Site Meter

He loves and she loves

Just Causes

Password required

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« At sea | Main | How can the moral relativists live with themselves? Part II »

June 29, 2004

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518c7969e200d8342c780453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jesus wept:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Have to go with Idrissi. What the US soldiers did was not admirable, but relatively it was a tempest in a teapot. The poor dear terrorists were embarrassed.

You don't truly understand moral relativism, do you? Here's a clue: YOU are participating in moral relativism right now. You're saying that the Abu Ghraib torture doesn't compare, on a quantitative basis, to Saddam's torture; Saddam's was worse; therefore, Saddam was more immoral than the Americans at Abu Ghraib. That's a dictionary definition of relativism. Friends, the point is that it's ALL bad. Got it? It's ALL bad. Torture is wrong and amoral because it infringes upon the essential liberty of the person suffering through it. It's not something you weigh to find the worst bits in the pot. Okay? Lesson's over. Impeach Bush.

Peace.

How poignant, panquin, that you don't see the difference between a culture that condones the worst of human nature (which we are all potentially capable of) and one that is dedicated to promoting the best of human nature.

Sissy Willis: honestly, which culture is the one that's supposed to be "promoting the best of human nature"? AMERICA? Please. Our dear leaders were working like mad to bend legal justifications to torture into cute pretzel shapes, so that they could torture and not be bothered by insignificant junk such as morals and ethics and the intrinsic unassailability of personal boundaries. You show me one thing the U.S. has done in the past year that exemplifies the "best of human nature"; go on, I defy you. Name one thing, oh friend. You won't be able to.

You see, you'll defend Ashcroft (a well-known trampler of civil rights), Bush (an idiot whom idiots can't see as an idiot), Rumsfeld (a warmonger of the highest order; don't tell me he wasn't erect as a flagpole when Shock & Awe was going down) and Paul "I Hate Brownskinned People" Wolfowitz (classically inept, even playfully so...and a comb-licker sick motherf**k by the way).

That's it. See Fahrenheit 9/11, my droogs, and get to know truth and freedom! That's a real patriot that made that, and I think you've forgotten what they're made of.

Oh, my. You've taken the KoolAid. Too late to save you, perhaps?

panguin still believed on June 30th, that Fahrenheit 9/11 was the "truth". By then he/she should have known better.

http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Where faith is concerned, truth is often the first casualty.

Panguine,

Think about what you said. Ask the people who lived under Saddams rule what the U.S. and our wonderful President did that was good. I know if my family and I had to live in fear every day of our lives I would hope someone would step in to save us. Yes, there has been lives lost. How many lives did Saddam take for no reason or are you saying the Iraqi's lives are not as important as the soldiers of the U.S.

s

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Cold Turkey Cookbook

Kudos

Blog powered by Typepad