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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: spiral3 who wrote (138457)	6/30/2004 4:20:21 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

I am sorry, but you so thoroughly misunderstand and misrepresent what I wrote, there is no rational basis for continuing this discussion. If your response were briefer, I might try to correct your mistakes, but you are asking too much patience of me. I will give an example, however: the logic is not that Saddam is Evil, therefore War against Iraq is justified. It is that there is a choice between letting events play out in Iraq, or going to war, and that evil of letting things fester is worse than going to war. It is a choice between alternative futures, insofar as we can foresee them. In which case, most threats are not severe enough to warrant actual warfare, as opposed to diplomacy backed by strategic calculations. For example, we did not go to war with the Soviet Union, we created NATO and maintained a strategic nuclear capability. Such deterrence is always preferable to the actual outbreak of war. Now, an argument could be made that we would have been justified in liberating the captive peoples of the Soviet Union, but the degree of destruction that was likely to have ensued made that an impractical option, and therefore we maintained a defensive posture. In other words, war seemed the greater evil, at least unless attacked. If you can grasp as much as I just offered, and can control your tendency to go on and on, perhaps we may get further on this topic. Otherwise, take care.......

To: spiral3 who wrote (138457)	7/1/2004 4:25:02 AM
From: frankw1900	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 281500

Evil is an internal condition, Not entirely. Its carrier's intention is expressed through action and thus evil has extension. Evil exists in the social realm, it is information, and it and may be communicated through language and deed. This is the wrong request, as you will see: and if you doubt this, please bring me some to show me 9/11 was the evil expression of evil people and it was delivered to you. It was evil - unlke an earthquake - because it was the product of human intention. Evil can be as pervasive as sunlight and darkness - informing the nooks and crannies of life - as it did under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. It can be an overwhelming social reality and that's not just an "internal condition" because it is the expression of others' malevolent intention. If you send me your address I will send you a copy of Mein Kampf, or the works of Marquis de Sade or Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And if you read these things you will see evil, I guarantee it. Or I could send you a URL and you can watch some poor guy beheaded by evil people and you will see evil. Evil is a networked condition, each many-stranded knot in the net a person acting - and being acted on - in space and time. There is more to it than that: A cautionary description. Because evil is a matter of intention, it is the product of imagination, and thus is metaphysical - as numbers are - and so stands outside time - as numbers do - and can be grasped by anyone to varying degrees - as numbers can be - and shared - as numbers are. Will humans evolve to such a degree that imagination and intent will no longer create and communicate evil thus denying it its "immortality"? Perhaps, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen in the near future, does it? Saying evil is an internal condition is an inadequate description from which to commence theoretical or logical operation, or even ordinary discourse, on the subject. Joe and Mary Sixpack's intuition about the nature of evil is pretty fair. They see it as the product of agency (intention and imagination), that it's a social problem (networked condition), that it spreads (informational), that it's slippery as hell and keeps turning up over and over (metaphysical), and they think evil doers should be dealt with sooner rather than later. I think Joe and Mary are doing pretty good. It's a lot of philosophers that give me the willies. frank@gwlmetaphysics'rus.com