I guess I'm the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier
Taranto (who doesn't believe in trackback URLS) nails the problem quite precisely:
Imagine if someone in 1937 had foreknowledge of the Holocaust and began sounding the alarms, describing in detail what was going to happen just a few years later. Most people probably wouldn't believe him. They would be, to use Goodman's phrase, denying the future. But would they be "on par" with people who deny the Holocaust after it has happened?That seems a stretch. There's an enormous difference between doubting an outlandish prediction (even one that comes true) and denying the grotesque facts of history. Because we are ignorant of the future, we can innocently misjudge it. Holocaust deniers are neither ignorant nor innocent (though extremely ignorant people may innocently accept their claims). They are falsifying history for evil purposes.
Well, let's say that global warming will be a Holocaust (a burnt offering? Did she really mean that?), and that man has the power to stop it by shrinking his carbon footprint. Will Ellen take responsibility for the Indians and Chinese (not to mention poor Americans) who will die to accomplish that? It may be corpses now, or more corpses later. But since she wants government action, it is her responsibility. She can buy Priuses and fluorescent bulbs all she likes. But if she really wants to reduce her carbon footprint...naw, she can't do that; liberals don't own guns.
Comments