KeithDB (Premier Login KeithDB) Forum Owner Posted Jun 5, 2009 3:54 AM
Quote: >>Actually my statement is perfectly consistent with my earlier contention: "if you support the death penalty, then YOU must be willing to BE that innocent person put to death"<
I fully agree that your error is not any problem with consistency. But the consistent application of an erroneous premise does not lead to being right. Consider the following:
Major Premise: All birds fly.
Minor Premise: Penguins are birds.
Conclusion: Therefore, penguins fly.
Quite clearly the problem in the above thinking is not in the failure to consistently apply the premise. The above reasoning quite consistently sticks to the flawed premise, and is thus consistently wrong.
Your statement that "If you support the death penalty then YOU must be willing to be that innocent person put to death" is flawed and consistently applying leads only to being consistently wrong. The basic problem is that I do not support the death penalty for innocent persons.
We could turn this around for you. If you support the penalty of life in prison without parole then you must be be willing to be that innocent person put in prison for life with no chance of parole.