Replies

yldstrk,
If you visit the Daily KOS or DU, you will find these exact same arguments presented by emotion driven leftists on multiple topics. It’s used in an attempt to force otherwise right-minded people into admitting “exceptions” for aborting children, or some such nonsense… The argument always originates from impotent rage, and the tactic is always the same: Create a ridiculous and contrived scenario to force your opponent into admitting his alleged hypocrisy. Most of their posters follow the same template used here; casting themselves as the John McClane character in Die Hard, then indulging in a masturbatory fantasy about how flexible morality saves the world.
Dictionary.com defines “wrong” as follows: Wrong- unjust, dishonest, or immoral. This isn’t ambiguous.
The other argument we’ve seen is that “We’re the good guys and they’re bad guys, so it’s necessary.” While I might initially support this argument, it’s important to remember WHY we’re the good guys. It’s because we admit that there are moral absolutes, and live by them. It’s because we choose to do what’s right even if it’s the hard choice. The jihadis themselves also use moral ambiguity as a recruiting tool to radicalize otherwise previously sane people.
This impotent rage, this “they do it too” mentality, this “anything goes as long as I don’t suffer any short term losses” attitude, is what kills great nations, great peoples, or great movements.

Dead leftist author and cynic Ambrose Bierce, in his “Devil’s Dictionary” defines IMMORAL, adj. Inexpedient. Maybe that definition appeals to the weak among us. The problem with it always comes down to “Inexpedient for whom?” Sort of like how the definition of torture changes when it’s you that it’s applied to.
I doubt very seriously that any of the amateur Tom Clancys in this thread have ever been exposed to actual torture, or would have the stomach to apply real torture under any circumstances… That’s all just forum posturing.

You apparently understand that the meaning of the word “wrong” is not on a sliding scale based on a particular situation, or on who’s side of the argument it supports. You can share my bunker and provisions. OTOH, some of these supposed conservatives bear close watching.

Ted Cruz gets it. As a nation we must stick to morality in the face of incomprehensible evil, because that’s the only way it can be defeated. Anything less is simply feeding the evil what it thrives and grows on.

I personally am a thoroughly broken vessel, who’s only hope is in the indescribable mercy and grace of almighty God, as expressed through the resurrected and living Word. I’m not a nation-state, or a serving congressman, therefore what I personally might do to rescue a loved one has not one damned thing to do with this discussion.

For that reason, and for the sake of clarity; the only way tomkat, bobby.223, CatherineofAragon, central_va, and Uncle Miltie can ever know the answers to their impertinent and contrived questions is this: Let me discover that you’ve taken one of my loved ones hostage and you’ll find out.

From the point of view of national policy, Cruz' position is unassailable, conservative, and American.