New York is not the world’s largest city

Robin was unable to have children. There was an entire episode devoted to what her alternate life could have been like had that not been the case. It was rather poignant, showing that while she didn’t have a husband and kids, she was never alone. 

People didn’t willingly sign up to get polio or be in wheelchairs, as far as I know. It’s not selfish or whiny to expect people to honor their obligations. 

Why can’t the law be applied on a case by case basis?  Ha c’mon, the definition of murder is the definition, you don’t get to have your own version. What is lawful is not “whiggly”, it’s pretty well codified. And lastly, I’m not trying to make a case that legality=morality, it should be the goal though.  In practice I…

Exactly, that’s all I’m trying to say

It does not fit the definition. Murder requires the killing to be unlawful. To answer the rest of your questions, no, I see no problem in this case. His guilt is beyond question (not sure why you put it in quotes, it’s not that abstract). You haven’t given compelling reasoning as to what makes this wrong, only that…

See my reply to “Ugh.” above. Plus I don’t understand your logic. He killed innocent people. The state is killing a guilty person. What is the equivalence?  Society at large will have to be responsible for determining what constitutes a good reason.   In practice, I’m against capital punishment because of…

It doesn’t have to be net positive.  What I don’t understand is the position of it being a net negative.  Personally, it doesn’t matter to me if he’s executed or spends the rest of his life in jail, but I don’t see his execution as an indictment of our society.

You can’t start with “two wrongs don’t make a right”, since the point of contention is whether the execution of a person guilty of nine murders is a wrong.  Your second sentence I agree with. 

If his guilt is not in question, why is it more just for him to live after depriving nine people of their lives?

It was, and is, a slam dunk argument. Only someone stubborn and short sighted wouldn’t agree that winning the fight against fascism or slavery is more important than keeping civilian casualties in proportion. You can try and deflect, but this is the stance you have taken. Who other than extremists want innocent people…

The point of the hypothetical was to find where you stand philosophically, in the absence of a perfect historical facsimile. But ok fine, as a disproportionate amount of the fighting during the American civil war was done in the southern states, the civilian casualties would be disproportionally southerners. Fuck the…

Which is why I asked you to act as if the British were not yet aware of the holocaust, and simply analyze the casualties caused by the bombing campaigns& means and methods of both Germans and British. We both know the British dropped bombs strategically to weaken the German war machine, not save Jews, so while…

The point I’m trying to make, my original and only point, is that it is strange to judge who is right/moral/justified in a conflict by simply comparing which military has killed the higher number of civilians. As you say, there were many factors involved in WW2, but I have a difficult time believing that you would…

From wikipedia, it shows German civilian deaths due to Allied bombing were between 353K-434K. By contrast, British civilian deaths from Axis Bombing, 67K. So my question to you is, given this large disparity 6-7x, would you have been as critical of British means/methods as you are of Israel’s? And if the answer is no,…

I just explained why. Would you have had the Allies slow or stop their bombing campaigns, and thus impede the war effort, simply to narrow the civilian casualty gap? And if you wouldn’t, would you think it was fair to characterize yourself as someone who thinks the lives of innocent Germans aren’t worth as much as the…

What I mean, is that it’s strange to judge a conflict and those involved simply by who has inflicted/endured the most civilian casualties. The Germans had, by several orders of magnitude, more civilians killed than the Allies. I’m not claiming any innocent life is any more important than any other, only that the…

What is it with you and this strange accounting? The amount of civilian deaths does not indicate whose lives are worth more or less. It’s a matter of motivation and circumstance. I can picture you in the ‘40s, bitching about Allied bombings.

That’s funny, I don’t remember signing up to get sick or be discriminated against.

Why do you insist on taking Omar’s statements about Israel merely at face value, but search for a variety of subtexts in Ballabon’s response?