Rafael wrote:
I can see where Elmo is coming from. Ultimately, the threat of death is the one tool we have to remove threats from within our society to our way of Rule of Law. If you disagree, ask yourself if there is no violation of our Constitution you would call for the death of legislators for.
I don't see why the threat of death would be the only viable tool for that.
Quote:
Elmo finds we have surpassed that point. Apparently others haven't. To say Elmo is a lunatic or otherwise simply because you have different thresholds than him is simply to say you think your opinion is more valid than his.
All lunatics, especially murderous ones, have different thresholds from normal people. That's part of what makes them lunatics. His thresholds are
not reasonable; they define any departure from
his personal vision of what's acceptable as meriting death. That's what makes them unreasonable; mere policy disagreement somehow merits death. So yes, the less bloodthirsty opinions
are superior because they don't call for a society that would
de facto have no government or public officials of any kind because anyone taking the job would constantly fear summary execution!
Quote:
There is not some arbitrary and absolute reference whereby we may say threats of death to our legislators becomes sane rather than insane. There is a point we must decide as a society (speaking in generalities, not specific to the process of Our Constitution), but Elmo is part of that society, and equal one just as you and I are.
No, there is no
arbitrary point. There are, however, plenty of reasonable places and society has not chosen to draw those lines anywhere near where Elmo does. His equality as a member of society does not make his positions just as meritorious or reasonable as anyone else's. Fred Phelps, Charles Manson and the Unibomber are all members of our society too.