DtG — I don't see the conflict. Maybe I didn't express myself as clearly as I thought, but the gist of what you quoted spoke to two different questions. The first, I think, is pretty straightforward and addresses your own post.

The second ws referring to the reasons people supported the Nazis at first. Hitler and Co. argued that Germany had a right to be free of the draconian measures imposed on them by the Allies (principally Russia and France) after WWI. They had enough justification for that to make a lot of people, who didn't stop to consider all he other stuff — he hatred and racism — they were spewing. You know as well as I do that people have very selective perceptions in political, social and religious movements. Most make up their minds first and the accept as fact only what shores up their preconceived notions.

To your later post: "What do the victims care?" They don't, but their loved ones and others in society do. By your logic, why should be have funerals? The guest of honor certainly doesn't care.
As for your crime/punishment pairings, I have some difficulty equating prostitutes with murderers, thieves and drug dealers on a moral plane. I think there may be both qualitative and quantitative differences in how much they harm society.

McGrath — I wasn't complaining about anything. Just countering an earlier post that held Amnesty out as a source of information and pointoug out they don't comment on the issue at hand.

Ponderin' — Taste has nothing to do with it. I was pointing out that two organizations — ostensibly at opposite ends of the moral/ethical spectrum — share some traits and enjoy(ed) positive perceptions by their respective publics.
And BTW — you know next to nothing about my life experience, so your crack about my beliefs and people's reactions to them is patently absurd. Maybe even in extremely poor taste.

cheers,

david