Yeah, I realize I’m at fault for allowing myself to get baited into this. Oh well:
1.
2.
DEAR SIR: I can understand why the concept of “dispassionate” reasoning would seem totally worthless to you. After all, you’re pretty much just a sentient bundle of crude, primal emotions — vengeance, disgust, rage, etc. — which you then pump out onto the internet, hot and raw, in the form of putative political opinions.
No need for any boring intermediary steps like “reason” to get in the way: just let those pulsating emotional sensations lead the charge. Which is roughly the thought process of an ape — but at least apes have the excuse of not having evolved any higher reasoning capacities.
Fortunately, your species has acquired these cognitive faculties — you’ve just chosen to de-activate them, because it’s always easier and more psychically gratifying to stick with unexamined emotional states.
It also tends to have the benefit of simplifying irksome, overly-complex issues — like what the facts and evidence show about a mother's criminal culpability, or lack thereof, for the death of her three children under Massachusetts law.
So yeah — just barrel right ahead and aggressively ignore all that pointlessly complicated blather, since it might require a bit of “dispassionate” reasoning to sort through. And you’re good with just channeling your unmediated emotional feelings.
You’re convinced it’s more than sufficient to just fulminate how angry and upset you are that the three young children were killed. Wow, what a profound intellectual insight.
Congratulations: you've been able to emote a moral conclusion that literally no one (who’s sane) disagrees with, and which you were able to summon within the first two seconds of hearing about this case. Any further meddlesome details — legally, factually, scientifically, evidentially — instantly became 100% irrelevant.
All that’s required is for you to stay comfortably ensconced in that little “safe space” of unreasoned, unrestrained ape-like passion you’ve constructed. Because let’s be honest: only a lib pussy fag simp would bother to think any harder about this issue, because it would mean having to tame their inchoate “passions” for a few minutes, and allow the more rational part of the brain to take over.
Ironically, what you’re exemplifying here is most often considered a classically “feminine” trait — but we are all so very grateful to you, sir, because you have so vividly illustrated that males can be just as hysterical and irrational as even the most stereotypical, overwrought female: incorrigibly hostage to their own emotions, and self-righteously so, when they let themselves get worked up (or dumbed down) enough.
The word “defense” has different meanings. Michael has not been “defending” her actions. He has been establishing the basis of a legal “defense,” the facts and legal theory with which one would conclude that she is not criminally liable, but, instead, legally insane.
The point is that in this context, the meaning of the word “defense” and legal context is being perverted. It is no sense analogous to the typical use of the word “defense,” which would be used for actions that are in some sense justifiable, could be repeated without objection.
Take Walsh down