Heads up; see penultimate paragraph before posting any angry response which will go unanswered for a while (time zone incompatibilities).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin  Go check your dictionary. The word "harboring" has no such connotation. It means, quite simply, "to give shelter or refuge to". It's actually possibly the most accurate term for what is going on there, synonymous with saying "giving refuge to" or "giving shelter to". Would you rather I used the terms, "Canada gives refuge to a murderer," or "Canada gives shelter to a murderer"? It isn't the verb that makes the statements sound negative. It's the word murderer. |
Well, I disagree (Not on the dictionary meaning which I believe I posted
but the contextual one). Harbouring a fugitive is a criminal offence in many jurisdictions, but regardless, hiding behind a dictionary definition is unworthy of you, it was clear what you meant - and you use the word in said context throughout your reply - so how about cutting the semantics game, it doesn't help. Actually, by way of correction it wasn't the word murderer I focussed on. I would also add that he is, at this point only
accused of murder. I think, if we insist on being anal about this, then we might as well be thorough too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin I never said anything about honoring Canadian extradition law. What I said was very clear: Canada is harboring an American murderer. Want me to take it the next step for you? Knowingly. |
No,
I did. Aside from the accused status (remember, he's not
yet a murderer), knowingly was implicit, there's no need for condescension as I'm not a child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin Let me propose a question to you: Are you alright with American murderers using your country as a safe-haven? Are you alright with American murderers coming to Canada and not being subject to penalty for murder? Would you be okay with Canadian murderers going unpenalized? |
And you accuse others of straw man arguments???
No, of course I would not be '
alright' about it, but if the US is so bent on vengence (execution or nothing) that it would see a fugitive go free rather than abide by the sovereign law of a nation that does not support capital punishment then it has a tenuous claim to being truly interested in justice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin Didn't I just state that the comparison of homosexuality to murdering is invalid and laughable? |
Yes you did. But then you did so in reference to someone else's argument, posited in a very different context, not mine. I made no such comparison to them in a moral sense, I used it as a means of illustrating a flaw in your reasoning with regard to different interpretations of criminality.
Your throwing this back at me at
this point is disingenuous, if that is you read my preceding post explaining my reasoning, otherwise it merely illustrates questionable comprehension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin Let me make it more clear for you:
I'd be alright with giving refuge to a homosexual who's going to get killed for being a homosexual if he goes back to his home country.
I'd not be alright with giving refuge to a murderer who's going to get killed for being a murderer if he goes back to his home country. |
There's no need, I can grasp the concept unaided, thank you. I'd support you on the former, but not on the latter. This is because I believe capital punishment to be wrong. In the light of my earlier comment, that shouldn't need further explanaion. However as one does of sarcasm deserves another, should you require a diagram, please do ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin Turn the issue around. A Canadian murders someone in Canada, comes to America and America decides it's not going to return him unless Canada agrees to put him to death. Would you agree to that? |
I won't respond to a question with such a moronic premise, other than to say it's a moronic premise. The
premise is moronic ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin I may not agree with the death penelty. But that doesn't mean it's my right to dictate what other countries can and can't do in regards to it. I will vote against it whenever it comes up, speak out against it when it's being used. |
I also disagree with it. My personal opinion is that it's wrong, ineffective and delivers 'justice' of a sort unworthy of a 'civilised' nation. I'm entitled to voice said opinion in a thread such as this. That doesn't constitute dictating US policy on the issue by
any intelligent interpretation of the word. Besides, you're doing the same with regard to Canada, aren't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin I will not bar other civilized countries from using it if those are their laws. I will not look down upon others for having differing opinions than me on the issue. |
I'm not barring the US, Canada is, by virtue of Canadian law, which simply overrides US law in this matter. In a world that respects the concept of the rule of law that's how it should be, right? Please, stop addressing me as I have difficulty understanding simple concepts. I really don't, and sometimes I can grasp difficult ones too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin Absolutely. And you'll excuse me if I took liberty to add that sarcastic point to my first post. I see a lot of "Americans this" and "Americans that" in this thread, and I went ahead and returned the favor once to drive the point home: It's not appreciated, it's not accurate, and people should stop doing it. Glad you agree with me. |
I don't do that I believe, certainly I
try not to. So I'd be grateful if you would respond to what I wrote, as opposed to what others wrote, or what you feel like responding to. Yes we agree on that, and that LPSG is the adopted home of sweeping generalisations, but you'll notice I also injected a little sarcasm into the mix in this reply. It seemed only fair in the circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy-jin Do you now? |
Yes, yes I do.