Here’s what some jerkoff at the Wall Street Journal tweeted in regards to the four brave young men who sacrificed their lives in Aurora to save the lives of their girlfriends.
Worthy of the sacrifice? Is this guy insane? Whose interpretation of worthy are we to use to determine whether or not the women in question live up to the ‘worthiness’ standard? Taranto’s? And why is it any concern of his how these women live the rest of their lives? They don’t owe this pompous blowhard anything and surely have no need to feel an obligation to satisfy some stranger’s “hope” that they live worthy lives.
After receiving well-deserved flak for his remark, Taranto wrote this:
We intended this to be thought-provoking, but to judge by the response, very few people received it that way. The vast majority found it offensive and insulting. This column has often argued that a failure of public communication is the fault of the public communicator, and that’s certainly true in this case.
These three women owe their lives to their men. That debt can never be repaid in kind, because life is for the living and cannot be returned to the dead. The closest they can come to redeeming it is to use the gift of their survival well–to live good, full, happy lives.
Oh, shut up. This guy’s excuse is as sick as his original tweet and does nothing to make the latter any more acceptable. How these women live the rest of their lives is no one’s business except their own. Period.
I’ve lost complete patience for moralistic assholes in my world.