https://washingtonstand.com/article/empathy-disorder-the-key-difference-between-left-and-right
I've been sitting on this thought for awhile as I considered how to address it. Still not sure about how to go about it, so I'm just going to shotgun it. What matters most is the point itself, which is that there is a serious divide between the right and left in this country. This division has been driven largely by the left as their ideology has become more and more twisted and perverse over the last several decades...one could say since the 1960s or perhaps the 50s. It was during this time that the most drastic differences between right and left began to increase, with the right remaining more faithful to both the founding principles of the nation as well as of our Christian faith, and the left becoming more twisted and selfish, willing to pervert those principles to serve their more carnal interests.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/02/yes_leftists_are_evil_here_s_how_they_got_that_way_and_why_you_ll_never_change_them.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026442/Dont-listen-liberals--Right-wingers-really-nicer-people-latest-research-shows.html
Conservatives: Truth and morality are fixed. We must discover them and live accordingly.
"Progressives": Truth and morality are matters of personal preference; fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate. They are what we need them to be.
The above illustrated distinction is pretty much the Alpha and Omega of the differences between right and left. I have so many examples, but they are all truly variations on the above theme.
Conservatives: Discriminate between harmful/immoral and beneficial/moral behaviors.
"Progressives": Call conservatives "bigots" for opposing harmful/immoral behaviors "progressives" favor in favor of beneficial/moral behaviors.
Conservatives: When the GOP refuses to support Democrat budget proposals, Dems say "the GOP is holding America hostage!"
"Progressives: When the Dems refuse to support GOP budget proposals, Dems say "the GOP is holding America hostage!"
Conservatives: Seek elected office to improve the nation by making it more secure, more prosperous and safer for its law-abiding citizens.
"Progressives": Seek elected office to impeach, arrest, imprison or inflict suffering upon Trump and his supporters.
Conservatives: Believe the first duty of government is to its citizens.
"Progressives": Don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=030mc-kn67w&t=3649s
The above video also speaks to the problem of "progressive" women as judges.
Conservatives: Seek to persuade through reason, logic and facts.
"Progressives": Seek to threaten for lack of a compelling argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC4TUjA4u_0
I could easily add so much more to this list, though there are so many more obvious differences (none to the credit of "progressives") which have been highlighted many times already, so I'll leave it here. I'll just finish up by saying that what divides us these days is something malevolent which manifests in the character and behaviors of the typical "progressive".
I've seen lots of studies that demonstrate that the gap between the DFL and GOP has widened because the ASPL (mostly white women) has moved very far to the left. The GOP has moved slightly leftward, but the DFL has moved much further.
ReplyDeleteAs you note, the left has adopted the postmodern view of Truth much more than the right has, which is a huge difference.
I do think that those on the left believe that they are instituting policies that will be beneficial to the country. When you live in a world where theory and "good intention" matters more than actual results, you get Mamdani. I think that they really believe their BS, and will go to great lengths to defend their BS when it fails. Look at the nightmare that left wing judges and prosecutors are responsible for. Career criminals free to commit more crimes due to not being charged or light sentences, and individual judges who are so drunk with power that they actually believe that the separation of powers doesn't affect them.
As you note there is a massive difference in worldview between the left and right, which affects almost everything.
I read a few of those article recently and really agree whole-heartedly with the results--the LEFT is really just plain evil.
ReplyDeleteThis latest murder is a perfect example of how the LEFT protects criminals and castigates victims who the LEFT continually wants to disarm while continuing to let the bad guys walk our streets.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.westernjournal.com/lawmaker-drops-jaws-blaming-woman-allegedly-murdered-illegal-says-might-startled-gets-worse/
[rolls eyes] Seriously gentlemen, you should try discussing things in a more adult manner... THAT would be a morally appropriate thing to do.
ReplyDeleteConservatives: Truth and morality are fixed. We must discover them and live accordingly.
"Progressives": Truth and morality are matters of personal preference; fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate. They are what we need them to be.
Don't be obtuse. Any time someone makes a claim that is ridiculous-sounding on the face of it, you can count on it being, at best, a caricature of a position, NOT the actual position.
Here's some more rational, adult-level discussion on morality and how different people view it.
https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/morality-different-liberals-and-conservatives-its-more-complex
Hint:
"Truth and morality are matters of personal preference; fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate. They are what we need them to be."
Is stupidly false and grade-school "reasoning," at best. You may as well as claim "liberals are big ol' mean doodymonsters!"
Be better. If for no other reason than not to embarrass yourselves.
I read your link. Thanks for yet again wasting my time with more worthless drivel. To the extent it has any real value at all, it's in its affirmation of the premise of the first comparison.
DeleteMy how easily and routinely you embarrass yourself.
This is interesting. First the left has embraced the post modern, post Christian, post Truth worldview(s) to a much greater extent than the right has. So to argue that this generalization is completely false is simply absurd. Hell, even Dan argues that there are "many/multiple truths". Further, Dan himself, argues that morality is not objective (therefore subjective).
DeleteSecond, I think that the claim as stated is probably overstating the reality. Much like Dan when he tries to pretend that the ASPL/progressive worldview is his idealistic, Pollyanna, fantasy, this also overstates the reality to some degree. 50 years ago, most of the left and right agreed on the premise that Truth and morality were fixed. Now (post, postmodern thought) I don't think that the divide is quite so neat as Art presumes.
I'm willing to say my comparison represents a generalization. But doing so doesn't mitigate the truth of it, particularly as it refers to the current state of affairs. I would also argue that for a progressive to state a particular truth is true all the time (fixed), or that a particular behavior is immoral all the time, that also doesn't mitigate the truth of the claim.
DeleteI'm also willing to concede I'm not understanding your second point.
I definitely agree that the Left has imbibed the post modern Kool Aid to a much greater extent than the Right has. That doesn't render your point wrong, but it does suggest that the line isn't as clear as your might think.
DeleteMy second point is that your characterizations seem a bit more idealized than the reality suggests. That the Right has moved to the left on numerous issues, while the Left has moved to the extreme left on almost everything. The simple reality is that 50-75 years ago, the Left was much closer to the center and the gap wasn't as large. There was much more agreement on many of these issues than there is now. I'm not disagreeing with your points as much as noting the the gap isn't as wide and distinct as you might prefer.
I would have be presented with an example or two which demonstrates a leftward drift of conservatism in order to respond to that claim (not disagreeing with it so much as unable at present to think of any such examples). But certainly the extent to which the left has moved as far left as it seems is hard to dispute. Some commentators, like Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and others, mark the marxist drift from the Woodrow Wilson era at least. Even so, the "anything goes" aspect of today's progressive takes that to a whole new level. The gap is vast, to say the least.
Deletehttps://mises.org/mises-wire/gradual-leftward-shift-us-politics-and-economy
DeleteI guess it depends on how you measure it as well. If you are measuring "conservatives" you'd need to provide some sort of objective baseline. Certainly conservative thought has drifted. IMO the best indicator we have is GOP policies. It is the most conservative party we have and we can see (especially in fiscal policy) the leftward drift.
Certainly the Buckley, Goldwater, Kirk, Bozell conservatism of the '60s isn't what we see today. If nothing else the influence of relativism and post modernism have influenced society as a whole, conservatives included. I'd argue that fiscal policy and marriage/divorce policy/reality would be examples.
Trump's "gay friendlier" policies would also be an example.
Obviously there is some idealized, pure, version of conservatism out there which hasn't changed. But in real life/politics, compromise is part of the deal.
If I wasn't clear, the leftward movement of the ASPL is much further then of the Right. Yet we've seen Trump and others espouse positions that have historically been leftist in order to attract voters.
If you put it on a scale of 0-100 with 0 being the starting point the right has (maybe) moved left from 0-30, while the left has (maybe) moved from 0-75. The gap is increasing because the ASPL keep moving further left.
Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton from a policy standpoint would likely be considered "conservative" by today's ASPL. Which is insane, but reality.
As to whether or not conservatives tend to be happier than liberals, more nuanced reasoning:
ReplyDeletehttps://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/are_conservatives_really_happier_than_liberals
And that article leads with this paragraph...
It’s a paradox of political psychology that has been perplexing people for decades. Compared to liberals, conservatives—at least in the public sphere—seem to be angrier, more agitated about what our society has become, and more convinced that even greater horrors lie just ahead.
Noting that this is from 2015, BEFORE the truly deranged anger years of this current administration. It's a solid point.
Your quote from the cited link tells me all I need to know about what a crap sandwich your link is. That conservatives "seem" angrier to the likes of your kind is projection. What's more, it presumes conservatives have no justification for being angry given how your kind has indeed been the reason for most all suffering in our country, if not the world over. But yes, because we're not stupid, we are convinced of even greater horrors awaiting us if good and decent people (that is, not your kind) don't get busy now.
DeleteThis current administration, which you routinely but unjustly criticize in an especially angry manner, isn't so much "angry", but instead simply stepping up to put an end to the evil your side propagates. It's truly a wonder conservatives aren't angrier than even your kind pretends we are, given all the harm you've caused. Harm. You pretend to encourage against doing any.
https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/why-depression-rates-are-higher-among-liberals
Deletehttps://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/4839/4839.html
https://equityresearch.tufts.edu/why-being-conservative-is-correlated-with-higher-happiness/
https://ifstudies.org/blog/do-church-ladies-really-have-better-sex-lives
https://phys.org/news/2022-08-stronger-religious-beliefs-linked-higher.html
It's interesting that this pre 2015 study doesn't capture the happy liberals burning, looting, stealing, grifting, and the general commitment to victim hood on the left. A quick perusal of Tik Tok or Insta shows video after video or liberal woman screaming hysterically about some perceived injustice.
Looking at Marshal's "alpha and omega..."
ReplyDeleteConservatives: Truth and morality are fixed. We must discover them and live accordingly.
"Progressives": Truth and morality are matters of personal preference; fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate. They are what we need them to be.
The above illustrated distinction is pretty much the Alpha and Omega of the differences between right and left
Perhaps. IF it were reality-based. But of course, it's a bullying (and unkind, giving lie to the claim of kind and giving conservatives in this example, at least) grade school caricature of reality, not reality at all. Instead of your unsupported caricature of "liberals," let's replace this with the reality of my specific views and those of my liberal family and church friends and colleagues (a more giving, delightful, helpful and downright good group of people you'd be hard-pressed to find).
Conservatives: Truth and morality are fixed. We must discover them and live accordingly.
Progressives known to Dan (ie, REAL people):
Truth and morality are real and important.
We do not believe they are fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate, as evidenced by our work for positive, grace-filled moral change. WHY would we work so hard to affect change if we thought morality didn't matter? It's a ridiculous suggestion belied by observable reality.
Truth and morality are nuanced, and can be contextual, but they are real and the observable, actual harm caused by immoral practices are to be worked against, in favor of a more gracious, welcoming just and kind world. ALL of these ideals (gracious, welcoming, just and kind) are moral precepts, of course.
Do you disagree?
Do you recognize that we work for the welcome and protection of innocent immigrants and refugees (for one example), NOT because morality doesn't matter, but because it DOES matter and doing no harm matters? WHY would we do it if the whole basis was fluid and a matter of personal preference?
It's an irrational claim, can you see that?
Where the nuance comes in is that we DO recognize the world is a complex place and circumstances matter. In Ghana, when children were kidnapped and forced into soldiering, some of those child soldiers committed atrocities. BUT, the root cause of those atrocities were NOT these innocent children, broken by objectively cruel and evil people (if one accepts human rights as a. reality), but the cruel an evil adults who forced them into this way of life.
Because morality is nuanced (not fluid or subjective), rational, moral adults would hold these child soldiers to a different level of accountability than the adults who corrupted them.
Likewise, the abused wife who eventually kills her abusive husband, the morality of his murder is more reasonably nuanced according to liberals. Whereas, perhaps conservatives would judge the abused wife and the enslaved children to the same harsh level of accountability as their abusers. You tell me.
In your conservative worldview, do you make room for the notion of nuance morality?
There you go. You're now dealing with an objective, real liberal who is letting you know your claim is ridiculous on the face of it and giving solid examples and moral reasoning to support why my worldview is morally reasonable. Why not deal with what real people actually think rather than these caricatures? Would you agree a caricatured mischaracterization of a people's position is just slander and false witness and, therefore, morally wrong?
"Perhaps. IF it were reality-based."j
DeleteIt is. Totally. And while you blather on about "nuance", the distinction I draw in that which you quoted isn't actually addressed, but again confirmed as true by what follows the quote of yours which begins this response. To wit:
"But of course, it's a bullying (and unkind, giving lie to the claim of kind and giving conservatives in this example, at least) grade school caricature of reality, not reality at all."
"Bullying"??? That indeed is, ironically, a grade school whine. And it's wildly hypocritical from one who constantly chastises your opponents in discourse in this and so many other ways. The routine deletion of comments alone, and the constant demands of commenting according your every changing standards (which also confirms my comparison quite well).
"Instead of your unsupported caricature of "liberals,""
First, your problem with truth is evident here. I presented no "caricatures". I presented facts. Secondly is the typical whine about the facts I present being "unsupported". I only need to let your comments stand as written to have all the supportive evidence I need, but my post contains links which also support the premises I've laid out.
"let's replace this with the reality of my specific views and those of my liberal family and church friends and colleagues"
Once again, when you include others who aren't here to defend themselves, I have no choice but to take your words you're all alike, and that means they're infanticide defending, perversion enabling deviants like you. If you cared about your family, friends and colleagues, you'd leave them out and stand on your own two cloven hooves.
"Truth and morality are real and important."
Not that either is typically exhibited by your kind.
"We do not believe they are fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate, as evidenced by our work for positive, grace-filled moral change."
Your works do nothing to mitigate the charge in the slightest and thus to mention them demonstrates you miss the point. What works you do are predicated on your fluid and ever changing version of morality. That from that "morality" comes anything which is rightly described as moral is beside the point.
"WHY would we work so hard to affect change if we thought morality didn't matter?"
Of course I never mentioned whether or not you think morality matters. How moral is it to copy paste my words and them so quickly misrepresent them? If you think it's moral to bugger goats, you'll regard yourself as moral, or at least that buggering goats is. Thus, it might be a ridiculous suggestion if I actually made it. But alas...
"Truth and morality are nuanced"
Only those for whom truth and morality are matters of personal preference; fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate.
You go on from here to cement your tangent to "morality matters" because it more easily serves you than to actually address my comparison as stated.
Mitigating circumstances isn't "nuanced" morality. If an abused wife kills her husband in self-defense, she hasn't committed murder. Self-defense killing isn't immoral. If she killed him while he was sleeping, it's murder regardless of her having suffered abuses.
So there you go. I've shown again how your relationship with truth is non-existent, and thus so is yours with morality. My characterization of you and your kind regarding truth and morality as matters of personal preference; fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate, is accurate.
I'll simply note the reality based conclusion that Dan hasn't actually demonstrated why the sources you cited were objectively wrong, nor has he (to my knowledge) actually cited any specifics from any of your sources.
DeleteSo, you believe that killing babies and even unborn fetuses IS ALWAYS wrong... UNLESS, it's in the course of a war (as in the US slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children and babies in WWII... or the case of the OT command to "kill them all," right down to the babies and children...) BUT, not ALWAYS in the case of a war (if Iran or whoever was to do the same to us, you'd call it a great evil, right?)... but you don't affirm the notion that morality is nuanced? Of course, you do.
ReplyDeleteYou just want to nuance it in the favor of your particular partisan and religionist traditions.
Look, we all can SEE that you treat morality in a nuanced way, in the way you justify the slaughter of Japanese people and babies or Palestinian people and babies. Why not just admit you have a nuanced view of morality? Because you're distinguishing between "nuanced" and "but there are mitigating circumstances...?? Mitigating circumstances ARE a nuance to morality!
Don't be obtuse. You're completely fine with slaughtering babies in the right circumstances. Just admit it.
The difference, then, between you and I and progressives like me is that WE are always opposed to the killing of innocent people and babies and you are not. And you want to suggest that WE have a morality problem.
There are none so blind...
You again validate my position that truth and morality is fluid and a matter of convenience for your kind, and do so right from the jump:
Delete"So, you believe that killing babies and even unborn fetuses IS ALWAYS wrong..."
There's no way you could honestly say this mistakenly. "Murder" and "killing" are not synonyms. This isn't a semantic game. It's an honest understanding of the grave distinction between the two despite both relating to the unnatural termination of life.
Similarly, though conversely, there is no semantic gamesmanship in acknowledging the fact that both "baby" and "fetus" (in this context) refer to human beings (a "fetus" here being a "baby in utero". Thus a fetus is a baby not yet born).
Another example is the vast distinction between directly targeting babies for death (as your kind does in your vile support for abortion) versus the targeting of an area or population in which babies are also killed. The distinction, obviously, is in the targeting. Regarding the former, specifically abortion, there is no way to legitimize that which is never necessary. Thus, the progressive pretends there is some way to play the "nuance game" to carve out the liberty to act in the belief the can claim to have acted morally. "A fetus isn't a person" or "the life of the 'mother' is somehow of more or greater value than the child she will callously murder in a most barbaric manner.
In the latter case, the moral quality of the targeting of an area or population in which babies might be killed is determined by the circumstances, which might indeed make the targeting necessary because of the guaranteed harm for refusing to do so. This is the conundrum constantly faced by Israel, who you falsely describe as war criminals for defending their own infants from the ongoing threat from islamist savages, who, as we all know, purposely operate from behind their own infants to do so.
So here's another example of immorality: Not only is the targeting of babies immoral, so too is sacrificing one's own babies rather than striking back at those who put them at risk because those attackers launch their strikes from behind their own. That makes your kind just as guilty for the murder of your own as are those who launched the attacks, despite your posturing as moral.
No. Morality isn't "nuanced". That's just something progressives say in order to rationalize their willful indulgence in that which is immoral/sinful.
"Mitigating circumstances" doesn't alter the moral quality of an otherwise immoral action. Rather, it addresses the response to the immoral action based on those circumstances.
"You're completely fine with slaughtering babies in the right circumstances."
Again you validate the premise. Those like me are never "fine" with just and necessary actions which put lives at risk. You lie about the intention to posture as morally superior, while at the same time supporting abortions. and daring to lie that your kind is "always opposed to the killing of innocent people and babies".
You don't have a morality problem. You're simply not a moral person. You only posture as one. The actions of your kind are responsible for most preventable killings and murders.
Nice goalpost move from murder to killing. That says pretty much everything that needs to be said.
DeleteYou know what is strange, all the killing Dan whines about during WW2, was brought to you by icons of the DFL. FDR was an incredibly liberal president who (in addition to WW2) brought us redlining and the depression. Truman was much less liberal than FDR, but he was kind of stuck with the commitments FDR already made. Of course, Dan doesn't seem bothered by the untold millions killed in WW2 by the Axis and the USSR. He just bitches about the US.
I'll note that Dan is "completely fine with slaughtering babies in the right circumstances". Dan also bought the Hamas BS death toll numbers hook, line and sinker, and touted them as if they were gospel Truth. Given the rash of murders, rapes, and assaults committed by people with lengthy histories of dozens of violent felonies that have been released by leftist judges or prosecutors or by illegal aliens allowed to enter the US unchecked and protected from deportation by blue cities and counties, it's not unreasonable to say that dead bodies of innocent US citizens don't bother the ASPL enough to advocate for changes in policies. Oh yeah, the rising death toll of innocent people murdered by drivers who have illegally gotten licenses that they do not qualify for, thanks to blue state governors seeking voters.
I suspect that most on the right are not "completely fine" with babies killed during wartime, I suspect that most of us look on that as a tragedy made necessary by the actions of belligerent nations.
Marshal falsely claimed...
ReplyDeleteYou again validate my position that truth and morality is fluid and a matter of convenience for your kind
And yet, of the two of us, I am the only one who is consistently opposed to killing babies and who calls ALL such killings a great evil.
You, on the other hand, waffle and say the situation is fluid, conditional. IF there is a war going on and IF you deem it appropriate, you do not think that the deliberate targeting of a civilian area is a sin... a great evil.
WHO is fluid in that case?
Hell, you are even fine with targeting an area with know unborn fetuses if you deem the circumstances call for it. THAT is a fluid morality.
I call ALL such deliberate attacks wrong and a great evil.
HOW am I the one with fluid morality in that circumstance?
Well, trying to counter a "false claim", by making a false claim, is a bold move.
DeleteDan has consistently written that abortion is "a great evil"? That's news to me, but I would be happy to hear it and would love to see evidence: I believe that even a straightforward denunciation of abortion, without any qualifications, would be noteworthy.
ReplyDeleteAbout war, I think the pacifist side far too readily accepts the worst accusations made by terrorist propagandists, excuses terrorists like Hamas who deliberately build legitimate military targets under civilian populations such as hospitals, and ignores the fact that weakness is a provocation that itself results in infants being killed: babies were slaughtered during the 10/7 attack, and other babies would be targeted if the chance was given to Hamas or other terrorist organizations, many of whom have been funded by Iran for decades. Presumably those are acceptable losses to the pacifist, since they are unwilling to do what is necessary to prevent them.
Myself, I oppose the targeting of civilians but recognize that collateral damage is often unavoidable. I don't demanded perfection in an imperfect world; war is terrible but is sometimes the least bad option.
But there is a difference between bombing military targets knowing that civilians will likely suffer and targeting the civilians themselves. Abortion is more like the latter, the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. In the US alone, there are 1 million-plus abortion every year.
It would be good to see Dan be clear in his recognition that abortion is a great evil.
Excellent explanation. We live in an imperfect world, therefore the only solutions we have are almost always imperfect.
DeleteAs for Hamas who clearly and intentionally stated that their goal is to use women, children, and the elderly as cannon fodder or human shields for the express purpose of getting support from the Dans of the world. Even knowing this, Dan believed and repeated their now shown to be false, propaganda about "civilian" deaths.
Abortion is clearly and intentionally targeting the most innocent and vulnerable humans for death, which in virtually every other circumstance, Dan claims to abhor.
Nice goalpost move from murder to killing. That says pretty much everything that needs to be said.
ReplyDelete? That is saying literally nothing.
1. There was no goalpost move. In this conversation, I've been speaking about evil/wrong/"sin." And I used the example of murder/killing. Murder is just the legal term for killing. In my usage, there is no goalpost moving, as I was speaking about killing of innocent people. IF it were legal, that would not make the unjustified killing of babies/innocents moral and not a sin.
2. Once again, of the three of us, I am the only one who is willing to call all deliberate attacks that kill innocent bystanders, including children, a wrong, a "sin," if you prefer. You all waffle on that point, saying that it is wrong ONLY under certain circumstances. That is, YOU ALL are the ones with the fluid morality on that point. Just objectively so.
3. Look, I GET it. You all think that in some circumstances (Israel conquering a nation, bombing enemy nations, etc), there are times when the deliberate killing of babies is not wrong. Just admit it. Admit that your morality IS nuanced and dependent on circumstances on that point at least. We can all see that's the case.
4. And Marshal, read for understanding, when I say you're "completely fine" with the deliberate targeting and killing of babies, I'm not saying you're glad about it. IN THIS CONVERSATION, "you're completely fine" is saying that you are NOT going to call such killings a wrong. In fact, you might even say it was for the greater GOOD and it would have been WRONG to not target those places where innocent babies and even fetuses were going to be killed. THAT is what I'm saying.
No, it confirms what I already suspected.
Delete1. At best you are carelessly using murder and killing interchangeably, at worst you are intentionally doing so. Art used the term murder, your response used the term killing, which are not the same thing.
2. No you are not. This is simply a false claim which you continue to make, without proof. If you can prove your claim, I'll gladly apologize.
3. No.
Craig:
ReplyDeleteYou know what is strange, all the killing Dan whines about during WW2, was brought to you by icons of the DFL.
YES! And they were WRONG to do so. It is wrong to target places/people where innocent people will be killed. Once again, we can see that at least on that point, I am the one with the consistent morality and you all have the fluid morality, saying it depends on the circumstances. Just admit it. EVEN IF it's a Democrat or liberal who is doing the killing, the raping, the harm to children, the sexual predatory behavior, IT IS WRONG.
And that is the difference between you all and people like me. We are willing to call it wrong when it's our people doing the misdeed.
Craig stupidly falsely claimed:
I'll note that Dan is "completely fine with slaughtering babies in the right circumstances".
Bullshit, son. Don't be obtuse. Of course, I'm not. You're confusing me with you. I do NOT support the killing of innocent people when it's Hamas, of course, nor when it's Israel. But YOU all are supportive of Israel doing that.
Once again, your one finger is pointing falsely to me while your other fingers are pointing right back at you, and rightly so.
The more you all speak, the more you point out your own hypocrisy and support of killings and the more you make it clear that, in spite of what you claim, I am AGAINST all killing of innocent people. I'm against drivers getting an invalid drivers license. I'm against people in the US killing people. I'm against people in Iran killing people. I'm against people in the US targeting boats and killing people with no due process or proof of guilt. I'm against the US threatening to take over Greenland, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran or any other place - and threatening deadly violence, including against innocent people - to do so.
I'm against it while you all waver and squirm and make excuses. Again, I GET that you all think there are some circumstances where forced marriages, slavery, killing, killing children, killing babies is NOT a wrong and is justified and the "right" thing to do. We can see you confess to it regularly. Just admit it. And quit accusing me of that which YOU are doing.
Interesting, that Dan harshly condemns FDR and Truman, while ignoring Hitler, Tojo, Mussolini, and Stalin. I get it, he'll pretend that the killing engaged in by the US was equal to the killing engaged in by the above list.
DeleteAgain, I'll note that Dan is "completely fine" with slaughtering millions of innocent, vulnerable, helpless children under certain circumstances.
The fact that you have to resort to lies isn't a good sign. Especially from someone who is such a supporter of Islam. Look, I get it, you completely misstate our actual positions and congratulate yourself for winning an argument against a straw man. What a brave, strong, master debater you are.
"Forced marriages, slavery, killing children, killing infidels, killing gays, and mutilating criminals" happens virtually daily in over 50 countries across the globe (as well as in the US and Europe) and you sit silently by and bitch about something in the OT.
FWIW, The theoretical "take over" of Greenland would be a strategic move intended to limit future potential aggressive actions of China, Russia, or others. Given what I've seen, the net effect on Greenland would be either neutral or positive. Personally, I'd prefer an arrangement that allowed the US to access Greenland for strategic purposes and to access the natural resources which would benefit Western countries, without a "take over". Doing so would benefit both the US and Europe.
I've seen no indications that taking over Cuba is even an option, likewise with Venezuela.
March 30, 2026 at 8:39 AM
ReplyDelete"That is saying literally nothing."
It's saying the comparison is true and valid that truth and morality to you is fluid and a matter of convenience for your kind. To wit:
"Murder is just the legal term for killing."
This is factually untrue. Murder is something specific, whereas "killing" is a general term. "He was 'killed' in an automobile accident" or "Thousands were 'killed' in the earthquake" clearly distinguishes the word "killing" from "murdering". Murder denotes unjust intent. To take a life for personal gain when no other means by which gain can be had are available.
To target a people denotes intent, but just war theory presents the reality that a targeting might be justified, rational and necessary to prevent more serious consequences when no other options will to the trick. Whether the targeting is moral or immoral depends upon the intention itself. As just stated, it can clearly be a moral choice despite the regrettable potential of collateral deaths of innocents/non-combatants. Simply the harm to innocents/non-combatants doesn't determine the moral quality of the targeting. In the case of Gaza, given the tactics of their supported Hamas leaders, any harm to "innocent" non-combatants, including infants, is on the Gazans for compelling the action which put those people in harm's way. The "wrong" is on the Gazans, since all potential harm ceases when they lay down their arms.
If Israel chose specifically to target the children of Gaza to compel surrender, that intention would be immoral. But the facts demonstrate that Israel takes great pains...puts their own people at great risk...to avoid harming non-combatants. The Gazans leave them no choice but to allow the actual murder of their own civilian population. It's immoral for Israel to so allow such a thing, particularly for its government, whose first order of business is to protect the people of Israel.
There's no "nuance" or ambiguity in recognizing which options are moral or not. It's a rejection to truth to say otherwise. Thus,
"In my usage, there is no goalpost moving, as I was speaking about killing of innocent people."
Your usage is an example of the fluidity of your morality and regard for truth. Worse, you've made a claim that all killing of innocent people is immoral, even when the killing is unavoidable while fighting against willful, intentional attacks on one's own people. If your opposition to this is what you call moral consistency, it is an example of the fluid nature of your moral philosophy. The killing of non-combatants is not always immoral or wrong.
The following is another example of Dan's low regard of truth:
"2. Once again, of the three of us, I am the only one who is willing to call all deliberate attacks that kill innocent bystanders, including children, a wrong, a "sin," if you prefer."
Your support for the deliberate attacks on the unborn, the deliberate disregard for allowing the infiltration of our borders by violent criminals, the deliberate attacks on innocent civilians by criminals deliberately allowed to avoid proper sentences and incarceration is gravely immoral. The deliberate attacks on legitimate enemy targets which result in non-combatants being killed is NOT a sin or immoral, but only regrettable assuming no other alternative means of erasing the enemy target. It IS sinful to insist we are somehow obliged to sustain unknown, unlimited amounts of human casualties and infrastructure damage by a malevolent force because non-combatant citizens of that force might be harmed in the process of defending ourselves. Worse, it is far more gravely immoral to elect leaders willing to sacrifice their own people to posture as compassionate with regard to the lives of an enemy's people.
Your third point doubles down on your lie. What is "deliberate"? The killing of babies, or the targeting of enemy combatants who hide behind babies? What's moral is defensive action. What's immoral is inviting that action by one's deliberate targeting of civilian populations, and doing so from behind babies? What's deliberate is taking out the enemy. The killing of non-combatants is a regrettable consequence, but not taking out the enemy killing one's own people is immoral. The death of the enemy's non-combatants isn't on the defender. They didn't kill the non-combatants. The enemy's intentions did.
ReplyDeleteYou also suggest that responding to enemy attacks wherein their non-combatants suffer is a matter of total disregard for those non-combatants, which is a lie when referring to either our nation under the current administration Israel under theirs. This whole line of "reasoning" demonstrates the validity of the comparison in question. You have to ignore truths in order to suppose you're being consistent and we're not. You have to overlay the potential suffering of non-combatants on a specific issue in order to pretend the morality of how one proceeds in light of that potential is predicated solely on that potential, thereby again ignoring truth to support that premise. Something is either true or it isn't. Something is either moral or it isn't. It is not truth to narrow down an action to only whether or not non-combatants might die in order to determine the morality of that action as if there are no other factors to consider. It is the totality of all considerations behind an intention which determines the morality of the intention. You're implying a "gray area" philosophy which itself validates the position that that truth and morality is fluid and a matter of convenience for your kind.
"read for understanding"
I do. The extent of my understanding is directly proportional to the clarity of what you write and intend to convey. Here, you attempts to clarify validate my comparison more and more.
"IN THIS CONVERSATION, "you're completely fine" is saying that you are NOT going to call such killings a wrong"
Then clearly I understood you perfectly, because they are not.
"In fact, you might even say it was for the greater GOOD and it would have been WRONG to not target those places where innocent babies and even fetuses were going to be killed."
There's no "might" about it. It would have been wrong. You're again lying that the threat to "babies and even fetuses" is the sole concern for determining whether a necessary action can be carried out. It isn't, but it is wrong to say it is. Just the fact that one forces another to make that determination is immoral. But to be forced and to make the hard choice is not.
Two thoughts.
Delete1. Dan clearly has a threshold that is set so high as to provide aggressors assurance that the US (for example) will allow them to achieve their goals. Had Israel followed Dan's hunch, Hamas would still be in control, holding hostages, raping and torturing those hostages, secure in knowing that their announced strategy of hiding behind human shields would work perfectly.
2. Failing to eradicate evil until some unreasonable/impossible threshold is reached is simply a license for evil to continue. Had WW2 been conducted according to Dan's hunches, Japan would have conquered the entire Pacific ocean basin, and big chunks of Asia. They would be enslaving and torturing their captives. Likewise, Germany would likely control Western Europe and would have reached the goal of exterminating every single Jew in territory they controlled. Oppression, murder, killing, rape, and all sorts of evil would flourish under Dan's "Perfect Conditions To Stop Evil" hunch (PCTSE from here on out).
As Bubba noted, we live in a fallen, imperfect world marred by sin and evil. Those who want to limit sin and evil are left with the choice of being effective in their goal, or essentially doing nothing and waiting for some perfect scenario.
For evil to triumph all it takes is for good men to sit and wait for some alleged perfect scenario to remove the evil. The longer that you wait, the harder it will be to eradicate evil.
March 30, 2026 at 8:47 AM
ReplyDelete"Once again, we can see that at least on that point, I am the one with the consistent morality and you all have the fluid morality, saying it depends on the circumstances."
This is not...as Craig would say...not the flex you think it is (I like that expression. It works well in discussions such as this!), particularly since that position is immoral and relies on ignoring significant truths. To say, "It is wrong to target places/people where innocent people will be killed" ignores all which goes into making such a targeting decision.
Take the unfortunate bombing of the Iranian girls' school in which it appears more likely than not at this point that it was an American launched missile (the investigation is still ongoing). Consider all the facts that we do know:
1. The school was originally, as I understand it, a part of a military compound, which had been subdivided into separate facilities.
2. The school continues to be in close proximity to the remaining military compound.
If the school was targeted, the likelihood it was an error in recognizing that it is now a school, or an error in programming the missile. It's OK to be mistaken about a clearly defined sin, such as homosexuality, despite the consequences, but not in a case like this? And to say this error is "OK" is only to respond to accusations of incompetence progressives are eager to make (and have made) in their never ending quest to prove their lies about Trump and his competence as POTUS is justified...which is immoral and all too common among "progressives".
Of course it's NOT "OK" that errors are made, particularly when human life is at stake. But that doesn't make the error immoral, unless it can be proven that wanton neglect or irresponsibility played a role.
So what was targeted? A girls' school? Only a progressive would say so here, which is immoral and untruthful. The target was a military target regardless of whether or not it was hit or even if the target was wrongly identified as military.
Our technical advancements have made collateral casualties less likely. They're not at the point where no collateral casualties can be guaranteed. The best we can do is to lower the probability, but still the probability exists. Probability is only zero if no battles are ever undertaken. And it is immoral to say that when faced with evil, one can only respond on the condition that non-combatants won't be killed. Evil can never be defeated under such conditions and such a promise made will result in more death and suffer, not less. Thus, judging morality on the number of non-combatants threatened or killed is itself immoral. Only fools deal with evil in such a way and progressives are just the fools who'd make such a rule.
There's no "nuance" here, but the most accurate assessment possible of the moral quality of an action or behavior given the situation. That's because morality is a not just a behavior, but the intention behind it. (See Christ's remarks regarding lust and hate being akin to adultery and murder).
Excellent point. It seems likely that the strike that hit the girls school was an error either in intelligence or in targeting. It's possible that the Iranians put the school there because they thought it might buy them some good PR in the event of an attack. In any case, it was not something to be celebrated.
DeleteThat our technology has resulted in the level of precision we've seen of late is absolutely amazing. It shows a commitment to minimize collateral damage beyond any on modern history. Even when Hamas tries diligently to increase collateral damage, Israel went to great lengths to minimize it. As the data shows, Israel's level of collateral damage was significantly better than what the Geneva Conventions "allow".
Excellent point again, that the defining factor (per Jesus) is intent, not action.
Conversely, we see constantly...not excluding years of dealing with Dan...wherein we see progressives equivocating on the morality of a given behavior. We say abortion is wrong because it's never necessary, medically or otherwise. Dan says it's between the pregnant woman and her doctor, as if that makes it OK despite the fact remaining that there is no legitimate reason which necessitates the barbaric destruction of the human being in utero. Dan pretends there something immoral about a just response to aggression which unfortunately kills a pregnant non-combatant, while at the same time voting for those who insist on keeping infanticide legal despite no medical necessity which exists to justify it. There's no more direct targeting of the innocent than abortion and Dan's "morality" allows for it. He even helps to insure that it is legal, thereby enabling it, making him complicit in each one of them. If abortion is never necessary...and it never is...then it is immoral to support candidates who pledge to keep it legal in any form.
ReplyDeleteWith this issue, the details make it worse. Dan never speaks out against the practice or has ever suggested that he pushed for his kind to outlaw it or even to limit it in any way. I oppose IVF and while our president supports it (I don't believe he truly understands the implications of it), I've expressed my opposition here and in other forums. It's immoral and not necessary. This is what consistency looks like. What Dan offers is intellectual laziness or childishness. "It's always wrong to kill people!" What a bold stance! Not true and thus not a moral position. It's certainly convenient to say such a shallow thing!
"Bullshit, son. Don't be obtuse. Of course, I'm not."
Of course you are so long as you don't speak out against abortion and instead support its legality.
"I'm against people in the US targeting boats and killing people with no due process or proof of guilt. I'm against the US threatening to take over Greenland, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran or any other place - and threatening deadly violence, including against innocent people - to do so."
But not against stating this as if it's an accurate reflection of anything happening, meaning truth is indeed fluid for you and a matter of convenience.
"Again, I GET that you all think there are some circumstances where forced marriages, slavery, killing, killing children, killing babies is NOT a wrong and is justified and the "right" thing to do."
The lie here is that this is an accurate reflection of our positions, and made worse by bringing up issues which have been clarified in the past to respond to your false presentation of those issues. So you're lying about lying and thus again validating my comparison as a factual difference between your kind and mine.
"And quit accusing me of that which YOU are doing."
That hasn't happened.
Marshal...
DeleteThe lie here is that this is an accurate reflection of our positions
?
??!
HOW is providing an accurate reflection of your positions a lie?
Give up. We see what you're saying and your moral fluidity.
"I'm against people in the US targeting boats and killing people with no due process or proof of guilt."
DeleteWhat a biz arre position to take. To single out the US going after drug smugglers, while ignoring the various groups of pirates that regularly attack or hijack commercial vessels going innocently about their legal business. Likewise, his rationale seems to indicate that it is perfectly acceptable for Hamas,Hezbollah, Boko Haram, or any other Iranian proxy groups to target innocent civilians and kill them without due process or proof of guilt.
Now, I know what Dan's response will be. It'll be some version of "I condemn all...". Which might actually be True, the problem is that he always defaults to only condemning certain countries or ideologies, and rarely mentioning others unless hounded. He could have, in this case, left out "in the US" and made the larger point that he really does condemn all of it equally. He chose to specify the US and ignore places where violence is a much more common tactic to drive political goals.
Yes, that lie has been dealt with many times, yet he continues to repeat it.
March 30, 2026 at 5:25 PM
Delete"HOW is providing an accurate reflection of your positions a lie?"
The lie is that you AREN'T providing an accurate representation of our positions. Which is what I said.
The obvious answer to the confusion would be for Dan to simply provide proof of his claims about our/your “position”. It shouldn’t be particularly hard for him to do.
DeleteDan:
ReplyDelete"I'm against people in the US targeting boats and killing people with no due process or proof of guilt."
Craig:
What a biz arre position to take.
What a TRULY bizarre response and position to take! I say that it's simply not right to bomb a boat out in open waters because you SUSPECT they are drug dealers (and offering little in the way of proof), killing people in an extrajudicial execution with NO due process. THAT is the only rational position to take consistent with our own laws or international laws. Instead of simply doing the right thing and saying, "YES, on THAT point, this administration committed crimes and abuses of power and should be held accountable. We are a nation built upon the notion of Due Process. This lawless criminality is atrocious EVEN IF it turned out that the dozens of people they slaughtered were guilty (or if SOME of them were guilty) - which is a point we don't know. The crime itself is not a crime that is a capitol offense and committing the executions outside of due process is a human rights atrocity."
THAT would be a good faith, morally rational response. But calling my position bizarre, apparently because I also did not mention crimes being done by other nations as being bad... THAT is truly irrational and bizarre.
What's become of modern so-called "conservative" so-called "christians..."?
What is bizarre is that you single out the US for this. That there is plenty of long standing legal justification for these actions (I've posted it), which you've never addressed or proven wrong, is part of how bizarre your position is.
DeleteThe problem is that "good faith, morally rational" is a subjective measure based on your personal, subjective moral code.
Nothing compared to what's become of politically liberal "so called christians".
March 31, 2026 at 10:10 AM
ReplyDeleteThis latest comment by Dan further validates my first point that for his kind, "Truth and morality are matters of personal preference; fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate. They are what we need them to be."
While Dan's emboldened position might be a righteous position to take, the implication that such an act has taken place is absurdly unsupported, and only stated as if it's absolute truth. It's an amazing stretching of reality to suppose his president would act in such a manner without just cause and without proof. He merely chooses to assert it as true because of his hatred for his president. Thus, it's not only a subjective and willful contorting of truth to serve his agenda, but immoral for doing so. And of course the hypocrisy of such opposition is plain given his support for the direct and intentional targeting of the innocent unborn.
Dan's free to deny the truth of my description of his kind as regarding truth and morality as matters of personal preference; fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate. But why he chooses to continually confirm the description as true suggests mental disorder.
https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2025/11/28/why_the_united_states_has_a_right_to_bomb_the_venezuelan_drug_boats_1150069.html
As noted, I posted on the established legal justification for this as well. Part of Dan's problem is simply ignorance. He's applying his imperfect hunches about US legal code, to a situation which operates under a completely different legal code. Dan simply assumes that his limited knowledge of US law magically applies in any and all other situations, which it does not.
DeleteAt some point, he'll likely prate about "international law". The problem is that "international law" isn't actually a thing, in the sense that US criminal code, or Sharia are codified legal systems. There is no magical authority, no universal legal code, and certainly inconsistent "enforcement". I mean, isn't the killing of tens of thousands of protesters or hundreds of thousands of Christians a violation of "international law"?
Craig:
ReplyDeleteWhat is bizarre is that you single out the US for this.
? You TRULY don't understand why I want to voice my opinion and raise my concern about gross injustices IN MY OWN NATION, a free republic where our combined voices can change things?
Have you never read the Bible?
Have you never used common sense and moral reasoning?
FIRST, take the plank out of your own eye THEN you can see to remove specks (or planks) from others' eyes.
When your nation is a nation that truly is an exemplar of human rights, common decency and law and order, not a nation that believes in a might makes right hegemony where they want to dictate to others what they're not doing themselves, THEN your nation is in a better place to make the case against OTHER nations when they are doing wrong.
As it is now, with Trump just willy nilly invading nations, assassinating leaders and trying to take over other nations and their resources, then we have no rational nor moral leg to stand on against Russia and their invasion of Iran and their human rights abuses.
If it's a red in tooth and claw, strongest monsters makes the rules until a stronger monster comes along and the best you can hope for is a compassionate monster, well, then you're bringing hell into this world, men. We are NOT of that hell-world, populated by monstrous demons and good and rational people will fight against that sort of authoritarianism.
I mean, seriously, have you read ANY of history or about human rights or the better ideals of our nation?
What in the name of all that is holy and morally rational has happened to modern "conservatives," that they are bowing down to strong men to let them have their way instead of joining us in actually fighting against human rights abuses.
The fight for human rights and law and order begins at home.
As I've said many times when you raise this non-issue, THAT is why I call for better behavior and an end to atrocities from my own nation... BECAUSE it is the place where I have a voice and the strongest chance to make a difference AND because when one (or some) nations are reasonably consistently in favor of human rights and opposed to killing innocent people, THEN those nations are the ones that have the best chance for making changes elsewhere.
No, I don't understand why you single out the US while staying silent on countries who engage in significantly worse behavior.
DeleteThe Bible says noting about the US, nor about ignoring injustice outside of your little parochial silo.
Yes. I do so to understand that we live in a larger world and that ignoring evil elsewhere will end badly.
Your concept of the plank/speck seems reversed. That you think that the US killing a few drug smugglers (under a well established legal framework) is worse than slaughtering tens of thousands of protesters seeking freedom, or slaughtering hundreds of thousands because they disagree over religion, your vaunted moral framework seems warped and perverted. That you stay silent while thousands of women and children are raped in Europe, isn't a ringing endorsement for your subjective morality.
Yes, I have. I've also read and studied the history of other governing systems and worldviews and agree that ours is better (even with the flaws brought on by sinful humans) than any others. I'm also disgusted as I watch the roots of our system being overwhelmed by a system which is the total opposite of the values we hold.
Because you say something is a declarative manner, doesn't make it True. While you fight over small things "at home", you're ignoring major things elsewhere.
Yes, I'm aware of your excuse for ignoring massive "human rights" violations across the globe.
March 31, 2026 at 6:19 PM
Delete"? You TRULY don't understand why I want to voice my opinion and raise my concern about gross injustices IN MY OWN NATION, a free republic where our combined voices can change things?"
I don't recall the slightest suggestion ever put forth that we don't have problems of our own, or that by having them we're ignoring them or unconcerned about resolving them simply because we point to worse examples (or ANY examples) of those same problems elsewhere in the world. The insinuation that this is the case and that we're in breach of the "plank/speck" teaching of Christ is no more than an attempt to falsely accuse us of indulging in that hypocritical practice.
In any case, there's very little said by Dan about those very same problems here if he can't connect them to Trump and or conservatives. Indeed, far more often than not, and to the extent that one can say it's unique to the left, these problems are the result of progressive policy. Mote, meet beam.
"not a nation that believes in a might makes right hegemony where they want to dictate to others what they're not doing themselves"
We're not such a nation, nor are those like Craig and myself acting in such a manner. Again, it's an attempt to defend against the truth of the comparison, which ironically (Dan loves irony) supports the premise about the fluidity of truth in the progressive mind.
"...with Trump just willy nilly invading nations, assassinating leaders and trying to take over other nations and their resources, then we have no rational nor moral leg to stand on..."
This is just a blatant lie for which Dan offers no evidentiary support, nor ever even condescends to do so. Dan talks about morality while acting immorally.
"If it's a red in tooth and claw, strongest monsters makes the rules until a stronger monster comes along"
It is immoral to accuse or imply another is a monster for no reason. Your ambiguous morality matches your ambiguous truth. Given the reality of the Iranian enemy, Trump is defeating a monster with nuclear ambitions and a constant insistence they mean to bring about the "12th imam" in a manner which demands that people who are actually "good and rational" will actually step up to fight against that sort of authoritarianism.
"have you read ANY of history or about human rights or the better ideals of our nation?"
Of course. And unlike you, we actually have a solid handle on both.
"THAT is why I call for better behavior and an end to atrocities from my own nation..."
...while consistently supporting candidates and administrations who have done so much to enable atrocious behaviors. This is due to you regarding truth and morality as matters of personal preference; fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate, rather than fixed principles.
Craig irrationally stated this nonsense nothing:
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that "good faith, morally rational" is a subjective measure based on your personal, subjective moral code.
Yes, that IS the problem we all have. It is why we must talk things over and find some common ground. AND, one would think that it should be fairly easy to find common ground amongst morally reasoning adults in drawing a line and saying, "WE WILL NOT TARGET AREAS for attack where children, babies, fetuses and other innocents are located and will be harmed."
At the very least, we can say, "I don't know what else to do... it's the lesser of two evils..." As long as we keep front of mind that it IS an evil.
But you all won't even agree to that bare minimum of acknowledging that it is a great evil and an affront to human rights to plan attacks that will kill children.
You all won't agree to the bare minimum of acknowledging that it is a great evil and an affront to human rights to execute someone outside of due process.
Instead, you opt for a loose and squishy "morality" that isn't moral at all. Or, as Marshal said: "Truth and morality are matters of personal preference; fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate. They are what we need them to be."
That IS your guideline on at least the notion of targeting areas with innocent people and on public executions outside of due process.
YOU are that man.
"Craig irrationally stated this nonsense nothing:"rrational,
DeleteStarting out with this irrational, nonsensical, random collection of words doesn't bode well for what follows.
I was right, the remainder of this screed is simply misrepresentation, false claims, and lies.
I do love it when you find a phrase that attracts you and then cram that phrase into places where it makes no sense at all.
Your misrepresenting Art's quote is pretty low, even for you. You make these nonsensical claims about what "isn't moral at all", while not being able to define morality or provide any sort of universal or objective standard of morality. It's amusing when you contradict yourself.
March 31, 2026 at 6:27 PM
Delete"Yes, that IS the problem we all have."
No. It's the problem you and all progressives have and is the point you're failing to dispel.
"AND, one would think that it should be fairly easy to find common ground amongst morally reasoning adults in drawing a line and saying, "WE WILL NOT TARGET AREAS for attack where children, babies, fetuses and other innocents are located and will be harmed.""
And we will forever suffer attacks from those who don't share that principle, like the islamists who purposely plant their military amongst their civilians and then dare us to stop them from pursuing their islamist agenda. This illustrates your unfamiliarity with words like "reasonable" and "rational" and of course "moral and truth". There's nothing reasonable about leaving our own at risk because of the potential or probable harm to non-combatants near enemy targets. It's moronic and immoral to want anyone remotely resembling one like yourself so lacking in "rational" and "reasonable" thinking, to have any part in deciding how our nation should respond to evil.
" At the very least, we can say, "I don't know what else to do... it's the lesser of two evils..." As long as we keep front of mind that it IS an evil."
The undesired and regrettable deaths of non-combatants resulting from necessary military action isn't "evil" in the least, except to those like you for whom morality is a matter of personal preference; fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate.
"But you all won't even agree to that bare minimum of acknowledging that it is a great evil and an affront to human rights to plan attacks that will kill children."
Because it isn't. It's a lie you tell to posture as morally superior to those with the courage to do what needs to be done despite the regrettable consequences which go along with it. THAT is what evil looks like.
It's also an immoral lie to presume or imply the loss of innocent life in the execution of a just and necessary operation is considered in a cavalier manner, when our history over the last two or three decades (if not far longer) as well as the history of Israel is to engage in the enemy in such as manner as to do so without harming non-combatants, even in theaters of war where the non-combatants are complicit in the indiscriminate and usually intentional slaughter of civilians by their support for it.
Yet far, far worse than that is for someone like you mount your high horse in an area where no such decisions need to be made. Such posturing is obscene.
"You all won't agree to the bare minimum of acknowledging that it is a great evil and an affront to human rights to execute someone outside of due process."
But we DO agree! We disagree with your false description of destroying drug runners is a great evil and outside of due process. We disagree with your lie that there no legal justification for the actions you oppose as a matter of due process denied. We disagree with the current corruption of the process of due process altogether, as you misapply it to the arrest, detainment and deportation of illegal aliens. Your fluid morality and rejection of truth is apparent and obvious here. You are doing my heavy lifting for me in proving the truth of the comparison you find offensive and false.
"YOU are that man."
YOU are that petulant child who accuses her mother of being mean for not allowing cookies before dinner. YOU are NOT the adult in the room.
Craig, stupidly asked:
ReplyDeleteI mean, isn't the killing of tens of thousands of protesters or hundreds of thousands of Christians a violation of "international law"?
Yes. It is. One million times over and over and over and over and over again, it is wrong, it's horrible, it's an atrocity, it's evil, it's a "sin..." IT IS WRONG.
If Iran does it, is it wrong? YES.
If the US does it, is it wrong? YES.
If Russia does it, is it wrong? YES.
If Muslims do it, is it wrong? YES.
If Christians do it, is it wrong? YES.
Killing innocent people, killing protesters, targeting areas where innocent people WILL be killed, it is ALWAYS wrong for those of us with a consistent moral position on this point.
And the great thing about having moral consistency on a point is that you can know (for those of us who are always supportive of human rights and who are always opposed to targeting innocent people) what our answer is going to be.
And don't be obtuse, of course, international law is a real thing. It's imperfectly enforced and lived out - as are our own national and state laws - but it's every bit as real as any other human legal device. Stop denying reality.
But killing people without giving them due process is, whatever legal experts may say (some may have one opinion and others another), a violation of our ideals of basic human rights.
And I consistently believe that, just as I am consistently opposed to targeting innocent people for killing or striking in areas where innocent people will be killed. WHOever is doing it. Hell, if some devout believer in one god or another goes as far as to say, "but, my god REALLY wants me to kill all the enemies, including the babies, and kidnap the virgin girls and take them home and force them to be my wife (ie, rape)," it is STILL wrong.
There is nothing amazing in this very low bar of rational morality. What IS amazing is that some who claim to be believers in a loving God would fight so hard against it.
You're embarrassing yourselves, conservatives. Repent. Do better. Be better.
Yet, you sit silently by while it happens while you bitch and moan about a few drug smugglers getting killed under the auspices of long settled legal principles. Until your hypocrisy if pointed out. Then you engage in this sort of self congratulatory, performative, attempt to make the killing of tens of thousands of innocent protesters, hundreds of thousands of Christians, and tens of thousands of rapes, morally equal to the legally justifiable killings of a few drug smugglers.
DeleteThis is what your subjective morality gets you.
As to the comments by Bubba and others who would like to insist that I agree an unborn human fetus has full human rights, not everyone agrees with that theory. It is an unproven theory, not a given.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, EVERY baby boy, girl, child, teenager and innocent person in an attack zone IS, without one single doubt, fully human deserving all human rights. You all even would agree with that. Hopefully.
So, in the realm of known morality as it relates to known humans deserving of rights, only ONE side here has the fluid morality that says in some circumstances to target an area where it is known that innocent people (and even fetuses) WILL die.
There is a world of difference between your choice to support such overt evil and those of families who choose what to do with a pregnancy themselves. One is an agreed upon evil. The other is an unsettled matter of personal choice.
But you know what? I will ALWAYS be opposed to Russia or the US or Iran deliberately taking actions that would kill an unborn fetus in a woman. EVERY single time.
Would that you all could just take that baby step towards moral reasoning and support of human rights.
Repent.
"I will ALWAYS be opposed to Russia or the US or Iran deliberately taking actions that would kill an unborn fetus in a woman. EVERY single time."
DeleteStrangely enough, you will always unquestionably support the ending of the life of an unborn human child as long as it's only the mother who unilaterally decides to end the human life.
"an unborn human fetus has full human rights,"
Please provide proof of this claim. I can speak for myself and say categorically that I do not demand that you agree to this, nor have I ever seen anyone else do so. Either prove your claim, or retract it.
It's a strange, subjective, moral code which relies on lies and false claims.
Craig...
ReplyDeleteI mean, isn't the killing of tens of thousands of protesters or hundreds of thousands of Christians a violation of "international law"?
Part of what makes ANY court or judicial system stronger rather than weaker is the widespread support of the notion of a court and a commitment to heeding its rulings. In the case of the International Criminal Court - the outfit that would address rulings against human rights abusers - there is fairly widespread support for it except.... where?? Oh! Amongst the conservative "law and order" types who've consistently blocked the US from joining.
You can't have it both ways... claiming the world court is too weak and doesn't act strongly enough against human rights abuses AND at the same time, actively weakening and undermining it.
YOU are that man.
I don't think you all even understand how you are the bad actors in this scenario.
You want the world to join together in legal actions against oppression? Join us, stop fighting us.
"there is fairly widespread support for it"
DeleteAgain with the unproven claims.
"the outfit that would address rulings against human rights abusers"
Please show me the rulings against Iran for the slaughter of tens of thousands of protesters or their systematic denial of basic human rights for women? Where are the rulings against those who've slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Christians in Africa? Where are the rulings against Hamas for their decades long indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians in Israel and their well documented war crimes since 10/7? Where are the rulings against forced marriages where children as young as 9 are married to much older men?
How is it possible that any international group would place Iran in a position to lead a committee on human rights? How could anyone take that seriously?
A public service announcement.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to note that Dan has essentially skipped responding to the actual post and has moved into what I like to call he "greatest hits" phase. It's like he's got a herd of dead horses that he regularly likes to drag out to beat. There may or may not be any relation to the content of the post, but will be whatever Dan wants to change the subject to.
I was hoping that he'd provide proof that the people cited in the original post were actually wrong or something like that. But I've been disappointed.
Dan can't refute the post. So, he focuses on that which most exposes his own fraudulence and goes to town on it. Here, he's focused on the first comparison between conservatives and progressives to insist that for him (and by extension, "progressives like him") don't regard truth and morality as matters of personal preference; fluid and ever changing as circumstances dictate. Ironically (because Dan loves irony), his comments don't do a thing to belie the claim, but instead reinforce it with every one he posts. The last batch to which you responded are replete with examples, a few of which I'll be highlighting.
DeleteDan won’t even try to refute the post beyond making unfounded pronouncements. He won’t deal with any of the links, data, or actual claims. It’s straw men all the way.
DeleteIt’s bizarre because he’s passionately argued that there are multiple truths.
Craig and Marshal...
ReplyDeleteI wanted to note that Dan has essentially skipped responding to the actual post ...
Dan can't refute the post...
What in the name of all that is good and rational are you talking about?! There is nothing TO refute. Marshal made some sweeping and unsupported claims about what progressives "believe" (according to him) and yet, of all 8 billion people on the planet, Marshal could not bother to cite even ONE to support these nonsense claims.
On the other hand, as a progressive Christian of the sort that Marshal is talking about, I can authoritatively tell you that his nonsense claims are NOT what I believe at all, nor do I know any progressives who think that way.
To the extent that it's a sweeping and unsupported claim - as if all progressives or even a majority of progressives - think that way, my single example refutes those claims.
Now, if Marshal would like to humble himself and temper his claim and say something like, "Well, in my personal little experience around progressives, I have found several who would affirm these ideas..." THAT would be something closer to defensible (although, still, it would be entirely unsupported, of course).
I have no idea what you're talking about beyond that. I HAVE refuted your nonsense claims by the reality of what I, as a progressive, believe... and it's NOT what you claim.
I said and craig responded:
ReplyDelete"there is fairly widespread support for it" [The ICC]
Again with the unproven claims.
? There are 125 signatory states on the ICC.
"Out of them 33 are African States, 19 are Asia-Pacific States, 20 are from Eastern Europe, 28 are from Latin American and Caribbean States, and 25 are from Western European and other States."
Of the states that have NOT signed on, it includes United States, China, Russia, India, and Israel. Great company. That is, some of the states with some pretty bad track records for violating the Geneva Convention and otherwise behaving badly globally, THOSE are the ones who didn't sign on.
That is, out of the 195 nations in the world, 125 are members of the ICC. Do you NOT consider that fairly widespread support?
This is nonsensical.
I was hoping that he'd provide proof that the people cited in the original post were actually wrong or something like that.
ReplyDelete? I am wondering what "people" you think were "cited..."? Because all I see are Marshal's unsupported claims completely devoid of ANY references or sources. Are you talking about the laughably irrational nonsense article from the "american" "thinker" article? Like Marshal, he's just making claims with zero support. This guy makes a sweeping and ridiculously unsupported charge that "leftists are evil..." Not even "oftentimes wrong" or, "they don't listen to me enough," but just evil AND incapable of change!
Anytime someone makes ineptly irrational nonsense charges WITH NO SUPPORT that are ridiculously stupid on the face of it, especially when they're speaking of a whole group of people, rational adults will notice that red flag.
After all, you don't see me saying "all conservatives are evil." ...because I haven't said it because I don't believe it (in spite of the overwhelming problem with the maga-"conservatives...")
Is the problem that you all just don't understand adult reasoning and moral rationality?
What "people" are you thinking that Marshal has cited that have ANY support for Marshal's entirely unsupported nonsense claims?
Citing far right extremists who say they really don't like liberals is NOT support and anyone who would consider such an "argument" does not understand rational adult conversation.
As far as ICC prosecuting criminals besides the US or Israel (which presumably, you all don't like for some reason), here is a short list of a few people convicted by ICC and who spent time in prison:
ReplyDeleteConvicted Individuals Who Have Served or Are Serving Prison Sentences:
Dominic Ongwen (Uganda): A Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) commander sentenced to 25 years for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was transferred to Norway to serve his sentence in December 2023.
Bosco Ntaganda (DRC): A Congolese militia leader sentenced to 30 years for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was transferred to Belgium in December 2022.
Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (DRC): The first person convicted by the ICC (in 2012) for child soldier recruitment. He served 14 years and was released in March 2020 after serving his sentence in the DRC.
Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (Mali): Sentenced to nine years for destroying historical monuments in Timbuktu. He was transferred to the United Kingdom to serve his sentence...
There are others. As to why the ICC has not ruled against Iran, it's the same reason they haven't ruled against the US, neither US or Iran are members of the ICC, limiting its jurisdiction.
Noting once again that the more buy in there is for something like an ICC, the more powerful it can be and the more it can act on human rights abuses. When the most powerful nations in the world don't join, it undermines its strength.
So, once again, I would invite you "law and order" (ha!) types to JOIN us in promoting world court type of actions against human rights abuses, whether it is the US, Iran, Russia or Israel committing the crimes. THAT is how you fight against oppression, not by committing atrocities yourself and then defending against those atrocities.