[ska]

I agree this isn't the time or place, but you are not stating a fact; rather you are choosing a particular framing which is neither unique nor universally accepted.

It doesn't matter whether or not I agree with you or Franklin (or neither) here - I was noting that your attempt at pointing out his "error" is itself logically flawed and does not demonstrate any such error on his part.

[nybble41]

You claim that I am "not stating a fact" but it is a fact that any claim that an action is right when done by one person but wrong when done by another is either an internal contradiction or a repudiation of any universal standard for right and wrong. Either way, you can't consistently argue that a proportional response would be wrong after taking that same action yourself.

I should hope that this argument is not "unique", since it's just an application of basic logic, and I really couldn't care less whether the conclusions are universally accepted. The logic is sound whether you accept it or not.

[ska]

Ah, we seem to be focused on different parts of your state to. The problem you ran into is axiomatic, not logical. You are asserting a concept of property that is not the same as Franklins, and then attempting to refute him based on that framework. He (I thinks least, based on those quotes alone) is proposing a quite different framework, so you have fallen into a type of category error. That is what I was pointing out. It’s all fair to argue that his framework is inferior, but it is illogical to just claim he got it wrong because it doesn’t fit the framework you prefer.

I think this has run its course, it’s not a good media to get into something like this at depth.