--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote: > > From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com [mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com] > On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000 > Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 1:13 PM > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times > > > What am I missing here? Let's assume the story is true. (i think someone > posted something to say it wasn't, but let's say it's true) You've go 99% of > the people in the world applauding this women, who doesn't want someone to > her steal her hard earned money, and is willing to risk her life to that > end, and then you've got an unlikely alliance of Barry, Judy, and Rick > twisting this around to make Dixon appear as though he is advocating > arbitrary "culling" of those he deems undesireable. > His words: "I have no problem *culling* society of those that live on the > edge, endangering the rest of us for their lack of intelligence or > compassion." Such a compassionate statement, huh? > Yes, this guy IS undesireable, and the risk he takes when he violates > someone else's rights is that he can also lose his own life, or get harmed. > And aren't we all better for it? Hell yea, we are. > The implication of the fictitious story is that execution is an appropriate > sentence for purse snatching, and that all citizens should be authorized to > play judge, jury, and executioner on the spot. It might be argued that she > would have been justified in firing one shot to disable the guy, but her > intent in firing six or more was obviously to kill him. And then "Bill > Hicks" took it to the next logical step by saying that we should be able to > shoot people who take two parking places. The story has no inherent worth. > It merely panders to the murderous tendencies in those who find it > inspiring. And I doubt that shooting a purse snatcher or two would stop many > purse snatchers. It would probably just incline the more hardened criminals > to shoot first and then take the purse. > I find it ironic that probably many of those who get their ya-ya's from this > story consider themselves Christians, yet the mentality the story portrays > is the polar opposite of what Christ taught. But such hypocrisy is par for > the course with fundamentalist Christians, and with the right wing in > general. >
This kind of ugliness, in my view, is just one example of how the lack of any expressed moral base for TMers can manifest itself [even in long term practitioners]. To me it shows how the concept that TM somehow automatically makes us more moral without any expressed moral base is total crap.
