JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/01/crazy-love-and-crazy-laws.html (18 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1169243100-549731  Rob at Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:45:00 +0000

Who's at fault? NYC's GFW laws.

She should have packed and blown him away at the first credible threat.

She married him?

Hmm.. Probably too stupid to learn "The Four Rules". On second thought maybe it is a good thing she didn't arm herself...

jsid-1169312397-549750  DaveJ at Sat, 20 Jan 2007 16:59:57 +0000

I am 21 (as of the 18th) and I live at home. My mother is a Christian leftist and has brought me up in a Christian house, though I am a Christian right winger (extremely). I say to her that the bible believes in self defene and she agrees. I say that a person has moral duty to defend their own family and she agrees. She says to me that she would give her own life to protect her children, but I say that law should protect a person who kills in self defence, she can't agree with me. I think that she is insane as is anyone left wing. Somehow when it comes to stopping a murder, we need tolerance and kid gloves.

jsid-1169323709-549757  karrde at Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:08:29 +0000

Weird story. I've heard that love is blind, but never in this way before...

And an excellent example of the State not being at fault for not protecting citizens.

jsid-1169325081-549759  Morenuancedthanyou at Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:31:21 +0000

horse-riding? I don't get the reference, Kevin.

jsid-1169325413-549760  Kevin Baker at Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:36:53 +0000

Read up on the movie Zoo.

jsid-1169336727-549766  Firehand at Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:45:27 +0000

My dad used to absolutely hate getting called to help on a domestic. You never knew if you were walking into an argument that just required "Hold it down or else", or you'd wind up with the wife or girlfriend seeing the cuffs go on her 'man' and go nuts.

Damn near got killed one time in one of the latter.

jsid-1169410638-549793  Sarah at Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:17:18 +0000


That's the defining characteristic of leftism: the ability to hold two utterly contradictory views at once.

jsid-1169421084-549798  DJ at Sun, 21 Jan 2007 23:11:24 +0000

That's it, Sarah.

I once had a long discussion (not an argument, really, as it was quiet, thoughful, and civil) with a co-worker about self-defense. After many hours over many days, I got him to admit that he believed I did not have a right to prevent an attacker from killing me if my only means of preventing it was to kill him, even as his attack was underway. His only justification was "The Bible Says Thou Shalt Not Kill".

I stopped discussing anything with him. It was keeping me up nights.

jsid-1169441217-549808  Firehand at Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:46:57 +0000

DJ, if you ever decide to really tick him off, point out that the actual wording of that Commandment is 'Thou shalt not murder', a very different thing than 'kill'.

jsid-1169480530-549827  DJ at Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:42:10 +0000

Not possible, Firehand, but that would be interesting. I last saw him in late 1976, as I left one department for another at my job. He was an old booger then, and would likely be about 90 or so now.

The exact meaning in English depends on who translates it from the original Hebrew, which I don't read. When I was very young, the framed poster on the wall of the church said "thou shalt not kill", but newer translations are (more or less) "you shall not murder".

Isn't it odd that these are the "Words of God", but there is disagreement as to what the words are, and even the Bible doesn't agree as to whether it was God or Moses who carved them into stone?

jsid-1169489852-549834  Roger Thompson at Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:17:32 +0000

YHWH carved the first set. Moses went down the mountain, saw that Israel was sinner, and smashed the first set. He went back up the mountain to talk to YHWH, and had to carve the second set himself.

jsid-1169493058-549836  Sarah at Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:10:58 +0000


I'm not sure what your point is, but do you worry because people argue over the wording of other revered documents, such as the Constitution? I'd be worried if people didn't argue over what the language of the Bible means, especially when it comes to topics of life-and-death.

What you're talking about is the opinion of one religious guy who seems confused about his beliefs. There really is nothing in the Bible that proscribes against killing in self-defense. Remember, this is the same God that ordered the Israelites to do an awful lot of smiting back in the day. The vast majority of Christians (and Jews, at least in Israel) do not have a philosophical problem with killing in defense of self or others.

jsid-1169506749-549852  DJ at Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:59:09 +0000

No, Sarah, my purpose was not to address the theological issues involved. It was simply to give a real-life example, from my own experience, that illustrated your statement, which I heartily agree with. The rest was simply a digression. Conversations are like that.

jsid-1169506994-549854  DJ at Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:03:14 +0000

Roger, I beg to differ regarding the second set of tablets.

See Exodus 34:1

34:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

See Exodus 34:27-28

34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

34:28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

So, who wrote wrote upon the second set, Moses or God?

jsid-1169507659-549855  ben at Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:14:19 +0000

Maybe nobody knows :)

Maybe God held Moses' hand, and therefore they both wrote it, depending on your point of view.

jsid-1169523664-549876  DJ at Tue, 23 Jan 2007 03:41:04 +0000

I take a simpler view, Ben. He couldn't have gone forty days without eating and drinking!

Or did he eat meat and drink wine? Maybe nobody knows ...

jsid-1169782528-550046  Mastiff at Fri, 26 Jan 2007 03:35:28 +0000

Re the Hebrew phrasing of the Sixth Commandment:

The word is "tirtzach," or "tirSaH" depending on your pronunciation. At any rate, it literally means "murder." If it had meant "kill," the word would have been "taharog."

No question. End of story. "Murder" it is.

And it wouldn't make sense the other way, as a few of you mentioned. It is permissable to kill under certain circumstances—and sometimes mandatory.

jsid-1169854503-550124  DJ at Fri, 26 Jan 2007 23:35:03 +0000

I'm reminded of the old monk who discovered the original book in the basement that he and his predecessors had been copying, by hand, for generations. His response was, "Oh, crap! It said celebrate!"

I wonder what else King James' translator got wrong?

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>