Let's not pretend that this man didn't understand or even endorse the death penalty.
That is an interesting theory. Should the death penalty be reserved only for those who support it?
I would say that no, it should be abolished completely. While I support the concept, the risks of getting things wrong are not worth it IMO.
How about we save executions for only people who break laws and participated in enforcing or making laws.
Er, what? Is that "for people who break laws, and for people who participated in enforcing or making laws", or is that "for enforcers/makers of laws who also break the law"?
No you haven't. The only thing you have addressed is the fact that you won't tolerate government policy that you don't personally agree with.
Then allow me to make it crystal clear. If someone else came in and started pushing to have the Pastafarian creation myth taught in schools, and they managed to convince the majority of the nation to stand behind them, I would not, even though I share their opinion on the "correct" creation myth.
If I truly believed in the principles of representative democracy, then yes, I would HAVE to be ok with that. If I wasn't, then I would be a hypocrite.
I suppose, technically, that if you claimed to believe in a 100%, majority-can-inflict-whatever-it-wants-on-the-minority representative democracy, you'd be right that anyone opposing the pushing of the Pastafarian creation myth would be a hypocrite. But we aren't claiming to believe in a 100% representative democracy. At most, we are claiming to believe in a representative democracy that has certain things in place (like the Bill of Rights) to limit tyranny of the majority. And I for one tend to try and always respect those limits, even when I am among the majority.
But it is probably far more likely that we simply disbelieve in all other forms of government even more. "Democracy is the worst form of government ever, except for all other forms of government that came before it", or something like that.
either you accept that government is working as planned and eat your own dog food, or you're merely another hypocrite. Which is it?
I believe I have already adequately addressed that it is neither.
Do you think they would so proudly admit to being unable to read and write?
Yes actually. Maybe not the same set of people, but I find it entirely plausible that there exists a group of people who would find pride in that.
I said that creationism in texas public schools is the will of the people, and if you truly believe in the philosophy of "representative" government, then you will accept that government is working exactly as planned.
So if I came in and started pushing schools to teach the Pastafarian creation myth, and I managed to get enough people backing me such that we represented the majority of the nation, you would be completely ok with that? Because it seems to me that that would be a gross violation of everyone elses First Amendment rights. But that is exactly what is happening here, just with a different creation myth.
Opposing the violation of certain fundamental rights is not "I gladly accept the will of the people, as long as I'm on the winning team".
he said he suspects it was messages sent through time.
Re-reading the post again, the closest I can find to referencing time travel is that he says he experienced "reality bending", which he later explains as he literally saw a window frame and a concrete pole bend, followed by the thought of an earthquake randomly coming to him. But nothing seems to imply that he believes that thought to have been planted from the future.
I guess the whole "I felt this 9 minutes prior" could be seen as a reference to time travel, but as I said, the time frame is small enough that I just chalked it up to him feeling it as it happened.
"Survey says..." -- Richard Dawson, weenie, on "Family Feud"