(10-06-2014 12:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:41 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 10:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  So are you against capital punishment?

Before we get the thread sidetracked about what is my stance on capital punishment for criminals, why don't we find out what UM's stance is about capital punishment for people who aren't guilty of anything?

Why don't we see if he can give us an answer that is more than a "comback" response?

Because on this issue, he seems to be ethically inconsistent. And, once he answers (gives an honest reply that "defends his position" versus a comeback like "deal with it because it's the law"), about why he's fine to devalue some human lives, and value others much more, then I'll be glad to give you an answer.

Typically, though, he's just says something like what I mentions above: "its the law so deal with it" -- regarding issues where he won't defend his position well--like this one at hand.

And, yet, he evidently doesn't want us to just "deal with it" when the existing law allows capital punishment for criminals. So why does he pick and choose which laws we need to "deal with" regarding the value of a human life?

How about it, UofM?

It's a pretty simple question. Yes or no.

Actually it's a pretty good way to derail and sidetrack the conversation (not saying it would be your intent, but just that it would be the likely outcome, regardless) from UofM having to reply. I'll wait. And then you'll get my simple answer after/if he replies.