Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
Mavie, the gist, that is the central theme, of my earlier post (and all other posts in this thread, for that matter) was:
Could you kindly highlight for me the part of your response where you acknowledge, address and rebut or agree with this position?
|
easy, these acts are not subject to being merely "definitial", there isn't a situation of if the offenses are or are not truly crimes, as pointed out it's really easy to see that these folks (as wellas the rest of the convicted criminals in the stats supplied) are just plain criminals who have acted violently to other citizens, or are guilty of stealing from other citizens or endangered other citizens by way of their actions.
these are not people whio have evaded taxes, or resisted the draft, or other civil disobedience offenses that could in any way be categorized as based on moral principles.
iow these are just plain thugs who want to disregard and shoot the finger at the moral covenant that exists between civilized people.
Quote:
|
Perhaps rather than calling me a heretic, you or chum might try to make a rational, cogent argument against the natural law perspective that holding a gun to someone's head and taking their shit is wrong.
|
no need to, your attempting to argue a theoretical approach to a simple issue of individuals who act in opposition to civilized norms. they didn't hold a gun and take shit, as I pointed out for many of their offenses they took actions which placed other citizens in harm's way.