I think you've got nothing left to contribute to our disagreement.
I think you have an authority issue.
I wonder what either speculation will get us. :think:
You have conceded that your input is based on the limits of the US compact, while my arguments are built on the universal value of justice.
It's not a "concession" for Pete's sake, but don't let me stop you waving that checkered flag you stitched together from nothing.
You've pretended that the US compact is synonymous with justice. It's not.
So, is it that you haven't actually been reading me or that you just don't understand what I've written? Anyway, I've answered on what can and can't be had in this life and how what we call justice is at best an approximation, that sort of thing.
Justice for murderers is execution.
Arguable, but according to the law it's the consequence absent capacity. I speak within the context of the law because speaking outside of it just doesn't accomplish anything, becomes a discourse about any number of competing, subjective standards, none of which will determine the fate of the actual young man under consideration, to note the irony of your complaint set against what you're doing.
Justice delayed this long in such an open-and-shut case is injustice.
You don't alter the process for someone's perceived notion of what's necessary. I've dealt with that prior, so no point in going into capacity.
And as for accusing me of hypocrisy,
Well, you're complaining about people not speaking to the murders, but then wanting to go into a debate on a thing that isn't about the actual murders. What would you call that sort of inconsistency?
that is just another in the long list of failed attempts
So the criminal gets to determine his innocence? That's a neat trick.
you've tried to dismiss my points
Your approach, certainly and your attempt to move the argument from the actual to something else.
,a list that includes my location, education, and even a question mark outside a quotation.
You mean your distance from and lack of familiarity with the system that galls you and your lack of education to qualify your opinion else on the point of law? Absolutely. They're stumbling blocks for you. I don't recall the question mark business and I'm not interested enough to go back and look, so...
You've failed at every turn to recognize even the basics of what I have laid out in plain language
I think that's complete nonsense.
, preferring verbosity and obscurity to protect your ideas from critique.
Supra. There's nothing complicated about what I'm saying. Nothing remotely obscure. Not in the flag argument or my comments about justice or the process by which it's arrived at in the only system that will determine the outcome in this case.
