3 ms·

You ask "Is that seriously the point PG is making here?" I think that is indeed the case. I also suggest that your writing doesn't make any kind of valuable a

by swehner 11y ago

You ask "Is that seriously the point PG is making here?" I think that is indeed the case. I also suggest that your writing doesn't make any kind of valuable argument against that suggestion. Yes, of course, "because the system is not perfect, we should remove death penalty altogether." That's the way it is. When you write "There should be strong consequences for murder and certainly Death Row has its place as well," well, maybe you need some more time to think about what those "strong consequences" are?! My impression is that you'll have a difficult time coming up with reasons to support your choices. I always find people who worry about the death penalty have some kind of delusion, are somehow obsessed with the question, for no good reason. Unable to cope with the world as it is.

ekianjo 11y ago
> I think that is indeed the case. Then why is that PG article coming up now? It's not like it's a newsflash that we have innocent people dying in the Death Row. it's been happening for years. Is it an epidermic reaction of some sort ? The news effect, just like people who can't fall asleep for 15 mins because they saw something horrible on TV and then forget it and go on with their lives the next day ? If you are revolted against something, that should be on your agenda every single day of your life, not just when the news talk about it.
- peterwaller 11y ago
  This narrow view seems to miss the fact that the world is a complicated place, where mere revulsion frequently isn't sufficient to actually enact meaningful change. Being in a state of revulsion requires valuable energy. If you spend all your time being revolted, then you won't actually be able make friends and influence people, as it were. PG is in the position that he's got a sphere of influence, and now you chide him for what? Expressing a valuable thing in such a way that he can potentially cause a coherent constructive interference of an important community. I'd say that was quite a good thing. He also used timing to his advantage to get people to listen. In your post you imply he doesn't think about this regularly, but you have no evidence for this. He could be thinking about this all the time, but we don't get to hear about that.

by swehner 11y ago

ekianjo 11y ago

> I think that is indeed the case. Then why is that PG article coming up now? It's not like it's a newsflash that we have innocent people dying in the Death Row. it's been happening for years. Is it an epidermic reaction of some sort ? The news effect, just like people who can't fall asleep for 15 mins because they saw something horrible on TV and then forget it and go on with their lives the next day ? If you are revolted against something, that should be on your agenda every single day of your life, not just when the news talk about it.

peterwaller 11y ago
This narrow view seems to miss the fact that the world is a complicated place, where mere revulsion frequently isn't sufficient to actually enact meaningful change. Being in a state of revulsion requires valuable energy. If you spend all your time being revolted, then you won't actually be able make friends and influence people, as it were. PG is in the position that he's got a sphere of influence, and now you chide him for what? Expressing a valuable thing in such a way that he can potentially cause a coherent constructive interference of an important community. I'd say that was quite a good thing. He also used timing to his advantage to get people to listen. In your post you imply he doesn't think about this regularly, but you have no evidence for this. He could be thinking about this all the time, but we don't get to hear about that.