Wednesday, June 01, 2011

Question of the Day

I decided to follow up on someone who posted a comment to something I said on this blog about six years ago. At the time I was attempting to replicate the snarky tone of an online comic page that I was (and presently still) rather fond of. I was of course expressing my usual and utter contempt for those walking wastes of mass and energy who call themselves peace activists. (Other examples of usual and utter contempt may be found here.)

So some Methodist clerk with a delusion of virtue wanders in and left some comments, largely to the effect that I, the metaphysical and epistemological realist with a snarky attitude, am mentally ill or is otherwise depraved. I did not argue with this induhvidual (misspelling deliberate here), I simply explained why such a person should be held in contempt.

Ultimately I dropped the rhetorical sixteen-ton weight on him:

Thus the willing servant of willing servant of tyrants, terrorists, and the Enemies of Mankind in General strikes the pose of righteousness while inoring the screams of the victims of tyranny and terror.

We would of course be remiss if we did not point out that hate is an emotional response to the recognition of the fact that one is in some way in the presence of evil. And in this case I mean willful, deliberate, evil.

We should not be surprised that this willing servant of tyrants, terrorists, and the Enemies of Mankind in General would claim that hatred of evil is evil. This is simply another contradiction given voice by a willfully depraved creature whose only claim to the title of Human is its physical form.

We could say that a peace activist is the political equivalent of the depraved bystander who tells a women who is being raped that she should "lay back and enjoy it", but that would be an undeserved compliment.

We could say that killing a peace activist is no more an act of murder than putting down a rabid animal, but that would be an insult to rabid animals.

I will say that killing a peace activist is an act of defense, of one's self, of one's family, of one's nation, and of Humanity in General.

Unlike the aforementioned willfully depraved creature, I've had a long and tiresome day doing productive work, and I will (have) nothing more to say on this subject today.

Needless to say, when it comes to stating the truth I'm not a nice guy. But I did have some issues with copy editing back then. (I have a lot more to say on the subject of peace activism here.)

Out of curiosity I followed the link back to his blog today and found that he is still around and still an epistemological and ethical moron. (As a point of courtesy I'll leave a link to the idiot here.)

During this process a thought occurred (No, it didn't hurt. (Smile)). A question came to my mind.

Would this idiot, in a display of moral posturing, stand between a former state leader condemned to death for mass murder and the firing squad?

Somehow I strongly suspect that this, and lot a of other moral frauds wouldn't. But if I were in charge of the firing squad I would give the order to fire, followed by the order to reload.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?

No comments: