The Double Standard

245

Comments

  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    The guy really needs to have a nice grilled cheese sandwich... really.


    and perhaps a warm bowl of tomato soup.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jsand wrote:
    More moral equivalence at its finest. I expected no less from the moving train.

    Yes!! It is moral equivalence. A very sharp eye. Now, can you tell me how the morality, in reality, is unequivalent?
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    and perhaps a warm bowl of tomato soup.
    ...
    Yeah.. nothing like a nice grilled cheese sandwich and the hot bowl of tomato soup to knock the edge off a festering hatred and wanton desire for the complete anihilation of a large number of people.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    Yeah.. nothing like a nice grilled cheese sandwich and the hot bowl of tomato soup to knock the edge off a festering hatred and wanton desire for the complete anihilation of a large number of people.

    I always knew my grandmother was onto something.
    :)
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    So why don't you try answering the question?

    because it is much easier to make drama statements and act like you are somehow superior in thought and being ...
  • jsand
    jsand Posts: 646
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Yes!! It is moral equivalence. A very sharp eye. Now, can you tell me how the morality, in reality, is unequivalent?

    No thanks. Been there, done that too many times on this board. No matter what the facts are, you and others on this moral equivalency kick can't get it through your heads that there is a very conspicuous distinction between a sovereign state's right to defend itself from barbaric acts of terrorism against its civilians (read: Israel) and a group that is sworn to destroy that sovereign state by intentionally targeting its civilians (read: Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., etc.).
  • jsand
    jsand Posts: 646
    polaris wrote:
    because it is much easier to make drama statements and act like you are somehow superior in thought and being ...

    Says the leftist elitist.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jsand wrote:
    No thanks. Been there, done that too many times on this board.

    Never once have I seen you lay out a system of morality that differentiates Israelis from Hezbollah. Every claim you make in support of Israel may simply be turned around.
    No matter what the facts are, you and others on this moral equivalency kick can't get it through your heads that there is a very conspicuous distinction between a sovereign state's right to defend itself from barbaric acts of terrorism against its civilians (read: Israel) and a group that is sworn to destroy that sovereign state by intentionally targeting its civilians (read: Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., etc.).

    There is a difference. It's a difference of scale. And in the context of morality, scale is superfluous.
  • jsand
    jsand Posts: 646
    farfromglorified wrote:
    There is a difference. It's a difference of scale. And in the context of morality, scale is superfluous.

    What does that mean? How is scale superfluous?
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    jsand wrote:
    Says the leftist elitist.

    care to provide examples of my elitism??
  • Purple Hawk
    Purple Hawk Posts: 1,300
    jsand wrote:
    No thanks. Been there, done that too many times on this board. No matter what the facts are, you and others on this moral equivalency kick can't get it through your heads that there is a very conspicuous distinction between a sovereign state's right to defend itself from barbaric acts of terrorism against its civilians (read: Israel) and a group that is sworn to destroy that sovereign state by intentionally targeting its civilians (read: Hezbollah, Hamas, etc., etc.).

    Agreed, you and many others have answered the question numerous times but these people refuse to accept the answers. They can keep asking why we don't see moral equivalence between the Hezbos and Israel but the answer won't change regardless of how many times they ask it. It's pointless to engage these people.
    And you ask me what I want this year
    And I try to make this kind and clear
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
    Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
    And desire and love and empty things
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
  • jsand
    jsand Posts: 646
    Purple Hawk wrote:
    Agreed, you and many others have answered the question numerous times but these people refuse to accept the answers. They can keep asking why we don't see moral equivalence between the Hezbos and Israel but the answer won't change regardless of how many times they ask it. It's pointless to engage these people.

    Infuriating, but it's like a car accident. I just can't stop myself from coming here to view the carnage.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    jsand wrote:
    What does that mean? How is scale superfluous?

    A moral justification based on scale always collapses logically. For example, you cannot say killing is wrong but then suggest that killing 1 is good and killing 1000 is bad -- you've setup a contradiction. Invariably you end up with an "ends justify the means" argument and you'll be much closer to your enemy than you would ever care to admit.
  • Purple Hawk
    Purple Hawk Posts: 1,300
    jsand wrote:
    Infuriating, but it's like a car accident. I just can't stop myself from coming here to view the carnage.

    I hear ya. What's funny is that I started a (one, not 1000) thread asking what the left would do to prevent terrorist attacks in the future. Guess how many answers I recieved!?!
    And you ask me what I want this year
    And I try to make this kind and clear
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
    Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
    And desire and love and empty things
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
  • jsand
    jsand Posts: 646
    polaris wrote:
    its much easier for us to rationalize suffering based on "right" and "wrong" ... it is much harder to look ourselves in the mirror when see what role we played in someone's death ...

    Elitism: you look in the proverbial mirror and see what role we played in someone's death (whatever that means), while I see everything in terms of right and wrong.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Purple Hawk wrote:
    Agreed, you and many others have answered the question numerous times but these people refuse to accept the answers. They can keep asking why we don't see moral equivalence between the Hezbos and Israel but the answer won't change regardless of how many times they ask it. It's pointless to engage these people.

    What's the moral difference you see? I promise to ask you only once.
  • jsand
    jsand Posts: 646
    Purple Hawk wrote:
    I hear ya. What's funny is that I started a (one, not 1000) thread asking what the left would do to prevent terrorist attacks in the future. Guess how many answers I recieved!?!

    Probably none. I think I know the answer, though: find out the "root causes," talk to the terrorists about it, apologize to them, then kiss and make up.
  • jsand
    jsand Posts: 646
    farfromglorified wrote:
    A moral justification based on scale always collapses logically. For example, you cannot say killing is wrong but then suggest that killing 1 is good and killing 1000 is bad -- you've setup a contradiction. Invariably you end up with an "ends justify the means" argument and you'll be much closer to your enemy than you would ever care to admit.

    You fail to see that my argument has zero to do with scale. If it were up to me, Israel's war would have been 100 times as intense, because force is all groups like Hezbollah and Hamas understand. Scale means nothing to me. Intention does. Again (why am I engaging in this nonsense?): Hezbollah and Hamas want to wipe Israel off the map, mostly because it's a Jewish state (WRONG). Israel, in fighting Hezbollah and Hamas, is trying to protect its citizens from unprovoked terrorist atrocities (RIGHT). Get it now?
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    jsand wrote:
    Probably none. I think I know the answer, though: find out the "root causes," talk to the terrorists about it, apologize to them, then kiss and make up.
    ...
    That's because this tit for tat killing has been working out so well for the past 6 decades, right?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • jsand
    jsand Posts: 646
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    That's because this tit for tat killing has been working out so well for the past 6 decades, right?

    "Tit for tat" is yet another leftist attempt at moral equivalence. Hamas, for example, blows up a Passover dinner for the sole purpose of murdering as many Jews as possible. Israel responds to this attack by targeting these terrorist scumbags but, alas, in doing so, innocent civilians are killed (gee, I wonder why, when Hamas, like Hezbollah, blends in with the civilians and even surrounds itself with children). Are these two acts the same? If your answer is "yes," there is something very wrong with you.

Categories