RE: Pope Opens Mouth; Inserts Foot
January 18, 2015 at 5:50 am
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2015 at 5:57 am by fr0d0.)
(January 17, 2015 at 11:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: you've cited one example of improper behaviour but conveniently haven't supplied any information useful to checking it.
Which one? I made a broad reference.
(January 18, 2015 at 3:18 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:(January 17, 2015 at 6:16 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No one is ever forced to retaliate. However, laws are set out differently to our high morals. There is such a thing as mitigating circumstances where you you can be judged less severely if you are provoked. Do you disagree with this law? How much? Would you like to see it abolished?
If the provocation is is in the form of words that do not constitute a direct or implied threat of danger or harm to others, then there are simply no mitigating factors to consider here. Under any other circumstances, physical violence is disproportionate retribution.
Charlie Hebdo did not provoke a violent response.
#1 The law (therefore your peers) disagrees with you.
#2 That is factually incorrect
(January 18, 2015 at 5:39 am)robvalue Wrote: This is all sounding very much like, "A violent response was not justified, BUT..."
Please stop trying to put a "but" in.
"Sounds like" but never ever said and actually explicitly denied. Please stop reading what you want to read.
