Posted on 11/26/2014 6:39:47 PM PST by Kaslin
The New York Times, whether consciously or not, has just endangered Darren Wilsons life.
With tensions running high in Ferguson over the lack of an indictment for Wilsons killing of Michael Brown, the paper has published the officers approximate address -- the street and town where he lives with his new wife, who also is named.
Given the racial animosity unleashed by Browns death, given the rioting and the looting and the stores that were set afire, how can a news organization make it easier for some crazy zealot to track down Wilson?
But there it is in the paper:
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The New York Slimes editor? You’re joking aren’t you? Any conservative newspaper would have, but not the slimes
You are right, I stopped reading the Times about 20 years ago for that reason.
“And this isnt an appeal to emotions?”
See what I mean? You think that responsibility and decency are emotions. That’s bizarre. Responsibility and decency are products of reason because they require the use of reason, restraint, self-control and require planning and accountability. A person driven by emotions - like yourself- is much less likely to possess these things than a rational person. You are so far into the emotional life that you can’t even see this.
“Publishing your countrys military secrets is treason,”
Not necessarily - because that would require the intent to aid an enemy. That’s why no one is tried for treason here.
“so I would say it is wrong. Publishing a cops address is NOT treason or any sort of crime. You may not like it, but that does not make it a crime.”
Not a crime, just a reckless, stupid, wrongful action because it puts a family at risk unnecessarily. My analogy holds. My view is consistent. I am using logic while you are driven purely by emotions.
“Again, full of emotion appeals.”
Nope. Not a single one. Everything I said is purely rational. I made no emotional appeal at all. Are you honestly going to say this rational truth is an emotional appeal: “Just because someone has the ability to do a thing doesnt mean he should.
That is a point of logic. Someone has to use forethought and examine actions for potential moral issues. That is all about reason and not at all about emotions. Apparently your part of the poorly educated mass of emotion driven people who actually think conscience is an emotion!
“Look, if I ran the slimes, I would not publish it. But what slimes does is their prerogative.”
Wait. So you would NOT do it? Why not? Aren’t you the one saying it is okay to do it? Now you’re saying it would not be okay for you do it, but okay for someone else. That has all of the illogic of, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I wouldn’t want to interfere in someone else’s right to have one.”
“Rest of your post is just going on and on. Have a good night.”
I did have a good night. I hope you have a good day. I hope you learn to put emotions aside and think rationally instead.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.