Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: aladin who wrote (67234)	9/5/2004 2:40:21 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) of 793912

What you are saying is that (in this highly questionable and hypothetical case) that the only way to defend ourselves is to target our enemies civilians (especially children). How exactly does that become our only option? I didn't consider what other options there might be since terrorism and whether it is absolutely unacceptable or not is the question on the table. Other options are irrelevant. If you're testing for a hierarchy of values, you have to force the tough choice. If something is absolute, then there can be no, none, ningun, zero, zilch exceptions. I am trying to put responders in the uncomfortable position of having to fish or cut bait by making them choose between adopting terrorist tactics or losing their country. It is unlikely that in real life it would come down to that. That's why this is a hypothetical. But there is either something important enough to you that you would accede to committing a terrorist act or there isn't. If there is, then terrorism can't be absolutely wrong. Pretty simple logic, actually. People always pick at the hypothetical when they don't want to deal with the choice it forces. The difficulty in discussing something like terrorism is that people have enormous difficulty putting the shoe on the other foot. The basis for terrorism is asymetrical warfare. To consider the possibility that terrorism might just be acceptable under some circumstances you have to be able to envision yourself on the bottom of the heap rather than the top. I'm on top of the world. I'm lying here right now atop an expensive Tempurpedic mattress which is atop an expensive adjustable bed positioned just so, with a high-end laptop on what would be my lap were I sitting, the whole business atop a piece of expensive real estate in the greatest and most powerful country in the world. The biggest problem I have to deal with today is which wonderful restaurant I will visit for lunch. I'm on top of the world. How can I conceive of being on the wrong side of an asymetrical war? People responding suggest that putting the shoe on the other foot is about us beheading terrorists rather than the converse. Not even close. The shoe on the other foot is us being occupied and colonized by an enemy who would wipe out our country and our culture and many of us. Now, from that POV, do we still think that terrorism as a tactic is absolutely wrong?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next