Quote:
Originally Posted by dong20  Heads up; see penultimate paragraph before posting any angry response which will go unanswered for a while (time zone incompatibilities). |
Don't worry, I'm not one to become angered over an Internet discussion.
Quote:
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!
|
My point wasn't that you focused on the word "murderer", it's that the word "murderer" is what makes the word "harboring" seem to have a negative connotation. If I said "Canada is harboring the last of the majestic polar bears", it would have a positive connotation. So it isn't the word "harboring" that's at issue here.
And please don't patronize me by going on about "cutting the semantics game". You were the one who brought it up by claiming my use of the word "harboring" implied some kind of negative act on the part of the Canadian government.
I am done with semantics if you are. If you're
not, I'd be happy to continue, though.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I'm not trying to be condescending, and if I'm coming across that way, I'm sorry.
Quote:
|
And you accuse others of straw man arguments??? |
Those are not straw man arguments any more than the questions you asked in your previous reply were (and your questions also weren't, by the way). A straw man argument is when one characterizes the opponents argument as something other than what it is, and then demonstrates how that second argument is invalid without actually addressing the first argument. What I pose are merely questions to be answered to demonstrate to you why I hold my stance in a light that you might be able to relate to more.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well, that's a major difference of opinion, then. You believe that Canada has moral authority over America. I do not believe one civilized country has moral authority over another.
This exemplifies why the argument about Iran is invalid and silly. Blind bigotry is something we in the civilized world have attempted to eliminate and, at least in word and law, try to avoid completely. In contrast, numerous first world nations still use and allow capitol punishment. While the jury, therefore, is still out on the moral implications of capitol punishment in regards to the first world as a whole, the moral implications of bigotry are
not.
That is why I find the comparison laughable.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I hope what I said just now clarifies my point. It is not merely that bigotry and murder are on different moral levels, but that it is evident that in our overarching Western culture, the moral acceptability of capitol punishment is not yet decided, while that of bigotry has been.
Quote:
|
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. |
I am not being disingenuous. I am not characterizing your argument in such a light, either. If I seem to be condescending, then I apologize again and simply state I'm not trying to be. I'd ask you to do the same. Thanks!
Quote:
|
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. |
I wasn't being sarcastic. And that statement was not just for your benefit. As an open forum, I want to be as clear as possible in case someone else wants to join in on the discussion.
As for your statement in this quote, I agree that capitol punishment is wrong. That is not our disagreement. Our disagreement is that you feel your nation has moral authority over other countries. I disagree. I do not believe my morality is or should be enforced on others when it comes to many issues.
Quote:
|
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 ...
|
I dare say you won't answer because your answer would be contradictory to your stance on the issue at hand. It's
exactly the same scenario turned around on you. You don't want American morality forced on you; Americans don't want Canadian morality forced on them either. More to the point, I do not think it is within the rights of one country to force its morality on another in regards to capitol punishment of a murderer.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Certainly you ought to voice your opinion as I have. And I am not doing the same with regards to Canada. Were a Canadian murderer to come to America, I would not want the American government to hold the criminal until the Canadian government agrees to specific terms in regards to his treatment. I do not believe American morality ought to be forced on Canadians. And vice versa. You are presenting the double-standard here, sourced at the fact that you
do believe your moral stance on this issue is correct and ought to be forced on the American government in this case.
Quote:
|
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. |
I'm not addressing you in that manner. I am avoiding any possibility of misunderstanding to the best of my ability. It is not intended to belittle you. It is intended to avoid misunderstandings, which are very easy to have over the Internet.
That said, you do agree with the Canadian government holding this man until the American government agrees to terms regarding his potential penalty for his possible crime. I do not believe you are versed enough in international law to actually know whether what Canada is doing is legal. Nor am I.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well, my first post was not in response to you, it was in response to the thread as a whole. I was not pin-pointing you at all when I said that.
And I do appreciate the sarcasm. I realize this post is a bit dry, but I don't want to hurt any feelings!
Quote:
|
Yes, yes I do. |
'Atta boy!