Ace Falls Into Moral Equivalency?
Ace, for whom I have a great deal of respect, falls into the trap of moral equivalency:
Basically, as Rusty notes on his blog, he called in to debate Debbie on the point of the propriety of printing derogatory information about Jill Carroll. For the record, as far as the actual information, I don’t see why it’s out of bounds to discuss it; I didn’t think so when I originally linked it, and I still don’t. I wasn’t kissing Debbie’s ass on the general point that I don’t get what’s so heinous about this information.
Certainly no one complained very loudly when it was pointed out, here and all over the place, that the Christian “peace” workers in Iraq failed to thank the US military for rescuing them/recovering them. There wasn’t a rule against saying something uncharitable about former hostage victims then, and I still don’t get why the rule is different for Jill Carroll.
Most simply, the two are utterly different situations. More specifically:
- The “activists” were in Iraq specifically to make huggy-kissy with the terrorists and undermine the United States; Jill Carroll was not (she was there on assignment).
- The “activists” continued to make anti-US and anti-military statements even after they were rescued by military forces; Jill Carroll did not.
- The “activists” represented an anti-US, anti-military, pro-terrorist organization which has not changed its platform even after the “activists” were kidnapped and rescued; Jill Carroll represesented no such organization.
- Finally, the personal opinions of the “activists” are irrelevant, while the reason they were there is relevant; likewise, the personal opinions of Jill Carroll are irrelevant, and the reason she was there is relevant.
But Ace then falls into the “questionable source” trap:
I understand some object to the “rumor” nature of this, but there’s a guy on the record, who’s offered up his name, so this isn’t an anonymous rumor. It may or may not be true, but if you have a guy on the record putting his own credibility behind it, I don’t see how that’s a rumor that must not be repeated.
The fact that this is a Schlussel groupie calls his reliability into question. After all, this is somebody who thinks Schlussel, the idiot who went on about the “Mexican eagle” pin, is a reliable source of information. Second, this was anecdotal, and refers only to her personal opinions, which are completely irrelevant to the matter (see above). Third, there’s the “I got this email message from somebody and he said …” principle at play here.
Moral equivalency is for liberals, Ace. You’re completely out of left field on this one.













