"Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> I reiterate that deterrence is a rational reason to support the death
Ok, I iterate that deterrence is a rational reason to support limb removal of children. If we chop the
arms off of all children who grab things they are not supposed too, they will never grab those things
again. You may not like the fact that it is both rational and true, but your emotional reaction has
nothing to do with the logical consistency of this position.
Hopefully this will put an end to your laughably absurd line of reasoning.
I have never argued, emotional or otherwise, that the Death Penalty does not kill the murderer, a fact so
obvious that I'm surprised you mentioned
> penalty, and restate that deterrence does work in the case of the
> murderer who, once executed, will never kill again. You may not like
> the fact that it is both rational and true, but your emotional reaction
> has nothing to do with the logical consistency of this position.
All of my arguments have centered on those who insist on supporting the death penalty on grounds of 'justice', a denied sense of vengeance, paying debts to victims, creating a for-profit business in organ harvesting, or that it is extropian.
Regarding deterrence, we can create the most tyrannical and totalitarian of regimes to enforce any number of laws and dictates, but this makes those regimes and deterrences neither extropian or civilized.
Paul Hughes