We're pointing out that from a moral perspective(the only relevant perspective in this case really),
No, that is the one aspect most irrelevant.
nothing is gained by elevating one evil above another for temporary political gain.
That is a categorical statement based on absolutely nothing. In reality, this is the way it has always been, and will always be. Or have you never heard of balance of power politics?
I am not going to embrace a leftist just because they happen to be attacking another leftist at the time.
You don't have to, but if you are smart, you will elevate the attack and make sure that the greater threat receives a good amount of damage.
Straight up wrong. This is a moral war, not a political one.
That is a categorical statement based on absolutely nothing.
If two cobras are fighting in the jungle, and one of them kills the other, then good. That's one less cobra.
It doesn't mean that you take the winner home and tell your kids to hug it. It means you chop off the head of the winner too, because cobras are a goddamn menace.
You don't have to, but if you are smart, you will elevate the attack and make sure that the greater threat receives a good amount of damage.
Straight up wrong. This is a moral war, not a political one.
Oh please. If it is a moral war, why are the most immoral people winning so far?
If two cobras are fighting in the jungle, and one of them kills the other, then good. That's one less cobra.
It's more like when a scorpion is fighting a lion. I'm rooting for the scorpion, because the lion is a far bigger threat, even if I'm not going to take the scorpion home afterwards.
Oh please. If it is a moral war, why are the most immoral people winning so far?
Because people like you keep insisting to treat like it a political war.
And naturally, when you fail to bring the right weapon to a fight, you will lose.
It's more like when a scorpion is fighting a lion.
No it isn't, and you aren't "rooting" for anything. You're trying to get in the middle of it and help.
The correct answer is to stand back and laugh while your enemies kill each other.
"if you are smart". Clearly, you aren't.
Hug as many snakes as you want, says the man covered in bite marks.
You go right ahead and cuddle up with evil, see where it gets you. The real right wing has figured out your con game, and won't be playing along anymore. We're tired of cuckoldry and the shitty results it brings. You people haven't "conserved" a goddamn thing in the last century.
Because people like you keep insisting to treat like it a political war.
The people who are treating it like a political war are winning, taking over institutions, etc. But sure, try to foist your untested nonsense on everyone because your vanity tells you that since this idea occurred to you, it must be correct.
No it isn't, and you aren't "rooting" for anything. You're trying to get in the middle of it and help.
I don't need to "get in the middle" to help. I can just elevate this article, which is what I'm doing. Let me guess, I will face a horrible death as a result?
The correct answer is to stand back and laugh while your enemies kill each other.
Nope, when there is an attack on a greater evil, like Oxfam, the correct answer is to help spread it as far as possible, to take out this greater evil. The lesser evil, being less powerful, is easier to handle.
Hug as many snakes as you want, says the man covered in bite marks.
Rather, use the time-tested strategies that have served men well since the second millennium BC at least.
You people haven't "conserved" a goddamn thing in the last century.
No, that is the one aspect most irrelevant.
That is a categorical statement based on absolutely nothing. In reality, this is the way it has always been, and will always be. Or have you never heard of balance of power politics?
You don't have to, but if you are smart, you will elevate the attack and make sure that the greater threat receives a good amount of damage.
Straight up wrong. This is a moral war, not a political one.
If two cobras are fighting in the jungle, and one of them kills the other, then good. That's one less cobra.
It doesn't mean that you take the winner home and tell your kids to hug it. It means you chop off the head of the winner too, because cobras are a goddamn menace.
No.
It is not "smart" to hug a snake.
Oh please. If it is a moral war, why are the most immoral people winning so far?
It's more like when a scorpion is fighting a lion. I'm rooting for the scorpion, because the lion is a far bigger threat, even if I'm not going to take the scorpion home afterwards.
"if you are smart". Clearly, you aren't.
Because people like you keep insisting to treat like it a political war.
And naturally, when you fail to bring the right weapon to a fight, you will lose.
No it isn't, and you aren't "rooting" for anything. You're trying to get in the middle of it and help.
The correct answer is to stand back and laugh while your enemies kill each other.
Hug as many snakes as you want, says the man covered in bite marks.
You go right ahead and cuddle up with evil, see where it gets you. The real right wing has figured out your con game, and won't be playing along anymore. We're tired of cuckoldry and the shitty results it brings. You people haven't "conserved" a goddamn thing in the last century.
The people who are treating it like a political war are winning, taking over institutions, etc. But sure, try to foist your untested nonsense on everyone because your vanity tells you that since this idea occurred to you, it must be correct.
I don't need to "get in the middle" to help. I can just elevate this article, which is what I'm doing. Let me guess, I will face a horrible death as a result?
Nope, when there is an attack on a greater evil, like Oxfam, the correct answer is to help spread it as far as possible, to take out this greater evil. The lesser evil, being less powerful, is easier to handle.
Rather, use the time-tested strategies that have served men well since the second millennium BC at least.
I'm not a conservative, dummy.