From: bryan@THRWHITE.remove-dii-this   
      
     To: alt.battlestar-galactica   
   Russ wrote:   
      
      
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>not trying to insult you Russ and no strawman here either.   
   >>   
   >>You said you were not shedding any tears over the treatment of P6 by   
   >>victims of the Cylon genocide. that directly implies that you think   
   >>her being raped is OK.   
   >   
   >   
   > No, it doesn't.  But I am reminded of the warning that those who live by   
   > the sword will die by the sword.   
   >   
      
   So the torture is justified in your eyes, fine but how is the rape? Live   
   by the sword die by the sword how does that justify rape were the   
   colonials systematically raped before they were nuked?   
      
   >   
   >>You say that the acts were morally and   
   >>militarily wrong but then you say you are not bothered by it so which   
   >>is it?   
   >>   
   >>your words:   
   >>   
   >>...it's a captured enemy agent that is part and parcel of the cylons'   
   >>genocidal plan.  Regardless of its particular role, it is guilty as a   
   >>co-conspirator...   
   >>I'm accusing it of being an active co-conspirator in the cylons' plan   
   >>to exterminate humanity.  As such, I do not shed a tear over any   
   >>treatment it receives at the hands of the victims of that genocide.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>ANY TREATMENT.  your own words, therefore you are "not shedding a   
   >>tear"   
   >>   
   >>over P6 being raped.   
   >   
   >   
   > Technically, I am not shedding a tear over her torture. It's not at all   
   > clear a cylon can even be raped.  Rape, for the victim, involves psycho-   
   > sexual issues that we don't know apply to cylons.   
   >   
      
   Really? so she's catatonic because???????????????????????   
      
   Sharon pulled a blanket over her head and cried hysterically   
   because??????????????   
      
   What a ridiculous argument.   
      
      
   > Old law school analogy.  A person sneaks into a bedroom intending to   
   > kill the occupant and sees the victim in bed sleeping away.  The person   
   > pumps several bullets into the sleeping figure and leaves.  Was that   
   > murder?   
   >   
   > What if the person had just had a heart attack and was already dead?   
   > Now is it murder?   
   >   
   > Looking at the perpetrator, he intended to commit murder and thought he   
   > committed murder and from his perspective did commit murder.  In every   
   > important sense, he is a murderer.  But from the victims standpoint (and   
   > that of the law), no murder was committed.   
   >   
      
   This is relevant how?   
      
   >   
   >>no strawman just quotes.   
   >   
   >   
   > Let's use an analogy.  Let's say a child is bullied and beaten up at   
   > school every day by an older, bigger child.  Now let's say one day the   
   > smaller child sees the bully and hauls off and hits the bully and knocks   
   > the bully around.   
   >   
   > Was the smaller child wrong?  Technically, yes.  But am I really going   
   > to shed a tear that the bully was beaten up? No.   
   >   
      
   So the little kid rapes the bully after he beats him up that's OK too?   
      
   You really don't see the point here do you?   
      
   > Or let's ratchet the analogy up a notch.  How about a wife who shoots a   
   > sexually and physically abusive husband?  Was she wrong?  Yes. Am I   
   > going to shed a tear over the husband? No.   
      
   not relevant to this situation.   
      
   but even if it was would she still be justified if she sodomized him   
   also? or would she be slipping down to his level?   
      
   >   
   > Russ   
      
   ---   
    * Synchronet * The Whitehouse BBS --- whitehouse.hulds.com --- check it out   
   free usenet!   
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.92   
   Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)