Another law thread

[Drich]

Drich/Catfish,

I'm curious? Why don't either of you talk about eating pussy? God this, god that. Jesus this, jesus that. Never a story about eating pussy.

When I was younger every time someone's pet went missing we'd get a knock on the door asking if we'd seen mr. Scuffles or huffalump or what ever. I just thought that is what people did when they lost a pet. They'd go door to door asking if anyone had seen their dog or cat. It turns out we'd were the only ones to get that knock because a neighbor said he saw my grand mother "cleaning" a cat for some smelly Korean dish. Now I never asked too many questions growing up, and if anything was too smelly I would not eat it, but I hear cat can taste like teriyaki beef if done correctly. (The Korean version being bul-go-gi) that I have eaten a lot of. Who's to say my hom-mo-nee did not slip us a kitty every now and again.

I know it is not the eating pussy story you wanted to hear, but it does meet the general request.
;p

---

As i answered the first time this was asked a page ago, This principle came up two or three different times in the last two threads I was apart of. Appearently you all do not read each others offerings (as witnessed by this question again) So I thought if three of you were having issue then perhaps i should address this seperatly. (for those of you who were not apart of the orginal discussion)

Christian appearently saw the same pattern and started his own thread a couple days before my own, and not wanting to take anything over I decided to do what I had planned to do to begin with.

I will forgive your arrogance here, as it is clearly based on a failure in reading comprehension, and I am well aware that is not your strong suit. I shall quote myself to give you another chance.

I understand, Drich, that you started this thread to clarify a discussion from another...

So, clearly, I realize that you are trying to elaborate upon what you saw as confusion on this topic. What I want to know, however, is why you feel this topic is important enough to clarify and elaborate upon at all.

---

In law - there is a concept called depraved indifference or depraved ambivalence in which a person who KNOWS that some great crime will be committed - MUST do something to prevent or report it to the authorities.

Depraved indifference is actually when someone is responsible for another's death even though they did not intend to kill, but they acted with such a disregard for human life. An example is selling a fake vaccine and people dying from the disease they thought the vaccine was intended to prevent. I believe what you're referring to is not a crime in most places unless it is part of your job description, such as a police officer.

Why clarify? Because most of you point to you adherence to morality as if we somehow can find righteousness before God, by the things we do or do not do. Like your Padawan thomm. He has based his judgment of God on his moral understanding of the law, as if his law or his understanding of said law (flawed or not) is not the standard in which we are judged. Because if it were we would all be found guilty. What I am trying to do is dispel the OT ideals of works and righteousness, and try to explain what freedom from sin means.