In message , Baldoni
writes
>Mike_B explained :
>> In message , Baldoni
>> writes
>>>Mike_Bafter his three day drunk wrote :
>>>> In message , Baldoni
>>>> writes
>>>>>Mike_B laid this down on his screen :
>>>>>> In message , Baldoni
>>>>>> writes
>>>>>>>Cynic wrote on 20/03/2008 :
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:12:25 GMT, Baldoni wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe pigs piss champagne.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would gladly pump a few slugs into Glitters head !
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that because you believe that murder is *so* much less
>>>>>>>> reprehensible than his crimes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't get into the technicalities of these things. But I would
>>>>>>>have no problem shooting Glitter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then as you clearly believe that wrong-doing should entail the
>>>>>>ultimate punishment, you would presumably also agree that you
>>>>>>should be killed once you have carried out this act?
>>>>>
>>>>>If I was apprehended by the police and they shot me then I would
>>>>>find it acceptable and part of the territory. However I do not
>>>>>in the State using the death penalty as a means of punishment.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would the police apprehend and shoot you other than as punishment?
>>>> You think it would right for you to be killed for your crime, but
>>>>only if an individual did it, not the state?
>>>
>>>Glitter has crossed the line and done the unaceptable. He would not
>>>be missed. I imagine he would find it impossible to stay undetected
>>>in this country for long.
>>>
>>
>> So sleeping with underage people crosses the line and is
>>unacceptable, but murder is fine? I'm just trying to get a handle on
>>your value system.
>
>All I am saying is that it would not be a bad thing to shoot a nonce
>like Glitter.
>
>I am not advocating going around and shooting any Tom, Dick or Harry.
>
OK. One last question... if it wouldn't be a bad thing to shoot him,
then why would you object to the state doing it rather than you doing
it?
--
Mike_B |