########################################################################## # If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
--- Peter D'Souza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >"Should have been the first"? You're making a moral >judgement by suggesting that the most important issue >*should have been * the war on terror--the every kind >of moral judgements that you otherwise despise. > I am not making a moral judgment at all. Peter appears to be thoroughly confused here. That terrorism should be (and actually is) the most important issue right now is obvious to most people on logical and factual grounds. How could anybody confuse logic with morals? > >We apply moral choices when supporting a war or >opposing it > There is nothing moral about people who use morality for political ends. Most such people are hypocrites - pro-life warmongers being a case in point. > >Regarding the statistics you quoted (and >misapplied), I'd urge you to read "Why Did Kerry >Lose? Answer: It Wasn't 'Values'". It's found on the >editorial page of today's _Wall Street Journal_ >(November 8). > I have made the point that I wanted to make. I can cite many other editorials and opinions that support my view. A couple of them have been cited by the above editorial, e. g. the one by Thomas Friedmann. There is nothing special about the above WSJ editorial. It is an established fact, if you trust the polls, that 20 million moralists voted for Bush in this election - by far the largest fraction of his total vote. Cheers, Santosh
