>The post simply said" It's all right by me" It was responded to by mr. K.Who chastised him soundly for it. There was no reply by Ish [that I saw] so I can only assume that he meant what he said.<
The possibilites are much more than you admit here. We might assume Ish merely stated his sense of justice having been served by having a murderer murdered. He may think murdering the abortionist wrong, but on a very basic level think that the abortionist received what he deserved. In other words, it may be very difficult for Ish to drum up outrage over the murder of the murderer because he thinks both the murderer and the one who murdererd him were wrong. He may not have meant that he, Ish, himself wanted to kill the abortionist, but that he is glad the abortionist is dead because it necessarily means the abortion murderer will not murder any more children under a law that contradicts Natural Law. Perhaps on the basis of this sentiment Ish even thinks the man who murdered the abortionist did not in fact murder him, but was firing a shot in the course of a war, a war the cause of which is the false claim against the lives of unborn children made by those who kill them. If someone thinks they are at war, then we may cry all we please that we are not. The upshot of it will yet be that someone is dead.
I am not defending Ish. But we really must get clarification before we assume whole worlds when there might not exist even a town. Even so, here is an area over which many people struggle. When an abortionist is killed they do not experience any remorse whatever because it represents merely the death of a murderer. On the one hand they think very much that we cannot flagrantly break our law, but since the abortion law itself is in conflict with a higher law, when an abortionist dies then it is a good thing.
>Ok, Ok perhaps I exaggerated with the word all but I think you must agree that it does nothing but hurt your cause in the eyes of the majority of Americans. If one truly wants to effect change this will not cut it.<
I think I will agree here. But I might not agree with it in a year. I do not think this a very important point however. You seem to want Ish to declare it wrong to kill an abortionist. Perhaps he simply does not think it wrong, but that he will not personally do it because he yet wants to live peacefully in a society that rejects it. How can we condemn him?
>"It's ok by me" sounds like agreement to me. Does the word OK not carry the concept of agreement to you?<
Depends upon what you mean by the word "OK" <<g>> Perhaps he merely accepts it, but would not do it himself. Much as many people accept the murder of children, but will not do it themselves.
>I must maintain my belief that the silence by the right on this post is deafening.<
Well. It is no longer that silent, pezz. I'm on it.
>BTW my comment in a previous post about your descriptive adjectives was in reference to my rather simplistic description of Clinton,"good" Star "bad" in contrast to your rather colorful way of speaking of the two. See?<
Gotit, and so my response had nothing to do with you. |
