And now your definition of a hypocrite
Abortion is murder! Those are innocent children that don’t have a say in what happens to them!
Casualties of war are a sad part of war, but what can you do? Even if a victim is an infant? Yep, sorry, like I said, it’s in God’s hand.
Ain’t being a hypocrite grand?
Tags: Donviti
Rhut-rho!
You should change your name to Don Strawman. It’s becoming tiresome and smacks of laziness. You are either unable to discriminate between intentional vs. accidental death and/or medical procedures and war zones.
So you approve of accidental child deaths, Duffy? “Hell, I didn’t know that bomb was gonna’ strip the skins off their little carcases!”
I didn’t know there was a difference between a dead innocent baby and well…a dead innocent baby?
how one dies is hardly a reason to justify it’s death duffy.
You know they always hit me with the empty slogan “choose life”. If we’re misunderstanding them perhaps they should try harder to make sense.
I think the crucial thing missing from all these debates the the inherent respect for the human person gaurenteed and implied by the constituion. That does not only include one life, it includes all lives from natural conception to natural death. Hypocricy on this moral issue runs deep on both sides and government has no place in it other than to encourage everyone to respect the diginity of the human person through their life. This includes those who are born and the quality of life they can attain. It precludes any act that violates the dignity of the human person from abortion to war, from the violence of the street, to the violence of corporate criminals. All of these negatively impact our view of the human person.
Hey DV…you do realize that your are just as guilty of hypocrisy in your little illustration don’t you? Probably escaped your grasp.
Chris, it’s hypocritical only if DV believes life begins at conception. Duh!
Whereas, your previously stated beliefs on the matters above has shown, irrefutably, that you’re the one who is the hypocrite.
Comprende?
thanks soldier!
It’s in the nature of organisms to be pro-life yet that doesn’t mean that anyone is ignorant of or hypocritical with respect to the fact that death happens. A person can support life as best they can in their sphere of influence, all the while being aware that death happens. After all, all life is bound to die.
Chris, it’s hypocritical only if DV believes life begins at conception. Duh!
The truth is that in general American soldiers do everything they can to save children because they value their lives based on a worldview that DV apparently doesn’t agree with.
“American soldiers do everything they can to save children….”
I agree our troops are the kindest people, and the best soldiers, in a war there is no one else I would want by my side then one of my fellow citizens. We have a military that is superior in every way. We also have a problem we need to face and can see in the above statement- in the logical fallacy it introduces- that is that our soldiers are deployed overseas at all. Read the constitution, we are not meant to be the world’s policeman or guard for its ports, or fight an unending war of terror, or to maintain our interests at the expense of other nation’s freedom or to build every where else in the image and likeness of us. That is manifest destiny tied to a radical ideology; it is called the “Great Game”. If you are skeptical you can read about it in the “The Great Chessboard” and read what the retired or decommissioned military have to say….Call my stance isolationist if you want, but when did Congress formally authorize the war powers act as per the Constitution and when was there a full vote of both houses to declare war?
They tell you this role was “thrust upon us” or “we took up war reluctantly.” That is ridiculous. William Kristol spelled it out in 2003 when he said, “One day the American people will wake up and discover they are living in an empire that they did not create despite the fact that it goes against the historical traditions of their nation….”
Let’s look at the numbers 3 years on- about 3,800 US dead, add another 1200 from the UK and Canada, add another 30-50K Iraqi’s (the low estimate) another 500-1000 Iraqi Christians, about 12-18,000 US wounded, another 2.4 million refugees. In the same amount of time, we had virtually destroyed Germany, Italy and Japan and you mean to tell me we cannot find a guy in a cave and had to attack Iraq to get at him?
A war of expediency and choice is as much a choice against life as anything I can think of. And remember John McCain warned, it is going to be “your fault” meaning the people of the United State’s fault, “if we do not achieve our objectives.” Think about that for a moment how can such leadership value liberties or respect life? The two are joined at the hip, without one you cannot get the other, because you deny the basis for both. The founders knew this, but we do not like them too much anymore do we?
wow Mynym,
that was the best yet. Way to weasel out of being a hypocrite.
The truth is that in general American soldiers do everything they can to save children because they value their lives based on a worldview that DV apparently doesn’t agree with.
and yet children and innocent people still die.
and on top of that you are wrong. the military puts value on the number of casualties based on the profile of the target. So bin laden might be captured or killed we say “ok, you can kill up to 100 innocent people” a Bin laden general or a guy that reports to him we may say he is only worth killing 50.
give me a break. You don’t get to pick and choose which innocent life you support and hide behind some bullshit reason why.
you either are against both or a hypocrite.
and thanks for commenting and visiting we appreciate you stopping by
“how one dies is hardly a reason to justify it’s death duffy”
again it’s not about the means as it is the intention. If you do not draw a distinction between the deliberate death of a child and the accidental, we can’t even have a conversation.
Yes war is ugly, horrid and brutal. However, it is sometimes necessary. (Let’s leave the necessity of this war aside for a moment and speak in general terms) In wars people die. Many of them are frequently innocent or at least non-combatants. That is horrible and it is unfortunate but it is also (largely) accidental. If you are going to be so procrustean in your calculus you ought to be agitating for a complete ban on abortion, capital punishment and war, always. If not, you’re the hypocrite.
deliberate death of a child and the accidental
is it really accidental? don’t they know they are going to kill innocent civilians. I’m pretty sure when I was in the navy test firing tomahawks the Fire Contromen knew that the bombs we were shooting new that people were going to be killed, good and bad.
Duffy in the end I could care less about abortion. if the freaking mother doesn’t want the child why the fuck should it be born.
as far as war goes if the war is just then hey sure blow away some innocent fucking people! woohoohooo
What a bizarre worldview. And DV, you really need to understand what hypocrisy means before accusing people of it.
In this case, it’s already been pointed out there’s a difference between intentionally killing someone and accidentally killing someone (or even knowing someone could die). The law can make this distinction. That’s why you have homicide and manslaughter. Yes, the intention is important.
Your argument that ‘a dead baby is a dead baby’ is also ridiculous because you’ve admitted you don’t care about abortion. The truth is, there are many pro-lifers who are also against wars and the death penalty as well (see the Catholic Church, for starters). But I personally have no problem being pro-life, supporting the death penalty and supporting our efforts in Iraq. It doesn’t make me a hypocrite for doing so because the morality behind each position is the same: protect the innocent and limit the casualties.
Actually, it does. You cannot claim to be pro-life and then pro-preemptive war of choice and pro-death penalty.
If you truly valued all life, you would value the life of the convicted murderer, for you would want to see his life redeemed in the eyes of God. If you truly valued all life, you would not voluntarily choose to go to war and kill on the basis of lies and false excuses. Yes, war is sometimes justified and necessary to combat a greater evil, like Hitler for example. But we do not say “hey, this would be a good time for a war, let’s invade Iraq.” Supporting the Iraq War means you do not value life.
Actually, you are wrong. Valuing life means that you value the lives of the innocent more than the lives of those who murder. So, to be against the death penalty is perfectly consistent with being pro-life: you value the right of people to live rather than have their lives taken unjustly.
The argument that ” If you truly valued all life, you would not voluntarily choose to go to war and kill on the basis of lies and false excuses” is also a ridiculous argument. We didn’t go to war in Iraq for “lies and false excuses.” That you disagree with the reasons given do not make them lies. And, indeed, a number of people around the world believed Saddam Hussein to be a ruthless, dangerous dictator based on his past behavior. That the same Left who shrieked about human rights abuses in Iraq in 1990 would now actually argue for propping him up truly is hypocritical.
Sharon, that is pathetic. The reason we went to war was not because Saddam was a bad guy, but that he specifically had “weapons of mass destruction,” and that “he was consorting with Al-Queda.”
Do you have some form of memory loss from events of 5 years ago?
It doesn’t make me a hypocrite
yes it does sorry, but it does.
You are playing God. You are picking and choosing what the definition is of murder by parsing words and justifying it with what the law says.
sharon,
you are too much. Does your head hurt from trying to define yourself out of a corner?
Actually, you are wrong. Valuing life means that you value the lives of the innocent more than the lives of those who murder.
that points right back to casualties of war…does it not? you are so sad
‘Saddam was a bad guy’ was the third excuse made, right before ‘He tried to kill my daddy!’
” if the freaking mother doesnt want the child why the fuck should it be born.”
It’s nice to know that we can count on DV to one in a while crack that phony fascade and expose the ugly face of lberalism.
Makes one think he would enjoy being an abortionist.
It has nothing to do with liberalism, Chris.
Conservatives have abortions all the time…but in their cases, in their minds, it’s always justified.
Do some research, retard….
If you truly valued all life, you would value the life of the convicted murderer, for you would want to see his life redeemed in the eyes of God.
One can value the life of a convicted murderer from God’s perspective and still allow for the rule of law that ought to define the State here and now. We are not angels or “beings of light” who have a transcendent perspective of redemption, far from it. For example, historically socialists tend to promise to “bring heaven on earth” from some grand revolutionary perspective, yet they turn out to be far from angels. It would be better to be aware of our limitations and humbly seek a rule of law as best we can based on more mundane things like common sense, history and natural law.
Supporting the Iraq War means you do not value life.
Only if all your philosophy and the conditions upon which you argue that the war is unjust and therefore unjustifiable are correct.
Some argue that no war is justifiable. For example, Ghandi said of a war that most view as a just war:
–Mahatma Ghandi November 20th 1938
That’s a difficult doctrine which few can adhere to even if it is correct. Given that it is a view typical to prophets and sages it may be correct.
What happened in general:
(Pole Tells Story of Ghetto Battle
by Harold Denny
The New York Times, Apr. 19, 1944; pg. 5)
At any rate, it seems to me that American Leftists may be mixing in a little of Ghandi’s views only because it suits their politics. Given that many cannot even sacrifice their SUVs or lifestyle in general based on their own religious philosophy about what ought to be held sacred, how is one to believe that they really hold something sacred that they will not sacrifice for. In contrast, if a person is pro-life and willing to fight and die trying to protect and save life it’s not apparent how they are being hypocritical. They may be mistaken if in fighting or killing to protect life they actually cause more death than if they hadn’t fought at all (Ghandi’s view) but they’re not hypocritical.
Does your head hurt from trying to define yourself out of a corner?
Your own views could use a little more definition (Rightism), which is probably why you tried to communicate with imagery (Leftism) originally. Given your mental patterns trying to give your thoughts more definition probably would make your head hurt.
thanks m,
but my head doesn’t hurt.
exhibit A Dead baby
exhibit B Dead Baby
in the end the babies are dead no matter how they were killed.
nope my head doesn’t hurt. thanks though for the Ghandi bullshit.
did you know he was a womanizer?
in the end the babies are dead no matter how they were killed.
In the end all babies will die, what happens in matter in the meantime is what matters and it takes some definition and distinctions in order to understand. For example you apparently care about the deaths of living organisms that look like you but not those that do not, so apparently you are capable of making elementary distinctions about life and being “pro-life.” (Although it has often been noted that Leftists seem to care more about unborn animals than unborn humans and indeed they sometimes make laws which protect unborn animals with little debate over whether an unborn organism is an “animal” or not.)
If we follow the philosophy of law which shapes are culture then we should build a rational case for judgment on difficult cases based on reasoning and precedents illustrated in simple/elementary cases. So how did you come to the elementary distinctions which allow you to kill some organisms but not others?
did you know he was a womanizer?
Even if that’s the case so were Solomon and Benjamin Franklin because that has little bearing on their wisdom. It seems that Solomon, although a womanizer, would easily slice apart the case you seek to make based on a baby here to show who really cares about dead babies.
It’s ironic that you named this post “Definition of a Hypocrite” when there is actually little definition to it. Again, if a person is pro-life and willing to fight and die trying to protect and save life it’s not apparent how they are being hypocritical. They may be utterly mistaken if in fighting or killing to presumably protect life they actually cause more death than if they hadn’t fought at all but they’re not hypocritical. It seems that you’re saying that every pro-life soldier is somehow a hypocrite, maybe you should try to put into words what you were trying to communicate with imagery.
They tell you this role was “thrust upon us” or “we took up war reluctantly.” That is ridiculous. William Kristol spelled it out in 2003 when he said, “One day the American people will wake up and discover they are living in an empire that they did not create despite the fact that it goes against the historical traditions of their nation….”
One could argue that the American Empire essentially already exists, yet it seems to me that it is still the most benevolent empire ever to have existed. History indicates that American civilization will decline, some might say that it already has been. If American civilization does decline it will indeed turn into something different as an empire, perhaps actually demanding tribute instead of giving away money?
Unfortunately decadence will eventually seep into venerable American institutions like the military and the militarism typical to Americans may take a sinister turn at that point.
DV:
Just to sum up your position:
A is a dead baby
B is a dead baby
A is something you don’t care about
B is morally outrageous
Do I have that right?
It’s called a Fetus, Duffy, not a baby. There’s a difference, you see?
why are you spending so much time trying to define my position duffy? My position is irrelevant here. It is the religious right, the neo cons, the evangelicals all those that champion war, but are anti abortion that I call hypocrite.
I am not the one that says abortion is murder. I say killing innocent children during war is however. Until you prove that abortion is murder……
then well I guess I still wont be a hypocrite, now will I?