Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

'High Value Target' and the elusiveness of rhetoric

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 'High Value Target' and the elusiveness of rhetoric

    'High Value Target' has become almost cliche' recently in discussions here and elswhere on the web.  It IS however nothing more than a rhetorical device.  Let's take a closer look:

     

    'Value' is a perception.

    Where I personally see no value in a Phanlanx 14 String, others do.

    So, it's important to remember the word 'target' in the 'high value target' idiom.

    While, to a parent, their child's life is usually considered highly valuable and worthy of protection (there are unfortunate exceptions to this which are outside the scope of this article), the ACTUAL value is relative to one's purposes.  

     

    For those specifically wishing or otherwise determined to cause harm to or on others, there may be percieved value in targeting individual persons.  Yet, the same effect may be accomplished arbitrarily.  Bombs are indiscriminate.  Most mass shootings are indiscriminate.  As with both the assailants and the surviors, the value of the decedents is the same, relative to their intentions.  The assailants were intent on death to others and the survivors were intent on life and living.

     

    It is unfortunate that 'high value target' is a rhetorical device but it IS precisely that, andnothing more.  The People cry equally whether it's Sandy Hook or the President's children who fall victim to wanton violence.

     

    My opinion is that it is not inappropriate to suggest that using one's position to gain or enjoy protection for youself or family while also using that position to inhibit others from that right equally is disingeuous, or perhaps even hypocritical.

     

     

    gp

    The above is not to be taken too seriously.

  • #2

    Grumpy_Polecat wrote:

     

     

    My opinion is that it is not inappropriate to suggest that using one's position to gain or enjoy protection for youself or family while also using that position to inhibit others from that right equally is disingeuous, or perhaps even hypocritical.

     

     


    But that's not what's happening here. Not even close.

     

    x

    Comment


    • #3
      the political lefts stunning hypocrisy on the right to keep and bear arms reveals them for what they are.

      look at the violence in mobos home state...where he was fa senator...its **bleep**. hes for one thing for him and another for you.
      just another day for president lead from behind.

      Comment


      • slodge
        slodge commented
        Editing a comment

        Davo17 wrote:
        the political lefts stunning hypocrisy on the right to keep and bear arms reveals them for what they are.

        look at the violence in mobos home state...where he was fa senator...its **bleep**. hes for one thing for him and another for you.
        just another day for president lead from behind.

        No left wing hypocrisy here.

        Just right wing desperation and dishonesty repeated through the echo chamber by their dim-witted followers.


      • Hoddy
        Hoddy commented
        Editing a comment

        Davo17 wrote:
        the political lefts stunning hypocrisy on the right to keep and bear arms reveals them for what they are.

        look at the violence in mobos home state...where he was fa senator...its **bleep**. hes for one thing for him and another for you.
        just another day for president lead from behind.

        My family is much safer out here in our very conservative county than we would be in some bastion of liberalism like Atlanta or Detroit.


    • #4

      Grumpy_Polecat wrote:
      "My opinion is that it is not inappropriate to suggest that using one's position to gain or enjoy protection for youself or family while also using that position to inhibit others from that right equally is disingeuous, or perhaps even hypocritical."

      Well stated.

       

       


       

      Comment


      • #5
        Grumpy: sorry for not being able to quote from this device, but I couldn't agree more.

        The President is able to utilize virtually anything he wants in order to protect himself and his famiy.

        While I don't begrudge him for doing so....because I would too if I could....it is hypocritical for him to then tell me that my choices should be limited to what he or some other politician believes will "do the job".

        If assault weapons are good enough for his personal protection....don't even try to take mine.

        Comment


        • #6
          Great. Now we're talking as if the President and First Lady are walking around with assault rifles slung over their backs and bandoliers across their chests.
          x

          Comment



        Working...
        X