The interesting thing about parables is the many different levels of subtext a parable can have and how uniquely each individual will react to a parable. Parables invite the reader to make a moral decision. That moral decision allows you to learn the reader’s values or the nature of their ethics. In a Parable of Two Boys I gave you the circumstances to make a moral decision about the actions of two boys and an authority figure. I could have easily called the two boys, Bill and Mike.
From the comments we have Alan who believes that authority figures are not always intelligent, that an individual has an innate right of self-defense, authority figures should always use moral judgments when deciding transgressions/punishments and that some names are luckier than others.
From various anonymous comments: I am a liar, I am stupid, I am fat, and I don’t eat enough donuts or ice cream or have enough of a life. That money is more valuable than thought from an anonymous commenter because he makes more money from porn sites than I do from this blog; that the Jewish G-d teaches that there is no moral right to self-defense, that it is immoral to teach children to defend themselves, that those who cry out against discrimination are the worse offenders, Isaiah Sender is a stupid name, that Isaiah Sender is a problem child and will always be a problem child, that authority figures are always innately right in exercising their authority.
I could have easily written about two distinct groups of people and an International Court of Justice but I suspect that the tragedy lies in that the anonymous responses would still response using their same system of values in judgment.
