To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 24258
24257  |  24259
Subject: 
Re: Question for the sane out there
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:33:09 GMT
Viewed: 
1417 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

Even the folks John
habitually thinks of as psychotic seem to make consummate sense to me.

Are you saying that the
diliberate killing of innocent people makes "consummate sense" to try and get
one's will done?

I'll say that.  When "one's will" is the pursuit of basic human rights and every
other avenue of approach has been reasonably exploited to no avail.  It's not
like they just want extra chocolates or something.

What if that will is a religious, {holy} one?

The right to worship is a basic human right.  The right to systematically harm
others, whatever the motivation is not.  I don't consider the origin of a goal
relevant in the least.  Only the goal itself matters.

Essentially,
it appears to me that you are endorsing a "2 wrongs make a right" stance.
Where is the "consummate sense" in that?

I sure as hell hope that two wrongs make a right.  It's wrong to seize a nation
and exploit them economically for the gain of corporate interests that pull the
strings of the marionette running the show in the agressor nation.  It's wrong
for dictators to torture their citizenry.  I'm still hopeful that a right will
come out of it.

You expect others to tolerate treatment that we would never-in-a-million-years
stand for.

You can bet your ass that if the US were invaded I'd be shooting the civilian
occupiers every chance I got.  Terror is a powerful tool and underdogs would be
stupid not to employ it.

Chris



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Question for the sane out there
 
(...) It was a clever, logical twist on the assertion of Dave! (a joke) (...) Well, from your statement below, that's not saying much. (...) ??? Except those who aren't? (...) "Consummate sense"? Explain and cite please. Are you saying that the (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

218 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR