If Obama is a war criminal, would you support a Republican DOJ charging him?

[Gravitycollapse]

49. You have demonstrated a clear chain of unsound logic.

First off, the assumption you make without evidence is that supporting the law defining a person as guilty or innocent means I support the consequences of such a decision. The second is your rather sophomoric understanding of the phrase "accept the outcome."

If
A. One supports a guilty individual being found guilty under the law in question
and
B. Guilt under the law should be subject to punishment as regulated by the law
then
C. One accepts that the guilty individual should be punished under the regulations of the law

Conclusion: If one supports a guilty individual being found guilty under the law, then one accepts that the guilty individual should be punished under the regulations of the law

Derived from previous conclusion

Statement: If one supports a guilty individual being found guilty under the law, then one accepts that the guilty individual should be punished under the regulations of the law
If
C. One accepts that a guilty person should be punished under the regulations of the law
and
D. The law defines punishment as life imprisonment
or
E. The law defines punishment as the death penalty
then
F. Acceptance that a guilty individual should be punished under the regulations of the law means that one accepts that a guilty person should be punished with either life imprisonment or death penalty.

Total conclusion: If one supports a guilty individual being found guilty under the law and one accepts that a guilty individual should be punished under the regulations of the law and the law defines punishment as either life imprisonment or the death penalty, then one who supports a guilty individual being found guilty under the law accepts that the guilty individual should be punished with either life imprisonment or the death penalty.

What you are attempting to say is that D does not exist and that E is the only punishment the law defines. That is simply not a valid conclusion based on the previous chain of premises and conclusions. Because the acceptance of C allows for either D or E, it is not possible to claim logically that I must support the punishment as defined by E.

I can support the ability of the legal system to discern between innocence and guilt while not accepting the full list of punishments offered if one is found guilty. That is a logically sound stance. Your attempt to dismantle that and redefine what I find acceptable or unacceptable is a clear case of purposeful manipulation.

You are playing games. And I'm not interested in such things. Especially not with someone who doesn't seem to understand basic logic.