Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Oct 2001 04:55:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
583 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > >
> > > > So I'll ask you plainly: do you feel that the Sept 11 suicide
> > > > bombing, in which civilians (in a nation that was not at war)
> > > > were used as missiles is morally equivalent to the death of
> > > > civilians in a nation that had declared war on its enemy, during a
> > > > time when Japan was certainly aware of the war?
> > >
> > > Yes
> >
> > Are you satisfied with the reasoning you presented before in support of
> > that? Has anything about it changed with Dave Eaton's presentation of his
> > rationale?
>
> I haven't presented any reasoning in support of that before. All my reasoning
> before has been about whether or not it was terrorism - nothing about morality
> in there.
Er, yes, there is. Read Dave's statement, to which you replied
"Yes," again. You say, thus, that they *are* morally equivalent.
The term isn't the problem (it hasn't been for most of the
.debaters), it's the semantic baggage that goes with a term
that has so many necessary connotations as "terrorism" does.
That's what I, at least, have been arguing here--the *moral*
equivalence just isn't there. I don't see it from my personal
experience as a human being, and I don't see it as a professional
historian. The only moral agreement you're liable to see wide-
spread is that "violent, arbitrary death sucks." I'd wager
that's true no matter who it's happening to, and probably for
most of those perpetrating it as well (modified, of course, by
whatever doctrine one's espousing).
I think Dave made some pretty good points re: war, though.
The point has also been made (by Tore, interestingly) that
the word "terror" and its derivatives aren't necessarily inter-
changeable. just because terrorism involves terror (in fact,
that's its purpose), not all things that create terror are
terrorism.
But wasn't the original question "was Hiroshima necessary?"
Is this a giant tangent? Are mutant green llamas going to
come steal my bottlecaps?
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Tangents (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?)
|
| (...) morality (...) Lets take it back to another example (and no, it's not an analogy). If an escaped murderer breaks into my house, ties up my family and threatens to kill them, but I manage to evade him & get to where my gun is. What should I do? (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
