Ah, I see where you're confused by your own writing, but I'd be happy to spell it out slower, so that you can understand [0]: you write "I get your point of vie

Ah, I see where you're confused by your own writing, but I'd be happy to spell it out slower, so that you can understand [0]: you write "I get your point of view", and you mistake making that statement with the factuality of it. And let me help you with another thing you are confused about [0]. So, in essence your argument is that I am wrong because I am answering to what you wrote rather than what you thought you wrote or wish you wrote, and that's what you call 'uncharitable'. The main problem with your 'argument' is that you make absolute statements, but then are not able to back them up, getting upset when someone points that out. It's simple engineering practice to check how things hold up at the limits. Not 'punishing' someone with the same thing they did does not hold up in the limits of simple wrongdoings, e.g. taking away some property. What this should tell you is not that you require a more charitable interpretation and special rules for the fringes to rescue your argument, but maybe that the overall logic is flawed. And it is: as I wrote in the other comment, the simple truth is that the death penalty is a different beast altogether. [0] What's with that condescending tone with all your replies? Can you not simply make a statement that stands on its own two feet?