For some time now, it has not been clear to me whether your comments were sincere, honest attempts at meaningful dialogue, or if you were merely trying to incite anger or frustration. I assumed the former and tried to take you as seriously as I could until my patience has finally run out. Judging from some of your exchanges with other slashdotters, I seem to have hung in there a lot longer than most.
In any case, you consistently use the tactic of filling your posts with a variety of common logical fallacies. The effect is that you force your opponents to have to expend effort trying to keep a discussion on topic, defend themselves from straw man attacks, restate points made earlier, and so on. It appears that other slashdotters often either become hostile and angry, which makes them easy for you to attack, or they simply get exhausted with spinning their wheels and give up.
I am well aware that this might all be deliberate on your part, and you are merely trying to bait people into getting upset or angry. In the interest of giving you the benefit of the doubt, though, I will take a detailed look at several of your recent posts so you can see exactly what I'm talking about.
First, we have this comment, in which you make the following logical fallacies, among others.
Moving the goalposts:
If you executed anyone that would get a sentence of 30 years or more... would that not be as likely to deter people as simple imprisonment? You wouldn't claim that people would be less afraid of execution than imprisonment?
You previously claimed that execution is "a pretty effective deterrent". I provided objective evidence that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent (and not only in the United States). Instead of providing any comparable contrary evidence or acknowledging that you were wrong, you now expect me to prove my point by arguing against an unrealistic hypothetical scenario.
Statement of fact with no evidence:
Because we know for a fact that the criminals are a lot of more afraid of execution. Listen to the guys on death row. These are murderers... shitting themselves.
You've repeatedly made statements like this, without ever providing any supporting evidence.
Statement of fact with no evidence, contradictory position (sometimes called the "kettle logic" fallacy):
The thing is the most violent criminals are not deterred by anything.
Just a few paragraphs ago, you were arguing that capital punishment is an effective deterrent. And in an earlier comment, you said, "It is a pretty effective deterrent. You should see how these hard core multiple murderers break down and cry like babies when they think the axe is going to land on their own necks". Now, to make a different point, you are claiming that nothing is an effective deterrent to "the most violent criminals". (Of course, how you define "the most violent" is also not clear, but I am guessing it at least includes "hard core multiple murderers").
Moving the goalposts, shifting the burden of proof:
You can't argue against execution on the basis that it doesn't deter without addressing that imprisonment doesn't deter either.
Of course one can argue against the efficacy of capital punishment without simultaneously defending other forms of punishment. After having refuted your claim that capital punishment is "a pretty effective deterrent", you now claim that I must also provide an analysis of the efficacy of imprisonment. Furthermore, you claim that "imprisonment doesn't deter", give no objective evidence to support this claim, then expect me to refute it.
Misrepresentation, straw man, argumentum ad populum:
As to your statement that I just "know" executions are cheaper without the endless appeals. Anyone knows that.
I criticized your statement that the high cost of capital punishment is, and I quote you, "an artifact of the anti execution lobby". Neither you nor I said anything about "endless appeals". So you are misrepresenting me, changing the argument to something different, and then ending with an argumentum ad populum.
Then, there is this comment.
Straw man:
Cite the part of the constitution that says executions are either cruel or unusual.
I never claimed that the Constitution says executions are cruel and unusual, as I explained multiple times. You are asking me to defend a position I never held by telling me to do something that is impossible.
Moving the goalposts:
They executed people all the time in the years immediately after the constitution was signed. THat means the framers of the constitution did not regard execution as either cruel or unusual.
You originally claimed that "No official interpretation of the US constitution has been read to forbid executions in general." I showed you that several Supreme Court justices have, in official written opinions, interpreted the constitutional prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment as including capital punishment. You now shift the argument by limiting it to just "the framers of the constitution".
False dichotomy, argumentum ad hominem:
...you're either terrible at reading or you're intentionally misrepresenting me. I'm assuming the former.
No further explanation needed.
And then this comment.
False equivalence:
There is no government that does not assume this authority. Your government... which ever one it is... they are all the same in this... will absolutely kill you if it feels it has "cause" to do so. Maybe you're throwing babies into a bonfire? Maybe you're running around with explosives tied to your body...
You are conflating police use of deadly force with execution as a form of punishment. A state can reject the death penalty but reserve the right to use deadly force when doing so prevents immediate harm. This is what most modern democracies have done.
Straw man:
Yet apparently I'm a terrible person and you're a paragon of virtue. Neither is the case.
I never said, or implied, either of those things. Claiming I did makes me look unreasonable and allows you to "defeat" a position I never held.
Argumentum ad hominem:
You're just not a very clever person. You're not a thinker. And this is a complicated issue beyond your reach. Nothing more.
No further explanation needed.
To further prove my point with comment exchanges that did not include me, here is a quick look at two of your other posts from the same story. First, there is this exchange that begins with a simple comment from someone else, which I quote in its entirety.
When someone is imprisoned, and it turns out he is innocent, we set him free. It's not perfect, but it is the very least we need to do.
When we start reviving those innocent people killed, we can compare the two. Until then, killing an innocent person is killing an innocent person, no matter which legal term (execution or murder) it falls under. Legal terms are for the lawyers to argue about, they to not influence the morality of killing an innocent person.
And now for your response.
False dichotomy:
Either you have faith in the legal system or you don't.
One may have faith in some aspects of the legal system, but not others, or one may have faith in the legal system in some circumstances, but not others, etc.
Straw man, red herring:
We might as well just let all the doubtless innocent people out of jail right now, fire all the lawyers, fire all the judges, I'm not sure what the point of police are since they probably only exist to shoot random black people for no reason.
You advance a preposterous conclusion as if it were the previous commenter's position, and throw in an irrelevant racial reference.
Straw man:
You are saying that because the justice system is bullshit we can't give it the power to execute people.
The previous commenter never said "the justice system is bullshit", or anything like that. You present a caricature of his/her argument to make him/her look unreasonable.
Argumentum ad hominem:
I'd like to hear and contend with an honest argument rather than one cloaked in misinformation and half truths.
No further explanation needed.
Red herring, false equivalence:
This sounds very much like the vegan anti eating animals arguments. I'm going to eat bacon. It is going to happen. I'm also going to vote in favor of putting murderers down.
Here, you conflate the previous commentor's reasoning with that of a "vegan" and claim that opposition to the death penalty is comparable to choosing not to eat meat.
And, for good meaure, here is another exchange.
The original commenter gave a set of objective reasons for opposing capital punishment, and an ethical argument that the state should abandon capital punishment to eliminate the possibility of executing innocent people.
Let's look at your response.
Red herring:
As to your religious views on executions, that's super but I don't care any more for that then I do about some other religious person's views on homosexuality.
The previous commenter never made any reference to his/her "religious views", or gave any evidence that his/her opposition to capital punishment was motivated by religious beliefs.
Slippery slope fallacy:
Second, you have the various pissing contests between nations. Any society that thinks killing is wrong is going to find a slave collar slapped around their necks sooner or later.
There is no logical reason to conclude that a society which rejects capital punishment will end up with "a slave collar slapped around their necks". And if you meant killing in general, not capital punishment, then you are commiting a false equivalence fallacy.
Statement of fact with no evidence:
Ask any culture outside of our privileged bubble what they think of this issue and they're going to come down the on the side of executions.
According to what data?
Argumentum ad hominem:
You don't like cutting someone's throat. I get it. But that is squeamishness. You get over it. And then when the stars align... yeah, you run that knife from ear to ear. You just do it or you sit down and let the adults handle it.
No further explanation needed.
Now, if your intent in all of these threads was merely to be annoying and to try to frustrate or anger people, then of course you will not care one whit about anything I've said here. On the other hand, if your attempts at conversation really are sincere, then I hope you will seriously consider my comments. I know it is a long post, but I wanted to make it as clear as I could that these problems pervade the comments you leave on Slashdot.
I think you do have some interesting ideas that are worth discussing. But the problem is that your rhetorical style ends up making the signal-to-noise ratio of your comments so low that it becomes all but impossible to have any sort of productive exchange. From what I have seen, most people either eventually get frustrated and angry and then become easy targets for you, or they simply lose interest and leave, giving you the false impression that you've somehow "won" the argument.
In an earlier comment, you expressed the opinion that you "get dog piled by ideologues and trolls with some consistency" on Slashdot. You do sometimes express unpopular opinions, so it is possible that there is some truth to your perception. However, your getting "piled" upon might also be a response to your style of argumentation, which, as I have tried to illustrate, relies heavily on a variety of common logical fallacies.
I chose only a very small number of your posts to analyze here. I leave it as an exercise for you to examine your other comments, and I hope you have the self-insight needed to see how frequently and consistently you use these tactics.
To close, I want to be clear that my intention here was not to lecture you. Instead, I am choosing to assume that your comments really are sincere, and I am showing you enough respect to kindly suggest you reconsider how you engage others in these forums. You recently stated in a couple of comments that you "worship logic" and that you consider yourself to be "a clever person". If those things are true, then I sincerely hope you have no trouble moving to a more intellectually honest, and logical, style of debate.
Best of luck to you.