>Learn to read, Bill, I didn't say he did these awful things because he's different. I said he's different because he did these awful things. I am perfectly aware that it's not that hard to get people who might have been decent to do terrible things, that they do not do these things because they are a different or lesser order of being. But having done them, which you or I might have done, but didn't do, he's different and worse, indeed, worthless, because he did them. It was the doing of them that makes him worse and worthy of disgrace and punishment, and eligible for death.
I apologise for misunderstanding you, but i'm confused. Since, as you say, you or I might have done those things too, in what way is he different? Is he not still a human being?
>Solidarity is not in order with the likes of him, and I am truly astounded that you can call for it ina case like thsi. I can understand an appeal for pity, or mercy, or forgiveness. But solidarity implies to me a commonality of interest that is just not there.
As I say, I think he will be found to have human DNA. As a fellow human being, there is still a minimum commonality of interest. merely because he himself does not recognise that common interest is not enough for me to reject it.
> And don't go quoting The Merchant of Venice. Henry the K is no Shylock, insisting on justice, an outcast member of dispsied minority.
Didn't Shylock want to rip out someone's heart though? Merely as a late payment fee?
> He is and aws one of the insiders, powerful, mighty, who did what he did from thirst for power and lust for domination. Justice, however warped, had no place in his calculations. still doesn't.
I'm sure he would argue his case somewhat differently though. But in the end, that doesn't matter, I'm not arguing his innocence, I'm simply saying that by defending his right to life we can defend the right to life of everyone. The most ignominious the person whose life we defend, the greater the claim of everyone else to the same right.
On the other hand you press for his philosophy standards to be adopted.
>Yeah, you've already told me that you think I am a santimonious twerp, an apologist for slavery, and lacking in rudimentary civilization, and you'd rather defend yourself than get anywhere near the likes of me. I like you too, Bill.
A twerp? I don't remember calling you that! ;-) Anyway, you must know that I wouldn't insult you if I wasn't disappointed in you. So that might very well mean I have a rather high opinion of you. I'd never admit it of course, so if that's what you're angling for, you can forget it. Australian blokes don't exchange compliments, they exchange insults. The bigger the insult, the greater the implied compliment. Ask anyone. Mind you, I don't consider that I've really insulted you anywhere near what you claim, so don't kid yourself.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas