Why the Left Won't Call Anyone 'Animals'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
If you want to understand the moral sickness at the heart of leftism, read the first paragraph of the most recent column by Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne:
"It's never right to call other human beings 'animals.' It's not something we should even have to debate. No matter how debased the behavior of a given individual or group, no matter how much legitimate anger that genuinely evil actions might inspire, dehumanizing others always leads us down a dangerous path."
Let's begin with the first sentence: "It's never right to call other human beings 'animals.'"
This is so self-evident to Dionne that he adds, "It's not something we should even have to debate."
Only someone who has never debated the issue could make such a claim.
So allow me to debate the assertion.
My view is the antithesis of Dionne's. As I see it, it is not right to never call another human being an "animal."
Calling the cruelest among us names such as "animal" or any other "dehumanizing" epithet actually protects humans. The word "beastly" exists for a reason and is frequently applied to human beings. By rhetorically reading certain despicable people out of the human race, we elevate the human race. We have declared certain behaviors out of line with being human.
Biologically, of course, we are all human. But if "human" is to mean anything moral -- anything beyond the purely biological -- then some people who have committed particularly heinous acts of evil against other human beings are not to be considered human. Otherwise "human" has no moral being. We should then not retain the word "inhumane." What is the difference between "he is inhumane" and "he is an animal"? Both imply actions that render the person no longer human.
Tags
Who is online
138 visitors
Personally, I don't believe it's ever right to call a generalized group of people "animals" or to dehumanize entire swaths of the populace. I do think it's okay to dehumanize individuals who you have evidence have committed crimes or acted in such a way that would define them as less than human such as the sadistic Nazi guards described by the Rabbi as "Monsters". It's the acts or possibly the ideology of certain individuals who define themselves as less than human. Not all those who considered themselves "Nazi's" ascribed to the ideology of hate, racism and genocide that some Nazi's did, so to consider all Nazi's from that time bad people or animals would be wrong. If today you consider yourself a Nazi specifically because you ascribe to the ideology of hate, racism and genocide then you define yourself as less than human, just like some today have proudly declared themselves deplorable by ascribing to the ideology of xenophobia, homophobia, Islamaphobia, sexism and racism.
So I believe we should avoid defining any specific ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, minority or group as less than human, but there can be individuals among any group who out themselves as less than human by their actions and professed ideology. Most undocumented immigrants are not members of MS-13 , but some are, and if they commit heinous crimes against innocent civilians then they should be called exactly what they are, monsters. But not even every member of MS-13 have committed those kinds of vile murderous acts and thus painting them all with that same broad brush would be wrong, though in general if you associate yourself with a gang know for violent acts then you are saying support their actions thus defining yourself as the same monster as those pulling the triggers. The same goes for violent right wing extremist groups, if you don't want to be associated with abortion clinic bombers, don't hang out with those who push extremist violent rhetoric against abortion providers, otherwise you could easily be mistaken as a monster and labeled such.
These people never cease to amaze me with their thought patterns.
What thought patterns.
According to that type of thinking, One should only find the Good in people, even with a knife sticking out of your heart.
""It's never right to call other human beings 'animals. It's not something we should even have to debate."
Well, according to Pelosi, MS-13 has a spark of divinity.
only because it is offensive to actual animals, but they do not speak english and are unaware of such things.
hate to break the news but some people are much worse than animals.
as for peoples feelings about calling people animals? that is just funny
I guess if you are into insults and name calling it would disturb you when people don't follow your lead. One thing I know for sure, I want no part of your morals and value systems, and especially nothing to do with any religion that embodies them.
Now, feel free to call names and hurl insults and remind yourselves how righteous you all are.
Your comment seems to indicate direct hostility toward NewsTalkers with whom you disagree, so let's get back to the seed's topic.
In other words, do you agree with Prager or Dionne, and why? I'd really like to know.
Depends on how you are using the word. Technically all humans are animals, from a scientific perspective. In normal conversation when someone calls another person or group of people animals, they are calling them sub-human. Inferior. Again, all depends on context.