The Moral High Ground

[keithjx]

Something I've been thinking, and I'm sure this isn't a breakthrough, but I wanted to write it down just to clarify my own thoughts. Comments are welcome.

We have this administration that talks, talks, talks about morals and ethics, etc., and we have an election which the media claims was ruled by votes on "morals." (I'm well aware that this is a boatload of shit.) But then we have Abu Grhaib and Gitmo. ShrubCo keeps saying that Geneva conventions don't apply to the terra-ists, so we can happily torture them as long as we don't talk about it too much. Besides, the terra-ists don't follow the conventions and aren't a party to them, so we don't have to follow them either.

Seems to me that the Geneva conventions, regardless of the language used, were put in place to recognize, in part, (a) rules of engagement (rules of war), and (b) the integrity/dignity of humankind. Even prisoners of war have to be treated with basic human dignity.

So, if the administration was really as moral and ethical as it claims, it would take the moral high ground. It would maintain the integrity of the SPIRIT of the conventions, and act as a mature nation regardless of the actions of the other party. Instead, under color of "we don't negotiate with terrorists", the administration itself becomes a terrorist organization.
KJ

[LisaLynne]

1. That's true, but when they talk about "morals" ...

they really seem to be using it as a code-word for their Fundamentalist base meaning a variety of things, few of which have much to do with morality. However, the point you make is a valid one. If we can push enough of those who accept the claim that this administration is "moral" against the wall of the reality of what the administration actually does (actions speak louder than words), perhaps it will wake some of them up. I don't think you could reach the true Fundamentalists that way, however, because they are used to living with cognitive dissidence, unfortunately.

[Been Fishing]

5. Unfortunately it takes some reasoning power

to come to a rational conclusion. Fundamentalist are powered by faith, not reason.

[Dhalgren]

2. You are right. That is exactly the situation.

[BattyDem]

3. The GOP is the ...

"Do as I say, not as I do" party. :eyes:

[StClone]

4. It seems a cover tactic

They state a claim that is positive or strong sounding to create a lasting impression that they have good intentions then do the complete opposite.

[MrModerate]

6. Not to mention the incredible root-vegetable stupidity . . .

of thinking you can get valuable intelligence by threatening to set someone's balls on fire with a Bunsen burner. Hell, just the thought of it makes me willing to confess to the McKinley assassination, the Teapot Dome Scandal, and throwing the 1919 World Series! (Not to mention things that took place while I was actually alive)

But bad morals and good sense are uncomfortable partners, and one of the reasons the Schimpanski and his coterie of turds are such evil shits is that they (even the ones with some intellectual juice) lack what someone else has labeled "emotional intelligence," which translates to empathy, generosity, compassion (remember "compassion?") etc., etc.

They can't find the moral high ground because they don't believe in it -- considering it a "quaint" concept and unmanly to boot.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. Give yourself a cigar

and thank you for playing "Spot the Hypocrisy" with us today.

It really is amazing when you think about it, isn't it?

[ProfessorGAC]

8. The Conventions Are Unnecessary To An Ethical & Moral Nation

We signed them, yes. But, that should be nothing more than a formality if we truly are a moral nation. If we really are as moral and ethical as they claim, the paper is worthless and unnecessary. We should treat these people with proper dignity just because.

Hence, the whole "morality" thing is a lie.
The Professor