Politics, Business, Sports and Crapola

My Thoughts, My Rules


Posted by Dug on December 17, 2006

I woke up and decided to see what the other side was talking about today. Like a bee to pollen, I was drawn to the blog of the Federal Way Conservative. There, I found this insanity laden jumble of words.

I am going to cherry pick the highlights low lights and rip his ass just because he so richly deserves it. (Not to mention he won’t publish the comments I leave on his blog. Even when I don’t use the fuck word).

Here we go. The only absolute here is that Jonathan likes to ramble. On and on and on and on. I am so thankful that we have Jonathan to explain things to us.

    This argument is lost on moral relativists. If you believe that some things are good sometimes and for some people, but not for others, then you have no foundation for logical debate about morality at all. Nothing is moral, as well as everything in your universe. There is no good nor evil, no happiness or sadness, no sweet or bitter. There is nothing but gray for you.
    For those of us who believe in absolute good and absolute evil, and understand that they are exactly opposite of one another (what relativists mock as “black-and-white”), then you can understand what I am about to explain.

This is profound.

    There exists in this world good things and evil things. Evil rears its ugly head in active opposition to good, as well as good to evil. Good is life. Evil is death.

Comparison with World War II? Well we do have a running start on WW III with the Iraq war, North Korea is making sabre rattling a new art form and Iran wants to have nuclear capability. What the fuck, lets just “exterminate” all of them.

    In Iran, we are faced with bitter evil, and evil which we thought we had exterminated in World War II. Again, we see a leader who is militarizing their country in preparation for a war, a war whose only purpose would be to destroy good people. (If there is any doubt in your mind that Israel is good, you have been fed propaganda. I encourage you to seek the other side of the story and to re-evaluate your conclusion.)

If I lived next door to this moral maniac, there is no doubt in my mind he would find it perfectly acceptable to kill me. I don’t agree with him, therefore I am evil, ergo I need to be exterminated. (Does my being Jewish help my cause, since he is a friend of Israel?)

    First, should we stop such evil? Is it a good action to cause Iran to give up its hopes of wiping Israel off the map? Of course it is. Allowing good people to live their lives in peace is a good goal. Preventing evil people from causing death and destruction is also a good goal.

    Now the question is, to what lengths should we go to stop evil? Would you be willing to kill an evil person to stop that person? The answer here is obvious: Of course, as a last resort. Something in the back of our heads makes us answer a critical question before we decide that death is the path to peace. We must affirm for ourselves that there is no other way but this way, and that the person we are sending out of this world is indeed truly, irrecoverably evil.

I have never seen anyone justify the killing of innocents in such a matter of fact manner and with such eloquence pompous arrogance. Justifying with “give and takes”? The end justifies the means? Or in this case, the means justifying the end. Honestly Jonathan, do you think before you spew this shit, or does the crack just take over?

    One final question: Is it right to unintentionally kill innocent people, people who may be very good people, in our quest to kill the evil person? This is the moral dilemma. Of course it is wrong to kill innocent people. But it is so good to kill an evil person who is otherwise unstoppable. We can justify our actions through a number of give-and-takes.

    Maybe, we can reason, the evil person if left unstopped would have killed the innocent person anyway. In that way, the result of either action would have been the death of the innocent. In this case, we can logically reason that either death (unintentionally killing versus the evil one intentionally killing) is roughly equal, so the good of having the evil person dead means killing is ok.

Does this guys wife know this is how his mind works?

    Maybe, we can reason, their deaths are not as important as the deaths of the evil ones. In this case, we have to come to the conclusion that having both dead is better than having both alive.

Jonathan, you might want to keep this paragraph in mind as you draw your last breath.

    It is a difficult choice to make when you are weighing the scales with human lives. We know that life is more valuable than the entirety of material riches. However, it is an important one that must be weighed. We will certainly be held accountable for our choices in the eternities. God gave us a brain and reason so that we could weigh these difficult decisions. He will certainly ask us for a reckoning of why we did what we did.

I get it, we kill ’em but blame the other guy at the final reckoning. Interesting. Seems evil to me.

    In my mind, most of the innocent casualties of war are justified with the second option. If the evil person had simply decided that war was not worth their pursuit of madness, the war would not have occurred and so many innocents would not have been killed in the waging of it. They had the choice, and they chose death. But I believe the other two offer additional consolation, but their immeasurability makes it vague.

But Jonathan has no problem sending others to die for his good. It is ironic that this motherfucker does not see the evil in this.

    I am no fan of war. I am not like Patton, eagerly hoping for more wars to fight because I love fighting wars. I do have a boyish curiosity of real war, but my mind has convinced me that it is an absolutely terrifying and horrific thing that I should thank God I do not have to participate in.

And finally this. Here Jonathan proves his true intellectual bankruptcy.

    When a society is pressed into war, war must be fought, and it must be fought with the same spirit that WWI and WWII was fought–as a war to end all wars because after this there would be no enemy who dared to fight one again. If we are going to fight a war, and that means we have decided the cost in innocent lives is worth it, then we must fight to finality, to victory, to grind our enemies into a powder that can never be reconstituted again. That is why I had a party when Zarqawi was killed. He ain’t coming back.

Jonathan, this is why Republicans were tossed from power. War is to be used as sparingly as possible, only as a last resort and then only as a defensive measure. We are not a protagonist society (or at least we shouldn’t be).

For a man who admits to never having seen battle or death, you sure have a cavalier attitude about war. You are a demented individual who has earned every bit of the mocking you have been subjected to. You are a sick son-of-a-bitch.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: