I explained all of it. I'll take the time to answer them tomorrow with my previous responses and more explanation of it when I'm on my computer. Until then take your tu quoque arguments elsewhere. I know what I said and saying 'you too' won't change that. Go re-read.

Edit: I'm not coming back to explain anything, actually. Just go-read everything I said before you started this shitstorm from the response in which you jumped from execution for murder to hands chopped off for stealing. All the stuff you tried to say was still bad even though in theory it would be legal given the discussion. Go read how I said ethics are not a set standard and how I believe some crimes should take away the right to life. I'm done. Bye. kiss kiss Have a nice night. No hard feelings. Yada yada yada.

A good portion of your entire point against me is summed as such: if we condone public execution, [x] could happen. You started with mutilation, went to executions as entertainment, and now are at civil executions backed by the government, even implying that the government could just kill you for whatever. This has been a theme within your argument since we started. The ridiculous part is that you continue to rely on what ifs to form a major part of your argument. You are not actually arguing any point except that things could stray from their course, which is a given in any situation.

While it is honest thinking and I cannot say any of is impossible, you aren't saying anything of substance and you haven't for several responses. You are not participating in a discussion, you are throwing out situations and reacting to my views with more of the same I am responding to. I have maybe two or three paragraphs that actually tell why you're against it aside from fears of it becoming a form of entertainment. It's an interesting thought given human nature, but your foresight in this case is founded upon different cultures (i.e. things that shock and disgust humans here), past events (i.e. things that are antiquated and generally recognizable as bad), and entertainment (i.e. fictional worlds that picture what you are talking about and, again, are generally recognized as bad). You are saying because culture 1 does this so culture 2 will change excessively to adopt the social norms of culture 1 towards it. People from the past did it, so it could happen. Well, it happened in the books and movies and whatever else, so it could happen. You are biased.

The fear of desensitization is one thing, but to say that it would desensitive our society as it is now to the point that it would become a form of entertaining is pretty odd. In my case I already wouldn't care if they did start a Hunger Games for murderers, rapists, etc. But I'm not exactly in the norm with that. If I told a person outside of my boyfriend or my best friend, they would probably say that I am a horrible person. So I think that fear is unfounded. Can't say it's impossible, but I think it's pretty damn close.