Cindy Sheehan Has No Moral Authority

[chequita guevara]

Not this party.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sikander
Oh it happens every day, even in basic training. Have you seen Full Metal Jacket? The Drill Instructor orders Joker to bow down to the Virgin Mary. Joker is an atheist and refuses, even after the DI hits him and threatens worse. The DI then promotes Joker to squad leader because he had the guts to refuse an unlawful order in the face of a lot of pressure to do otherwise.

The ::shrug:: wasn't meant to signify it never happens, but that I wasn't sure that it does. I do remember that scene in FMJ, though until now I wasn't aware of how true to life it was.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How much cred do you think Western Liberalsim would then enjoy throughout the Arab world?

Western liberalism enjoys any credability in the Arab world?

[Cort Haus]

Returning to the headline - being a victim does not give moral authority. That way lies an undignified scramble over mounds of corpses to claim the high ground, and also tends to encourage atrocity fabrication.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ted Striker



Okay, then why attack Iraq and not Russia or China?


Surely the response has been justified a justified one in response to planes being locked on and shot at? (In which none were ever shot down by the way).

This bears no relevance to your original claim that Saddam Hussein never attacked the US.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Returning to the headline - being a victim does not give moral authority. That way lies an undignified scramble over mounds of corpses to claim the high ground, and also tends to encourage atrocity fabrication.

It doesn't for those of us who rely on reason to guide us, no. But as the linked article points out, this is a response to the Right who has been doing such for years. A sad fact of life is, many, if not most, people are more easily swayed by emotion than logic. We have been fighting a losing battle relying solely on reason. We need to use emotions on our side as well. After all, we are humans.

[Berzerker]

Returning to the headline - being a victim does not give moral authority.

Care to explain?

That way lies an undignified scramble over mounds of corpses to claim the high ground, and also tends to encourage atrocity fabrication.

So people who lie negate the moral authority of the victims who dont lie? That "undignified scramble" is how atrocities become seen and condemned and runs counter to human nature, its called demanding justice.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Verto


This bears no relevance to your original claim that Saddam Hussein never attacked the US.

1) He never did

2) Locking onto jets is not "attacking America," and to use that as a pretense for a full scale invasion is bogus. The original point was that the claimed pretense given was "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction he is going to imminently attack us with." How you jumped from a minor skirmish (in which no jets were ever shot down), to leap to an imminent threat to our nation, is crazy.

In any event, advocating a full scale invasion of another nation in defense of radar locks on a plane is:

a) silly
b) impractical
c) hypocritical
d) incompetent
e) foolish
f) stupid
g) dumb
h) immoral

[Drake Tungsten]

Locking onto jets is not "attacking America," and to use that as a pretense for a full scale invasion is bogus.

It's attacking the American military. During a cease-fire after a previous war, no less. That's just asking for it.

[Ted Striker]

And again, why haven't we attacked China or Russia since they have done the same thing?

[Drake Tungsten]

We have a cease-fire from a recent war with China or Russia? China has tried to shoot down our planes?

I guess the Soviet Union did shoot down some of our planes a few decades ago. That's part of the reason we almost nuked them...

[Ted Striker]

We should have nuked them, inappropriate action calls for an appropriate response. Everyone would have been better off. Better of dead, but that's just a minor detail.

The Chinese ran one of their fighters into one of our big planes, you know, that was just there so we could spy on them.

But we should have nuked the Chinese too. How dare they intercept us spying on them!!!

This cat and mouse game goes on all over the world, in all the places we are spying on.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Returning to the headline - being a victim does not give moral authority.

Care to explain?

I'd have thought that moral authority can only come from a principled, consistent and rational position. Why should someone's opinion on a war carry more weight after their son was killed than before?

Moral authority is often seen, however, as coming from victimhood - which has given rise to the stifling culture of litigation internally within the West. It also inflames regional conflicts as participants seek to internationalise their suffering, often falsely claimimg 'genocide' where it does not exist, which cheapens real genocide by claiming moral equivalence.

[Cort Haus]

To give an example - the british govt is seeking to give court time to families of victims so they can emote at the jury.

Surely, however, the point of a trial is to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Unless the family members were witnesses to a crime, how can displays of grief help a jury determine guilt?

[Berzerker]

I'd have thought that moral authority can only come from a principled, consistent and rational position. Why should someone's opinion on a war carry more weight after their son was killed than before?

Because being a victim requires a wrong committed against them, this wrong means the victim has the moral authority to seek redress. That is a principled, consistent and rational position based on freedom.

Moral authority is often seen, however, as coming from victimhood - which has given rise to the stifling culture of litigation internally within the West. It also inflames regional conflicts as participants seek to internationalise their suffering, often falsely claimimg 'genocide' where it does not exist, which cheapens real genocide by claiming moral equivalence.

Why do liars negate the moral authority of victims who dont lie? You didnt answer that, just repeated your argument.

To give an example - the british govt is seeking to give court time to families of victims so they can emote at the jury.

Surely, however, the point of a trial is to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Unless the family members were witnesses to a crime, how can displays of grief help a jury determine guilt?

Some parts of the US let family speak at sentencing, not during the trial. I'd be surprised if the Brits were doing what you describe.