SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (7986)9/16/2001 3:22:00 PM
From: Razorbak  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23153
 
Ray, Good Afternoon.

Thanks for the links to the Barbary Coast and the Library of Congress incident report.

No problem. Glad I could help further your efforts towards self-education. (Seriously.)

We are in complete agreement on eradicating the terrorist cells, pronto.

That's good. That's also a very important point upon which to agree. If we don't agree upon anything else in this ensuing dialogue, then we will have still achieved a very important point of consensus.

My objection to declaring "war" is that the indiscriminate slaughter of further innocents (if anyone in Afghanistan can be called such a thing) is that it only reinforces the cycle of violence, wherein I see the U.S. having a lot more to lose than the zealots and fundamentalists we oppose.

I think you are mistaken that Bush's declaration of war against terrorism will automatically lead to an indiscriminant slaughter of further innocents. We didn't do that in the Gulf War, and that was our most recent campaign. Why should we do it now? Even the Hanna Barbera TV generation knows that. You don't even have to read that in the history books.

I'm glad that we have been able to be of some entertainment value to each other during these trying times. Seems to be a bit of nervous chattering as we face an uncertain future.

Yes, humor is often used in the blackest of situations as a effective salve to the pain people experience. That was/is my only intent for its usage... as an effective coping mechanism. Please don't misinterpret this as irreverance for the victims of the recent tragedy.

Sometimes the use of this written medium leads to some unpredictable interpretations of the meaning of another's words. While I've enjoyed our exchange, I'm of the opinion that it's high time for me to back off from what has become a fairly inconsequential bout of "baiting" as you call it.

Actually, baiting can often be used as a very important tactic in an intellectual debate to help root out inconsistencies in logic and illustrate a deeper understanding for all participants.

Getting back to my "baiting" question, because it was an important part of our dialogue, why do you automatically assume that the mere presence of a weapon means that it is intended to destroy or eradicate others rather than to simply protect the carrier? This is an important premise underlying my philosophy about national security, which basically accepts that we live in a Darwinian world where only the strong survive, and where you have to have the ability and willingness to use violence in order to actually enjoy peace.

I know I'm guilty of doing so with you, and upon reflection, this doesn't seem a particularly appropriate response considering the circumstances at hand. In other words, nuf sed.

You know if you quit now, I'm just going to declare victory in this debate. Think you can handle that? <vbg>

Just kidding, of course.

Best regards,

Razor