re: #369 Guanxi88

You dodged the question.

You’re attempting to justify the loss of innocent life in the pursuit of the death penalty by comparing it to the bombing of cities— enemy cities— in wartime. You have not in any way supported this analogy. You are comparing things that are fundamentally different in the following ways:

1. In wartime, we bomb the cities of enemies, or that are occupied by our enemies. In modern warfare, we do not engage in attacks on civilian centers unless we are attacking military targets. The terror raids of WWII would not be allowed by the US today.

2. Warfare and the internal polciing of a state are not analogous. You asserted it; I am asking for a proof of that analogy. Can you provide one? Are you saying that the state is in a constant condition of war against murderers?

3. If you are asserting that, then why wouldn’t shelling a building where a murder is allowed? If you’re making the analogy to war, how does a trial fit in? What is the analogy to a trial in wartime?

There is no analogous relationship between war and the law. Any attempt to use it fails into obvious fallacies out of the gate, as you have done here.