Amnesty International

[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE]Catqueen wrote: Its not really a reach -- you said that he was deserving of death and that there should not have been intervention to save him[/QUOTE]Oh my God, really?A convicted killer tries to kill himself, and a light hearted joke turns into that?  I said  (AND READ IT CAREFULLY) they should have let him finish the job.  You all took that as "he was deserving of death".  Don't you think if I meant that I would have said it that way????What a reach.So, you "interpreted" my post wrong.  That's on you, not me.?Why did you just interpret it this way...They should have let him finish the job = Kill people for no reason at all, just cause it's American and fun.OH SHIT!!!   Now you'll probably say Microwave wants to "kill people for no reason at all, just cause it's American and fun"[/QUOTE]


It didn't sound like a 'light-hearted joke.' It did sound like an attempt at mild sarcasm, but when you put it in the middle of a rant about how those ppl are dirt bags who deserve to die, and that Amnesty was tweaking their evidence, its kinda hard to pick out a joke in the middle of it. So you DO feel that they were right to intervene? And not to let him die. If someone says they should 'finish the job' while referring to painting their house, i would not assume they were saying the person should die. But when it is in the context of the person trying to kill themselves, it sounded like you felt he should have rightly been allowed to die. Maybe i picked you up wrong though, and you didn't mean he should have been allowed to complete killing himself?
And nobody is insinuating that you want to 'kill people for no reason at all.' (And i realise that was a joke.) But what we - or at least what i - am thinking is that it sounds like you do think the state has the right to kill some people for some reasons. Whereas anti-death penalty people say the state should not kill anyone for any reason, no matter what.
Also, you keep referring to the examples of criminals you gave as that they are dirtbags. Is that in contrast to all the murderers on death row who aren't dirtbags? The thing with being against capital punishment is that it has to apply to all people, else you aren't actually against it.

[QUOTE]It didn't sound like a 'light-hearted joke.' It did sound like an attempt at mild sarcasm,[/QUOTE]

So you're admitting that I didn't say what you accused me of?  It just "sounded" like it.   EXACTLY. 

[QUOTE]but when you put it in the middle of arant about how those ppl are dirt bags who deserve to die[/QUOTE]

Whoa!!!   You added that last bit.  There you go again.  And look what I said IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH!!!!

Here's what I said:
[QUOTE]and couldn't they find some better examples of executed people? [b] Those people listed were dirtbags...[/b]  They painted em up like people who were making a difference, just about to turn the corner, etc.  [b]Obviously I don't think a wise decision is to kill someone... for killing[/b] someone.  Just like Carlin said...  In Georgia, you're going to lock someone up for sodomy so he can be sodomized.[/QUOTE]

So where exactly did I say "deserve to die"  or (in your case) where did it SOUND like I said that?

[QUOTE]Amnesty was tweaking their evidence, [/QUOTE]

And There you go AGAIN.   AI doesn't have the means to tweak evidence, so obviosly I didn't say that.

Here's what I said:
[QUOTE]But can we quit giving these killers a promo pack and fundraising capabilities? [/QUOTE]

But even after all this explanation, you still think I'm Pro Death because it's fun and American, right?

maybe i should just give up lol.
So to make it clear: you believe that people who murder should not in any circumstances be executed?
It's really hard to tell, cos you keep hinting at stuff and contradicting yourself :/ And dont ask for quotes, my head is wrecked from crap in work, and i'm not looking for them lol.

Well since you haven't given your stance, my stance is thus:

"I would rather we NOT do it, but who am I?"

This is my same stance on Abortion, Don't Ask Don't Tell, drug legalization, etc.

Thing is, I'm not a killer, never been pregnant, not gay, not going to join the military, not a drug addict. So why would it matter in the least what my stance is?

But the bigger point is: WHY DOES THAT MATTER?
This thread was clearly about (1) the flip-flop approach to Iran and (2) The one-sided convict description... NOT The Death Penalty. Amazon brought up the death penalty... that's who you should be asking.

Are you at least going to admit I didn't say those things and YOU interpreted it that way?  Since you need me to admit my stance on the Death Penalty, it's only fair that you answer that!

The only contradiction here is when you said  "You said" and then you said "It sounded like".  That's contradiction.  Not me constantly defending the same accusation.

How many parallel threads are you going to run challenging multiple people about misunderstanding and misquoting you before you consider that your communication style might be contributing?

How many do you think we should infiltrate. I take it you're my "wing-man"? Sorry... "wing-woman"?  I count two threads right now.

And it looks like you jumped into every one of 'em with me with jokes and insults, so you're a damn fine one.  Thanks for the assistance.  You should be a writer...  although your proofreading skills may be a bit lacking.  We can test 'em.  See who mentions The Pro Death Penalty stance first in this thread.

Here's a hint...
[QUOTE]You said you don't support capital punishment, but also [b]said** [/b]that the guy who tried to kill himself should have been allowed to die.[/QUOTE]

** I mean it sounded like

The other one was a pointed joke. This one was a serious question. Don't you think you're part of the issue? If an entire class fails the first person they look to is the teacher. If so few are understanding you, do you not think you could be part of the problem?

It's only a certain few though.

Usually, in that case, you've got a few trouble-making students. And it's the same antagonists. Amazon, Bob, TQ, Inu-liger, and now you. Same with the last one (The Marines Incident).

Don't you think that, at least, has to be addressed?

When John Simon pops on and says Part Of Freddies Ashes were given to Freddie to take home, there's language gap going on. When I repeatedly say and clarify, yet someone still twists it... AND THAT'S WHAT GOT DONE HERE, MAKE NO MISTAKE... then it's the troubled few antagonists that like to take things out of context.

That's why I said some of you could work for Fox News about a month ago. Of course, you could really be using all these threads as a resume and the joke's on me. If so, good luck on your interview.

[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
Well since you haven't given your stance, my stance is thus:"I would rather we NOT do it, but who am I?"This is my same stance on Abortion, Don't Ask Don't Tell, drug legalization, etc.Thing is, I'm not a killer, never been pregnant, not gay, not going to join the military, not a drug addict. So why would it matter in the least what my stance is?But the bigger point is: WHY DOES THAT MATTER?This thread was clearly about (1) the flip-flop approach to Iran and (2) The one-sided convict description... NOT The Death Penalty. Amazon brought up the death penalty... that's who you should be asking.Are you at least going to admit I didn't say those things and YOU interpreted it that way?  Since you need me to admit my stance on the Death Penalty, it's only fair that you answer that!The only contradiction here is when you said  "You said" and then you said "It sounded like".  That's contradiction.  Not me constantly defending the same accusation.[/QUOTE]

I think it is important what people's stance on it is. I mean it's no odds to me what you think (although when it comes up, i think it is appropriate to say it), but it is important to society that people know what they believe about issues like that. It is -- literally -- a matter of life and death, and as a citizen, you have the right/responsibility to vote, and the people you vote in have the responsibility for legislation. And that legislation affects all citizens. And to me, its a matter of what kind of society do we want to live in. Even if you are not directly administering execution, or if you are not gay/pregnant/in the military, etc, your beliefs and attitudes regarding those issues affect the people around you, influence people around you and therefore contribute to society, so it is important.
And i'm more then willing to admit that i might have misunderstood, but (as happened with the peeing on marines thread), your vehement stance arguing so strongly for a position without clearly stating your viewpoint made it seem like you supported something. And i still think, if someone is AGAINST the death penalty, it is completely irrelevant what the crime is. If you believe it is a breach of human rights to kill someone, it doesn't make a difference if they are a monster, if they are a cannibal, etc. Much as instinct might make you want to rip their guts out, if you really believe in the value of human life, no matter what the crime, you would still not believe its right to have them killed.
I assume that it is mainly for this reason that AI paints what you term a 'one sided' picture. Their anti-death penalty stance is not dependent on the person's crime, its based on their status as a human, and that is what they portray.
And i still stand over what i said about people already believing that the person is horrible. Nobody (or pretty much nobody) is going to argue that a murderer is a great person who should be given free reign to kill more people. The court system has already found them guilty. That side of the story has been portrayed already. We all know that if someone kills someone, its bad. So all AI (in my opinion) are trying to do is highlight their humanity, and their rights and status as a human.

[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
Well since you haven't given your stance...
This thread was clearly about (1) the flip-flop approach to Iran

I was trying to figure out why the term 'flip flop approach' sounded so familiar -- now i remember. It was from a documentary i watched about fox news! It was a phrase that was used really often by fox reporters at one stage.

And i have given my stance on death penalty, several times. I am against it. Completely against it. No human has the right to take another human's life. Under any circumstances. Ever. And i think legally sanctioned killing is extremely frightening, especially in a democracy where things are supposed to be above-board, open and controlled by the people.

[QUOTE] [b]Micrówave wrote:[/b]
It's only a certain few though.

I think its that you don't really state your own position clearly at the start, and you overstate your argument a bit. Like if you would have said 'clearly, AI are right to be demonstrating the humanity and rights of the people on death row, but they should also explain their crimes in more detail, and emphasise how this does not affect their human rights' and explain how you feel that would benefit humanity, and show people how to deal with conflicting information, that might have helped have less confusion.

I finally reread your original post, cos i want to be fair and make sure i'm not twisting it. You did say you are against execution, but before that you listed three guys who were executed (so you did actually bring it up), and you said
"See if you feel sorry for these three..."
That really does make it sound like you *don't* feel sorry for them, and don't think anyone else should either. I think that was where i got the impression you were in support of it, because it sounded like you were saying you shouldn't feel sorry for the loss of their lives.

I'm not being an antagonist. It's easy for anybody to perceive an array of people in some kind of disagreement with them and fail to adequately discern individual intention. That's not you, that's just the internet and human behaviour. But since you seem to manoeuvre yourself frequently into these situations it might be worth keeping in mind.

You are frequently goaded with irrelevant anti American rhetoric and you're right to be annoyed at that. Speaking generally, people internet wide seem to feel entitled and empowered to speak to Americans in a way that would be considered vile if the subject were race or gender or religion or sexuality and not nationality. I deeply dislike it and it embarrasses me when it comes from Canadians. So on that you have a really sound point.

But the fact remains that you haven't had a good conversation with anybody on either this or the Marines thread. You spent most of them being miffed and exasperated that everybody was misunderstanding you. You should have included catqueen as well on this one, and YV on the Marines thread. So with those people added, your list of "a certain few" are almost all the people that tend to engage in these types of threads consistently. So again, do you think you could be some - emphasis on some - of the problem?

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=387230761306952&set=a.378955175467844.101572.336619463034749&type=1&theater

muahahahaha, i think we might all feel a bit like this? hehe

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
I'm not being an antagonist. It's easy for anybody to perceive an array of people in some kind of disagreement with them and fail to adequately discern individual intention. That's not you, that's just the internet and human behaviour. But since you seem to manoeuvre yourself frequently into these situations it might be worth keeping in mind.
You are frequently goaded with irrelevant anti American rhetoric and you're right to be annoyed at that. Speaking generally, people internet wide seem to feel entitled and empowered to speak to Americans in a way that would be considered vile if the subject were race or gender or religion or sexuality and not nationality. I deeply dislike it and it embarrasses me when it comes from Canadians. So on that you have a really sound point.
But the fact remains that you haven't had a good conversation with anybody on either this or the Marines thread. You spent most of them being miffed and exasperated that everybody was misunderstanding you. You should have included catqueen as well on this one, and YV on the Marines thread. So with those people added, your list of "a certain few" are almost all the people that tend to engage in these types of threads consistently. So again, do you think you could be some - emphasis on some - of the problem?[/QUOTE]

I'm not anti-american! (Just to be clear) I know that's not what you're saying, i'm just frazzled so i'll just point it out anyway. I have some rly great american friends, i know some crazy americans too, but most of my american friends are great. I don't like -- i strongly don't like -- american foreign policy, and i think the media in the USA is quite limited in its scope, as (from what i've seen, and i could be wrong) it tends to cater more to certain groups, like there are some papers for republicans, some for democrats and the same with some radio and tv. And i think news should be balanced. But its never balanced, and i listen to my share of murdoch owned stuff too. But as far as americans go, i am not anti-american, at least i dont think i am :/

I don't think anyone, least of all reasonable Americans, would cast open minded discussion and criticism of a superpower's foreign policy or news media as anti-Americanism. So I'm pretty sure you're fine. :)