I expected no less from you Teddy. I'm glad you finally got to display some of your vast knowledge of history and cultures worldwide. Maybe you could tone that down a little bit on APUSH tests and give the rest of us an easier curve.
My reality show idea was a JOKE. Meant to be FUNNY. It's interesting to follow up on the practicality and the consequences of such a notion, but it is far from my point. Maybe the terrorists would cause violence, maybe the government wouldn't compromise. The whole situation is an outrageous hypothetical
Never in any of what I wrote did I say that we should free the Guantanomo Bay prisoners. What I did, and still do, say is that we should realize that we have no right to convict and sentence others. This is in no way practical advice, that we should go and free, or fight to free those in prison. It's simply something to think about when deciding whether or not to offer our "amen" to the things the government does or says.
And I refuse to back a system just because it's the best of its kind. I could never claim to understand as much about history as you do, as the studies you have went through make you many times my superior. So I'll trust you on a lot of the events you list that I've never heard of. But how you describe the U.S. government makes it sound like we're saying "oh well, at least we're not as bad as them". You understand how this wouldn't be very convincing, right?
Again, I provide no better alternative to the government. My only point was that we should never leave our responsibilities to other people and to God, in the hands of that government. It's great that we have freedoms and democracy, and we should be thankful for our fortunate position compared to the less fortunate in other countries. But government is more of a setting than a tool. It's there, and we cannot change it. To agree with a law is to give it more power and authority than it actually has. We render to Caesar what is Caesar's. We follow the law, but know that we ourselves live by a higher standard.
There's something that bothers me. My first post was about how we should be against killing. I didn't focus on the wrongness of delivering a death sentence without due process. I wasn't doubting whether or not the government would do this with Guantanomo Bay, because that would be besides the point. Teddy, you admit that you were joking, but only about the "immediate execution" of the terrorists. Curtis, you bring up controversy and conflict as the reason for not killing them, rather than for the fact that we'd be ending their lives. I feel like you guys are skimming over my main argument in my first post, and skipping directly over to issues like lenience for crimes, and how we're safer with these men and women in prison. You know how I feel about killing, and I believe execution is never justified, for all the reasons I've already stated two posts ago. I really want to hear what you guys think about this specific topic, because I honestly don't know what you make of it. Should we have executions?
And also, Teddy, I've been thinking about your statement that you would be willing, if circumstances made it necessary, pick up a rifle to make the world a better place, and to protect the innocent. I have some thoughts on this, but I'll save them until I get a better idea of your guys's views on he above topic.
Did I mention that I'm thoroughly enjoying this? Every single night before a day with finals I have spent writing on my blog, taking away from precious study time. For this reason, and this reason only, I'll be sad to see finals go. Let's do this again at the end of the school year, shall we?
No comments:
Post a Comment