Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/21/08 09:08 PM, DrAfrothunder wrote: Lets be realistic. A lot of those people got those passports almost 20 years ago after the break up of the Soviet Union. Sure, Russia is certainly taking advantage of that citizenship, but I highly doubt that the Russian goverment of the early nineties systematically handed out passports to citizens of a tiny province in tiny georgia to provoke NATO & the West 15-odd years down the road.

Now, that's a good point and it would detract from my argument if it also hadn't happened recently.

At 8/21/08 09:00 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Well, couldn't they simply get another employee that also works at the fertility clinic that is also trained in this skill to do it?

If I were to refuse to do any work with the Science Teachers Association of Texas because I believed they were doing the devil's work by promoting evolution, opting instead to have someone else in the office handle my share for that client, I would be fired. Know why? Because I'm paid to do a job, not pass it to someone else.

At 8/21/08 08:39 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Your ignorance amazes me. They have had those passports for years.

:o

Noooooooo. It happened YEARS ago, it couldn't have been planned to create a pretext, that's far too long ago for a brilliant strategist like Putin to have planned.

What an idiot. You believe all the Western propaganda so easily.

Propaganda? I didn't read that the passport thing was provocateuring in the news. It's common sense. Besides, that's a bold statement coming from someone who actually believes that Russia's in this to help the little guy out when you YOURSELF, know exactly their stance on Chechnya.

Not only that, but I KNOW you have this mentality that I'm somehow defacing Russia by saying they're being expansionist. Can I be any clearer that I respect Russia's and Putin's actions? No, no I can't. Because I came out and said it, you stupid douche.

And FURTHER, you're the one who feels like Russia is completely innocent in all of this. There's nothing, NOTHING to suggest that.

All the evidence points to Russia brilliantly setting up a situation which they then capitalize on in order to reassert their dominance in the region. All of it.

Then when someone (gasp!) disagrees with you can even be civilized. I love the irony and hypocracy of your statements. They make me laugh. I can't believe you don't even look at the evidence when it stares you in the face. Then you accuse me of ignorance. This is one of the funniest things I've seen! You obviously know nothing about the region. Instead you just blindly follow everything you see on the news. How ironic.

Again, I've been saying this before the news said it. I have a thread where I've predicted Russia's actions before they even started threatening countries with nukes. You can't make me out to be a sheep when I'm ahead of the game.

Not only that, but if you disagreed on something other than the basis of "Russia's doing this out of the goodness of their hearts" then I'd not only be civil, but I'd respect you for not being a stupid cunt that pretends to know more than they do.

At 8/21/08 08:19 PM, Saruman200 wrote: They do. They gave South Ossetians and the Abkhazians Russian passports.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! OH MY GOD!

Dude, you really are that ignorant. Good fucking God.

No, no, seriously. You don't get why they did that? I swear to God, I mean, believing that they're being honest about the cease-fire is one thing. I mean, you're a gullible dumbass for that, no problem, but seriously. The passport thing went over your head? You thought they did that to be neighborly?

I swear, I'm done with you on this. If it's not blatantly obvious why they did that, then you're completely lost, I'm not going to spend any time on someone who can't even grasp BLATANT provocateurism.

At 8/21/08 07:22 PM, adrshepard wrote: Err, basically themselves. People that drink to the extent that they hurt themselves when they turn 21 do not do so because of some unbearable pressure, they do it because they are morons. They know alcohol and be dangerous, they know little about how much alcohol they can tolerate, yet they binge. Why should I care about such a person's welfare? They themselves are the cause of their problems.

However, that's where they start. There's a difference between first drinking with people who want to funnel booze down your throat and people who you really don't want to get drunk and make an ass of yourself around. I never said people wouldn't binge drink, in fact, I made it a point to preemptively deal with that faulty line of reasoning. The thing about binging is that there's slightly responsible ways to do it. I don't care what people do to themselves when they binge, that's their business, but when it becomes other people's problems, like when they drive, that's when steps need to be taken. Introducing people to drinking through responsible people (for the most part) who can at least introduce them to SAFE drinking.

I'm mainly talking from experience on this. I was introduced to drinking the wrong way and I am very, very lucky that I was able to learn the ropes without seriously hurting myself or anyone else. Friends of mine were not so lucky and it could have been prevented had any of us learned from OTHER people's mistakes beforehand. I also have friends who had beers with their family when they were in high school and it was no big deal. They have a very good sense of where there limit is and how to enjoy a nice buzz without fucking anyone up and, as far as I know, they don't have any really bad horror stories of losing their cool and almost dying or killing someone while drunk.

I love how all the people who use the "taboo" argument never admit to being such ignorant fools as they suppose everyone else is. Tell me, where are all these people who do illegal things for no other reason than the fact they are illegal?

Don't twist my words around. I never say that the taboo is what makes people drink. Don't resort to stupid bullshit like that.

The fact that it's taboo means you're way less likely to do it around irresponsible people. Underage parties are not typically where you'll find experienced drinkers, that's a fact. My whole point is that when people drink without knowing what their PERSONAL limits are, bad things happen to them and innocent bystanders.

Your stupid bullshit about people saying "drinking is bad because it does x,y,z" has nothing to do with it. Drinking isn't the problem, it's having a SUBJECTIVE understanding of what alcohol does to you PERSONALLY. That is only acquired through experience. Nobody can "educate" you on how many beers it takes to get you buzzed, how many more to get you drunk, how many often you can have a beer to stay buzzed, but not get stupid drunk, etc. Those are all important things to know if you're going to drink safely. Drinking with responsible people is the quickest and safest way to get a good grasp on what those limits are.

I don't see how knowing one's limit will lessen peer pressure. The person should be insistent enough as a precaution in experimenting than out of necessity.

Dude, if you know your limits and how to handle yourself when you're drunk, you're going to be a hell of a lot more safe than if you don't. Responsible drinkers get drunk, sure, but they KNOW they're drunk and they KNOW what they're like when they're drunk. Stupid people who don't know their limit get convinced to do stupid things and they're far more likely to get behind the wheel. It's just one of those things that I've learned from being around a lot of drinkers. Working around bars and stuff kinda gives you a good insight into the behavior of people who know what they're doing when drunk and those that don't.

Not quite. I said they grasp the concepts on an intellectual level, not that they choose to act upon them. What do you think maturity is, just knowing right from wrong?

Coming from the person who just got through telling me that people having experience with drinking in a responsible environment is on par with being told that drinking is bad. You can't be serious.

At 8/21/08 07:41 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

Just because they used planes and box-cutters doesn't qualify it as a "basic" attack.

Pretty much. The reason why they got away with it is because the regulations basically tell the flight crew to do what the terrorists want until they can get the plane on the ground. Hijackers tend to rig planes with bombs and so the safety of the passengers come first. You make the terrorists nice and happy so they don't kill everyone and then you hit them like a tornado right when they land. It's all pretty damn effective, except when they don't plan on landing. It really left everyone flat footed because nobody's ever dealt with a situation like that before.

At 8/21/08 07:23 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 8/21/08 07:10 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Now, I had said a while back that Georgia was targeted because of their tentative position regarding NATO. They were in talks about joining and, while the jury's out on whether or not they would have been admitted, Russia's sending a message: the Warsaw Pact is back in business.

How?

Russia is absolutely using the Georgian internal conflict to annex it. They really fanned the flames in South Ossetia especially.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just what's happening, they're taking shit over. The neighboring countries are in need of stability anyway, so it's basically just a little unpleasantness and then things'll be much smoother over there than they have been since the late 80s.

Chechnya isn't a rival country, it's part of Russia. I seriously doubt Russia will attack Ukraine or Poland, that's just bluster designed at resecuring influence.

Meh, it's tentative. I see Russia totally dominating Chechnya, establish a much more obvious control. I mean, Chechnya has been pretty autonomous for a while, even with Russia at the de facto helm.

The Russian Army is actually going through a modernization plan, and it's already though as the second most powerful military after that of the US. I agree Russia won't attack Poland though.

They can muscle around their neighbors, sure, but their military isn't anywhere near as tough as it used to be. Not even close. I know they're bringing it back up to speed, but that's kind of my point. They're not going to be taking the bull by the horns before hitting the gym a little.

Russia has been fighting Chechnya for along time. Chechnya is a breakaway provence of Russia, like South Ossetia is to Georgia (I agree with people on how hypocritical Russia is being).

Hypocritical? They don't give a shit about the rights of the South Ossetians or the Abkhazians. They've been using the situation to expand. It would only be hypocritical if they gave half a shit about the situation any further than the fact that it provides them with the perfect pretext.

Russia isn't "annexing" anything. The Pro-West Georgian president is still in power, and this has actually increased it's chances of joining NATO.

Then why are they strengthening their position in Georgia? They're not withdrawing from any positions of strength and the places they are giving up aren't of any strategic value. It's a political move. They've been moving fucking ballistic launchers up closer to the front. You don't do that unless you're digging in.

Russia's not done with Georgia, I can't understand why you would think so. NOBODY is buying the cease fire, that's far from the point. Putin doesn't expect anyone to buy it and, yet, you seem to be. That says something.

I agree for the opposite reasons. With competetion, the US won't go around messing in other countries business and do stupid crap like attack Iraq for fear of pissing off Russia.

Oh yeah, because the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cuban Missile Crisis are any indication of that. The whole Cold War was entirely fought by messing with other countries business.

At 8/21/08 06:31 PM, animehater wrote: I think that in order for this to not turn into another Cold War both Putin and Medvedev need to be taken out.

You wouldn't need to take out Medvedev. He just does as he's told.

As far as Russian's latest developments, it's not surprising. They're talking a big game for their citizen's benefit. They love what's going on.

Culturally speaking, the Russians have always held a lot of national pride and, ever since the fall of Communism, they feel like they're not taken seriously. With Putin at the reins, they're finally getting some perceived respect out of the world, through the might of a strong leader, no less. Putin can do no wrong in their eyes as long as he keeps up the bluster.

As for Georgia, the cease fire and moving the armor column back and all that bullshit? It's a really smart move. Nobody's buying it, but that's not the point. He's able to say that they're cooperating to some degree and, obviously, it's been enough to placate the rest of the world enough to where no real military action is being taken. If Russia just went in and steamrolled Georgia, UN or NATO peacekeepers would be deployed in no time. Americans would actually be in favor of us getting involved. As it stands, Russia's winning the political war and it's making their lives a lot easier.

Now, I had said a while back that Georgia was targeted because of their tentative position regarding NATO. They were in talks about joining and, while the jury's out on whether or not they would have been admitted, Russia's sending a message: the Warsaw Pact is back in business.

The next target's most likely one of three neighboring countries: the Ukraine, Poland, or Chechnya. The Ukraine is also in talks with NATO and, for my money, that makes them a pretty blatant next move and Russia's been keeping their cards face up, so I don't think they're going to be throwing in any surprises.

However, this missile shield deal affords Russia a chance to send another message: don't have military dealings with the US. Of course, I'm a little skeptical. The way Russia's been playing this, they've been careful not to push the international community's leniency too far. The US just signed a military agreement with Poland and putting troops down is going to give the US full justification to send troops to hound Russia and the Russian army is barely even a shadow of the Red Army. It's a fight they know they would lose, politically and militarily. They're not stupid enough to throw the dice on whether or not we'd get involved, it's too much risk for a meager gain.

Now, Chechnya. Chechnya is the fattened cow waiting to be slaughtered. Russia could completely dominate them without hardly even putting up a pretext. Chechnya's on bad terms with the US, they've had civil war (in which Russia's been involved already), the country is fractured to the point that the citizens would welcome anyone who could give them stability and, let's face it, nobody gives a shit about them.

It's an easy target, but there's really no message being sent. It's just expansionism for its own sake, which Russia's interested in, but they can take Chechnya any time they want. Georgia and the Ukraine are on a timetable because Russia's not going to wait and find out whether or not they're admitted to NATO. That would make things rough. So they're going to annex them before they have the opportunity and then set their eyes on all the surrounding Bumfuckistans and Azbhekiwhatevers and nobody's going to do shit.

My thoughts on all of this? While it's going to make the world a much more tense place, I welcome it. Being American, I know that Americans are at their best when they have competition. If there's nothing to push us, we get soft and apathetic. It's been happening for decades. We don't have any motivation to dominate because there's no other superpowers to dominate. I think adding some tension and competitiveness to the international stage is going to break this bullshit apathetic attitude towards everything that's been taking root in the US and I am totally welcoming that.

At 8/21/08 03:00 PM, morefngdbs wrote: No I'm not trying to say that ,nor am I implying anything like that Gunter.
I'm saying that NONE of US ever smoked dope, we all just "know" someone who does & even those who we are close to, who you think were smoking pot, were only pretending to inhale.

After all smoking pot is illegal & no one who comes here would do such a thing.
I'm sure of that.

its so nice to have a place to come to, where everyone is always honest & truthful.

Fair enough. I was just kidding around anyway. It would be a crime for me to witness people smoking marijuana and not report it. I would be an accomplice at that point. That's illegal.

At 8/20/08 10:18 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I've always been under the impression that if it's a non emergency procedure, shouldn't a business have the right to refuse service (face it people, fertility clinics are a business just like any other hospital or medical group) to anyone.

A business, not an employee.

Couldn't we simply have a way to mediate the problem. The said doctor that doesn't want to perform the procedure can refer the patient to someone that will.

His morals are secure, patient gets what there paying for.

Problem solved.

Except if he doesn't think the procedure should be done at ALL. Helping you "sin" is just as bad as being the one to do it themselves.

At 8/21/08 01:50 PM, trogdor136 wrote: You shouldnt make fun of shaggy because he clearly has some chromosome deficiency or some other malformation that makes him impervious to logic.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly why we should make fun of him.

At 8/21/08 12:53 PM, Al6200 wrote: I think more what he's asking is:

"Is a person evil if they're so crazy that they actually think they're helping people by killing them?"

Right and there's no end to justify that kind of evil.

And the answer is that it depends on the circumstances. If I literally didn't know that I was killing anyone, then I wouldn't be evil. But if I, like Hitler, thought it was okay to kill millions of people so that I could live through my nationalist fantasy land, then I would be evil.

Which is why Hitler is unequivocally evil.

At 8/21/08 12:24 PM, reviewer-general wrote: I like the idea of a final warning, a trial period, and if he can't improve, a ban.

Does anybody seriously this will do anything at all?

Has that worked for anybody who's not a 5 year old? Actually, does that even work on 5 year olds?

Possibly one of the most egregious breaches in the way the education system ought to be run I have ever heard. This is just fucking horrible.

Unless somebody's going to play Devil's advocate, I can't see anyone doing anything less than lambasting the whole goddamn city. Still, though, it's something people should see just to realize that, not only are there people like this, but they're shaping the way impressionable children think.

Fuck, the whole situation disgusts me on a fundamental level.

Unequivocally evil.

Under no circumstances do his means justify any end.

I'm sick of all of these topics on video games and violence. I think all of you stupid shits want to sound like you're involved in political issues so you want to make a topic, but you have nothing to talk about other than insipid video game shit that's not even being seriously discussed in any legislative sense.

It seems like there's always going to be talk about net neutrality and video game violence because that's all you fucking dorks care about: the internet and video games.

I actually made a good post about video game violence and the mentality behind it, and some dumbass posted some inane comment agreeing with me and saying "yeah, lol, video games don't cause violence, you're right." I hate that MUCH more than someone disagreeing me on my points because at least they're actually responding to what I'm saying and not masturbating over how everyone agrees with their point that video games aren't evil.

You're not going to get any discussion on this topic other than mindless thralls agreeing with you over and over. The problem is that all of you dumbasses know it, you just want to whack off to people agreeing with you over issues that don't fucking matter. Yes, it's important that the net stays free and it's important that people realize that video games don't cause murders, but nobody's disputing that. Anywhere. Talking about assholes like Jack Thompson like they're actually influencing ANYTHING is retarded. NOBODY takes him seriously. There are judges who recommend him being disbarred.

Posting threads about how he's stupid is like posting threads about how masturbation feels good. We all fucking know, we don't need you to talk about it, fuckheads.

I don't read anything he writes, anyway. Honestly, the only reason he's still around is because people actually reply to his nonsense. You wouldn't have to ban him if people didn't get such hard-ons for frothing at the mouth at his bullshit.

At 8/21/08 07:52 AM, penis-plant wrote: If you are going to saport someone, at least have the intelect to saport someone that even has a chance.

And you're the reason why they don't have a chance. You fucking douchebag.

People are so caught up and obsessed with who's going to win. Why can't you vote for who you want to win? Having worked on campaigns and things of that nature, it's become readily apparent that rule #1 is making everyone believe that your candidate or initiative is going to win.

America has such a popularist mentality, it makes me sick. People like to talk about how everyone's just a sheep, but it's sentiments like yours that prove it.

At 8/21/08 10:23 AM, poxpower wrote: Why would he make a baby robot?
That would be gay.

Excuse me, but a baby robot with laser vision would be pretty sweet. I don't think I'll get any argument from anyone on that.

At 8/15/08 12:33 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: God wrote it in fine print: "Do not fight over this piece of dirt, if you do, you're 'tards." But no one EVER reads the fine print.

Actually, when the Jews were getting it in the first place, God told them to kill everything. As in, like, everything. Animals, women, children, they were told to slaughter everything and there's even an account where God punished them for not killing literally everyone and every animal in this one place.

So, not only did God tell the Jews to fight for it, but to kill everyone on it first.

Good rant, Proteas and, while I think it expresses a much needed sentiment, it's going to go by the wayside, just like always. Course, I know you're just getting it off your chest, so six of one, right?

On topic, my problem with the whole situation isn't the fire marshal taking her down a peg. She overreacted and I've said it a few times, I'm pretty sure. She had no right to act that way, that's a granted.

The problem is that it should never have come to that. He told her to watch her mouth and, even though her apology was, almost definitely, insincere, she still apologized. She didn't cause a scene, she just walked away. The fire marshal crossed the line when he told her to come back and listen to what he had to say. He's not the morality police. Obviously no scene had been caused, the situation would have defused itself in no time. But by telling her to come back there and then threatening her with handcuffs when she, somehow, had something better to do than to be lectured on how she has a foul mouth and is an immoral person for it, he threw a match on a powder keg.

My issue is that she overreacted, of course, but the fire marshal overreacted first and, not only did his behavior CAUSE the whole incident, but he's the one who's supposed to keep his cool in situations like that. It is his job to make sure people DON'T flip out, not to instigate it. Going for his handcuffs when she refused was the wrong way to handle it. When she started to get irrational (and, even though she shouldn't have, there is some slight justification for it, after all, she wasn't looking for a fight, she tried to walk away to begin with), his first reaction should have been to defuse the behavior and there is no indication that he even tried.

Law enforcement is trained to calm people down so they come peaceably FIRST and then use force. He rattled his saber to bolster his ego and it sent her into a fit and then he cuffed her and dragged her outside.

That's not the way to take care of things. Oh, and by the way, of course his superior is backing him up, that's obvious. He's not going to say that, even though the marshal can point to the letter of the law and get away with what he did, his actions were still deplorable. You only reprimand a subordinate for some bullshit like that when you know he's going to be found guilty.

At 8/20/08 05:14 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote: Involuntary manslaughter out of self-defense. Does that catch any legal ramifications?

It would be voluntary manslaughter anyway, if we're assuming the accused willfully killed his executioner.

At any rate, self-defense is an extenuating circumstance that clears the manslaughter charge. You have the right to exercise lethal force if you feel your life or someone else's life is directly threatened by someone's actions. If you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was necessary and proper to use lethal force in defense of your person, then you're cleared of the manslaughter charge.

People don't get thrown in jail if they can prove they were only defending themselves, that's ridiculous.

At 8/20/08 06:18 PM, LadyGrace wrote: Christian doctors aren't going to be administering abortions because general doctors DON'T perform abortions.

Which is why abortion isn't the issue. That's been shoehorned in. There are special clinics for abortions (unless of course it's an emergency abortion in which the life of the mother is at stake) and no doctor that had a problem with abortions would work there.

Now, if a doctor refused to perform an abortion that would save a mother's life due to beliefs, that would be pretty damn relevant. I wonder if that's ever happened.

The fact is, have you known any doctor of any religion who's unwilling to administer treatment in order to save a patients life because of religious belief? Every doctor I've known (which has been a surprising number) has never let personal beliefs interfere with patient care. It would be a violation of their Hippocratic oath.

To save a patient's life, I don't know of any. However, it's not necessarily just about saving lives. I can't imagine a doctor putting his beliefs above a life. That, also, isn't the entirety of the issue.

A doctor in a general hospital is signing on to perform the procedures that the hospital tells him to. If there is any procedure that he is told to make or that he should make due to his beliefs, then there's a serious problem. I think that's something everyone should agree with. You don't sign on for a job without knowing what they're going to ask you to do and you don't bitch when they ask you to do something that you know is part of their policies and procedures. Working men and women have obligations and if they have a problem with the way a business conducts itself, then they shouldn't work there.

Pretty plain and simple.

At 8/20/08 05:24 PM, adrshepard wrote: What could any education attempt to convey besides these facts?

Not even the point. It's not a matter of education from an outside source. It's being eased into a situation. People binge drink on their 21st birthday because it's like a dam bursting. All this time away from their parents without being able to legally drink and, when they finally can get legal booze, what's stopping them from drinking a LOT of legal booze?

Nobody's claiming that telling people about alcohol and its effects is going to do shit, it simply doesn't work for anything. What we're talking about is having a controlled atmosphere in which they can begin drinking if they want to. Removing the taboo associated with alcohol by letting kids go drive to the store and grab their old man a six pack like it's no big deal would have a much more lasting effect than simply saying "IT'S BAD FOR YOU."

The message is simple: alcohol isn't bad for you if you know your limits. The healthy way to explore your limits is with people who will help you find your limit instead of telling you to stop being a pussy and do another shot.

At 8/20/08 03:53 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Too many variables are possible in moral dilemas. What's worth more: One life or two lives?

Ona bare level, one life is equal to one-million. It's equally wrong to kill 100 people as it to kill just one.

Bullshit. Not according to the law, not according to common sense, and certainly not according to any sort of decency.

If you murder two people in cold blood, that's worse than murdering one person.

The problem is, we can make these people anything we want, such as children, rapists, peacekeepers, murderers. And they can each have their contributions to society and what-not. It gets really complicated when you get specific.

And now you've defeated your argument further. Different people have different worth. A person who's spent his whole life raping babies is not worth nearly as much as an average person.

At 8/20/08 12:58 PM, therealsylvos wrote: That may be be true however I think merely aiming a gun would prevent an executioner from flipping the switch.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION! WE WILL NOT TOLERATE DISSIDENCE! SIEG HEIL!

At 8/20/08 12:51 PM, therealsylvos wrote: But they can be set to nonlethal part of the body.

Oh please. This isn't an action movie. Nearly anybody in that situation is going to aim the gun towards the center of the body. It's just how our hand-eye coordination works. He'd turn the gun towards the guy and pop off a few rounds to stop him. You can't fault somebody in that situation for not aiming carefully at nonlethal spots and, besides, even if you do aim carefully, it's not like everyone's an expert marksman.

As a side question: Are you also disappointed that police don't shoot guns out of criminals hands? If I'm the first one to inform you that they don't, then I'm sorry for shattering the illusion.

Here's a hard-hitting one now that we've settled:

If you were a hot dog, and you were starving, would you eat yourself?

At 8/20/08 12:28 PM, Jackrabbit-slims wrote: Did you misread my post? because it seems like we agree on the same thing, or where you replying to shepherd?

S'why I said I was taking the point further and included the guy's text that you were responding to.

I was saying that I was jumping on your point and expounding. There's no disagreement.

At 8/20/08 12:21 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 8/20/08 12:11 PM, therealsylvos wrote: However the executioner is not a murderer, and thus not worthy of death.
The person has a right to defend himself, but he could prevent execution without killing the executioner, thus by going overboard and killing the excutioner he is guilty of manslaughter.

Would you have let yourself die?
I wouldn't. It's too bad, but better him than me. A mistake was made and the true victim ended up being the executioner.
I didn't make the mistake, why would I then have to pay for it?
The state should offer any compensation to the executioner's family and whatnot.

Now, for sure, like pox says, it sucks for the executioner, but in a situation of "it's him or me" there is no law on the books that says you can't make the call to save your own life.

It's just like any self-defense argument. You have to actually prove that you had to use lethal force in order to save your own skin. It's slightly gray, only in that the government told the executioner to kill you. When put like that, it's clear that you should have the right, even to save yourself from government orders.

A further point, just to cover this again, the reason why a guilty man wouldn't be able to make the same argument is because it IS a crime to interfere with legal government proceedings. By being proven innocent, the execution is no longer legal and the point is moot.