I already explained that I (and a few others) were under the impression -- by the poorly-written article we found out -- that the story went like this:
Guy learns sons were hit & killed by a drunk driver. He exacts mortal vengeance through murder. Jury finds him not guilty.
We now know that wasn't exactly correct --
HOWEVER the discussion between a few of us was under that hypothetical idea, so it became a discussion of Principles rather than Facts of a Case.
So everyone laid out their Principles on the table - and I found it shocking that Liberty Loving DailyPaulers were supporting the notion of Vengeance.
That's it: A Principled discussion about Vengeance.
I say it has no place in a Liberty-Focused society, while someone who names himself CHRISTIAN said that he "probably will go insane" if anyone ever harms his family. In effect, someone who calls himself "christian" is THREATENING to MURDER anyone who harms his family.
My response was that Principle has no place in Christianity & it has no place in Ron Paul's vision.
How can you disagree with that?
The true facts of the case are irrelevant now that this discussion is about the Principles we Value.
Care to weigh in ?
"If you always lean on your master, you will never be able to proceed without him." - Jefferson to his daughter Martha. March 1787
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: