presenting anyone's view, so I could not have presented it incorrectly. No, another type of straw man is to construct an irrelevant shallow or false claim and then argue against it as though the false claim has some relevance to the initial discussion I do not know which shallow or false claim you have in mind. I merely suggested that arguing an opinionated perspective isn't cast iron evidence of bias. The author may have reached her opinionated perspective after considering the evidence and being fair to both sides.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Feb 29, 2016 14:19:20 GMT -6
No, another type of straw man is to construct an irrelevant shallow or false claim and then argue against it as though the false claim has some relevance to the initial discussion I do not know which shallow or false claim you have in mind. I merely suggested that arguing an opinionated perspective isn't cast iron evidence of bias. The author may have reached her opinionated perspective after considering the evidence and being fair to both sides. Thanks for the laugh. I have been personally involved with the left and the anti-DP crowd for to long to fall for that one.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 29, 2016 18:23:12 GMT -6
Who killed the DP?
Actually the DP is still alive & strong.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 1, 2016 14:18:49 GMT -6
I do not know which shallow or false claim you have in mind. I merely suggested that arguing an opinionated perspective isn't cast iron evidence of bias. The author may have reached her opinionated perspective after considering the evidence and being fair to both sides. Thanks for the laugh. I have been personally involved with the left and the anti-DP crowd for to long to fall for that one. Thanks for the laugh, but I don't believe that you were ever involved with the anti-DP crowd.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 1, 2016 14:21:09 GMT -6
Who killed the DP? Actually the DP is still alive & strong. Sixteen or seventeen thousand murders a year across the US, but only a handful of executions. Not really "alive and strong" is it?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 1, 2016 14:40:03 GMT -6
Yes, a handful out of the sixteen or seventeen thousand murders a yr across the U.S is proof the DP is alive & strong. Gee, how many victims Bernie in that count of murders?
DP is alive & well.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 1, 2016 15:44:01 GMT -6
Yes, a handful out of the sixteen or seventeen thousand murders a yr across the U.S is proof the DP is alive & strong. It seems you are struggling with the meaning of "strong". Let's make it into your English word of the week. That doesn't make any sense. But not coherently defended.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 1, 2016 16:44:07 GMT -6
Yes, a handful out of the sixteen or seventeen thousand murders a yr across the U.S is proof the DP is alive & strong. It seems you are struggling with the meaning of "strong". Let's make it into your English word of the week. That doesn't make any sense. But not coherently defended. Those are strong" numbers sixteen to seventeen murders per yr in the US. Victims Bernie, means family & friends it affects too for a lifetime. The DP is alive & strong. That makes for an insane amount of dead " innocent victims". The DP is alive & strong for the wrong side. I certainly am not going to say the DP is alive & "well". It's disgusting assault/slap in the face against society too.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 1, 2016 17:53:05 GMT -6
Those are strong" numbers sixteen to seventeen murders per yr in the US. Victims Bernie, means family & friends it affects too for a lifetime. But those numbers also tell us that, despite the enormous number of murders American society is mostly unwilling to apply the death penalty. You pros have tried everything now, even excluding antis from juries, and still the number of murderers sentenced to death is just over 1%, with less than 1% being executed (many remain on DR indefinitely because of a statewide moratorium). The death penalty is alive? Yes, in the same technical sense that this forum is still alive. Strong? Don't make me laugh. You appear to be counting murder and the death penalty as being the same thing. If so, then you join many many antis. Maybe you are an anti at heart.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 1, 2016 18:46:26 GMT -6
Those are strong" numbers sixteen to seventeen murders per yr in the US. Victims Bernie, means family & friends it affects too for a lifetime. But those numbers also tell us that, despite the enormous number of murders American society is mostly unwilling to apply the death penalty. You pros have tried everything now, even excluding antis from juries, and still the number of murderers sentenced to death is just over 1%, with less than 1% being executed (many remain on DR indefinitely because of a statewide moratorium). The death penalty is alive? Yes, in the same technical sense that this forum is still alive. Strong? Don't make me laugh. You appear to be counting murder and the death penalty as being the same thing. If so, then you join many many antis. Maybe you are an anti at heart. Murderers believe in the DP for whoever, however, wherever they want, except not for themselves. For the love of killing no remorse, their choice of method making their own laws. Pro's believe in the DP for those who have that belief & act on it. Abortion is the same, ending life is a DP. Does not matter what you believe it" is,"it" is alive, it"' is life which is given the DP not by natural means. Euthanasia is the DP, end of life not by natural causes. War is a DP, only do not know who will live or die. DP is alive & strong except for number one In some circumstances above I believe in the DP. We all have blood on our hands, if you believe not having a DP for a vicious illegal klller makes your hands so pure your a fool.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 1, 2016 21:42:33 GMT -6
But those numbers also tell us that, despite the enormous number of murders American society is mostly unwilling to apply the death penalty. You pros have tried everything now, even excluding antis from juries, and still the number of murderers sentenced to death is just over 1%, with less than 1% being executed (many remain on DR indefinitely because of a statewide moratorium). The death penalty is alive? Yes, in the same technical sense that this forum is still alive. Strong? Don't make me laugh. You appear to be counting murder and the death penalty as being the same thing. If so, then you join many many antis. Maybe you are an anti at heart. Murderers believe in the DP for whoever, however, wherever they want, except not for themselves. For the love of killing no remorse, their choice of method making their own laws. Pro's believe in the DP for those who have that belief & act on it. Abortion is the same, ending life is a DP. Does not matter what you believe it" is,"it" is alive, it"' is life which is given the DP not by natural means. Euthanasia is the DP, end of life not by natural causes. War is a DP, only do not know who will live or die. DP is alive & strong except for number one I see your problem. You don't know what the "P" in "DP" stands for. Let me help. It stands for "penalty", and it refers to a punishment imposed by the state or federal government. So you see, while DEATH is still prevalent, and HOMICIDE is still ubiquitous, the death PENALTY is relatively rare. The death PENALTY has been abolished in most advanced nations and many states of the USA, and is relatively rarely imposed in this country even for the crime of murder. I hope this helps. Stick to the point. Pros try to put lipstick on a pig by imposing the death penalty, not with the simple honesty of six bullets to the brain, but using some invisible current or suffocating poison designed to hide the blood and eliminate the appearance of brutality.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 1, 2016 22:00:35 GMT -6
Murderers believe in the DP for whoever, however, wherever they want, except not for themselves. For the love of killing no remorse, their choice of method making their own laws. Pro's believe in the DP for those who have that belief & act on it. Abortion is the same, ending life is a DP. Does not matter what you believe it" is,"it" is alive, it"' is life which is given the DP not by natural means. Euthanasia is the DP, end of life not by natural causes. War is a DP, only do not know who will live or die. DP is alive & strong except for number one I see your problem. You don't know what the "P" in "DP" stands for. Let me help. It stands for "penalty", and it refers to a punishment imposed by the state or federal government. So you see, while DEATH is still prevalent, and HOMICIDE is still ubiquitous, the death PENALTY is relatively rare. The death PENALTY has been abolished in most advanced nations and many states of the USA, and is relatively rarely imposed in this country even for the crime of murder. I hope this helps. Stick to the point. Pros try to put lipstick on a pig by imposing the death penalty, not with the simple honesty of six bullets to the brain, but using some invisible current or suffocating poison designed to hide the blood and eliminate the appearance of brutality. I do not need your explanation, nor did I ask for your advice or opinion. Go way little boy.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 1, 2016 22:17:02 GMT -6
I do not need your explanation, nor did I ask for your advice or opinion. Wrong. When you make foolish statements, you are asking to be corrected.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 1, 2016 22:29:10 GMT -6
I do not need your explanation, nor did I ask for your advice or opinion. Wrong. When you make foolish statements, you are asking to be corrected. We are not part of your classroom, Thank God ...
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 1, 2016 23:18:53 GMT -6
Wrong. When you make foolish statements, you are asking to be corrected. We are not part of your classroom, Thank God ... The world is a classroom, and we are all students. I learn from you, and you learn from me. And we all learn from Joe Phillips.
|
|
nate
Old Hand
momento mori.
Posts: 544
|
Post by nate on Mar 2, 2016 12:14:05 GMT -6
Only in the rarest of rare cases like a genocidal tyrant or a long career sadistic serial killer- sure Fair trial,full appeal,full review,warrant signed,bullet to the head. Done thats what it should (rarely) look like.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 2, 2016 12:30:30 GMT -6
Thanks for the laugh. I have been personally involved with the left and the anti-DP crowd for to long to fall for that one. Thanks for the laugh, but I don't believe that you were ever involved with the anti-DP crowd. I really don't care what you believe and your beliefs cannot alter my experiences.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 3, 2016 13:39:39 GMT -6
Thanks for the laugh, but I don't believe that you were ever involved with the anti-DP crowd. I really don't care what you believe and your beliefs cannot alter my experiences. And I don't really care what your personal experiences are. I claimed that having an opinionated perspective isn't cast iron evidence of bias. The author may have reached her opinionated perspective after considering the evidence and being fair to both sides. If you have a serious counterargument to this, present it. Otherwise, be silent.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 7, 2016 6:35:19 GMT -6
And I don't really care what your personal experiences are. I claimed that having an opinionated perspective isn't cast iron evidence of bias. The author may have reached her opinionated perspective after considering the evidence and being fair to both sides. If you have a serious counterargument to this, present it. Otherwise, be silent. Thanks for another laugh at your cavalier exhibition of your pseudo-intellectual arrogance. You have no authority even to suggest that someone else be silent. You dismissal of the personal experience of others is a perfect exhibition of your inability to understand anything about the reality of how civilization survives.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 8, 2016 15:54:48 GMT -6
And I don't really care what your personal experiences are. I claimed that having an opinionated perspective isn't cast iron evidence of bias. The author may have reached her opinionated perspective after considering the evidence and being fair to both sides. If you have a serious counterargument to this, present it. Otherwise, be silent. Thanks for another laugh at your cavalier exhibition of your pseudo-intellectual arrogance. You have no authority even to suggest that someone else be silent. It has nothing to do with authority. If you aren't going to respond to the point, be silent. Not because I say so. But because you have nothing to say. Any fool can appeal to their personal history to assure everyone else that they are right.
|
|