My recent exchange with a British Twitter user in the wake of the Charlie Gard decision provides a case study in the moral cowardice of those who preen about their support for using the state to strip parents of their rights.
As the record shows, it didn’t take long for me to generate enough cognitive dissonance in my formerly pontificating opponent to make her abandon the field. Then, to insulate herself from exposure to identity-threatening arguments, she took the further precaution of blocking me.
Her personal attack/nonsense rebuttal combo provides two CogDis tells rolled into one. This chick had gone round after round with at least one lawyer on the legal merits of the case, but she beat a hasty retreat when I popped her bloated ego balloon.
Let this be a lesson to those that would argue with people who brag about their support for government-sanctioned baby murder. They strike a cool, rational pose, but underneath they’re moral cowards who want the state to do their dirty work.
What they always fail to think through is that advocating for the courts to seize and kill children without their parents’ consent leaves no less blood on their hands. When you join your will to a state policy, you’re as morally culpable for the results as the soulless bureaucrats who carry out the sentence.
Point this out, and watch the scumbags squirm.