Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants
I guess the coalition needed to stand on the moral high ground to be able to see over the top of all the 1.4m dead Iraqis. But history is written by the victors and the oil is safe, which was the whole point. Bad luck for the Syrians that they don't have any oil worth fighting for.
Claiming the moral high ground is often just a smug way of saying I'm right and you are wrong.
|
Red:
To your credit, even as you took the high moral position re: fake watches, you weren't clandestine about your reasons for doing so. For that bit of integrity I accord you all due respect and credit even though I think the position you articulated is a bit harsh toward folks who choose to wear fakes.
From a legal POV, I think you and I agree, but I think we see the moral picture differently. I can live with that as the ethics and morals of the matter leave me somewhat conflicted in terms of what I think versus the extent to which I am willing to impose upon and assess others by my own mores.
Blue:
My statement wasn't about right or wrong. It was my commentary on the haughtiness, the self-righteousness that accompanies lofty moral principles. I was trying to use irony and overstatement to highlight "the pulpit's" bumptiousness.
I can see validity, cause, rightness and wrongness in the actions of folks on both sides of the issue. I don't think I've yet come to think that absolutism from either perspective is the right solution, but I also don't know for a fact that it's the tack.
All the best.