briar patch

[Ernie]

See, this is an example of what I would call arguing in bad faith. Barnhart makes an observation about this lunch event that he believes to be true. He stated something he actually believes. You characterize Barnhart as an Anabaptist praising the US Senate. This is stretching what he said. You are assuming his intent. It doesn't seem honest. And it's not a pleasant way to argue with someone.

It would be a better discussion to simply question the validity of Barnhart's point and present reasoned evidence otherwise. Like you are attempting to do in the Holdeman thread with me. But instead you just throw out the jab that it's 'breathtaking to see Anabaptists praising the U.S. Senate.'

I think this falls under "Straw manning" and "Ad hominem insults".

[JohnH]

I do deeply disagree with you. I do object to the language you use that I see as dehumanizing. I do object to conspiracy theories that have their roots in white supremacist groups. I think I should be able to push back on arguments I don’t agree with, just as you do.

It's utterly fascinating how you have objected to one of my biggest objections to Trump (the infestation of perverts like homosexuals in his cabinet); protesting that is "dehumanising". It isn't "dehumanising"; anyone could just choose not to engage in such perversions. I consider perverts in public office, church offices, etc. to be an infestation, because they are something that needs to be removed.

I guess you can put Trump's seeming admiration for homosexuals (of the worst variety, like Bessent, who gets into fistfights with people, threatens them, and generally engages in both stereotypically homosexual and generally poor behaviour) in the thread of "Good things about the Trump administration". He's normalised homosexuality. I consider it one of his greatest failings.

[JohnH]

AP report:
HEBRON, Ky. (AP) — Vice President JD Vance cast doubt Friday on whether the Pentagon will livestream the execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan in December but told reporters that if it is livestreamed,
“I’m not going to be watching it.”

The Republican vice president said, “I don’t know that that’s actually going to happen,”
when asked about the plans that the Pentagon confirmed Thursday. But Vance then tried to set aside the controversy over the plans for a public execution and said Hasan’s crimes should not be forgotten.

Hasan was convicted of killing 13 people and injuring 32 others in a shooting spree at the military base in 2009.

“So whatever the controversy is about the method of the execution, I hope that people don’t forget that this is a guy who brutally murdered a lot of innocent people,” Vance said.

“Now, that said, I mean, look, if it’s ultimately livestreamed, I’m not going to be watching it,” he added.
Vance is a convert to the Catholic Church, which has long opposed capital punishment.
President Donald Trump had endorsed Hasan's execution by firing squad during a Wednesday political event in Texas, suggesting “he deserves it.”

However, Trump was noncommittal when asked Friday whether he wanted the execution livestreamed.
“Well, they’re making a determination about that,”
Trump told reporters before traveling to a political event in Syracuse, New York. .. ..

^^i’m glad to see this.

Something to keep in mind, President Trump and Charlie Kirk were both shot on live air time.
Other prominent people and elected, appointed, have been targets IRL. Judges. Police.

i’m not for violence or the death penalty -
as a court judgment, or indvidual judgment, including for profit corporate extermination of the unborn.

(i presume) Hasan was recorded at least in part as he killed+wounded 45 people at Fort Hood. ?
Cameras everywhere.

The world is ‘way too violent, much of it “on air”, if not, much of it is reported with photos+video.
i’d like to defund police - by people stopping killing each other.

Please.

It was interesting which people here on MN were strangely silent about complaining about these executions or attempted executions being carried out on live TV.

I supppse I could say something line this:

“For the same reason people cheer on the mistreatment of unvaccinated people, criminal or not. The same reason people are comfortable using dehumanizing language against political opponents. . . . They do not have the compassion and love of Christ in their hearts and minds.”

I’ve endured on this forum nearly constantly being compared to Nazis, mass murderers, segregationists, racists, and so on. It is obviously dehumanising language, yet the people who decry having someone who planned a murder of 13 others would, I’m sure, see no problem if I were shot and killed on live TV like Charlie Kirk too. Or you.

[ohio jones]

It is obviously dehumanising language, yet the people who decry having someone who planned a murder of 13 others would, I’m sure, see no problem if I were shot and killed on live TV like Charlie Kirk too. Or you.

Isn't this also dehumanizing language, and an extreme distortion of a strawman? It's entirely inappropriate to assign this view to anyone on this forum.

[JohnH]

It is obviously dehumanising language, yet the people who decry having someone who planned a murder of 13 others would, I’m sure, see no problem if I were shot and killed on live TV like Charlie Kirk too. Or you.

Isn't this also dehumanizing language, and an extreme distortion of a strawman? It's entirely inappropriate to assign this view to anyone on this forum.

When I regularly get called a segregationist, Nazi, and racist, it’s dehumanising language.

And yes, people who regularly called Charlie Kirk those things too and then were strangely mute when he got executed on live TV. It’s easy to make a comparison between how one viewed that versus the great moral protestations about an actual duly convicted murderer hypothetically being executed on live TV.

It’s clear one set of lives are valuable - and another isn’t. I’m squarely in the latter camp. And yes. It’s very sad when supposed “Christians” devalue and dehumanise others because they have the “wrong” political views.

[Valerie]

It is obviously dehumanising language, yet the people who decry having someone who planned a murder of 13 others would, I’m sure, see no problem if I were shot and killed on live TV like Charlie Kirk too. Or you.

Isn't this also dehumanizing language, and an extreme distortion of a strawman? It's entirely inappropriate to assign this view to anyone on this forum.

When I regularly get called a segregationist, Nazi, and racist, it’s dehumanising language.

And yes, people who regularly called Charlie Kirk those things too and then were strangely mute when he got executed on live TV. It’s easy to make a comparison between how one viewed that versus the great moral protestations about an actual duly convicted murderer hypothetically being executed on live TV.

It’s clear one set of lives are valuable - and another isn’t. I’m squarely in the latter camp. And yes. It’s very sad when supposed “Christians” devalue and dehumanise others because they have the “wrong” political views.

Don’t worry John, you get used to it.

[Szdfan]

It is obviously dehumanising language, yet the people who decry having someone who planned a murder of 13 others would, I’m sure, see no problem if I were shot and killed on live TV like Charlie Kirk too. Or you.

Isn't this also dehumanizing language, and an extreme distortion of a strawman? It's entirely inappropriate to assign this view to anyone on this forum.

When I regularly get called a segregationist, Nazi, and racist, it’s dehumanising language.

And yes, people who regularly called Charlie Kirk those things too and then were strangely mute when he got executed on live TV. It’s easy to make a comparison between how one viewed that versus the great moral protestations about an actual duly convicted murderer hypothetically being executed on live TV.

It’s clear one set of lives are valuable - and another isn’t. I’m squarely in the latter camp. And yes. It’s very sad when supposed “Christians” devalue and dehumanise others because they have the “wrong” political views.

I don't remember what I said specifically on this forum after Kirk's death, but I do remember that I had conversations with traumatized Middle Schoolers who all saw it on their phones. I think those conversations were way more important than whatever I said on this forum. I don't think any of us need to perform whatever you think is "fair" in order to have an opinion. This is gatekeeping trying to silence opinions you don't like with false equivalence and it doesn't work.

I think Kirk's death was tragic, but there are also fundamental differences between Kirk's assassination and Hasan's upcoming execution.

1. Kirk was assassinated, not executed. I get that calling it an "execution" is emotionally satisfying, but a state-planned execution is not the same thing as the murder of a prominent person.

2. The video wasn't planned. It was people on their cellphones and distributed because the internet went faster than the algorithms could suppress it. That's a huge difference between deliberately planning to stream the execution of someone.

Secretary Hegseth intends to make a spectacle out of the execution. Its bloodthirsty and doesn't just degrade Hasan, but also degrades us as a country. If it was bad that my Middle School students witnessed Kirk's assassination online, I don't see why it would be okay to witness Hassan's execution. And they will.

I find it strange to defend this spectacle.

I think your ideas are terrible and you make terrible arguments, but I also want to emphasize that your life has value and I would find it tragic if you were killed, especially if it was for your beliefs.

[JoyE]

When Moses spoke the execution of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, I'd say that was pretty public: in front of all Israel. The earth opened up and swallowed all those rebellious people, and they fell screaming into the pit. After which God sent down fire to burn up 250 more men. That was not at all private. Traumatic to behold? Of course. But God had a reason--to show what He thinks of sin.

[Judas Maccabeus]

When Moses spoke the execution of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, I'd say that was pretty public: in front of all Israel. The earth opened up and swallowed all those rebellious people, and they fell screaming into the pit. After which God sent down fire to burn up 250 more men. That was not at all private. Traumatic to behold? Of course. But God had a reason--to show what He thinks of sin.

But our justice is flawed, sub biblical in its administration. God’s justice is perfect.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Isn't this also dehumanizing language, and an extreme distortion of a strawman? It's entirely inappropriate to assign this view to anyone on this forum.

When I regularly get called a segregationist, Nazi, and racist, it’s dehumanising language.

And yes, people who regularly called Charlie Kirk those things too and then were strangely mute when he got executed on live TV. It’s easy to make a comparison between how one viewed that versus the great moral protestations about an actual duly convicted murderer hypothetically being executed on live TV.

It’s clear one set of lives are valuable - and another isn’t. I’m squarely in the latter camp. And yes. It’s very sad when supposed “Christians” devalue and dehumanise others because they have the “wrong” political views.

I don't remember what I said specifically on this forum after Kirk's death, but I do remember that I had conversations with traumatized Middle Schoolers who all saw it on their phones. I think those conversations were way more important than whatever I said on this forum. I don't think any of us need to perform whatever you think is "fair" in order to have an opinion. This is gatekeeping trying to silence opinions you don't like with false equivalence and it doesn't work.

I think Kirk's death was tragic, but there are also fundamental differences between Kirk's assassination and Hasan's upcoming execution.

1. Kirk was assassinated, not executed. I get that calling it an "execution" is emotionally satisfying, but a state-planned execution is not the same thing as the murder of a prominent person.

2. The video wasn't planned. It was people on their cellphones and distributed because the internet went faster than the algorithms could suppress it. That's a huge difference between deliberately planning to stream the execution of someone.

Secretary Hegseth intends to make a spectacle out of the execution. Its bloodthirsty and doesn't just degrade Hasan, but also degrades us as a country. If it was bad that my Middle School students witnessed Kirk's assassination online, I don't see why it would be okay to witness Hassan's execution. And they will.

I find it strange to defend this spectacle.

I think your ideas are terrible and you make terrible arguments, but I also want to emphasize that your life has value and I would find it tragic if you were killed, especially if it was for your beliefs.

It just shows how far some segments of our society have sunk. I cannot fathom how any Christian could defend this. I do not dispute the civil government’s right to do this. But making it a spectacle?