PaulK writes:
Iano's reaction when Jar dared say that Hovind should actually suffer the penalty of law for his crimes suggests that he, at least, doesn't care about justice. It's all about who's on "his side". Maybe the others feel in much the same way. People on "their side" should be allowed to do whatever they want - the rules should not be applied to them. Buzsaw's insistence that criticism of creationists should not be allowed may be an example of that sort of thinking.
How delightfully revisionist! I have no problem at all with Kent Hovind being brought to justice, being tried by his peers and being sentenced according to law. Other than finding him entertaining to watch in the couple of youtube clips I have seen I could barely comment on the man. Note that I would find the evo-equivilent equally entertaining - were it so that such a one existed (Richard Dawkins is about the closest equivilent that springs to mind). I take neither seriously.
My objection to Jar had to do with his delight in a man (any man)being sentenced to (as it was at the time potentially) a very, very long time in prison. Justice is one thing. Delight in it quite another. It was the delight that repulsed me and drove me to object.
quote:
Or maybe not. But it still seems that some sort of explanation is in order.
Now you have it. The reason I didn't comment on the nutbag creos of my day was simple. I didn't read them. Who wants to read nutbags from anyside?
An aside:
Regarding this supposed two-tier rule system. Either apply the rules equally to all and "have no more Creos". Or apply a two-tier rule system and quit complaining about having to do so. It is unbecoming to want it all ways - especially when its evos doing the application and evos doing the complaining. Sometimes you can see things from a distance that all of you close up can't see anymore
Just my 2c worth
Edited by iano, : No reason given.