Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (31004)	10/5/2001 6:14:52 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

but he slides over certain things. I don't think he slides over that at all. It seems to me that his point is to distinguish between pacifists, who are absolutists, by definition, and their fellow travelers of whatever stripe, including what you call situational pacifists. Opposing violence in a given situation is not the same as being a pacifist. It's simply a preference for a alternate strategy. The criticism of the dissenters that I've heard seems to lump them all together (into what JLA would probably call traitors rather than pacifists). In this case, the dissenters are very, very few. All the more reason, IMO, to hear their different voices. I found this point particularly telling: <<But for those who are pacifists, there is also a lesson in Niebuhr's words. Pacifists weaken their claims whenever they seem more eager to condemn our own violence than the violence of our adversaries. Those who espouse an absolutist creed should be especially wary of moral relativism.>> Karen

To: The Philosopher who wrote (31004)	10/6/2001 12:54:22 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

So the only legitimate basis for the "peace" marches going on today, I believe, can be based on situational pacifism. That while war in some situations may be necessary and legitimate, bombing Afghanistan today would not be. Are you saying that bombing Afghanistan is not legitimate or are you saying that a situational pacifist who was against military action in Afghanistan would hold that opinion. I also guess it matters what you mean by bombing Afghanistan. Close air support of special ops teams or a precisely targeted air raid would be justified. Dropping tens of thousands of tons of explosives on Kabul would not be. Tim