And I agreed with that. You may have missed that I am defending the poster who was disagreeing with me in the referenced thread. BUT
is a total misrepresentation of what Opus1 said.
Um. . . Ok. I’ll see if I can find some time for it later in the week.
You did agree with that, then immediately violated that notion with your unwarranted attack on Fenris.
Again, read his post. No “misrepresentation” is there. If you disagree with his restatement of the overall position, explain why. Childish namecalling does not advance your position much. In fact your strident behavior in this thread, and in the linked thread is doing your argument no favors. Also, your use of profanity in a Great Debates thread is a really bad idea.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but FWIW both sides have valid points.
Fenris is attacking Opus1 implying the only acceptable thing to do is agree with the law. Opus and I disagree with the law. I did not know that was not a valid option. The fact that I am expressing disagreement with a law does not mean I am inciting anyone to break the law. Fenris is totally misrepresenting what Opus1 said. I think any reasonable person will agree with me that
is not a fair representation of what opus1 said.
Umm… No, he isn’t. And I’d say his restatement of Opus1 position is accurate, or at least largely similar to the interpretation I took from his OP here. And I think I’m a reasonable person. Reasonable enough that I actually agree with your position in the original thread, at any rate.
Well, I guess I am misunderstanding something. Opus said
and Fenris interprets that as
Sorry but I don’t get it. Maybe someone can explain it?
If Opus1 said “For X no punishment is too Draconian as long as it’s technically the law.” how does it follow that Opus1 is saying that “X advocates following the laws as written rather than ignoring laws he doesn’t like”?
Opus is saying X likes tough laws. It does not follow you either like the tough laws as they are or you are advocating breaking the law.
Look, it doesn’t matter. I would advocate breaking laws which are inhuman and contrary to human rights or basic human dignity.
And we all agree this thread was unneeded. I’d much rather continue in the original thread which, by the way, I seem to have killed. It would be much more interesting to continue in GD.
On the other hand, Opus1 has construed RobertB’s “law and order” sensibility to imply support for a giant, magical, mulch man to rampage through a suburban neighborhood, so who’s misrepresenting who in this thread?
At any rate, I think it would be a mistake to interpret contempt for Opus1 starting this thread with contempt for the positions he espouses.
My only issue is with Fenris taking what opus1 said "For him, no punishment is too Draconian as long as it’s technically the law"and turning it into “Soooo…what you’re saying is that you’re upset that he advocates following the laws as written rather than ignoring laws he doesn’t like?” which is a non-sequitur. Whether Opus1 steals ice-cream from helpless kids is irrelevant to the issue.
Since we all agree there is no cause for pitting anyone here, can we just let this go and return to the original thread if anyone feels like continuing that discussion?