OK, my testosterone laden friends. What the FDR is saying is that if it's
OK to shoot the (life threatening) guy preventing repairs being done, it
follows that it's OK to shoot the (life threatening) guy who kills him.
And without a doubt the logic holds as far as it goes. And I'm sure you
could all be convinced to duke it out in defense of your positions.

This is as silly as arguing whether "turquoise" is blue or green.

Tina


"FDR" wrote in message
news

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:50:44 GMT, FDR
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

My, but you're a tiresome fellow to deal with. A criminal who is
causing civil disorder _during_ a natural disaster adds to the
problems.
Killing said criminal, _improves_ the situation. Yes, the flood is
bad.
A flood with anarchy is worse. This isn't really a complicated
concept.

Hey, why don't you kill them all?

If they're making the situation worse, I'm for that. The guy who shot
at the rescue helecopters? I hope to hell that the people he caused not
to be rescued killed him. He delayed rescue and relief operations by
more than a day by his actions; caused untold deaths and human
suffering, because he thought he should shoot at a rescue helecopter.

I couldn't agree more. Shooting at the rescue unit was sickening to hear,
and I jsut don't get it. So I would have no problem with the thug
shooters
being killed..


Specific question time again: In the example of the person who shot at
the rescue helecopter, do you support that person being killed for that
action? If not, please justify how this human life is worth more than
the human lives that his actions directly ended. Show your work.