T. Brosz: If the investigation had never taken place, there would have been no crime.
Do I understand correctly that you imply that Libby's alleged (and pretty damn lame, if you ask me) attempt to cover for someone else's felony indiscretion was not, in itself, a crime, if there had been no investigation into the indiscretion itself?
Crime = violation of the law. A moral absolutist would recognize that crime occurs in the absence of enforcement.
A hypocrite would argue otherwise.
Take your stand, Tom, and stick to it. Either "moral relativism" is always wrong, or it's wrong only when your side doesn't gain from it, and you can use it as a flail.
You don't strike me as the hypocritical type -- not at your core -- and I'd hate to be disappointed by you donning the weasel costume, even if it is Hallowe'en.
Flame » in reply to re: You know, with this general a statement...
Shall we now speak of "moral relativism"?
The whole thread (34 posts)
- Twas the Night Before Fitzmas...
- Wait for it. (n/t)
- Waited, waited, waited, opened, saw. Happy. (n/t)
- You know, with this general a statement...
- I told you so (n/t)
- re: You know, with this general a statement...
- If Libby hadn't lied, there might be PROOF of a crime
- So you are saying, then, that the Clinton impeachment was unfair? (n/t)
- Shall we now speak of "moral relativism"?
- "If the investigation had never taken place, there would have been no crime."
- "there would have been no crime"?
- " If the investigation had never taken place, there would have been no crime"
- Wait for it. (n/t)