reply to post by Corruption Exposed
Dear Corruption Exposed,
It is entirely possible that I missed the second part of your point. So, for the purposes of our discussion we have a 9 year-old throwing rocks at
armed (Military? Police?, Border guards? Whatever.) My comment, which you quoted, was that that would "explain why the soldiers would even bother
with the kid." I don't think that it is unreasonable to assume that the kid was either throwing rocks at people or at property which could have
been dameaged by the stones he was throwing.
It seems, also reasonably, that the soldiers would want him to stop immediately and not do it again. I wondered, in a different post, what action was
appropriate. Certainly it would be insufficient to call out and say "Stop throwing stones at me." Without some implied threat, why would the kid
stop? (Especially as it looks quite possible that the cameraman instructed the kid to aggravate the soldiers.)
So if the soldiers had to do something more than talk to him, was there action entirely out of line? You say it was, I'm not so clear on it. What
action would have served?
(The example of the drunk lady is so different that it does not serve well as an analogy. It would be a better one if the woman was not drunk, was
throwing bottles, and the bar was known as one where people got killed.)
As an aside, how does that prove my moral standards? I think this event was more in the line of prudential judgment than moral judgment.
Again, you think it was outrageous, I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem like it was. Maybe we just can't agree. But I'm open.
P.s. It's not relevant, but I may be a little incoherent from sleep shortage. I'm finishing up a two day meeting with an organization that
sometimes shows up in the Secret Society forum. (No, not the Masons.) I represent a geographical territory with about 70,000 people, and we were
meeting with the next higher level. In about three years I hope to go to an international meeting. In case you're wondering, every word of that is
true. - C