One simply has to hand it to some bloggers. The meaning of the word hypocrite simply never seems to penetrate their skulls, even while they're in the act of making one out of themselves.
And sometimes it starts with something so simple as forgetting the lessons that we're taught in the most formative years in our lives -- or making a conscious choice to discard them entirely.
Consider the recent case of various left-wing bloggers who approved of the assault on 69-year-old Ed Snell.
Their basic argument, in the end, has basically boiled down to "well, we had it coming."
And in their minds, it's an argument that we suddenly accept. Accept that we don't.
It behooves us to remember that Nathan Richardson, the 69-year-old Snell's assailant, was 23 years old -- a full 46 years Snell's junior. Clearly, Richardson is much younger, bigger, and stronger than Snell -- something that only serves to underscore the shameless brutality of Richardson's assault.
It's the very same principle why our society condemns violence by men against women. Generally, men are much bigger and stronger than women. It's why many women demand stronger domestic assault laws, to protect women.
But there are defenses that we simply don't accept. Arguments such as "she had it coming".
Provocation is rejected by almost anyone as a defense in the case of violence perpetrated by a man against a woman and, normally, against a senior citizen. But swap that woman for an elderly man with political opinions that the individual in question finds offensive, and the response suddenly changes from one of condemnation to something like the following:
"If you're going to stand on top of your car yelling at people, yeah, someone's probably going to take you down a peg." -PedgehogSuddenly, these are the kinds of defenses these people believe should be accepted.
"Guys like Snell are the moral equivalent of fraudsters who deliberately step into the path of an oncoming car and then fake their "injuries" to be worse than reality, hoping for a financial payoff. In Snell's case, he was hoping for a legal payoff.
Too bad the judge didn't drop his sorry ass into a cell." -Chimera
"Does one have the right to follow up a verbal assault with a physical one?
If there is no other way to end the verbal assault, you're damn right you do. It may not be legal, but it was absolutely the right thing to do." -Realitybites
"Would it be terribly improper of me to point out that Mr. Richardson is quite the hotty, and is welcome to push me down any time he wants?" -Realitybites
"My feeling (and I'm guessing probably most peoples' feeling) is that Snell poked a stick through one too many fences expecting beagles to be behind them, and eventually came up with a rottweiller. That doesn't make the rottie a good guy, it just makes Snell a dummy who it's extremely hard to sympathize with, and easy to ridicule. Some would say he had it coming." - JJ
"I'd have kick the old fart in the nads while he was down for good measure - make him think twice about harassing my wife or girlfriend (don't tell my wife about her) during such a time." -Mike
"That's precisely the reason why not following up with a kick to the head was a bad thing to do." -Chimera
"I couldn't care less if the old guy disagreed with my POV -- he was being an asshole, for the umpteenth time in his life, and he got what was coming to him." -JJ
"Snell got what he deserved. Like I said at JJ's, I would have kicked him in the nuts a few times while he was down. It would have been worth it." -Mike
But if we don't accept the "he had it coming" defense from nine-year-olds who beat up on five-year-olds... if we don't accept them from men who beat up on women, why on earth would any rational, sane adult accept them on behalf of 23-year-old men who beat up on 69-year-olds?
We don't. Then again, these aren't rational, sane, well-adjusted people. It's become entirely evident that this particular faction of the pro-abortion lobby has completely lost their minds.
It's all rather sad. One certainly doesn't have to approve of Snell's views, or of the method he chooses to express them, in order to admit that the violence perpetrated against him was wrong.
And it was. Indisputably -- whether these hateful psychopaths want to admit it or not.
The funny thing is that as soon as an abortion clinic doctor is targeted by an act of violence, it's used to paint the entirety of the anti-abortion lobby with the same terroristic brutality, despite the fact that many members of the anti-abortion lobby are willing to come out and condemn such violence.
Yet when violence is perpetrated against an anti-abortion activist -- even in the course of a confrontation as lop-sided as this one -- they approve. If one were to treat these individuals as they evidently imagine themselves -- as representatives of their movement -- it becomes hard to believe that the entire movement doesn't carry the very brutal, violent edge that they imagine -- and condemn -- in their anti-abortion opponents.
It's all the more reason for, whenever these particular crazed extremists of the pro-abortion lobby rant and rave about the latest outrage perpetrated by anti-abortion terrorists, their condemnation should be greeted with nothing but scorn. Sympathy should be extended to the victims and their families, but the cowardly, shameless hypocrites who approve of and, make childish excuses for, violence perpetrated against their anti-abortion opponents deserve to be treated with nothing but contempt.
We will not accept those arguments from men who beat women, and we will not accept them from young men who assault septuagenarians.