Re: virus: Tabacco mind virus: antivirii

Tony Hindle (
Wed, 30 Jul 1997 03:37:03 +0100

In message <>, Eric Boyd
<> writes
>Tony Hindle wrote:
>> What would you do if a maniac was about to machine gun your
>> whole family and you had a gun pointing at him? Would this be a case of
>> killing someone to save lives.
>hmmm. This is the point where Jesus' justice breaks down. You are
>right, Tony, I would kill him (given certainity that he would kill
>others). I think I see now why Jesus *needed* the Kingdom of Heaven.
>Death is the ultimate leveler. Only by preaching an afterlife can we
>hope to make people rise *above* the level that killers are on. We need
>karma in order to avoid "justice". huh

I want to discuss the concept of "Killer". In the above example
had you not acted to save your family there would have been a net
reduction of lives. You would have acted to cause death. How is this
different to your concept of killer.
BTW are you the christian who I mentioned seemed a bit strange
cos you were aparently a christian but not dumb? If so hello again, as
you realise I have been almost exclusively in this thread (too busy to
get 100percent engaged.) I am amazed if you are still calling yourself a
christian, last time I recall Dave Mcfazden had you in a corner from
which there was no escape, you must be bloody minded to still be a
christian after this much time in Cov, we have something in common then.

>> One only has to broaden the example and think of the whole world
>> as ones family to see the logic in my position in this thread.
>I'm not too sure the analogy hold between "killer with machine gun" and
>"Tobacco co spokesperson"... seems a bit harsh!

The essential sameness between the two is this:

>> I think some of you out there are placing too much importance on
>> "the directness of the murder" Thats why you defend the tabacco virus
>> perpetrators and critisise the idea of murdering one of them.
>> I wonder, do you defend my right to continue spreading the "if
>> you've got cancer from tabacco kill a tabacco virus perpetrator" meme.
>> And if a chain of murders resulted I trust I would still be defended for
>> the same "indirectness" reason.
>Yes, I defend your *freedom* to say and do *anything* you want, as long
>as you accept the *responsibility* for the effects of said words and
>actions. We must never forget that freedom includes both freedom to do
>good *and* freedom to do evil. If you are truly doing good, Tony, you
>have nothing to fear from responsibility. Only the evil do not want to
>take the rap for their actions.

Actually if someone does actually kill my defense will be that I
was joking.

>And so, Tony, if someone kills a Tabacco spokesperson, and the court
>finds *you* guilty of "brain washing" (surly there is some "crime" on
>the books. What are cult leaders guilty of?) then... accept the
>responsibility; the punishment.

We are drifting here. The point we differ on is this. I believe
it would be a moral and virtuous act to kill a well chosen Tabacco inc
spokesperson. Im not sure the law would judge it so. Is it your simple
christian ethics that are stopping you from entertaining the notion of a
morally virtuous killing (this is CoV remember, I assume such simple
ethical laws are up for questioning.)
>This is all I ask.

I'll only accept the responsibility if I am forced too. Here I
am in the school as the tabacco plc spokespeople.
Tony Hindle.