Death Penalty / Abortion/ Thou shall not Kill

[CatherineM]

I always find it bemusing when "conservatives" like Dr. Peters, who hesitate to hand power over money and information to the State, defend the practice of handing it power over human life. 

How does that work, I wonder? 

 

I think they walk a very thin line. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Here are the facts.

Dr. Peters by all accounts is very professional and always respectful. He is an expert in his field. He is an upstanding family man and his Catholicity is irreproachable.

A certain level of respect should be assumed for anyone, no matter their credentials, but even for those people who are condescending, arrogant, or downright rude, Dr. Peters is still in a position to command respect. 

He wrote an article which is straightforward, respectful, and sober. 

 

And your response is "Har Har conservatives, am I right guys?!?"

Is this really the level of discourse here? It is embarrassing for all of us, or it should be.

[Ice_nine]

Come on, Dr. Peters took a couple jabs at people who disagree with him. "I'm a white middle class man who cares about my opinion wah wah." Even though I agree with him, for the most part. Although I wish he did address some of the "prudential arguments" against the death penalty (esp the one lilla alluded to). His aforementioned comment leads me to believe he might deny that there are imbalances in the justice system based on socioeconomic status and such. Maybe he has in his other work. His tone didn't seem super respectful so I don't understand your finger wagging.

But anyway, this is the internet, why take yourself so serious?

[Nihil Obstat]

Come on, Dr. Peters took a couple jabs at people who disagree with him. "I'm a white middle class man who cares about my opinion wah wah." Even though I agree with him, for the most part. Although I wish he did address some of the "prudential arguments" against the death penalty (esp the one lilla alluded to). His aforementioned comment leads me to believe he might deny that there are imbalances in the justice system based on socioeconomic status and such. Maybe he has in his other work. His tone didn't seem super respectful so I don't understand your finger wagging.

But anyway, this is the internet, why take yourself so serious?

​The article he was referring to got into more detail. He likely felt no need to rehash it since, as he said, the original article did a good, if wordy job.

[Ice_nine]

​The article he was referring to got into more detail. He likely felt no need to rehash it since, as he said, the original article did a good, if wordy job.

​Fair enough. I hate when people get wordy, I mean can't you make your point in a more succinct way? It's like, we're not writing a novel here, we're writing an article and how are people going to get it if you obscure your argument in a bunch of extraneous verbiage? I mean how are people going to see what you're trying to say with any clarity if you fail to make your point stand out in a bunch of words? You probably think you're being clearer and explaining yourself but really all you are doing is ensuring the reader gets fatigued and misses what you were originally trying to say anyway.

But I mean yeah I hate when people are wordy.

[Lilllabettt]

Here are the facts.

Dr. Peters by all accounts is very professional and always respectful. He is an expert in his field. He is an upstanding family man and his Catholicity is irreproachable.

A certain level of respect should be assumed for anyone, no matter their credentials, but even for those people who are condescending, arrogant, or downright rude, Dr. Peters is still in a position to command respect. 

He wrote an article which is straightforward, respectful, and sober. 

 

And your response is "Har Har conservatives, am I right guys?!?"

Is this really the level of discourse here? It is embarrassing for all of us, or it should be.

​

I am a conservative. I do not support the death penalty because I am a conservative.

I am amused when self-identified conservatives support the death penalty and do not notice the giant hole in their reasoning. Seems pretty straightforward to me.  How do they miss this? Or if they see it, how do they resolve it?  What sort of contortions are required? No clue. 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

I really see no reason to make it into a liberal/conservative issue. We are Catholic first, so why should we care what average conservatives this qua conservatism?

*That* is classic obscurationism. 

 

I only care what conservatives think inasmuch as it corresponds with the Church's moral tradition. Which, you will recall, does not in principle rule out capital punishment.

 

[Lilllabettt]

I really see no reason to make it into a liberal/conservative issue. We are Catholic first, so why should we care what average conservatives this qua conservatism?

*That* is classic obscurationism. 

 

I only care what conservatives think inasmuch as it corresponds with the Church's moral tradition. Which, you will recall, does not in principle rule out capital punishment.

 

​

Dr. Peters brings up the idea that he is "conservative," not me.  My observation is his conservative principles and his support for capital punishment do not hang together logically. You don't think that's relevant?   

 

[Nihil Obstat]

​

Dr. Peters brings up the idea that he is "conservative," not me.  My observation is his conservative principles and his support for capital punishment do not hang together logically. You don't think that's relevant?   

 

No, I do not. I think his conservative principles, whatever you somehow gleaned of them from an offhand comment, have precisely nothing to do with the Church's timeless moral teaching. Which, to re-reiterate, does not in principle rule out capital punishment.