| Subject: Re: The Death Penalty |
Author:
JCayan
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:36:20 06/12/01 Tue
In reply to:
Chuckie
's message, "Re: The Death Penalty" on 09:00:32 06/11/01 Mon
Chuckie: As I seem to be a slobbering, ignorant, bloodthirsty savage - according to Vivien - I guess I don't have much more to say on this subject. I will say I'm disappointed in Vivien. I expected more.
Whoa....have I missed something here???????
Vivien, has never referred to anyone on this board as "Bloodthirsty"; in fact, the term was a spin on her words taken out of context. Nor, have I seen an instance in which she called Americans, slobbering, ignorant savages, again this is another spin on her words. She has used the term "barbaric", which is commonly used to describe the personal views of most Europeans in regards to the death penalty. One only needs to familiarize themselves with the European press to understand the usage of the word barbaric. May I also state, that England is not the only European nation that considers a death penalty s "barbaric".
Just as many Americans view the atrocities occurring in Bosnia as uncivilized, so do we stand under a microscope of scrutiny for our own actions. As Vivien stated earlier, there is much about the American culture she loves and admires, it is the act of the “Death Penalty” that she finds offensive.
Vivien:
I do not attack the right to punish, and any legal system will suffer miscarriages of justice from time to time. I attack the use of the death penalty because of the atrocity it clearly is. Better to release a man/woman wrongly convicted after 10 years, than to murder someone who might be innocent, or subject ANY human being to such inhumane treatment. Human beings are not dogs to be put down in order to satisfy a blood lust. Responding to barbarism with another act of barbarism is not the hallmark of an advanced and civilised society.
Wyld’s immediate response:
Again you call me bloodthirsty. So now I will call you irrational. You assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you must fit into this limited sterotype. So of course anyone who believes in the death penalty must be bloodthirsty.
May I comment, that never once did Vivien call Wyld, bloodthirsty. She was speaking of the "death penalty" act itself and how she feels it doesn't fit into a civilized society. I assure you that at least 30% of the American population agrees with her.
Let’s not turn this into a Euro-American tit for tat, simply because we do not agree on the subject matter. Furthermore, I think it prudent that those too thin skinned to be able to withstand the assault on their arguments, not add fuel to the fire by twisting peoples words around to suit their own needs. Simply, because they are unable to respond effectively to a challenge put forth.
It may be wise for the thinned skinned to retreat back into their shells, instead of inciting disruption where none is due. Simply, because Vivien chose to dismiss PF’s condescending and contrite remark doesn’t warrant what I have seen. However, it did serve as a catalyst to the events that quickly followed and just escalated out of control.
I am pleased to see that other’s have signed on to defend Vivien’s POV, and like Vivien, I noticed their words were also taken out of the context, to which they quickly redirected those parties involved. Very few of these posters had their queries answered forthwith.
PF: I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot, and the people who are currently opposed to the death penalty had something aweful happen to their family member, they might reconsider their lofty, high-minded, quixotic stance on this issue. Or maybe not, maybe your beliefs on this topic are stronger than your emotional reactions. If so, then more power to you, as I tend to react more viscerally in such cases than rationally. A fatal flaw, I suppose.
Now if that isn't condescending than I don't know what is. Does PF have the right to infringe on Vivien's views with a condescending "lofty, high-minded, quixotic stance" remark? Again, I reiterate that there was nothing offensive in Vivien's post previous to the PF reply. Does Vivien have the right to dismiss it? Why not, PF had the right to be condescending and contrite.
There isn’t a person on this board who has not made past references to acts they found dehumanizing, and if they did not use the exact term "is not the hallmark of an advanced and civilised society", then they used a different one meaning the same. I know that I have on more than one ocassion and I am more than willing to admit as much. Can you?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 