Ethical discussion...is it wrong to use the tactics of your enemy... political or otherwise...against them?

[Missourian]

Alright...back in topic.

And I see this as a problem. Once we discount our own beliefs to "win", what is the point? At what cost did your win come when you have become your enemy.

Not remotely equivalent to the devastating cost of losing...IMO.

And... These tactics don't imperil my immortal soul.

We're talking more along the lines of being uncouth.

 

[Missourian]

See, I do not agree with any of these things, but we can still behave like adults.

We'll have to talk about them sometime.

Pretty sure I can make a compelling case for Assange and Snowden's pardon.

And Project Veritas is what journalism used to be.

But that's tinder for another thread.

 

[Hellokitty]

So, you agree you are no different at all from the left....the left does it so you do it and now you are all the same.

Is that really a win?

I agree that republicans shouldn't hold themselves to selective standards set by the left, thats far different then saying republicans shouldn't hold themselves to their own standards.

 

[foggedinn]

Interesting question. It brought to mind the following scripture.

Ezek 14 KJV: Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me.

2 And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,

3 Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them?

4 Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the Lord will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols;

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I agree that republicans shouldn't hold themselves to selective standards set by the left, thats far different then saying republicans shouldn't hold themselves to their own standards.

But "their own standards" seem to be to do whatever the Dems are doing. That is the whole argument behind the Repubs making shootings political.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not remotely equivalent to the devastating cost of losing...IMO.

This is one area where we have a major disagreement, to me if the Rs win or the Ds win the country has still lost.

And... These tactics don't imperil my immortal soul.

We're talking more along the lines of being uncouth.

If you read a story about a shooting and your first thoughts are "how can I use this to my political advantage", there seems to be some peril there.

Where does it lead, what is the line you will not cross to beat the other side at their own game? Does such a line even exist?

 

[Missourian]

This is one area where we have a major disagreement, to me if the Rs win or the Ds win the country has still lost.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. IMO Republicans basically want to keep things the way they have always been.

 

[Missourian]

you read a story about a shooting and your first thoughts are "how can I use this to my political advantage", there seems to be some peril there.

Except that is not what I think at all. I think..."how can I deter the gun-controllers from using this to their political advantage?".

Totally different. Without A there would be no B.

Where does it lead, what is the line you will not cross to beat the other side at their own game? Does such a line even exist?

I suppose the real question should be... if the other side crosses that line first... does that not make them evil and dangerous?

Is it not my moral obligation to attempt to defeat evil... even if that means fighting fire with fire?

 

[Turtlesoup]

As I said in the other thread, you are free to call it whatever you like. Just never again say it is wrong to politicize gun deaths, because it clearly is not.

Statistically speaking---it is not guy deaths but LIBERALs and their welfare/mentally ill class deaths. Libs kill------by gun, knives, fires, drugs etc

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I suppose the real question should be... if the other side crosses that line first... does that not make them evil and dangerous?

Until you cross the line yourself, then you are now also evil and dangerous

Is it not my moral obligation to attempt to defeat evil... even if that means fighting fire with fire?

what good does it due to defeat evil if you become evil in the process?

 

[Missourian]

Until you cross the line yourself, then you are now also evil and dangerous



what good does it due to defeat evil if you become evil in the process?

Sometimes it requires evil to defeat evil.

We nuked two civilian populations for the "greater good"... but we didn't become an evil country in the process.

We did what we believed was necessary...we won... then we went back to life as usual.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Sometimes it requires evil to defeat evil.

We nuked two civilian populations for the "greater good"... but we didn't become an evil country in the process.

We did what we believed was necessary...we won... then we went back to life as usual.

Life as usual...meddling in world affairs, 4 major wars, 2 invasions of sovereign nations, studying untreated syphilis on our own citizens...

 

[Missourian]

Life as usual...meddling in world affairs, 4 major wars, 2 invasions of sovereign nations, studying untreated syphilis on our own citizens...

Sure...but no mass genocide and no aspirations of global empire...even though we likely could have taken over the planet with sole ownership of a nuclear arsenal.

We were actually remarkably benevolent.