Friday, July 01, 2005

Moral Relativists gone wild...

When we view morality as ultimately relative, it is not surprising to find the following moronic nonsense spoken with complete seriousness:
Many Americans woke up to a curious story this morning: several of the former Iran Hostages have decided there is a strong resemblance between Iran's new president and one of their captors more than 25 years ago. The White House and most official branches of government are ducking any substantive comment on this story, and photo analysis is going on at this and other news organizations. It is a story that will be at or near the top of our broadcast and certainly made for a robust debate in our afternoon editorial meeting, when several of us raised the point (I'll leave it to others to decide germaneness) that several U.S. presidents were at minimum revolutionaries, and probably were considered terrorists of their time by the Crown in England. (emphasis added)
The piece is from NBC anchor Brian Williams' blog. Later, on NBC nightly news, he continued with,
What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all.
It seems that the someone was him (referencing his own blog entry). That's it. One man's ceiling is another man's floor. Hence, we must be honest with ourselves and admit that one country's terrorist is another country's patriot. Lest we impose our own morality on another culture we also should refrain from using the term "terrorist" altogether and, considering our ceiling / floor logic, admit that the term "freedom fighter" is more appropriate. After all, what is important is not whether the person's actions are truly wrong (for there is nothing really wrong), but whether the person is sincere in their belief. A Brian Williams' History lesson: Terrorists, circa 2000 Terrorists, circa 1776 HT: Michelle Malkin

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

After all, what is important is not whether the person's actions are truly wrong (for there is nothing really wrong), but whether the person is sincere in their belief.

Right. And when Moses tells his men to stab little babies, it doesn't matter whether he was sincere in his belief, but rather what matters is whether it was right or wrong. Heck, he was probably doing them a favor. (We wouldn't want them to starve out in the desert after they burned their mommies and daddies and their homes, now would we.)

Rusty said...

386!

I've been wondering where you've been.

From the gist of your comments I take it that you buy into Brian Williams' moral relativism and consider American patriots on par with present-day terrorists?

Rusty said...

Paul,

Show me where American Patriots routinely engaged in suicide bombings, specifically targeting women and children, not to mention kidnapping and beheading civilians.

Liberals like Williams play with words and then cry foul when someone holds their feet to the fire. Indeed, if the concept of terrorist didn't exist (as we know it) in 1776, then it is patently absurd to make a comparison - as Williams did. But then, Williams probably doesn't expect his readers to think.

But let's flip the Williams' analogy around - Regarding the patriots who slammed into the WTC, which United States colony were they from?

Rusty said...

Oh no, I won't let you squirm away from the word that Williams used: terrorists.

And the American Patriots were juxtaposed against current day terrorists. You're a smart guy Paul, you can figure out why that is just plain wrong.

As to my last comment, perhaps it was a bit too parodical (if that is a word). I was attempting to do a reverse Williams comparison. Williams did: American Patriot = terrorist. I was following his lead and doing: 9/11 terrorist = Patriot. It's absurd, I know... but that was my point.

Rusty said...

The word terrorists is included in the phrase terrorists of their time (to state the obvious). If the concept of terrorist did not exist in 1776, then why would Williams choose to use the word? Either he is incredibly stupid, or he is attempting to make a comparison between the actions of today's terrorists and yesterday's patriots. If it were not so he would not have used the word. Consider that the American Patriots were considered revolutionaries. That was an objective evaluation of what they were, regardless of what side of the fence you stood on. The Brits considered the revolutionary actions of the Americans to be criminal... the Americans did not.

You want to know why Williams used the word terrorist? Because he's looking for the shock factor. Consider how demure the same statement is when rendered "revolutionaries of their time," or "criminals of their time." It immediately loses the shock factor that Williams ignorantly hoped for.

Rusty said...

they were revolutionaries period.

Yes, I agree. And that's why Williams was disingenuous with his use of the phrase "terrorists of their time." The fact of the matter is that they were considered revolutionaries, and not "terrorists of their time." And the reason why is exactly what you have stated, terrorism, as we are now defining the word, was not a part of the landscape in 1776. Williams was playing with words, as was Durbin, in an attempt to add shock value to the lame point he was attempting to make.