This from your response from the other thread, where you banned me [so I cannot respond]
You know, having compassion for the people you will need to punish doesn't mean you don't punish them- an implication that it necessarily interferes is very illogical.. And having compassion for people warped enough to do this doesn't kill any of the victims a second time. If it did- even I wouldn't have compassion for them. The fire marshal FAILED to have compassion- if that marshal had had any, they would have helped to rescue that poor person. Less compassion is not what this horrible world needs. The above analogy was totally illogical.
I guess you need an explanation of the obvious.
but first:
Compassionate to the people who you are about to punish ?
I guess this may have to do with the gravity of the crime and your resolve for punishment.
But I cannot imagine killing the terrorist half way. To me is simpler. You commit an act the magnitude of this morning's attack? I will support a total obliteration of you and those who assist you.
NO COMPASSION.
Now... to my example.
As I watched the Dutch fire marshall do absolutely nothing, watching nearly as a lifeless being, how someone burned to death and not responding to the pleas from the fellow driver for his assistance... I felt disgust for that individual.
Likewise, I see those who in the face of this tragedy, ask me that the real test of compassion is to feel it for those who can be my enemies and can kill me.
Hard to understand the example ?
I do not see why.
I simply said that those who ask of me to have "real compassion" for who committed this morning's attack, brought back the memory of that fire marshal.
Nothing illogical in such example.... and I never said that the marshal had or not, compassion.
So, your implications and representations in an attempt to twist the words and the context, particularly when I cannot respond to you, is at best ridiculous.
If you quote me, do so in a form that it is complete. Better yet, don't ban me in the first place.
Pathetic. |
