> I do think that the right has a small point in their perspective. They very well might. It's what follows that needs scrutiny. Having been RW, there was som

> I do think that the right has a small point in their perspective. They very well might. It's what follows that needs scrutiny. Having been RW, there was some pride in adhering to a dumb fallacy: It's that if A is beneficial, then B thru Z must be beneficial. Together, A-Z become an ethics-defining principle. But it's an unthinking, lazy assumption. Only beneficial things are beneficial. B thru Z are only what each is eventually shown to be.