2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,220
- 52,455
Yeah.....the one thing the left has over the right...they are experts at Moral Yoga....they can bend and twist any way they have to to take an evil act and turn it into a noble act....they do it with the most evil of dictators, the most evil of actions....for example....the killing of Charlie Gard...
Blog: How the New York Times inverts morality in the Charlie Gard case
Get it? The parents were doing fine, on their road to emotional recovery, “getting ready ‘to say the final goodbye.’” All was swell until the pope and the president stuck their noses in. The problem isn’t the state wanting little Charlies to die, the problem is the outside interference ruining the wise path chosen by representatives of the all-seeing, all-knowing infallible state.
-----------------
Their last-minute interventions drew attention to a profoundly difficult bioethical matter, but, experts said, they may have made a tragic situation even worse.
This is the most repulsive logic justifying violence since the immortal phrase, “We had to destroy the village to save it,” was uttered in the Vietnam War.
Check out the phrasing an “expert” uses:
“The case has gone through the courts, and it is over,” said Claire Fenton-Glynn, a legal scholar at the University of Cambridge who has studied the case. “This is prolonging the agony of a devastating situation.”
Once again, some genuine verbal craftsmanship is being demonstrated here. As a pal of mine remarked:
I wasn’t aware that a “situation" was able to experience agony. Live and learn.
Of course, one of the people that the New York Times would turn to for an opinion on such a topic is “legal scholar."
Will the baby experience pain is, I would have thought, the only relevant question.
So we have cheerleaders for a state that is taking a child away from its parents to kill it, and telling the victims that it is in their own best interests, because experts say so.
Blog: How the New York Times inverts morality in the Charlie Gard case
Get it? The parents were doing fine, on their road to emotional recovery, “getting ready ‘to say the final goodbye.’” All was swell until the pope and the president stuck their noses in. The problem isn’t the state wanting little Charlies to die, the problem is the outside interference ruining the wise path chosen by representatives of the all-seeing, all-knowing infallible state.
-----------------
Their last-minute interventions drew attention to a profoundly difficult bioethical matter, but, experts said, they may have made a tragic situation even worse.
This is the most repulsive logic justifying violence since the immortal phrase, “We had to destroy the village to save it,” was uttered in the Vietnam War.
Check out the phrasing an “expert” uses:
“The case has gone through the courts, and it is over,” said Claire Fenton-Glynn, a legal scholar at the University of Cambridge who has studied the case. “This is prolonging the agony of a devastating situation.”
Once again, some genuine verbal craftsmanship is being demonstrated here. As a pal of mine remarked:
I wasn’t aware that a “situation" was able to experience agony. Live and learn.
Of course, one of the people that the New York Times would turn to for an opinion on such a topic is “legal scholar."
Will the baby experience pain is, I would have thought, the only relevant question.
So we have cheerleaders for a state that is taking a child away from its parents to kill it, and telling the victims that it is in their own best interests, because experts say so.
