In article <475b5800$0$15346$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
FDR <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Thanatos wrote:
> > In article <475ab969$0$2338$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > FDR <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanatos wrote:
> >>> In article <475a9851$0$8676$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >>> FDR <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Thanatos wrote:
> >>>>> In article <4759efd2$0$9543$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >>>>> FDR <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ubiquitous wrote:
> >>>>>>> NewsBusters' Justin McCarthy is rightly appalled at the
> >>>>>>> ladies' blasé attitude toward the Sudanese threat to beat
> >>>>>>> or execute an innocent woman.
> >>>>>> What says she was innocent?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Sudanese President Omar al-Ba****r granted her a presidential
> >>>>>> pardon earlier Monday, and she left the country hours later
> >>>>>> under court order.
> >>>>>> Sudanese courts ruled she should be de****ted after completing
> >>>>>> her sentence."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here she would be innocent, there she isn't.
> >
> >>>>> Yeah, and the Jews in Auschwitz were "guilty", too.
> >
> >>>> Hey, all I'm saying is that technically she broke the countries
laws.
> >>>> Now if you're trying to compare one woman's misunderstanding of
local
> >>>> law to mass genocide, go for it. You'll need a long bridge.
> >>> I'm not "comparing" anything at all. I'm merely pointing out
> >>> the logical conclusion to your position.
> >> No, you hyperbolized and exaggerated.
> >
> > No, I didn't. You stated that the woman who was being threatened with
> > execution in the Sudan was "guilty" because what she did is a
violation
> > of Sudanese law (despite the fact that she didn't actually *do*
> > anything-- the kids in her class did). The exact same thing could be
> > said of the interned Jews in Germany-- they were guilty of violating
> > German law, i.e., being Jewish. There's nothing either exaggerated or
> > hyperbolic about that comment.
> >
> > You just don't like the implications of your statements being so
bluntly
> > illustrated. It's a particular character trait of yours I've noticed
> > over the course of many past discussions.
> >
> > Now I'll grant that you stopped just shy of defending the Muslim
> > reaction to this woman's "offense" by merely commenting on the
> > legalities of the situation and saying nothing overtly positive or
> > negative about it but one wonders what the point of making such a
> > comment would be, if not to justify the treatment this woman received.
>
> You took one womans allowance of a bear being name Mohammed and being
> charged with a crime under existing law, and you extrapolated it out to
> massive roundups of Jews.
I did no such thing. If you read it again more slowly, you might be able
to discern the nuance here. I'm not holding out hope, though.
I am, however, somewhat mystified by your attitude that executing
otherwise innocent people for no other reason than bigoted attitudes and
trumped-up violations of "law" is acceptable so long as it's done one
person at a time and not en masse.
|
