A Texas man who said his death sentence was based on false and unscientific expert testimony was executed Thursday evening for killing a man during a robbery decades ago.
Brent Ray Brewer, 53, received a lethal injection at the state penitentiary in Huntsville for the April 1990 death of Robert Laminack. The inmate was pronounced dead at 6:39 p.m. local time, 15 minutes after the chemicals began flowing.
Prosecutors had said Laminack, 66, gave Brewer and his girlfriend a ride to a Salvation Army location in Amarillo when he was stabbed in the neck and robbed of $140.
Brewer’s execution came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to step in over the inmate’s claims that prosecutors had relied on false and discredited expert testimony at his 2009 resentencing trial.
Congratulations. You’ve managed to read the first sentence without reading anything else. Let me TL;DR it for you. The “shitty logic” you’re referring to is actually pro-choicers giving pro-lifers the best possible interpretation of their own logic. But on the other hand, there is no way to do the same thing to the pro-choice side, because the pro-choicers already believe in the best version of their argument.
To be fair, I wouldn’t read a post that starts with “let me spell it out for you” even if you’re completely right.
I’m guessing you don’t require a particularly compelling reason to avoid reading something.
It’s more like if that’s the tone of your first sentence, I wouldn’t want to be subjected to more condescension.
No, you only like to dish out condescension with phrases like, “I wouldn’t read a post that starts with ‘let me spell it out for you’ even if you’re completely right.”
Sorry for the confusion but I’m not the guy you were talking with. I’m completely on your side I was just critiquing the messaging.
There’s no confusion. I quoted YOU. How strange is it to suggest that I was confused about who I was talking to when essentially the entire comment was quoting the person I was talking to. I’m being generous and assuming that you didn’t just get confused because you’re trying to utilize multiple accounts that you own, and that you forgot which account you used to make which comment.
And my point was that you used a condescending tone when it suited your argument, which puts us in exactly the same boat. The main difference seems to be that I was originally condescending to a person who used an embarrassingly poor argument, which was worthy of condescension.
Ok nvm you’re also insane lol
I randomly happened to notice how you downvoted that comment a rather long time ago, like at least 20 minutes. So presumably, you spent quite a long time writing your reply. I’m guessing, you tried writing an actual response first, and realized that you couldn’t find a way to make yourself look good, so you resorted to this… thing.
Thanks - being brigaded by libs means I’m kinda skimming responses at this point.
I’m saying maybe use the interpretation of their argument that they use and not the one you wish to shoe-horn onto it. Whenever I’ve listened to pro-lifers (at least the better versed ones) they clearly only intend to stop what they view as “actively killing an unborn child.” Their logic, taken from that POV (and assuming a BUNCH of their premises are true) seems to be reasonably consistent and would have no bearing on the death of a convicted murderer.
It doesn’t matter where they intend to stop.
If I say, “one apple plus one apple is two apples,” and my stated justification is “1+1=2”. And then later, I say, “one orange plus one orange is three oranges,” you would be right to say, “Your justification 1+1=2 also works for oranges, so somewhere in your arguments you’re incorrect.” But here, you’re saying that I can respond, “I only intend to stop at apples,” and that this is “reasonably consistent.”
This is some sort of cognitive dissonance sophistry that simply doesn’t work. It’s not reasonably consistent.
It’s their argument - so yes it does?
Do you believe people should be free? Well how about criminals? Does it matter now “where you intend to stop”?
If I stated that all people deserve to be free, but I actually meant except for criminals, then that is something that I can be challenged about and I can revise my statement, and I could say, “All people except criminals deserve to be free.” But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about people who believe in absolutes, but never defend the actual ramifications of those beliefs.
I mean… They do.
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/pro-life-perspective-on-the-death-penalty/
You may not like the explanation (i don’t). But they do discuss it and have justifications of sorts for their beliefs.