Moral monsterism

i-67807150547f2df5af9cc13f59df73ff-intertubediscourse.jpg
Apologies for the profanity in the cartoon above, but it is as nothing compared to the eldritch horror quoted below. I offer Penny Arcade's theory as a possible explanation of where this comes from.
Martin Cothran, who blogs for the Disco. Inst., who purports to teach logic (though he's has odd affections for elementary fallacies), and who works for Kentucky's Focus on the Family ally, wants to "keep the murder of abortionists safe and legal." Seeking clarification of that insane title, we learn that:

Reading Ann Coulter is, for me, something of a guilty pleasure, given her gift of hyperbole. And yet sometimes she just nails it.

He then quotes that foul harpie's comment that:

Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.

Coulter is known to be a conscienceless monster, so no point arguing with her. But beneath Cothran's embrace of Holocaust deniers and obsession with forcibly divorcing loving married couples, I would hope he's a basically a decent person. Decent people don't joke about murder. Perhaps he'll think better of the joke, or perhaps I've misjudged him.

More like this

I hope he's not what this makes him seem as well, but I look at it this way: he's talking (writing?) for a specific audience - the people who think the DI is a real "think tank". He knows they won't take offense at this, as they're already in his pocket. He really doesn't care what people who aren't in his following think: if there is a big dust up it can be put off to liberal intolerance.

so he is perfectly willing to adopt the 'liberal' position regarding killing abortionists but not abortion providers or recipients? After all, if you don't believe in abortions; then don't have one.

the hypocrisy, it burns!