Subject:
|
Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Sep 2001 00:08:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
665 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
<snip>
Ross, you're wriggling around, for no real reason I can see, except to avoid
admitting the truth of my answer to Horst's question:
Horst said:
> (Larry forgot who said):
> > What do you think pacifism at a time like now is going to get us?
> > All it will get us is more innocent Americans (among others) killed.
> And your evidence for that is ... ?
And I answered that what was done on flight 93 was *not* an act of pacifism.
You're going around and around trying to deny that it took the use of force
(not the initiation of it, the terrorists did that) to accomplish what was
accomplished.
Although we may never know, for sure, *exactly*, what happened, it is now
pretty clear (not 100%, but 99+% which is good enough for me):
- The plane was hijacked.
- Some people took it on themselves (after some consultation among
themselves and with others not on the plane) to act against the hijackers.
- That action was forceful and was not something a pacifist would, or could
(and still remain a pacifist) do.
- The action, while failing to save the lives of those on the plane, did
thwart the aims of the hijackers and almost certainly averted a greater tragedy.
No amount of quibbling about "what violence means" or who did what or how
they did it or whether it was a "charge" (1) or an unarmed attack, or how
many people on board the plane WERE pacifists is going to change the
essential truth of this assertion:
Pacificm is not the answer to everything. There is a time for pacifism.
There is a time for action. The heroes on 93 knew the difference and acted
appropriately.
Do you challenge the essential truth of that assertion? I don't think you
actually do, do you?
Really, then... What point are you trying to make? Why don't you stop this
sillyness? Your continued quibbling about this is starting to get annoying,
and it certainly isn't accomplishing anything. What purpose does it serve
except to move you further in the Scott Arthur direction on the "debater's
continuum"???
Give it up. Admit you were wrong to even start this silly subthread.
1 - THAT is the most ludicrous straw you've grasped in this whole sorry
thread...
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| (...) I quote *again* from your reply to Horst: "Thank *all that is worth living for* that the heroes on board that flight *weren't* pacifists." This *is not* the same as "what was done on flight 93 was *not* an act of pacifism". One is talking (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| Hello Larry, (...) <snipped a lot of Larry's answer> (...) I can certainly agree to this statement. My original question was geared more towards the type of action required to - make sure radical islamists are isolated instead of multiplied - (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Thinking Out Loud...
|
| (...) the (...) So it seems our disagreement here is based on different views of violence. From www.dictionary.com (admittedly not a definitive source): vi·o·lent adj. 1. Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force: a violent attack. 2. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
55 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
|
|
|
|
