A fellow Christian columnist has shared this comment from one of his readers. I reproduce it here unedited, undiluted.
“Not a shred of moral relativism at all in what I said. I said all human live is valuable. I also said it is good to live one’s religious faith.
“But let’s get your your example of what you call ‘mugging and self-defense.’
“A person you term a ‘mugger’ approaches you with a display of force and, with the threat of violence, ask you to give him some property. You comply. No one dies. Everyone goes on with their day.
“The only actual ‘danger’ to human life comes when you threaten the mugger (and the mugger’s life). You may say ‘no.’ That threatens the mugger. You may brandish a weapon. If its a gun, you may open fire. Those acts certainly threaten the mugger.
“When all that the mugger wants is a little property, it is not clear why you feel morally inclined to threaten the mugger’s life. It would seem it is just easier to share your property with the person who has the monopoly of force.
“And its not clear in the case of the mugger who is actually the victim. The mugger needs property. You have property. The mugger is asking you to share. That does not imply victimhood at all. Your selfish refusal to share is what escalates the exchange in the first instance.”
Now this is imbecility of a very high order, inaccessible to ordinary dunderheads. It may only be acquired, at great cost, at a university, from tenured professors who are themselves morons.
I wonder if this guy will ever deliver the keynote speech at a Democrat convention?
So, folks, the next time a thug with a switchblade “asks” you for your property, remember, it’s immoral to resist him.
A compleat jidrool has told you so.