Member Rara Avis
Well, I was referring, for example, to the direct question I asked you about the "self-destructive" tendencies on the 22nd. After a little prod, you answered on the 29th. I opined what would you do to a criminal who had your daughter in a situation where she would die if you didn't get information to save her life from him - with regards to your beliefs in his 8th amendment rights - this was a comparison to the soldier who only scared a prisoner to get the same kind of info and was castigated for it. No response...
I actually would have continued to ignore your self-destructive tendencies question, Mike, had you not prodded me. I will often do that when (a) the question presupposes I said something I didn't say, or (b) I take the question as a rhetorical one because any answer is going to be an obvious answer.
The self-destructive tendencies question falls under the first circumstance. You asked me to support or clarify opinions that I didn't express. When someone asks me if I stopped beating my wife yet, I assume they don't really want an answer.
Your question about my daughter falls under rhetoric because, obviously, I would slowly cut off his testicles to get the necessary information to save someone I love. Due process be damned. I will NOT, however, grant that same privilege to anyone else lest some paranoid and possibly deranged parent started looked suspiciously at my crotch and muttering "Ve have vays to make you talk!" Indeed, your question can be just as easily phrased, "What would you do if I thought you were a criminal with information that would save my daughter?" The only reason Law exists at all, Mike, is because we can't always trust each other to do what is right when situations become too personal.