In Which I am Accused

Mr Rob, in referring to this discussion, without naming names accuses me of being impolite and irrational;

As I have mentioned on another blog, where my reception was not nearly as rational and polite (and interesting), we daily accept utilitarian principles when we engage in risk management, why can some people not also accept them with regard to the role of the death penalty in the legal system?

Well, if you come here and regurgitate a stupid point that has already been exposed for its stupidity, some derision should be expected. As it was, my response was pretty mild and I answered the point*, despite it being a blind alley that has nothing to do with the main subject under discussion. I have no desire to be bogged down with reductio ad absurdum and, yes, if you indulge, I will cut you short. If I wanted to discuss utilitarian matters relating to risk management, I would have been discussing it in the first place. I wasn’t, they are not relevant and I indulged your points way beyond what they deserved.

Like a whiny child who constantly asks “why” after every response, you simply repeated the same tedious questions long after a rational and polite response had been proffered. You completed this by patronising me and indulging in grammar pedantry – a fair indication that the argument has been lost.

There is no parallel between road deaths and wrongful execution, if that is what you wish correlation to mean.

I don’t wish anything of the sort; it is what it means in the context. As with other grammar pedants I’ve come across, you fail to take usage into account. The word has a number of valid usages, this was one such.

If you want polite, rational and interesting discussion (which, despite your protestation, you were given), try not asking stupid questions that have already been debunked elsewhere; accept that you have been given a clear and valid explanation once it has been proffered – whether you agree with it or not; don’t keep repeating the same question over and over once it has been answered; don’t insult your host by trying to sidetrack the debate with subjects that have no relationship to the matter being discussed; and don’t patronise me.

Simple, really.

—————————————-

* The answer to the point being twofold; firstly, the matter of risk mitigation in everyday life is not remotely comparable to the entirely avoidable mistaken execution. The second is a matter of intent; drivers do not set out to kill – indeed, most of us actively seek to avoid doing so, whereas the executioner does, knowing full well that sooner or later one of those condemned will be innocent. These points were made clearly enough before, of course.