@hightor,
hightor wrote:Where is the crime "lessened"? It was simply compared to other known examples of sickening behavior.
Comparing atrocities in this manner is a minimization of one of the atrocities.
And since people who object to that minimization will inevitably fight that comparison, it often provokes the unintentional minimization of the other atrocity.
I ran into the same problem with the Amanda Knox case, where people tried to excuse the Italian judicial system by pointing to all the cases where American courts have intentionally convicted innocent people.
The natural response was to promote the Italian judges' atrocities as being worse than the American cases, but in that case I'd be minimizing the atrocities committed in America and I just couldn't do that.
I instead responded by pointing out what horrible people they were for trying to use one atrocity to justify another.
Perhaps Blatham's minimization of atrocities here will help people to see what a horrible person he is.
hightor wrote:Well at least he didn't shrug it off...
Quote:
Ah...Boys will be boys...
I don't think giujohn was shrugging off rape when he said that. He was responding to a comment about Navy SEALs and blow jobs.
Also, if it's OK for the feminists to use "boys will be boys" to excuse Bill Clinton, why can't it excuse the same in other people? I reject the premise that the Democrats get to have different rules from the rest of society.