Grandpa just sat back and was shaking his head after reading a op-ed in the New York Times. Times you have to sit back and just be amazed at how transparent some people are and still get away with it. Here is a piece that tries to justify the attacks on Rush Limbaugh and defend Bill Maher.
Have to admit that they are finally seeing the difference between being fair and being moral though as ilustrated here.
“you will be affirming a single standard, and moreover it will be a moral one because you will be going with what you think is good rather than what you think is fair. “Fair” is a weak virtue; it is not even a virtue at all because it insists on a withdrawal from moral judgment.”
Basically what the author is saying in this piece is that we should judge the acts of people by how we perceive the person is, not judge people by their acts even if it means going against every principle of decent behavior of morality there is. We must also remember that the principle of equality is dependent upon the fair treatment of each other. So, implicitly, he is declaring the concept of equality as being an immoral concept also.
He even admits that collectivism as well as ideology is the foundational basis of it here as he says,
“It elevates tribal obligations over the universal obligations we owe to each other as citizens. It licenses differential and discriminatory treatment on the basis of contested points of view. It substitutes for the rule “don’t do it to them if you don’t want it done to you” the rule “be sure to do it to them first and more effectively.” It implies finally that might makes right. I can live with that.”
Then people wonder why I prefer the right over the left. If this be the morals of the left I don’t understand why anyone would even want to identify with it. It doesn’t just imply that might makes right, it declares it. I, myself, couldn’t have described the attitude of the left any better than this. But, unfortunately one must take this attitude in order to justify the use of force. I, personally, could not live with those principles.
The only thing I can add to this is that someone is finally admitting the same thing that I have been accusing the left of all along. Yet I am the one who is considered the extremist. How can they call themselves progressives when they admit to wanting to take us back to a time when tribal obligations was the law of the land? How can they call themselves progressives when they wish to take us back to a time when the needs of the individual was secondary to the needs of the collective?