Monday, July 9, 2007

When Worfeus is Outlawed...

Pardon me, I know that this shouldn't be about another blog, but this screed is so ignorant on so many levels, and reflects the liberal mindset so well I just had to dissect it.

This is Worfs triumphant return after a about a months sabbatical...

"When torture is outlawed..."

"This blog thread is about a week out of date, but I decided to post it anyway.
I was reading comments in an online blog recently and I came across a comment by a conservative commenter in a thread about the 50 Presidential Scholar children who handed Bush a letter asking him to stop torturing. The comment was as follows."

"When torture is outlawed, only outlaws will use torture!"

-Would a Conservative ACTUALLY say something this stupid? Or was it a liberal being sarcastic?

"We all have seen this quote before. Its a favorite of the RNC and the NRA for defending gun ownership rights and bumperstickers bearing these words adorn pickups throughout the south."

-Liberal elitism. Worfy just loves rolling in that, he likes to fling around terms like "inbred", "redneck" and "trailerpark", but wait, aren't "rednecks" and people who live in "trailerparks" Americans too?, Oh well second rate ones with Worf and the liberals I suppose.

"But what kind of logic really exists in that tired slogan, particularly when applied to torture?"
-Uh, that would be NONE when applied to "torture".

"That slogan leaves many questions, ..."
-Only to the "nuanced" left evidently...

"as does the act of torture itself."

-Brace yourself, he really goes off the deep end here:
"For example, by that exact same logic, why bother to outlaw raping children?
After all, if raping children is outlawed, only outlaws will rape children.

Or why bother outlawing bank robbery?
After all, if robbing banks is outlawed, only outlaws will rob banks.

And why bother outlawing car jacking?
After all, if car jacking is outlawed, only outlaws will jack cars."

-Yes, and since MURDER is already outlawed, only outlaws commit murder.
And this invalidates the NRA's slogan how exactly?

Only a liberal could equate an inanimate object with a personal action.

(This is reminiscent of how they hate big gas guzzlers, so whenever the media reports an accident or a crime involving a SUV it's always "An SUV killed someone today", like it couldn't have somehow been the driver maybe?)

"Or perhaps is it possible, just possible, that there are some moral absolutes? Could it be things like, raping children and beating pregnant women with tire irons, ..."
-Is he getting to a glimmer of truth here?, no it's Worf remember.

"and torturing our fellow man, are just morally wrong, under any circumstances?"
-Torture wrong "under ANY circumstances"? What if we know for a fact that he's an evil son of a bitch who has committed many attrocities and is about to commit another?

"I’m fully aware of the old tired RNC argument that “what if someone had information that would save 10,000 lives from being killed, is torture worth it then?”."
-I'd say YES!

"Well, in the same vein I ask, what if that same person had information that would save 10,000 lives from being killed, and the terrorist wouldn’t break under torture, but he offers to provide it if you let him rape a 6 year old girl."
-Notice he has to bring in an innocent and uninvolved third party to try to make his thesis work, everyone knows that unless you're talking about Mohammed, torture and the rape of children are two entirely different things. (execpt for the children, to whom that WOULD be torture...)

"Would you do that?"
-Uh, NO! we're TORTURING him, not helping him get his rocks off, or allowing him to torture someone else much less an innocent 6 year old.

"Would it be “worth it”, to let a 6 year old girl be raped mercilessly while you watch, so that 10,000 Americans could keep from dying today, instead of sometime down the road? And if so I ask, what kind of people are these 10,000, who would be ok with living longer if a 6 year old girl had to be raped to do it? What sort of person would be ok living under those circumstances?"
-Gee Worf, this is a pretty safe statement to make, after all what sane person could live with themselves? What OBVIOUSLY warped segment of society would be OK with this?

"Are such lives worthy of being spared?"
-As I've said, NO.

"And if so, is the guy your torturing the right guy?"
-I said, "If we know for a fact..."

"Is he a terrorist or an innocent college student with the same name?"
-This "innocent college student" wants to rape a 6 year old girl why?

"Will he tell you the truth, or just tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear that will make him stop hurting you?"
-He'll tell the truth eventually when he knows we're going to check it out before letting him go back to his cell.

"Will the information he has be valid, or will he be missing a peice of the puzzle?"
-He better hope it's valid.

"Will you be competent and capable enough to stop it even if he does give you correct information, or will the event play out before your impotent eyes?"
-We'll probably stop some, and some we may not. And the ones we stop are worth it.

"Is torturing helpless human beings the only way Americans can survive now?"
-No, and it's not the ONLY method we use.

"Is tortuing helpless human beings what Americans are about?"
-From watching TV I think Americans are about stopping ACNE.
Of course not stupid, but if one small thing helps our police and military it should be part of the arsenal.

"50 Presidential Scholars who met with Mr Bush as a reward for their scholastic acheivements, asked and answered these questions for Mr Bush last week. He didn't get it."
-Yes he did. I believe he replied, "we don't torture". And we don't. We DO however do "coerced interrogations" and the CIA and NSA and the military say it works.

Also, the IQ's of these children are irrelevant. While they MAY be intelligent they have yet to gain real world and life experience.

"How we, as a country answer these questions, will determine who we are, and more importantly, who we are not."
-More self aggrandizing tripe. This from one of the same people who claim we SHOULD be in Darfur to stop the genocide. Iraq was just as bad and we are THERE now. The difference you ask? Simple. Currently we have no national interest in Darfur, and our military is only supposed to be used to protect national interests.

Currently the only good war to a liberal is one in which we have no national interests in being in.

(nevertheless, we may yet go to Darfur, and if we do, what do you want to bet they'll still be screaming about invading "sovereign nations" and "not a threat to us"?)

See, Worfy and his brethren in the church of constant preaching and whiny stompy feet, like to point out the atrocities that happen during our presence while completely ignoring the atrocities that happen during our absence.

Can you imagine these people meeting their maker? He'll ask why they stood by and did nothing while his children were dying in remote parts of the world, and they'll say, "Hey, my hands are clean".

Click here to hear the scholars tell the story.
(If you really care)
Click here to hear what Keith Olberman had to say about the 50 scholars
(Who cares?)

posted by WORFEUS THE BLIND SEER at 1:03 PM |


Freedom Fan said...

Hi Volt and fellow Ruffians,

Sorry I have been out of blogging for a while.

We decided to tear down our house and rebuild it. I got this cool software called "Punch" which lets a layman prepare a detailed design of an entire house.

So my summer project is starting by rebuilding my garage, which I am planning to try to do mostly myself. When someone quoted $90,000 for the job, I decided it was time for me to learn about construction.

I plan to get one of those nail guns and a cool tool-belt which pulls down your pants and shows the ass crack. Wait... no that would be wrong... flashing my ass would just make me look like a lib; better go with some denim coveralls like my grandpa the farmer.

Anyway I am immersed in learning the construction trade; the garage will be my test run for the rest of the house next year.

Also landed a nice project with a big oil company which should keep me hoppin' as well.

Meanwhile, hey give the libs hell and I'll try to drop in from time to time. (My portfolio is nice and fat reflecting a great economy; that must really chap the libs too.)

Voltron said...

Hi FF,

Good to hear from you.
Don't know what happened to the "fellow Ruffians"...seems to be just me for the time being.

Good luck on the garage.
If I was still in Cali, I'd pitch in and help. I'm fairly good at wood butchery!

Freedom Fan said...

Hi Volt,

Hey I just had an insight: Ever notice how socialists are rarely the successful folks who can't wait to give away their hard earned money away to loafers?

Socialists are almost always the ones with their hands out demanding something that belongs to someone else, or politicians trying to buy votes from those same greedy losers.

There are exceptions of course, like Warren Buffet.

Bank robbers, thieves, and burglers do the same thing as socialist but are willing to risk prison in order to keep from contributing something to society.

Socialists want to rob people but they want to do it legally; they must justify it morally so they have a clear conscience. So they moan endlessly about how unfair it is that the rich get richer (while the poor in a free-enterprise economy are still far richer than "rich" people in socialist countries).

Indeed socialists have convinced themselves that somehow they are morally superior to the productive folks whom they rob. The difference between socialists and thieves is minor: They just get the government to hold the gun.