Skip to comments.RINOs & the dangers of Moral Equivalency
Posted on 08/21/2010 9:17:29 AM PDT by donjuanluis07
A RINO can be extremely dangerous when he uses Moral Equivalency to advance his political schemes, and a discerning conservative should know how to identify a RINO by his tactics. According to Websters Online Dictionary, Moral Equivalence is: a term used in political debate, usually to criticize any denial that a moral hierarchy can be assessed of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. It could be considered a form of the rhetorical fallacy of equivocation. In plain terms, when a politician uses Moral Equivalency he is attempting to equate an immoral position with an opposing position of righteousness. An example of this would be when a politician claims that a woman has a right to have an abortion because it is her body, and the fetus is not a human being. Such a position is claimed by a politician when he places his idea of law on an equal plane with the natural law of God. RINOs are tricky beasts, and being aware of the behaviors of a RINO makes it easier to spot one when you are traveling through the wilds of politics.
The basic error of legal positivism is giving man-made law precedence and primacy over natural justice rather than the other way around.Legal positivism, which is accepted by libtards, leads to statism and despotism.
And what’s the reason a superpower like the U.S. has such difficulty against a small country stuck in the 4th century? It’s because terrorist monsters are convinced of their moral superiority, while America refuses to acknowledge our own. It’s a paradox...a segment of America is too self-righteous to admit American moral superiority. And, yes, I may be oversimplifying the complexities of Afghanistan, but there’s a hell of a lot of truth in this observation. Nice post, Rupert.
Although no one has taken issue with me, I would like to clarify my skeletal response. How can we prevail when we believe that we have to handicap our military and intelligence gathering, or else we’re “no better than they are?”