> What would you do if a maniac was about to machine gun your
> whole family and you had a gun pointing at him? Would this be a case of
> killing someone to save lives.
hmmm. This is the point where Jesus' justice breaks down. You are
right, Tony, I would kill him (given certainity that he would kill
others). I think I see now why Jesus *needed* the Kingdom of Heaven.
Death is the ultimate leveler. Only by preaching an afterlife can we
hope to make people rise *above* the level that killers are on. We need
karma in order to avoid "justice". huh
> One only has to broaden the example and think of the whole world
> as ones family to see the logic in my position in this thread.
I'm not too sure the analogy hold between "killer with machine gun" and
"Tobacco co spokesperson"... seems a bit harsh!
> I think some of you out there are placing too much importance on
> "the directness of the murder" Thats why you defend the tabacco virus
> perpetrators and critisise the idea of murdering one of them.
> I wonder, do you defend my right to continue spreading the "if
> you've got cancer from tabacco kill a tabacco virus perpetrator" meme.
> And if a chain of murders resulted I trust I would still be defended for
> the same "indirectness" reason.
Yes, I defend your *freedom* to say and do *anything* you want, as long
as you accept the *responsibility* for the effects of said words and
actions. We must never forget that freedom includes both freedom to do
good *and* freedom to do evil. If you are truly doing good, Tony, you
have nothing to fear from responsibility. Only the evil do not want to
take the rap for their actions.
And so, Tony, if someone kills a Tabacco spokesperson, and the court
finds *you* guilty of "brain washing" (surly there is some "crime" on
the books. What are cult leaders guilty of?) then... accept the
responsibility; the punishment.
This is all I ask.
ERiC