Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Bell Tolls for Thee" data-source="post: 132454473" data-attributes="member: 1812660">So had he hit another car, your moral judgment of his actions would be different?&nbsp; I am not talking about legal judgment, I am talking about moral.&nbsp; If someone tries to murder someone, but the potential victim escapes or a bystander stops the ******* mid attempt, I would hold that person as morally contemptable as if they actually had successfully killed their victim(s).&nbsp; Same goes if some Sandusky tries to diddle a kid.&nbsp; My moral judgment against that person is the same even if the kid manages to run away and avoid being assaulted.&nbsp; Do you agree or would you just say all is well that ends well since no one was actually harmed?How can someone believe Huggins should have been fired had his drunken stupor resulted in harm to someone else, but should be given a third professional chance just because other people avoided harm by his reckless stupidity?&nbsp; HIs actions were still the same in either case.&nbsp; Lastly, I was engaged with people trying to say just because Huggins didn't harm anyone that he should be given much different treatment by the University and public opinion than he should otherwise.&nbsp; You are the one who entered the conversation with asinine gay jokes and attacks against me.&nbsp; If you do not disagree with me, why are you chiming in?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Bell Tolls for Thee, post: 132454473, member: 1812660"] So had he hit another car, your moral judgment of his actions would be different? I am not talking about legal judgment, I am talking about moral. If someone tries to murder someone, but the potential victim escapes or a bystander stops the ******* mid attempt, I would hold that person as morally contemptable as if they actually had successfully killed their victim(s). Same goes if some Sandusky tries to diddle a kid. My moral judgment against that person is the same even if the kid manages to run away and avoid being assaulted. Do you agree or would you just say all is well that ends well since no one was actually harmed? How can someone believe Huggins should have been fired had his drunken stupor resulted in harm to someone else, but should be given a third professional chance just because other people avoided harm by his reckless stupidity? HIs actions were still the same in either case. Lastly, I was engaged with people trying to say just because Huggins didn't harm anyone that he should be given much different treatment by the University and public opinion than he should otherwise. You are the one who entered the conversation with asinine gay jokes and attacks against me. If you do not disagree with me, why are you chiming in? [/QUOTE]

Name