Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
My point is that there are some moral absolutes, right and wrong outside of objectivity. The dimwit party leadership sees everything as grey and the liberal rabble rousers in the Media and Hollyweird perpetuate this notion. Maybe you don't drink that strain of kool aid.
|
Some moral absolutes? And you accuse me of being a relativist? Either acknowledge, as you just have, that we are all relativists and stop talking like one of those whackadoos on a street corner with the "Jesus is Coming" sandwich board, or back up your prior posts' assertion: that there is absolute Right and Wrong, and each act is one or the Other.
Quote:
|
which part do you have a problem with, TK as a manslaughterer, Clinton as perjurer, Byrd as a racist or Clinton as a sexual harasser/abuser cum rapist (npi)? this is the part where the dems moral relativism perplexes me. If the CEO of a large company committed the sex crimes of a Clinton, the left wing socialists would be clamouring for his scalp and decrying the behavioural excesses of the capitalist greedmongers, but when Clinton rapes and beats Juanita, he's some kind of romanticised demi-god. Why the reluctance to define rape and sexual harassment or Klan membership as with BYrd as objectively wrong and behaviours we won't tolerate in our leaders?
|
I have two problems with it.
First, you fail to take into account the fact that there are also bad guys in the Republican Party and that it is just plain wrong to make everybody who disagrees with you guilty by association when you aren't willing to bear the same cross.
Second, the fact that you know me personally, and purport to be a friend, and you know for a fact that I am not a murderer, rapist, or racist, which makes you an asshole.
