Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scastle
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
I suggest you re-read post #30 and look at Chimaera's comments in the context of a reply to Tiger Sefi's remark.
|
I did. Where did she say, or imply, all of them would? |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chimaera
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tiger Sefi
Human rights group find this "idea" is degrading to the criminals.
|
Of course they do - wait until they (or their family members) get burgled/mugged/happy slapped or whatever and I'm sure their opinions would differ slightly! |
"I am sure their opinions would differ slightly". Not "some of", not "a few", just a generalisation referring to the human rights groups that Tiger Sefi mentions.
Quote:
|
Based up experience, I would say SOME of them would change their tune.
|
I'm sure "some" might. But that doesn't mean generalising about them *all* is justififed.
Quote:
|
In my experience, no one knows exactly how they would react in any given situation when subjected with violence unless it has happened to them. It's likely that not all members of human rights groups have experience violence against themselves or a family member, so they do not know for sure how they would react.
|
I don't doubt that. I don't deny that. The test of a person's principles is what they do when they *are* tested. But implying through generalisation that they all would is a mistake.
Quote:
Quote:
|
You have assumed I was including her in that group, but I didn't say that, nor is it implied in context.
|
Why attack her then?
|
<Sigh> Once again I do not, have not and *WILL NOT* "attack" a *PERSON* in a thread!!!
The "attack" was directed to the *point* not the *person*.