Quote from rgelite:
This correctly focuses on the essentials. It is also why (despite my having to weed through quotes by him) I had this poster on ignore within a few days of my first encounter with him.
But I'll say again, to cast both sides as equally culpable, as if this is a "he said, she said" for which a broad brush obliterating any moral clarity is disguised itself as moral clarity is the same fundamental error of treating food and poison equally. It is the province of the dishonest or the insane. Everyone knows that food doesn't need poison; but that poison, to be accepted by any sane person, must disguise itself as food to be ingested.
The same is true of ideas--those that nourish, those that clarify, versus those that poison, those that muddle. The latter includes those postured cleverly "above the fray" that attempt to depict food and poison as mere equivalents, mere opposite sides of the same coin (as if the "coin" was the essential), and thus deserving of the same respect or abhorence, with no means for people who value Life to decide which. It is the province of ideologically bankrupt college professors. It is the province of the Charles Mansons and the Ingrid Newkirks of the world.
And why he and others of his ilk continue to populate my Ignore List.
