It does a DISSERVICE to
humanity to be too polite to such people. If someone is advocating mass
extortion, and feels perfectly comfortable doing so, and no one
ever condemns the immorality of their position, why should they ever
reconsider?
Trying
to politely "get along" with someone who is condoning violent
aggression--including against YOU--is fairly stupid, not to mention
counter-productive. "Hey, let's agree to disagree. Your opinion that I
should be forcibly robbed, and caged if I resist, is equally valid to my
opinion that neither of us should be robbed." Um, no. It isn't. Statists
SHOULD be made to feel as much guilt and shame as possible, because they are
advocating something destructive and immoral. If someone was advocating mass
murder, would you be all polite and civil to them, and talk as if their
position is acceptable? I hope not.
Just
as people condoning chattel slavery SHOULD have been insulted and condemned as
often as possible, so should those who advocate the widespread use of violence
to fund whatever bogus "programs" and "benefits" they want
their "government" god to hand out.
Not surprisingly,
"Beth" was offended that I had the gall to point out the blatant
immorality of what she condones, as well as the profound intellectual
dishonesty and cowardice she displays when she won't even ADMIT what she
advocates. She called my comments "ugly" and "hostile,"
because I said it's bad for her to push for the coercive robbery of tens of
millions of people. If you ask me, if someone is NOT "hostile"
against the advocacy of mass violence, but is gentle with the cheerleaders of
oppression, that is not doing anyone a favor... except tyrants.
h/t LR
No comments:
Post a Comment