Originally posted by Charles
View Post
The child bearing the consequences described by some as terror is still completely innocent.
And I don't assume the law makes sure there should be no plan for reunification? You might go for higher moral standards than what follows from the law, you may work to change the law. The assumption you can blindly follow the law and then will not be to blame is naive and absurd and even a limited understanding of history shows why this is a path we should not follow.
This is a very, very telling about your approach. You talk about dehumanizing talks as something that might "hurt feelings". That is a naive understanding. As history clearly shows, dehumanizing language might very well lead to actual consequences for real people. To think this is about "feelings" is to close your eyes to reality.
And another point. It seems you are willing to sell out on certain areas due to economical gains on others. If money is in another moral league than respecting the basic value of human life you are selling what is basically invaluable for money. If you put a price on dignity you have already lost it.
See above. Same error all the way through. A complete sellout of the value of human life. Even the truth is something you are willing to sell for something you seem to percieve as more valuable.
It is not about the impact of Trump's decisions but about the impact of those who try to justify what cannot be justified. Your "greater good" is obviously not truth, decency and the equal value of all human life.
The point you respond to is not about individual desire. Based on your willingness to accept dehumanizing talk and action and your disregard for truth in search for a "greater good" I see no reason why you talk about the "moral high ground". You have just provided the opposite.
Comment