• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    The fact that the US federal government has the power to outlaw this but doesn’t, that this specific execution was brought before the Supreme Court and they voted against blocking it 6–3, and the fact that the majority of US states (27) and the federal government have this on the books speak for the US now, yes.

    Taken to an absurd extreme, let’s imagine that the US federal government and 27 of its states explicitly had statutes on the books stating “you can legally rape puppies”, and you stepping in and saying “Well that doesn’t speak for the entire US! Stop trying to make it sound like everyone condones puppy rape just because Missouri allows it!” Would you say that then? Because I feel like any rational person would be asking “Why does the US allow this to happen?” If not, why would you say it here? The US is simply backwards in this regard.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Would you come to the US’ defense in the same way that you are right now over state-sanctioned murder in the situation I outlined? It’s a very simple yes/no question that you’re tiptoeing around for seemingly no reason.

        • Philo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          8 hours ago

          In saying that one state doesn’t speak for the entire country, YES. That was said in my first comment, maybe you should reread it.