“Don’t” is an implicit option that can and should be promoted anytime “how” we execute people is brought up. I’m not interested in splitting moral hairs about something that is always morally wrong.
Ok so…basically just putting your fingers in your ears and screaming that the current world doesn’t exist. Got ya. Also…I love that you say choosing between making a man die in extreme pain or allowing him to die peacefully is ‘splitting moral hairs’.
Capital punishment is a thorny issue, but your arguments are loaded with misunderstandings and fallacies.
OP wasn’t calling for harsher methods; they’re concerned about making a bad act seem “better.”
Yes, abolishing the death penalty is relevant. It doesn’t directly answer your question, but it pushes the conversation toward action, not just analysis.
I think you twisted Chetzemoka’s words. Whether “extreme pain” or “peacefully,” we’re still talking about killing someone, not just “allowing” them to die, so let’s not phrase it that way.
Let’s focus on constructive debate, not misinterpretations and logical dead-ends.
To directly answer your question, nitrogen shouldn’t be worse, and as a matter of fact should be loads better. But we don’t know with certainty, so the argument is that makes it automatically inhumane.
I think their point is that making it more humane is just an excuse to keep doing something that will never be humane. They’re not wrong either. The death penalty is barbaric.
“Don’t” is an implicit option that can and should be promoted anytime “how” we execute people is brought up. I’m not interested in splitting moral hairs about something that is always morally wrong.
Ok so…basically just putting your fingers in your ears and screaming that the current world doesn’t exist. Got ya. Also…I love that you say choosing between making a man die in extreme pain or allowing him to die peacefully is ‘splitting moral hairs’.
That is literally how you view human life.
Capital punishment is a thorny issue, but your arguments are loaded with misunderstandings and fallacies.
OP wasn’t calling for harsher methods; they’re concerned about making a bad act seem “better.”
Yes, abolishing the death penalty is relevant. It doesn’t directly answer your question, but it pushes the conversation toward action, not just analysis.
I think you twisted Chetzemoka’s words. Whether “extreme pain” or “peacefully,” we’re still talking about killing someone, not just “allowing” them to die, so let’s not phrase it that way.
Let’s focus on constructive debate, not misinterpretations and logical dead-ends.
To directly answer your question, nitrogen shouldn’t be worse, and as a matter of fact should be loads better. But we don’t know with certainty, so the argument is that makes it automatically inhumane.
I think their point is that making it more humane is just an excuse to keep doing something that will never be humane. They’re not wrong either. The death penalty is barbaric.