dheddle
Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
| Quote (JAM @ Oct. 04 2008,23:39) | | Quote (dheddle @ Oct. 03 2008,17:19) | | Yes, unless there were mitigating circumstances. If her ex brother-in-law did indeed taser her nephew and did indeed make death threats against her father, then I'd give her a pass on that one. In that case, I'd do the same. |
Interesting evasion of the ethical point.
I don't see what her brother-in-law is accused of doing has to do with it.
Do you always have such contempt for due process, Dave?
It seems to me that even if he was a child molester, a governor has no business pushing others to fire a state trooper. |
You are confusing the question--which was what I would think about it. Of course if she broke the law she will have to face the consequences. But if (and I don't know this for a fact) it turns out the brother-in-law is indeed a scumbag who tasered the nephew and made death threats, then I wouldn't hold it against her.
In the same way, if someone threatened Obama's family and then Obama beat the crap out of the bastard, I'd say: "nicely done."
--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris
|
