An interesting contrast
As part of our stress relief while we try to sell our home, my wife and I have fallen in love with the mysteries of Agatha Christie, and in particular, her Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot. We’ve seen all the Miss Marple episodes made for the BBC (there are fewer of them) and are working our way through the Poirot as we can find them at our local libraries (often free or for just a dollar for a week; much better than most local video stores).
In one of the earlier mysteries, Problem At Sea, Poirot unmasks a murderer who kills his wife and covers it with his ventriloquism, making everyone think she is still alive while he is there and was killed some time after he’d left the boat. Poirot uses a similar trick to get him to reveal himself at the end.
Now here’s what I found so interesting, even though this is a work of fiction. At the very end of the version we saw, one of the other passengers, while agreeing that it was good the murderer was caught, upbraids Poirot’s method by calling it a “nasty trick.” (Or something along those lines.) Both what she says and the way she says it show the typical liberal tendency to be more concerned about the feelings of the perpetrator rather than the fate of the victim. The method used hurt the criminal’s feelings, the poor thing(!), so it really wasn’t right to do it that way.
Hercule Poirot’s rejoinder, delivered with noticeable force of conviction: “And I, madam, do not approve of murder!” (He then tips his hat and walks off.)
A response worthy of any true conservative indeed! In other words, there is an objective reality here that overrides any problems with “feelings.” There is a dead woman. A life has been prematurely snuffed out by the deliberate act of another human being. That takes precedence over any issues of hurt feelings. Indeed, how hurt are the feelings of the wife whose own husband has pushed a knife into her?
Liberalism: a mental disorder that divorces its victim from reality. I rest my case.