I said it in another recent thread on the same subject and I’ll say it again here: I don’t get the reasoning against the DP except in practical terms...which means that I’m opposed to it generally (we’re really bad at it) but in favor theoretically...and this is AFAIK definitely one of those ideal cases, where reality…

“Are you actually asking how it could be just, or was that a rhetorical question? Because it sure seems like you are saying that it is somehow unjust to have a society that doesn’t provide for the state-sanctioned homicide as punishment for crimes.”

I asked how it could be just. Simply saying that lots of people think it is does not answer that.

You can make the same argument about all criminal punishment. It just doesn’t hold up. “Any society that locks people in a cage for their crimes is monstrous as well” would use the same logic of the anti-death-penalty logic. (That said, we are terrible at its use and I’m therefore generally against it because we’re…

I’m somewhat confused about your position. You do recognize that just because someone has a right to do something, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t an a-hole for doing it, right? So therfore your responses, predicated as they are on the question of whether there’s a right—versus whether it’s normatively…

Well, I don’t WANT that; thought I was clear about my opinion on the matter. ...

I don’t understand this idea of blaming the scores for the toxicity of gaming culture. I mean, yeah, it’s toxic. But somehow the film industry managed to avoid this particular toxicity despite having had a scored review system since, what, the 20s? So what is Metacritic doing “wrong” to engender this toxicity that…

I really do agree with you on the overall point, so forgive me for bein’ all quibbly, but: In your hypothetical, doesn’t your employer have a group plan in general? Presumably, there was paperwork as part of that when they signed up, right? So...if there’s a form and an organization is like “Nope!” then the insurance…

Oh hell naw, that’s their money!

I’m not sure I get your drift? I mean, it would be more paperwork received (and printed), and therefore more expensive in that sense, but I’m not sure it would be dramatically so? Though I don’t recall who processes that paperwork now...whether it’s the insurance companies or the government itself.

So, while I know a lot about this case in general, this is a detail I don’t know:

I’m really still waiting for this brilliant use of “due process” you keep bringing up. I mean, I get that it upsets you that I didn’t let you insult me badly with impunity in my reply to it, and I get that—most likely—you don’t HAVE an argument, but you keep asserting you do. So, I’m sitting here, having asked several…

So, just to be clear: you’re intellectually dishonest and a hypocrite? I’ve already “won” this argument, in the sense that you’ve offered nothing but bloviating nonsense—but it’s not really about “winning”. If I thought you had a valid point, I’d conceded it. Thus far, you haven’t demonstrated any validity to your…

Here, since you’re playing the “LALALALALA ignore the questions I don’t want to answer” game:

I continue not to believe you, your “I could totally email you my credentials but I won’t” bluff notwithstanding, because the alternative is that I assume you’re just completely, utterly, dishonest: Because, again, that’s not what or what due process it—and you’ve yet to address that, have you? You just want to keep…

Well, right! That’s actually a great example; I don’t think even his most ardent supporters are going to argue Jeff Dunham’s a genius, right?

Since that’s utterly irrelevant to the point, and since you are frankly lying about your credentials: No. I’m not going down your stupid rabbit hole of “WHAT ABOUT PEDOPHILE CAAAAAAAAAAAAMPS”. It’s a stupid argument, it’s a bad argument—on its face. We’re not talking about ostracisizing all pedophiles for all time.…

I’m going to try again. When you got condescending, I responded in kind—that’s not helpful. I’d argue you’re CONSIDERABLY more at fault, what with your attempts at condescension, but quibbling over that isn’t particularly useful, either. The point, after all, is whether an argument presented has merit.

This is emblematic: Rather than say “Well, you’re confused because WHAT I SAID was unclear”, you argued that I was confuse because I was focusing on our disagreement. If you think that is something which should be confusing, then you don’t understand how talking to people works—which, of course, you’ve demonstrated is…

Wow! you’re working yourself up into a stupid lather, aren’t ya? You do’nt think it would have an affect on culture if it were made clear that pedophiles don’t get to keep being unrepentant pedophiles? There’s no CULTURE aspect to that? You’re an idiot. There’s not really any other argument here, if you’re just going…