solution.

I don't.

Game over.

What is there to conclude? You've made it abundantly clear that you do oppose the attacks. I never suggested it means you approve of Hezbollah's actions. One can oppose the death penalty without condoning the actions of the criminal. You're seeing implications where there are none. I meant nothing other than exactly what I stated.

"Just throwing the question out there Mick."

And Im just throwing them back. No blood no foul, to continue the sports metaphor.

"My point was that some people seem to be pretty blase' about civilian casualties when it serves them ideologically, and yet blood starts spurting out of their ears when I suggest there isn't a moral equivelence between let's say a 13 year old girl and 150 cells half the size of the period at the end of this sentence."

Good. My view is the exact opposite. Some people are blase'about killing innocent children for their own benefit, and go nuts over accidental civilian casualties when a country is protecting itself against murderous attackers (you chose your language, I choose mine). But the bottom line is we're BOTH advocating the killing of one group for the benefit of another. So we're back to my original question in my first post. Why is my view hypocritical and yours not? We're both doing the same thing.

Uh Mick, what other conclusion could I come to after reading this:

"why would you object to the attacks on Hezbollah but not the cannibalization of the young to feed the old?"

"You call people who support Israel's attacks, yet oppose abortion hypocrit"

Just throwing the question out there Mick. As I've said many times, this is a political blog, not a blog on gardening or the care and feeding of siamese cats. You can't play football and

then complain about the tackling.

My point was that some people seem to be pretty blase' about civilian casualties when it serves them ideologically, and yet blood starts spurting out of their ears when I suggest there isn't a moral equivelence between let's say a 13 year old girl and 150 cells half the size of the period at the end of this sentence. If that's objectional to you then so be it. I would also ask where was all of the moral outrage for years when 1000's of unused embryos from fertility clinics were routinely thrown out in the trash ? Why no protest then ? Why not put them to good use and try and improve some people's lot in life ? As someone with a disease who could potentially benefit from stem cell research, why don't you tell me why my life is less important

than a blastocyst ? I'm dead serious Mick.

No, you're missing my point entirely. And nowhere did I even hint that you were defending Hezbollah, so I don't know where that remark comes from.

My argument is this:

You call people who support Israel's attacks, yet oppose abortion hypocrits. Im assuming the reason you say this is because they are advocating the killing of Lebanese for the benefit of Israel while at the same time condemning the killing of children to benefit the old, sick, lame, what have you. Fine.

My question is, how is advocating the reverse any less hypocritical? If advocating for the death of one group so another can benefit is hypocritical, why is it different if we merely change who the groups are?

"Such righteous indignation. Is that really your opinion ?"

Yes it is. And I've kept my tone civil, refraining from personal attacks. I ask the same in return.

your own words where my mistake was in asking that question.

And that's all I did…. was ask a question.

As someone who is not sick and in the real world, let's see what you've got.

"the cannibalization of the young to feed the old ?" Man, talk about hyperbole.

Such righteous indignation. Is that really your opinion ?