Subject:
|
Re: In light of Tuesday's events (was Re: Are we doing the right thing?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Sep 2001 03:02:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1029 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Alan Findlay writes:
> > > > I disagree. Any people should use whatever methods they have at their
> > > > disposal to secure a fair measure of life. To do less is to accept
> > > > slavery. If their only recourse is terrorism, then their neighbors
> > > > damn well need to help solve their problems (or snuff them).
> However, your logic does not allow for "under some circumstances" but rather
> points to ALL circumstances.
You mean like when I wrote that when less hostile opportunities to improve the
situation are present, they are a better choice? My statements were not all
inclusive. I can see how you might, looking to be annoyed, take my stance to
be what you're saying. But I actually _know_ what I think.
A group of people who are systematically wronged by another should feel free to
do almost whatever it takes to free themselves from bondage.
> Following on from your earlier example of you,
> your children, a bus driver and an avalanche, whether you think Tuesday's
> events are "worthy of the human spirit" or not is immaterial. The hijackers
> thought it was right, good, and just, so following your logic we must also
> view it as such -- or at least we cannot be outraged and angry.
That's asinine. I never said any such thing.
> Instead,
> according to your comments above, we are to look on Tuesday's events as a
> "learning experience"
Well, I certainly hope we do.
> and look for ways to help those who were responsible
> to improve their circumstances and stop being so nasty.
Quoting from myself; "or snuff them."
> As I've read your posts, it appears that you do not hold that there are
> universal rights and wrongs,
That's simply obvious. If they were universal, then we wouldn't have this
discussion because we'd all agree. The stance that they are universal is
completely untenable.
> but rather a "right for me; right for you". You
> have exhibited a belief in "the end justifies the means". This is where your
> logic takes you.
Some ends justify some means. But I generally reject that the end justifies
the means.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
50 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
