THE THIRD PARTY HILLARY NEEDS... TO WIN: FLIM FLAM SCAM (Perot Redux)

I'm sorry. I thought you were commenting on my hypothetical to jla.
Yes, exactly right. In this hypothetical you have a crystal ball. (In a hillary vs. Rudy hypothetical, you don't need a crystal ball. You have recent history.)
If you choose the 'winner,' you are choosing the surety that America and your children and grandchildren and their children, etc. will live, but with that the possibility that a justice or two would be installed who favored keeping abortion legal and taking away our guns.
If you choose the 'loser,' you are choosing certain death for most of us, our children and their children, etc. but your moral sensibilities on abortion and guns would not be disturbed.
THE REALITY

By choosing the 'loser,' you may or may not prevent some abortions for some limited period of time and you may or may not be able to continue to keep your guns for some limited period of time, but by so doing, you will enable the killing of most of us, our children and their children, etc.
How can you possibly see that choice as being the moral one?
Doesn't your objection to abortion turn on the killing of the unborn? How can you vote for someone who will kill not simply some of the unborn, but most of the unborn? Do you not see the inconsistency--the essential immorality-- of your position?
IMO, your position is immoral not simply because it devalues life on a massive scale, not even because it pays for your ability to 'sleep at night' with lives not yours to trade away.
No, I see your position as the ultimate act of immorality because of your hypocrisy. You wring your hands about the killing of some subset of the unborn, but apparently don't think twice about killing off virtually all of humanity.
You demonstrate the alarming and sad truth of Paddy Chayefsky's comment.

P.S. Would you change your choice if abortion suddenly became obsoleted by medical science? (ROE, MEDICAL SCIENCE, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, ROSS PEROT + HILLARY CLINTON), i.e., would your position on guns, alone, trump the lives of most of us?
Mia T

Chomsky's expertise as a linguist (or as an amateur but competent philosopher of language) has no bearing on anything moral or political, including matters of foreign policy. These two aspects of his life are, quite simply, unrelated. That he has strong opinions about American foreign policy in general or the war in Iraq in particular is no more significant than that others, such as classicist Victor Davis Hanson, have equally strong but opposite opinions. So why does anyone care what Chomsky thinks? I suspect it's because people commit a fallacy. Expertise (or the authority that rests on it) is not transferable from realm to realm. It's realm-specific. Imagine if it were transferable. Stephen Hawking, the great physicist, would be authoritative on baseball, plumbing, and economics. Bill James, the baseball statistician, would be authoritative on the war in Iraq, botany, and campaign finance. David McCullough, the historian, would be authoritative on wine, women, and song. Expertise in any area would make a person expert in every area.

I'm not saying that Hawking, James, and McCullough don't, can't, or shouldn't have opinions about these matters. I'm saying that their opinions, if they have any, are entitled to no more weight than anyone else's. If I want advice about wine, I'll consult a vinologist, thank you. If I want information about plants, I'll consult a botanist. If I want to know about NASCAR, I'll consult a racing expert. If I want to understand some arcane linguistic phenomenon, such as anaphora, I'll consult Chomsky. On matters that require expertise, either become an expert yourself or consult someone who is. On matters that require no expertise, such as morality, make up your own mind -- after gathering all relevant facts. This is not to reduce morality to taste; for there is a logic to moral judgment. Moral judgments must be consistent. If I believe that war is always wrong, I cannot consistently believe that the war in Iraq is right. I can believe one or the other of these propositions, but not both. Philosophy, as an academic discipline, consists in exposing inconsistencies. Moral philosophy, as a branch of philosophy, consists in exposing inconsistencies in moral judgments. Philosophy can't do everything, but it can do a lot. The only leverage a philosopher has is the principle of noncontradiction, which prohibits believing both a proposition and its negation.

Several years ago, when Jesse Jackson was running for president, I heard someone say that if he weren't black, he wouldn't be criticized so harshly. The irreverent reply was that if he weren't black, he wouldn't be taken seriously as a candidate. If Noam Chomsky were not a famous linguist, nobody would care a whit about his moral or political opinions. That people do care shows only that they are committing a fallacy -- that of transferring authority from a realm in which he is expert (linguistics) to one in which he is not (political morality).

The Chomsky Fallacy
By Keith Burgess-Jackson
26 Jun 2006
also @ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655797/posts

I will stand with jla with his post at #250.

The more that I see you justifying a Guiliani so that Hillary doesn't win, the less I buy any of your arguments.

You are rationalizing what amounts to a socialist to avoid getting a socialist. That's crazy talk.

Put your fear aside. Pray. Ask God for help. He can give you the peace in your heart to do the right thing even if the results carry nasty potential. Remember, it's HIS plan, not ours. We get the government that we (collectively) deserve. If we vote for Rudy to save our butts, then we deserve no better than Hillary.

What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?

Fear, emotion, and rationalizations will not sway me. I'll die on my feet fighting for liberty whether it is against the terrorists or against Hillary or against Rudy. Or GWB.

You see, the terrorists cannot take my liberty. With the possible exception of Red China, no military on Earth can defeat the USA. The only way that my liberty is in jeopardy is through the actions of my own government. They can't take it away either, but they can make it pretty damn hard to exercise.

Just to make it plain to you, the terrorists can take my life but my own government can try to deny me my liberty and WILL take my life if I stand in its way.

Yet you think that I should vote for one socialist to avoid another one and be happy to do it? I don't think so.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.