Posted on 05/22/2018 4:33:36 AM PDT by SJackson
If you want to understand the moral sickness at the heart of leftism, read the first paragraph of the most recent column by Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne:
"It's never right to call other human beings 'animals.' It's not something we should even have to debate. No matter how debased the behavior of a given individual or group, no matter how much legitimate anger that genuinely evil actions might inspire, dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path."
Let's begin with the first sentence: "It's never right to call other human beings 'animals.'"
This is so self-evident to Dionne that he adds, "It's not something we should even have to debate."
Only someone who has never debated the issue could make such a claim.
So allow me to debate the assertion.
My view is the antithesis of Dionne's. As I see it, it is not right to never call another human being an "animal."
Calling the cruelest among us names such as "animal" or any other "dehumanizing" epithet actually protects humans. The word "beastly" exists for a reason and is frequently applied to human beings. By rhetorically reading certain despicable people out of the human race, we elevate the human race. We have declared certain behaviors out of line with being human.
Biologically, of course, we are all human. But if "human" is to mean anything moral — anything beyond the purely biological — then some people who have committed particularly heinous acts of evil against other human beings are not to be considered human. Otherwise "human" has no moral being. We should then not retain the word "inhumane." What is the difference between "he is inhumane" and "he is an animal"? Both imply actions that render the person no longer human.
Dionne provides his answer at the end of the paragraph: "dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path."
He provides not a single argument or illustration for this truly absurd comment.
Anyone who refuses to "dehumanize" the Nazi physicians — who, with no anesthesia, froze naked people for hours and then dropped them in boiling water to rewarm them; put people in depressurized rooms where their eardrums burst, driving them out of their minds from pain; rubbed wood shavings and ground glass into infected wounds, etc. — is, to put it very gently, profoundly morally confused.
What would Dionne have us call those Nazi physicians — "not nice," "badly flawed," "evil"? Why is rhetorically ostracizing them from the human race "a dangerous path"? He doesn't have an answer because he lives in the left's world of moral-sounding platitudes. Leftism consists almost entirely of moral-sounding platitudes — statements meant to make the person making them feel morally sophisticated. But based on their relative reactions to the sadists of the MS-13 gangs, I trust Donald Trump's moral compass more than E. J. Dionne's.
It is ever dangerous to use dehumanizing rhetoric on people? Of course — when it is directed at people based on their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality or any other immutable physical characteristic. The Nazis did what they did to Jews and others because they dehumanized them based on their religious/ethnic/racial identity. That's why racism is evil. But why is it dangerous to use such rhetoric on people based on their behavior? By equating labeling the cruelest among us "animals" with labeling Jews "animals," Dionne cheapens the fight against real evil.
I once asked Rabbi Leon Radzik, a Holocaust survivor who had been in Auschwitz, what word he would use to characterize the sadistic guards in the camp. I will never forget his response: "They were monsters with a human face."
Incredibly, Dionne would not agree with him.
Heck, they call Conservatives animals and worse all to the time. There was some liberal chick doing the talk show circuit only because she told the media not to “anthropomorphize” George Bush. It meant to give him human-like attributes, and it was funny because GW was so dumb he wouldn’t even understand the insult.
I’ll bet E J Dionne has no problem dehumanizing: gun owners, pro-lifers, conservatives in general, orthodox Christians ...
“dehumanizing”
This is what occurs at airports
Dionne is right about one thing.
Animals, even the dangerous predators, are relatively decent compared to MS-13.
We shouldn’t be insulting animals by comparing MS-13 to them.
Funny thing is, the4se @$$holes are worried about murderous criminals but don’t give a damn about their victims, or about children in the womb.
I'm impressed. A man who could come up with a line like that could certainly invent the Internet.
All of a sudden, out of nowhere, the left has got their version of “American morals and values”. It’s amazing!!! American “morals and values” 2.0. ROTFL! I think the 2016 elections might have had something to do with it. JMO.
>>>I agree with Prager on most everything, but he was totally wrong about Bob Grant.>>>
I agree with him on most everything too. I think he’s also wrong about Jesus. Sadly, that’s a costly error. :)
Human beings ARE animals... at least according to the scientists.
Subhuman, lowlife filth?
They don’t judge. They tolerate everything. Nothing is wrong. Nothing is right.
But they are perfectly willing to call me an animal, deplorable, terrorist, racist, bitter clinger, bigot, and I whatever else just for wanting to be free.
‘I think he’s also wrong about Jesus. Sadly, that’s a costly error. :)’
best (but shaky)estimates put the total number of Christians living and dead at 4 billion, and the total number of humans living and dead at 108 billion; Christians thus are .037, or conversely non-Christians are .963 of the total...they all make a costly error too...?
FYI all: In Politically Correct speak, violent feral youth, especially of the Amish variety, are said to be “vibrant”. The noun form describing them is VIBRANTS. Most cop-killers are Vibrants, as are most Rappers.
“best (but shaky)estimates put the total number of Christians living and dead at 4 billion, and the total number of humans living and dead at 108 billion; Christians thus are .037, or conversely non-Christians are .963 of the total...they all make a costly error too...?”
Sounds about the right percentage. Noah’s family were the only humans saved on earth. That’s 8 people out of probably a few hundred million. Lot’s family was the only one saved in that whole city too. The record and examples in scripture are clear. Very few people are going to be saved. And I believe scripture.
And Jesus said in Matthew 7:14
“But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
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.