[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Jerry, stop lying.

Bill, stop insulting. Whether you fail to understand my point through my inelegance, your myopia, or your desire to troll, it's not productive to anything other than destroying a thread.

I said it was not worthy of the death penalty and fairly minor compared to crimes which sometimes carry the death penalty.

Well, you said the latter. But you've now said both.

That's how you feel. I have no dispute with your position. What does it have to do with the topic of this thread?

First off: the penalty that *does* happen is irrelevant. What is relevant is what *should* happen. (as proof: I point to the fact that Carlson said he "should" be executed and you said he "shouldn't")

If you believe the crimes above "animal cruelty" *should* have the death penalty, then you don't have a point; so I'll conclude that you believe there are "greater" crimes for which there should not be a death penalty.

Given those points (and let me know if one is wrong) you believe that people guilty of cruelty to animals should not be executed and therefore have a different opinion than the one expressed by Carlson.

Noted. You disagree with his stance on crime and punishment.

Now I suspect that Carlson was simply being hyperbolic, in which case all portions of this thread responding to him as though he was not are straw-men. Again I'll make assumptions most in your favor and assume (for the sake of argument) that Carlson does believe that those convicted of animal cruelty should be put to death.

Again you run into a problem because you set your comparison not on Carlson's positions on other crimes, but on the positions of (for your Manson example) the state of California.

There's an insurmountable disconnect.

As much as a loathe analogies (because invariably people start arguing the nuance of the metaphor rather than the substance of the message it was intended to convey). Let's try a thought experiment with a different crime.

Let's assume that the State of Texas considered execution appropriate for a conviction of murder 2.

Let's assume that the Sate of California considers execution inappropriate for a conviction of murder 1.

It's not a reasonable argument to say Texas is wrong based on "murder 2 is less than murder 1 and California doesn't execute for murder 1"

If I bring that analogy back to the case at hand, let's assume (for argument) that Carlson advocates execution for *all* felonies. That renders the totem-pole-of-crime assertion you've made rather irrelevant doesn't it?

Now Jerry, I have encountered a lot of ludicrous sentiments from people who confuse dogs and humans and in fact what dogs like. I was just commenting that once dogs are involved, often, up is down and down is up.

I'll even assume for argument that dogs are indeed less than people (whatever 'less' means). Can you establish that is going on here? Does Carlson oppose execution for those that murder people.

Now, Jerry, just can the lying though.

Nobody defended Vick.

I explained my rational. You've not responded to my rational. You can name-call it all you want.

My statement about Manson was not a defense of Manson. But, my point was that society did not deem Charles Manson's crimes as death worthy under the law, and yet they are far worse than vick's.

What does what "society" deemed have to do with "Tucker Carlson"?

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Bill, stop insulting. Whether you fail to understand my point through my inelegance, your myopia, or your desire to troll, it's not productive to anything other than destroying a thread.

That would be you Jerry who started LYING saying people were supporting animal cruelty and defending Michael Vick.
You lied.

End of story.

Your failure to just admit it and your propensity to lie and insult has resulted in the thread closure.

Jerry you were not civil or honest here.