Student whose father died in windshield killing gets scholarship from death-row inmates
Euro
death-row inmates
Eds: SUBS lede to CORRECT syntax By ANGELA K. BROWN= Associated Press
Writer=
DALLAS (AP) _ A college student whose father was hit by a car and left
to die in the windshield _ and who forgave the woman who did it _ was
awarded a $10,000 scholarship raised by death-row inmates. The money for
Brandon Biggs, 20, was raised through donations and subscriptions to
«Compassion,» a bimonthly newsletter written by the nation's death-row
inmates and a project of the Roman Catholic church's peace and justice
committee. «We want to debunk the myth that death-row inmates are
subhuman monsters needing to be killed,» said Rick Halperin, the Texas
death-penalty abolition coordinator for Amnesty International USA.
Gregory Biggs was walking on the side of a Fort Worth highway in October
2001 when he was hit. With his torso inside the car and his broken legs
lodged in the windshield, he held onto the inside passenger door panel
as the car kept going, according to court testimony. Authorities said
Chante Mallard drove home and left Biggs in the windshield to die
despite his pleas for help. She was convicted in June of murder and
sentenced to 50 years in prison. She was not eligible for the death
penalty; her maximum punishment would have been life in prison. The
scholarship is for relatives of any murder victims, not just those in
death-penalty cases. During her trial, Mallard apologized to Biggs.
Biggs later said he forgave Mallard. «I still want to extend my
forgiveness to Chante Mallard and I want the Mallard family to know that
they are in my prayers,» he said Wednesday. 231316 oct 03GMT
A Planet Visitor
Another post from our resident 'closet Catholic.' Next thing you
know... he'll be quoting Jesus.
PV
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:ha9bqv8t943h25p0q...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:19:52 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Another post from our resident 'closet Catholic.' Next thing you
> know... he'll be quoting Jesus.
Nothing else than personal attacks to respond to this? With you, at least,
one knows what to expect anyway, so one can't be disappointed.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:ha9bqv8t943h25p0q...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:19:52 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Another post from our resident 'closet Catholic.' Next thing you
>> know... he'll be quoting Jesus.
>
>Nothing else than personal attacks to respond to this? With you, at least,
>one knows what to expect anyway, so one can't be disappointed.
Nor can one ever expect a straight answer from you, euro --
The difference, euro... the difference you find between murderers and
innocent slaves? Since you complained when I stated that you found no
difference between them. I'm still waiting for you to tell me the difference
you find between them.
My question is -- what 'difference,' not 'similarity,' do you find
between murderers and innocent slaves, if they are 'different' to you? And
obviously given any differences you might state...which of them -- irrespective
of your clumsy claim that they 'both' hold exactly the same Easter Bunny
imaginary 'human rights' -- do you find more valuable for mankind, because
of such a difference? Or is there no 'value' whatsoever to any of us?
I believe this question is directly on-topic in respect to any argument of the DP.
If you believe it is not... all you have to say are the words -- 'finding any
difference between murderers and slaves is not a topic connected
to the DP.'
PV
>Euro (Buridan's ass)
>
>>
>> PV
<article clipped>
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:rhprqvon7f0n2ugke...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:10:36 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >??????:ha9bqv8t943h25p0q...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:19:52 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Another post from our resident 'closet Catholic.' Next thing you
> >> know... he'll be quoting Jesus.
> >
> >Nothing else than personal attacks to respond to this? With you, at
least,
> >one knows what to expect anyway, so one can't be disappointed.
>
> Nor can one ever expect a straight answer from you, euro --
>
One can expect a straight answer from me whenever one asks a question. In
the present thread, you didn't ask a question. You launched a personal
attack without even addressing the point raised. That's a quite usual
practice from you, actually.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:rhprqvon7f0n2ugke...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:10:36 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>> >??????:ha9bqv8t943h25p0q...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:19:52 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Another post from our resident 'closet Catholic.' Next thing you
>> >> know... he'll be quoting Jesus.
>> >
>> >Nothing else than personal attacks to respond to this? With you, at
>least,
>> >one knows what to expect anyway, so one can't be disappointed.
>>
>> Nor can one ever expect a straight answer from you, euro --
>>
>
>One can expect a straight answer from me whenever one asks a question.
Ummm.... what difference do you find between murderers and innocent slaves?
And then... if you could save either all murderers from the DP and abolish
the DP, or save all innocent slaves from slavery and abolish slavery... which
would you choose? An anxious world waits for those answers.
>In
>the present thread, you didn't ask a question. You launched a personal
>attack without even addressing the point raised. That's a quite usual
>practice from you, actually.
>
The 'point' raised was specifically answered. If one wishes to post
under the guise of a 'closet Catholic' or quote Jesus, they may do so...
I've quoted Jesus myself... and you spit on him... as I recall. Yet,
you often present yourself as a 'closet Catholic,' thus, one never knows
anything about your fundamental views, other than you are a very
confused individual. Don't be neurotic now, euro. That isn't an insult,
just an observation of the persona I see you project here.
PV
>Euro
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:6ff3rvcpjqmuo7oil...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:56:35 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >??????:rhprqvon7f0n2ugke...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:10:36 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
> >> >??????:ha9bqv8t943h25p0q...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:19:52 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Another post from our resident 'closet Catholic.' Next thing you
> >> >> know... he'll be quoting Jesus.
> >> >
> >> >Nothing else than personal attacks to respond to this? With you, at
> >least,
> >> >one knows what to expect anyway, so one can't be disappointed.
> >>
> >> Nor can one ever expect a straight answer from you, euro --
> >>
> >
> >One can expect a straight answer from me whenever one asks a question.
>
> Ummm.... what difference do you find between murderers and innocent
slaves?
>
> And then... if you could save either all murderers from the DP and abolish
> the DP, or save all innocent slaves from slavery and abolish slavery...
which
> would you choose? An anxious world waits for those answers.
LOL!!! Thanks for giving me such importance, PV.
I thought however that I had already answered you. Let me copy once again my
reply, posted on August 4th, 2003, available at:
www.google.com/groups?selm=ce2326f3ad48e4f127d42a46ecf0bcbe%40news.meganetne
ws.com
----------------Quote
By not answering your 'test', I showed that I refused a choice that only
exists in your head, in order to support an idea that, too, only exists in
your head: the idea that there might be some gradation between men sentenced
to slavery and men sentenced to death, probably to the benefit of the
former.
This idea is yours, not mine. I only expressed a general statement saying
that my opposition to death penalty was natural, just like my opposition to
slavery, and you're the one who tried to develop that there should be a
relationship between men sentenced to slavery and men sentenced to death.
That idea is dubious and, frankly speaking, it stinks - it's not the first
time I see you trying to overimpose stinking ideas on posters you disagree
with once you realize you can't contradict their arguments in a loyal and
fair way. It's not the first time that you INTENTIONALLY distort other
posters' views, an obnoxious process for which you are famous on this group.
The choice between abolition of slavery and abolition of death penalty has
never existed, except in your sick mind. It never occurred historically. The
two questions have never been linked. in the 19th century, when slavery was
abolished in France, and, later, in the UK and the US, no one tried to link
the question with the abolition of capital punishment - though in France
Victor Hugo called for the abolition of capital punishment two years after
the abolition of slavery, in a very famous and touching speech, explicitly
stating that the progress made in the respect of human rights with the
abolition of slavery was not sufficient. Likewise, in countries where
slavery still exists nowadays, there is no indication that its abolition, if
it were to happen, would be connected to the question of the abolition of
death penalty (you will notice, by the way, that the few
slavery-retentionist countries that remain nowadays all have the death
penalty as well).
This choice does, thus, not exist, and it is utterly stupid and ludicrous to
pretend the contrary, as you did. It is stupid and ludicrous to build a
'test' with many questionable hypotheses and biased postulates to pretend
that this choice exist. And it was utmost stupid to throw me this test with
the hope that I would answer it. You need to suffer from a great deal of
cretinism to have fallen down to this.
By refusing to answer your test, I merely expressed that your so-called
choice did not exist. I also made you a great favour in not answering it in
a way that would have shown everyone how stupid it is.
But now, let me do it. You want an answer, you're going to get it.
Let me first summarize the situation:
I am the President of a country that has both capital punishment and
slavery. I have been elected two times, for a five-year mandate, on a
platform requiring the abolition of both slavery and capital punishment.
After two terms as President, there is no way I can be elected again for a
new mandate. For 10 years, due to politician and economic calculations by
members of the Parliament, it was impossible to reach any consensus enabling
the vote of a law abolishing slavery and capital punishment.
I'm now approaching the end of my mandate, and I know that my successor is a
declared supporter of both slavery and death penalty. But he also stated
that, should any law of abolition be voted under my mandate, he would not
put it into question. And, at the very last day of my term, members of
Parliament come to tell me that they could reach a majority to vote the
abolition of one of those two tortures. So in the very last minute I have to
decide which one, between death penalty and slavery, I should abolish.
That, I think, is a fair summary of what you exposed.
Now, let me answer.
As a politician who looks no new mandate, I should not care to take a
decision that is popular. I seek no new mandate, and, at the end of my
10-year presidency, I guess I must consider myself as part of history of my
country. Besides, I am equally committed to the abolition of slavery and of
death penalty and, would it only have depended on me, as I stated very
clearly during my two victorious electoral campaigns, both would have been
abolished.
Now, I stand in a position where I can abolish only one, and my original
intent will not be fully achieved. But if I want to see it achieved in the
future, knowing that I can make a first step, I would unavoidably conclude
that I should opt for the abolition of the one of those two tortures that is
the most difficult to get abolished. With the hope that a following
administration would eventually abolish the other one.
For this, I could check out which one, between slavery and death penalty,
has the most important popular support, and abolish it. I could also check
out how external factors could help influence the debate in my country. My
country being in constant contact with other sister democracies, some of
them being even close military allies and economic partners, I could check
out how they could take measures to help abolish death penalty or slavery,
and decide to abolish the one on which it is the most difficult to act from
outside.
Just to mention two different ways of determining which one to abolish.
Now, let's suppose that death penalty has more popular support than slavery
(after all, a substantial part of the public opinion may find it intolerable
to maintain slavery, and many of the voters who have no direct economic
benefit from slavery could be neutral, or quite easily convinced by the need
to abolish it). Or let's suppose that other sister democracies threaten to
boycott any product that could be made by slaves. That would lead me to the
conclusion that I should abolish death penalty.
What if some criticize me for this? After all, I have been taking for 10
years public positions for the abolition of slavery and, if I didn't get the
political support to abolish it, it wasn't my fault. Politicians gave me the
choice to abolish just one item. I chose the one that might be more
difficult to abolish later, speculating that the other one would eventually
be abolished as well. In the long term, I acted in a way that is true to my
ideals, and those who should be criticized are the ones who enabled, for 10
years, economic or politician interests to prevail over their ideals. Not
me. I'm irreproachable. Those who should be reproached with, are those who
refused to agree on the abolition of slavery during the past 10 years.
As you see, your 'test' is stupid, because I could, very logically, and with
plenty of good reasons, answer in the opposite way than the one you
expected. A stupid question raises either no answer at all, or an
unsatisfying answer. Here is mine.
Now, let me return you the 'test', by adding one more supposition (after all
the ones you made, I consider I'm very generous to add just one).
Let's suppose you're in the same position, but, moreover, you have two sons.
They behaved badly over the past years, robbed several banks, and one was
sentenced to death for having killed a bank clerk who offered resistence,
while the other, who was his accomplice, was sentenced to slavery for life.
Now, which one would you decide to spare?
--------------------------End of quote
How many times will I need to repost this so you remember I answered your
stupid question (I'm sure no anxious world was waiting for you to raise it,
by the way)?
Euro
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>??????:6ff3rvcpjqmuo7oil...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:56:35 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>> >??????:rhprqvon7f0n2ugke...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:10:36 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
>> >> >??????:ha9bqv8t943h25p0q...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:19:52 GMT, "Euro" <vs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Another post from our resident 'closet Catholic.' Next thing you
>> >> >> know... he'll be quoting Jesus.
>> >> >
>> >> >Nothing else than personal attacks to respond to this? With you, at
>> >least,
>> >> >one knows what to expect anyway, so one can't be disappointed.
>> >>
>> >> Nor can one ever expect a straight answer from you, euro --
>> >>
>> >
>> >One can expect a straight answer from me whenever one asks a question.
>>
>> Ummm.... what difference do you find between murderers and innocent
>slaves?
>>
>> And then... if you could save either all murderers from the DP and abolish
>> the DP, or save all innocent slaves from slavery and abolish slavery...
>which
>> would you choose? An anxious world waits for those answers.
>
>LOL!!! Thanks for giving me such importance, PV.
>
I'm only concerned in demonstrating your Goebbels methods of lies and deceit.
And you still not answering the basic question... demonstrates fully the methods
of Goebbels that have taken on a new life in your posting style. It appears that
you used the word 'stupid' seven times in referring to my argument... But of
course, euro never insults. ho ho ho.
>I thought however that I had already answered you. Let me copy once again my
>reply, posted on August 4th, 2003, available at:
>www.google.com/groups?selm=ce2326f3ad48e4f127d42a46ecf0bcbe%40news.meganetne
>ws.com
>
>----------------Quote
>
>By not answering your 'test', I showed that I refused
Quite clearly you did. You refused to state what difference you found between
murderers and innocent slaves. Thus, you find no difference between them, which
has always been my argument. Nor will you EVER state what the difference is
that you presume to find, while still denying that you find no difference between
them.
> a choice that only
>exists in your head, in order to support an idea that, too, only exists in
>your head: the idea that there might be some gradation between men sentenced
>to slavery and men sentenced to death, probably to the benefit of the
>former.
>
So.... YOU find NO gradation between murderers and innocent slaves
whatsoever. You claim it only exists in MY head, and not yours.
Obviously, this thus confirms your own admission that such a gradation
does not exist in YOUR head. Clearly, you now admit that you find
no difference between murderers and innocent slaves! Which was my
original conclusion, while you claimed I had distorted a view that you
have now confirmed. You certainly DO find that murderers and innocent
slaves are just like each other. No gradation between them whatever,
in YOUR head. Which was, of course, my original conclusion that you
claimed I had distorted... that you find murderers to be just like innocent
slaves.
While you certainly have correctly stated my view... I do find a great
gradation between innocent slaves and murderers... to the benefit of
innocent slaves... finding it better to save even one innocent slave from
slavery than to presume to save ten true murderers from the DP.
After all... true murderers have murdered... innocent slaves have not.
Or have you forgotten that???
>This idea is yours, not mine.
The choice... to save murderers or innocent slaves... was given to YOU. I
certainly clearly expressed what MY choice would be. Without a moment's
hesitation I would save the innocent slave.
>I only expressed a general statement saying
>that my opposition to death penalty was natural, just like my opposition to
>slavery, and you're the one who tried to develop that there should be a
>relationship between men sentenced to slavery and men sentenced to death.
No... you've certainly expressed that I had distorted your view regarding
you finding murderers to be just like innocent slaves. Yet you have now
confirmed that you find them just like each other. No difference in
gradation in your mind.
>That idea is dubious and, frankly speaking, it stinks -
Oh??? The idea of whether you would save murderers from execution or
save innocent slaves from slavery... stinks?? My God... you become more
immoral with every post in which you try to defend your inability to differentiate
between the two... and instead decided to leave both the DP and slavery
intact.
>it's not the first
>time I see you trying to overimpose stinking ideas on posters you disagree
>with once you realize you can't contradict their arguments in a loyal and
>fair way. It's not the first time that you INTENTIONALLY distort other
>posters' views, an obnoxious process for which you are famous on this group.
>
Clearly providing insults recognizing how totally irrational your argument
has become. I have no need to distort your views, sport. They are silly
enough without having to make any changes whatsoever. When I quote you...
I do so exactly... and the fact that you cannot handle that is not my problem, but
yours. Give me one example where I have placed your words in quotes, and
they have been inaccurate. The fact that you claim your EXACT words are
'distorted,' is simply your attempt to make an EXCUSE for those words.
They are yours, sport.. and you are required to eat them.
>The choice between abolition of slavery and abolition of death penalty has
>never existed, except in your sick mind.
Another insult in your inability to handle this 'thought experiment' meant to
determine your 'moral capacity' to recognize the difference you see between
murderers and innocent slaves, which you fully now disclose as finding NO
DIFFERENCE in that 'moral capacity.'
But thank you for again confirming that you find murderers to be just like innocent
slaves. I don't think the insult you offer actually gets you off the hook, euro. It
only makes you look more determined to insist that you find murderers to be
just like innocent slaves. Your abject REFUSAL to choose means only that
you find them to be exactly the same... and you find them meaningless to you,
in any real sense... if it tends to upset your pathetically immoral argument.
>It never occurred historically. The
>two questions have never been linked. in the 19th century,
euro... YOU LINKED THEM, in the 21st Century, in your own words.
Jesus... now you're denying your own words. YOU linked them... YOUR
WORDS --
"in my view, opposition to death penalty is just like opposition to torture and
slavery." See --
"http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3eb24c11%241_1%40news.meganetnews.com
If YOU had never LINKED them, this argument would not be ongoing.
So do not argue that they are not linked... Because YOU linked them,
you liar. How can you possibly claim you did not link them... when you
used the words "JUST LIKE," which has been the HEART of my disgust
at your words? I am the one arguing that they are not linked, because no
possible comparison can be made of murderers and innocent slaves.
Yet YOU presumed to make that comparison and that LINKAGE
because you see the DP and slavery as JUST LIKE each other. Cheee...
you can be so utterly frustrating at times.... not even remembering your
OWN WORDS... which began this entire dialog. The very FIRST
instance... YOUR LINKAGE!!
> when slavery was
>abolished in France, and, later, in the UK and the US, no one tried to link
>the question with the abolition of capital punishment - though in France
>Victor Hugo called for the abolition of capital punishment two years after
>the abolition of slavery, in a very famous and touching speech, explicitly
>stating that the progress made in the respect of human rights with the
>abolition of slavery was not sufficient. Likewise, in countries where
>slavery still exists nowadays, there is no indication that its abolition, if
>it were to happen, would be connected to the question of the abolition of
>death penalty (you will notice, by the way, that the few
>slavery-retentionist countries that remain nowadays all have the death
>penalty as well).
>
LOL... What a hysterical, meaningless bunch of drivel. The historical background
of the DP and slavery has no meaning in respect to your claim that you find
murderers and innocent slaves to be different. Because you have clearly
found them to be just like each other. Since slavery has been confirmed by the
U.N. as something that should be totally abolished IN ALL FORMS, while the
U.N. has also confirmed that states may still use the DP, it would seem that you
would rather abolish something that the U.N. has confirmed does not necessarily
need to be abolished, before you would abolish something the U.N. has considered
necessary to abolish IN ALL FORMS, if you were empowered to do so. It
is rather clear that the U.N., unlike you, does NOT consider abolition of the
DP to be just like abolition of slavery. The U.N. does not... as you do... consider
murderers to be just like innocent slaves.
>This choice does, thus, not exist, and it is utterly stupid and ludicrous to
>pretend the contrary, as you did.
It exists in your mind, sport. I have placed it there, because you have claimed
that you do not find murderers and innocent slaves to be just like each other.
But clearly your inability to make such a choice as to which you would save,
demonstrates that you find them to be no different from each other. And your
excuse to call it 'stupid' over and over, only demonstrates your inability to
actually answer the question. Not having such an ability, it is quite easy for
you to simply claim that you will not answer, because it's 'stupid.' But the
fact is -- YOU WILL NOT ANSWER.
>It is stupid and ludicrous to build a
>'test' with many questionable hypotheses and biased postulates to pretend
>that this choice exist.
No one claims that this choice 'exists,' you moral fruitcake... It is designed to
prove or disprove the claim that you find a difference between murderers and
innocent slaves. Given your inability to answer this 'stupid' question, only
demonstrates that you believe everyone is too 'stupid' to realize that you
find NO DIFFERENCE between murderers and innocent slaves, because
you cannot express in words what that difference is. You certainly cannot
simply say you 'find a difference,' but are unable to state what that 'difference'
IS.
The fundamental question was -- would you save a murderer or save an
innocent slave? Since you claim they are not just like each other, you should
easily have the ability to determine which you would save. Not having such
an ability, demonstrates simply that you see them both to be the same... and
both to be meaningless in the larger context of your actually being concerned
as to saving either of them... if such a choice happens to form a basis for
you providing that 'difference' that you have expressed. You have simply
provided empty Goebbels rhetoric... as usual... while at the same time
demonstrating that you are a weak-willed hypocrite.
>And it was utmost stupid to throw me this test with
>the hope that I would answer it. You need to suffer from a great deal of
>cretinism to have fallen down to this.
>
Do you know how many times you've used the word 'stupid,' in an attempt
to AVOID answering the basic moral question?
Actually, I never expected you to answer it, euro. It would have shocked
me if you had. I had already predetermined that your lack of moral fiber
would provide the proof of your inability to actually confront your demons ---
those immoral views you hold. You simply confirmed what I had already
concluded... that you find murderers to be just like innocent slaves. Wasn't
that my original claim? How have you refuted my claim with your inability
to actually demonstrate that you find them to be different? That inability
has actually CONFIRMED my words. Look at it logically, sport. You've
simply confirmed my original claim. Thank you kindly. Although I knew
you would not let me down... since, IMHO, I had determined long ago that
you are all talk, and no moral substance.
>By refusing to answer your test, I merely
proved that you are unable to do so....
> expressed that your so-called choice did not exist.
If murderers and innocent slaves are different to you... then the choice most
certainly does exist. It exists in your mind, in respect to you having claimed
such a difference. Didn't that expression come from your mind? If it does
not exist in your mind.. then you find murderers to be just like innocent slaves.
> I also made you a great favour in not answering it in
>a way that would have shown everyone how stupid it is.
>
>
LOL... All you did was insult yourself in front of the group. Another use
of the word 'stupid,' to avoid answering the question. Of course, euro
'never insults.' If only you could see yourself in that mirror.
>But now, let me do it. You want an answer, you're going to get it.
>
>Let me first summarize the situation:
>
>I am the President of a country that has both capital punishment and
>slavery. I have been elected two times, for a five-year mandate, on a
>platform requiring the abolition of both slavery and capital punishment.
Actually that was never my conclusion. I specifically used the words
"vowed inwardly." There was no conclusion that you had been elected
by 'the voters' on a PLATFORM of opposition to the DP and slavery.
>After two terms as President, there is no way I can be elected again for a
>new mandate. For 10 years, due to politician and economic calculations by
>members of the Parliament, it was impossible to reach any consensus enabling
>the vote of a law abolishing slavery and capital punishment.
>
>I'm now approaching the end of my mandate, and I know that my successor is a
>declared supporter of both slavery and death penalty. But he also stated
>that, should any law of abolition be voted under my mandate, he would not
>put it into question. And, at the very last day of my term, members of
>Parliament come to tell me that they could reach a majority to vote the
>abolition of one of those two tortures. So in the very last minute I have to
>decide which one, between death penalty and slavery, I should abolish.
>
>That, I think, is a fair summary of what you exposed.
>
Except for the point I mentioned, and the fact that the original scenario does
not suggest you were 'reelected,' but that you were simply elected to one 10
year term, I agree that this is YOUR choice on your last moments in office.
Those changes you have made, however; prove to alter significantly the
situation, and rather transparently show your attempts to hide from making
a personal moral choice. Trying to shift the burden of blame to the voters.
>Now, let me answer.
>
Having seen all this before... I well know that you did not provide an answer.
Unless you presume your Goebbels like propaganda provides an answer,
which no reasoning human can expect it to do.
>As a politician who looks no new mandate, I should not care to take a
>decision that is popular. I seek no new mandate, and, at the end of my
>10-year presidency, I guess I must consider myself as part of history of my
>country.
Thus, with no expectation of having any power to change things in the
future, you are rather obligated to choose what is your 'personal
moral choice,' without regard to any future expectations which you
can neither control nor predict. The only thing you are rather sure
of, is that the voters have elected a replacement for you, who has
vowed to maintain both the DP and slavery. If you are looking to
the voters for 'advice' on what they might do in the future... you are
simply presuming you have the ability of Madame Zelda, when
peering into that crystal ball. And it appears the voters are disinclined
to change either the DP or slavery.
>Besides, I am equally committed to the abolition of slavery and of
>death penalty and, would it only have depended on me, as I stated very
>clearly during my two victorious electoral campaigns, both would have been
>abolished.
>
The point that you now raise.. the fact that you were REELECTED was
not part of the original test... you were elected ONCE, for 10 years, and
not on any platform that would have suggested the voters approved of
the abolition of either the DP or slavery. You had "vowed inwardly"
to pursue that personal moral objective, and only expressed it after having
been elected. The voters themselves have never substantiated your
personal view by reelecting you. And you might well not have been
elected in the first place, had you run on such a platform, since your
replacement ran on exactly the opposite platform and was elected. This
was a rather critical point... since at no time have I suggested that you
held 'voter approval' for your opposition to the DP and slavery. I was
not looking for you to seek 'voter approval,' but was looking for your
personal moral choice. They never 'voted you in' on such a platform.
We are examining your personal moral choice, and not whether the
voters approve of your personal moral choice. Since being in the
'majority' is not always being in the 'right.' The fact that you are trying
now to subtly 'shift the responsibility' to the voters is rather obvious.
>Now, I stand in a position where I can abolish only one, and my original
>intent will not be fully achieved. But if I want to see it achieved in the
>future, knowing that I can make a first step, I would unavoidably conclude
>that I should opt for the abolition of the one of those two tortures that is
>the most difficult to get abolished. With the hope that a following
>administration would eventually abolish the other one.
>
You have no way of knowing which will be the most difficult to get
abolished in the future, Madame Zelda. Nor will you have the slightest
power to direct which of them might be abolished in the future. In
any case, you have PERSONALLY stated that you find murderers and
innocent slaves to be different, so one can presume that from a personal
moral standpoint you would save the ones you find SHOULD be saved
because of that difference, regardless of what the 'voters' might wish.
Otherwise, you are again presuming that you see them as EXACTLY the
same, and will now choose on the basis of something other than such a
difference. But on the other hand, you have now also admitted that you
find no gradation between murderers and innocent slaves.
>For this, I could check out which one, between slavery and death penalty,
>has the most important popular support, and abolish it. I could also check
>out how external factors could help influence the debate in my country. My
>country being in constant contact with other sister democracies, some of
>them being even close military allies and economic partners, I could check
>out how they could take measures to help abolish death penalty or slavery,
>and decide to abolish the one on which it is the most difficult to act from
>outside.
>
>Just to mention two different ways of determining which one to abolish.
>
>Now, let's suppose that death penalty has more popular support than slavery
So your personal views are now determined by 'the majority.' But that
rather demonstrates that your personal morality is not based on your
inner morality, but is a slave to 'popular support.' I will say it again...
being in the 'majority,' is not always being in the 'right.' But of course,
your entire existence in AADP, is your atttempts to presume that the
majority IS in the 'right.' Which rather flies in the face of your argument
in respect to the DP, in those societies where the 'majority' chooses
to use the DP.
Don't you actually have any moral opinions of your own, regarding the
DP and slavery? No... of course you don't. Which simply proves that
you find murderers and innocent slaves are just like each other, and of
no consequence in a personal moral sense of your own.
>(after all, a substantial part of the public opinion may find it intolerable
>to maintain slavery, and many of the voters who have no direct economic
>benefit from slavery could be neutral, or quite easily convinced by the need
>to abolish it). Or let's suppose that other sister democracies threaten to
>boycott any product that could be made by slaves. That would lead me to the
>conclusion that I should abolish death penalty.
>
What a bunch of baloney. If you wished to abolish the one most difficult
to abolish you would of a certainty select to abolish slavery. The economic
impact of abolishing slavery is huge... and the number of slave owners is
far greater than those who would oppose the execution of murderers.
No one gives a shit about murderers, except murderer-lovers, such as
yourself. In fact, a great civil war was fought in the U.S. in respect to
abolishing slavery. Abolishing the DP would not result in a whisper,
compared to the effect of abolishing slavery. Your 'argument' is
totally devoid of sense or logic.
The U.S. sustained over three times the number of dead in fighting the
civil war, than it did in WW II. This was a war which at its core was
about slavery, euphemistically called 'state rights.'. Abolishing the DP
would result in a few demonstrations opposing such abolition, countered
by an equally few supporting that abolition. And people would again
go about their business. While the abolition of slavery creates a great
deal of upheaval in respect to 'business as usual.' That is what is
'evidenced by history.'
But are you now stating that you find it better to save that minuscule
number of murderers from the DP, than millions of innocent slaves
from slavery? Of course you are... which is a rather startling revelation
on your part. You finally admit that you find murderers to not be just
like innocent slaves, but actually find it more important to save
murderers than to save innocent slaves. With the crazy argument that
abolishing the DP would be more difficult than abolishing slavery.
In fact, you prove that you find murderers personally more valuable to
save than innocent slaves. But then I always suspected that when push
came to shove, and you were forced to choose as to your PERSONAL
CHOICE, you would rather save a paltry number of murderers from the
DP, than save millions of innocent slaves from a life of slavery. Rather
proving you are a murderer-lover. I will in the future, no longer state
you find murderers to be just like innocent slaves. You find murderers
to be BETTER... MUCH BETTER... than innocent slaves.
>What if some criticize me for this? After all, I have been taking for 10
>years public positions for the abolition of slavery and, if I didn't get the
>political support to abolish it, it wasn't my fault.
And there you go... IT WASN'T YOUR FAULT. You evil shit... let
BOTH murderers and innocent slaves ROT... just so YOU can say
'it wasn't MY fault.' The fact that you cannot see the evil in those
four words -- "IT WASN'T MY FAULT," more clearly demonstrates
the reason that I hold a disgust and pity for you, in respect to the entire
body of your posts than any other. Because, sport... the fact that
BOTH murderers and innocent slaves will ROT... IS YOUR FAULT!!!
You cannot abdicate the power given to you... and 'blame it on
someone else.'
If you are not concerned with being criticized, then your choice should
rest on your personal feelings regarding the difference you find between
murderers and innocent slaves. Nothing else. You cannot hypothesize
that you are making your choice because you know how future events
will fall into place, Madame Zelda. Especially when your hypothesizing
is completely illogical. You are simply choosing whether to save a few
murderers from the DP, or millions of innocent slaves from slavery. And
you have chosen to save those few murderers... finding them different from
slaves. In fact, you find them far more valuable to save than innocent slaves.
You'd rather save a few murderers from execution than save millions of
innocent slaves. And your pathetic excuse that 'it wasn't my fault,'
reminds me strongly of those Germans as the end of WW II, who remarked
"Es war nicht meine Schuld." The collective EXCUSE that finds its way
into about every argument. The collective belief that 'maybe God did it...
because if it happens... it's not MY fault.' Of course it's YOUR FAULT,
if you have the power, and refuse to use it.
> Politicians gave me the
>choice to abolish just one item. I chose the one that might be more
>difficult to abolish later,
Blame the politicians... blame the voters... blame everyone but yourself... After
leaving office... I hope you wash your hands, and in typical Pontius Pilate
fashion remark when doing so -- ""I am innocent of the blood of both
murderers and innocent slaves. Look to it yourselves, you voters and
politicians." Jesus, this argument is more evil than I ever imagined, given
the remarks you have provided in your disgusting attempts at denial.
You are not God, or even Madame Zelda... we have determined that.
You cannot predict the future. The fate of all murderers at this moment,
and those who might in the future be sentenced to the DP, must be
weighed by you PERSONALLY, against the fate of all innocent slaves
at this moment, and those who might in the future be placed into slavery.
Any other consideration is simply more of your pathetic diversions... in
your inability to decide what is the difference you claim between murderers
and innocent slaves. Of course, you've now rather made that choice... a
few murderers are more valuable to you than millions of innocent slaves,
because you would claim that abolishing the DP would be more difficult
than abolishing slavery.
> speculating that the other one would eventually
>be abolished as well.
Speculating is not wise... given that your choice is presumably based
on your own moral feelings as to the difference you claim exists between
murderers and innocent slaves in your view.
> In the long term, I acted in a way that is true to my
>ideals,
While leaving murderers and innocent slaves to ROT.... it's ALL ABOUT your
'presumed ideals,' isn't it, euro? Both murderers and innocent slaves don't mean
SHIT to you... if you can keep your 'precious... but proven quite evil... ideals.'
>and those who should be criticized are the ones who enabled, for 10
>years, economic or politician interests to prevail over their ideals. Not
>me. I'm irreproachable. Those who should be reproached with, are those who
>refused to agree on the abolition of slavery during the past 10 years.
>
Sure.... push it off on someone else...make excuses that 'it's not my fault.'
That's your typical inability to make a moral choice, and demonstrates
that lack of moral fiber I find in you.
>As you see, your 'test' is stupid, because I could, very logically, and with
>plenty of good reasons, answer in the opposite way than the one you
>expected.
Using the word 'stupid' as your excuse again. Actually, inside I always thought
you would choose to save murderers. But I never thought you would be so
bold here, as to actually express your true feelings. Since it must stagger some
abolitionists to find that you think a few murderers are better than millions of
innocent slaves. Given that the U.N. International Convention on Civil and
Political Rights states -- "No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the
slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited." While the U.N. accepts the use
of the DP, in the that same convention, with the words -- "In countries which have
not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most
serious crimes..." Your position that you find your opposition to the DP to be just
like your opposition to slavery, is even refuted by the U.N. itself.
> A stupid question raises either no answer at all, or an
>unsatisfying answer. Here is mine.
>
Using the word 'stupid' again, as your excuse. You must realize by now how
pathetic it looks to keep contending that word is nothing but a crutch you use
to avoid the true 'moral argument' contained in the question.
>Now, let me return you the 'test', by adding one more supposition (after all
>the ones you made, I consider I'm very generous to add just one).
>
>Let's suppose you're in the same position, but, moreover, you have two sons.
>They behaved badly over the past years, robbed several banks, and one was
>sentenced to death for having killed a bank clerk who offered resistence,
>while the other, who was his accomplice, was sentenced to slavery for life.
>
>Now, which one would you decide to spare?
>
Now you have stated a stupid situation, since you are no longer speaking
of guilty murderer and innocent slave. You have changed one of the two basic
elements which form the parameters of the choice between murderers and
INNOCENT slaves. You are basing your 'test' on choosing between
two guilty murderers. But, given that understanding, unlike you, I will
demonstrate my personal moral feelings in respect to the difference
I find in the DP and slavery. Demonstrating that my moral perspective is
far, far superior to yours. I would save the son from slavery, not by freeing
him, as I would an innocent slave, but by offering him up for the DP,
or any other penalty society might provide. I would certainly not suggest
that he be freed, as I suggest with INNOCENT SLAVES, since he is NOT
innocent, as those slaves we are speaking of are innocent. However, since
I find slavery to be more abhorrent and evil than the DP, it would not
matter WHO was placed into slavery as a result of being found guilty of a
crime. I would oppose it in every case as a punishment for a crime, and
find execution morally preferable to sentencing someone to slavery for a
crime. I oppose slavery, not only in opposition to the principle of slavery
of innocent humans, but also as a potential punishment for any crime. I
would never suggest slavery as a punishment for ANY crime, but certainly
do not object to society executing those murderers it has decided to
execute, even if they are my sons. You might well have offered me the
choice of two sons, both guilty of murder, one sentenced to the DP and
one sentenced to L wop. I would rather that the son sentenced to L wop
be executed instead, both being executed, since I also find L wop to be more
inhumane than the DP. I would much rather my guilty murderer son be
executed, knowing that his pain was now ended, rather than spend the
rest of my life, knowing that he lived in pain each day, probably forced
into being the 'bitch' of the cell block, without the slightest possibility of his
future release.
But this does rather bring up the choice YOU might make, since you find
your opposition to the DP to be just like your opposition to slavery. In
fact, you cannot make any choice if they were your sons. You are
condemned in your own words to a frozen inability to actually make
such a choice, since by making ANY choice, in so doing you would
confirm that you do not find the DP be just like slavery.
You are actually morally frozen, by your own words, into a state which
provides you no ability to choose. Since you have claimed you find your
opposition to the DP to be just like your opposition to slavery. You
choosing to save one over the other, clearly shows your original words to
be false in respect to your 'moral opinion.' Whichever one you would
choose to 'save,' would show you do not hold your opposition to the
DP and slavery as just like each other.
>--------------------------End of quote
>
>How many times will I need to repost this so you remember I answered your
>stupid question (I'm sure no anxious world was waiting for you to raise it,
>by the way)?
>
Actually you never answered it at all. While you lied in a subsequent post, and
stated that I had not answered your stupid example which contended that BOTH
were murderers, and thus has no validity in a 'comparison' of murderers to innocent
slaves. In all -- this was exactly the post of yours that demonstrates your methods
are Goebbels like, and your morals are nonexistent. And it's a wonder to me that you
don't hide from it, rather than parade it around to demonstrate that you find no
difference between murderers and innocent slaves. Rest assured that my reply
here, will be prominently mentioned as proof that you find murderers to be
BETTER.... MUCH BETTER... than innocent slaves.
PV
>Euro