> ALL MURDERS ARE AN EQUAL AFFRONT TO HUMANITY

Using all-caps or shouting it really loudly doesn't make it true.

Humanity would have been blessed by the early murder of Hitler. Some people say Stalin, on the verge of beginning new purges and possible war, was murdered. If so, Stalin's murder was a blessing. Napoleon's murder, some time before 1812, probably would have been remarkably beneficial to humanity as well.

All murders are not equally horrible. However, I think the only acceptable way for the state to view the murder of its citizens is to treat all murders as equally horrible (and I think it's unacceptable that in civil courts, the pain and suffering of rich people is so much more readily compensated than the pain and suffering of poor people).

> if not, it's you that's got a problem - with English Comprehension

English is tricky Johnny. I note for example, that you haven't even defined what murder is.

Is all deliberate killing of humans by other humans murder? Is killing in self defence murder? Is killing invaders who aren't immediately threatening your home and family (but probably will) murder? Is all euthanasia murder? What about with the informed consent of the victim (assisted suicide)? Is abortion murder? Is the execution of a person condemned by a jury of his peers murder?

And for that matter, are all lives equally valuable and sacred?

As you might guess, I'd say no to all of the above. I know some people who would say yes to all the above.

And simply from the last assertion, that some lives are more valuable than others, you may conclude that I believe no two murders are equally heinous. Once again though: the law ought to treat all murders as equally terrible.

I consider myself a gentle person. But I know that I'm not supporting African famine victims to the utmost of my abilities. I have neglected some far-away persons whose lives I probably could have saved. Does that make me a murderer?

As for body language: thanks for the book-tips, people. :-)