in my opinion - and I’m just some guy - there is no humane way to kill anyone who doesn’t want to die. It is a contradiction in terms. Therefore regardless of the method, it is simply “not humane.”
Fine, then the authors should argue that, honestly, instead of arguing against the particular method and thus dishonestly implying there’s some other method they would find acceptable. It’s a bad-faith “control the conversation” tactic that has no place in legitimate journalism.
They do (in general) argue against that in the first and last paragraphs of the article where they list (separately) themselves as abolitionists. I believe we can take that as read.
in my opinion - and I’m just some guy - there is no humane way to kill anyone who doesn’t want to die. It is a contradiction in terms. Therefore regardless of the method, it is simply “not humane.”
Fine, then the authors should argue that, honestly, instead of arguing against the particular method and thus dishonestly implying there’s some other method they would find acceptable. It’s a bad-faith “control the conversation” tactic that has no place in legitimate journalism.
They do (in general) argue against that in the first and last paragraphs of the article where they list (separately) themselves as abolitionists. I believe we can take that as read.
Agreed. I should have specified “more humane than other methods”.
By that logic it’s just as inhumane to put someone in prison that doesn’t want to be there, it is simply “not hunane”
pretty much any study into justice reform will tell you that’s the case in the majority of cases, yes.