Moral equivalence is a term used in political debate, usually to criticize any denial that a moral hierarchy can be assessed of two sides in a conflict, or in the actions or tactics of two sides. It could be considered a form of the rhetorical fallacy of equivocation.id·i·o·cy:
an offensive term meaning extreme lack of intelligence or foresight.Digby, in a fit of idiocy, takes moral equivalence to all new heights by comparing the treatment of erectile dysfunction to abortion:
I have a moral objection to paying for any kind of erectile dysfunction medicine in the new health reform bill and I think men who want to use it should just pay for it out of pocket. After all, I won't ever need such a pill. And anyway, it's no biggie. Just because most of them can get it under their insurance today doesn't mean they shouldn't have it stripped from their coverage in the future because of my moral objections. (I don't think there's even been a Supreme Court ruling making wood a constitutional right. I might be wrong about that.)sat·ire:
Many of the men who are prescribed this medication are on Medicare, so I think it should be stripped out of that coverage as well. And unlike the payments for abortion, which actually lower overall medical costs (pregnancy obviously costs much, much more) banning tax dollars from covering any kind of Viagra would result in a substantial savings....
use of wit to criticize behavior: the use of wit, especially irony, sarcasm, and ridicule, to criticize faults.Digby's post is long on sarcasm and ridicule and totally lacking in wit and irony. On the other hand, if Digby's intent was to post juvenile tripe I'd say he nailed it.