I have a moral question for those of you who believe in morality. Let's say that you have a neighbor that you don't particularly get along with. He doesn't have the same values that you do. What if you saw this person's child walking toward a venomous snake? Wouldn't you have a moral obligation to protect that vulnerable child, who does not have the survival instincts or experience to save himself? Isn't it moral to protect the lives of vulnerable people, even the lives of people you don't like, and the lives of the children of people who don't think like you? Why don't we who believe in morals have the same obligation to protect a GLBTQ person from Muslims? Many GLBTQs don't have any survival instincts either. They are inviting a culture into their communities that wants to throw them off buildings, blow them up, and shoot them. Since Muslims have been killing gays for 1400 years, it is unlikely they are going to stop. Once again, the reason you must act is to preserve the life of a vulnerable person who cannot or will not protect himself. Why don't we who believe in morals have an obligation to protect any clueless liberal from his own lack of survival instincts? I'm excluding the anti-American globalist Marxist progressive who is manipulating the liberal with no survival instincts. He IS the snake. Our dysfunctional empathetic liberal friends have lots of feelings, but they are unable to prioritize self- preservation or the lives or welfare of those around them. Their empathy blinds them to danger and to the cost or consequences of their empathy. They can see no difference between REFUGEE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS, who do not cut off heads, shoot people, throw gays off of tall buildings, blow people up, and subjugate women and MUSLIM REFUGEES, who do cut off heads, shoot people, blow people up, throw gays off of tall buildings, and subjugate women. Due to willful blindness or ignorance, these liberals are just as vulnerable as that child walking toward the venomous snake. Why don’t we who believe in morals have an obligation to protect the young lives of Americans from Mexican drugs, brought into this country? Why don't we who believe in morals have an obligation to end the human trafficking and sexual exploitation of children by Mexican drug lords? Why don't we who believe in morals have an obligation to protect vulnerable American taxpayers from the misguided and the snake liberals who are forcing taxpayers to cough up $billions each year for illegal Hispanic immigrants, while our country neglects its own obligations to Americans? Let’s stipulate that you are not moral and that you don’t believe in moral judgments. Evil is old hat thinking to you. Let’s talk survival of the species. Evolution favors those species with survival instincts and crushes those species without survival instincts. Thus from both a moral and a practical standpoint, if we want the vulnerable to survive, we must defeat the type of liberal ideology, which is designed to destroy the country most capable of protecting the weak in the world, whether the clueless understand this or like it. The dissatisfied liberals can always move somewhere else. We can’t move America somewhere else.
Like most things, it's all in how you look at it. What would jesus do? In arguendo, if jesus was without sin, was he, then, perfectly moral? I'm not trying to preach, I assure you. Setting a theological analysis aside, morals are necessarily based on perspective. Which means . . . It's all in how you look at it. I will protect the child from the snake if I know that particular snake to be a clear and present danger. I will not assume such. I will not assume the average muslim, nor their community as a whole, to be a clear and present danger. Nor any other foreign community, for that matter.
Who's obligation is it to protect people from American drugs? American terrorists? Who protects the poor gay defenseless liberals from that? Some people seem to believe that danger never existed before the threat of terrorism, and doesn't exist without. Danger won't go away once we close the doors, it'll just come from a different direction. I'm trying to see the point of the OP but all the monoliths and assumptions are blocking my way.
And what exactly are these survival instincts you're talking about? Are the Muslims supposed to bite the gays in the wilds of Montana or are you talking about something else?
soooo.... your premise is that LGBTQ people are just like helpless children. am I reading that right?
I think there's a difference between protecting kids and protecting adults. I think "innocent kid about to get bitten by venomous snake" being compared to "functioning gay adult about to get tossed off a building by ISIS" is apples to oranges. That's all I'm trying to say
Well this was a bust. I attempted a bit of a troll job here, trying to see who went along with my somewhat venomous rant. I actually cut and pasted this from somewhere I ran across. I don't think I am good at trolling.
Same. You can't go from keen intellect & consummate gentlemen to half-assed, ill-conceived bomb thrower. Reading this was like watching NYY give GCB fashion tips.
I respect RB too much to tussle with him 1 on 1 on something neither of us really have any control over, so I was just moving along.
