[lit-ideas] Re: The Rise & Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An Online History (The Fourth Rail)
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 20:22:06 -0800
Well done, Mike. See what you can get away with saying when you are in a
nice gentle mood? I should be in a mood like that. As nasty as mine is, I
don't even feel like disagreeing with you. Sometimes I get into moods where
I can irritate almost anyone (and I might not need the word "almost" in this
sentence). I may have mentioned that I spent the last ten years or so at
McDonnell Douglas and Boeing listening to Engineers attempt to justify their
proposed changes to the C-17. I had a reputation for being extremely
difficult. Young engineers didn't like coming before me. To say that I
didn't suffer foolish engineers gladly would be an understatement. I am
much mellower now :-)
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Geary
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 7:46 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Rise & Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An
Online History (The Fourth Rail)
LH:
>>I tried to keep the discussion on the excellent recent example of two or
three people getting on Eric about wanting to vaporize the terrorists before
they had a chance to kill him. Those people used the Moral Equivalence
argument to say that Eric was just as bad as the Terrorists.<<
Ah, yes, I was one of those people. But I don't take Eric very seriously
when it comes to politics. He keeps trying his best to be gonzo, but come a
gentle breeze and he lapses into the splendiferies of Beethoven or Ravel.
In short, he's a lousy tough guy. And you know as well as I do that no one
on this list would argue against defending one's self or others or one's
country against attack. What most object to with Eric is his call for
exterminating the "Islamists". It's attention-getting, and about as morally
bankrupt as you can get and I don't believe for a minute that he means what
he's saying. He's just sick of liberal bromides and wants to prickle our
souls. We all have our games. As to moral equivalence, I hear it used
most in arguments against justification -- for instance against our
President's justifications for pre-emptive war, for invading Iraq, for
continuing the sanctions against Cuba, etc. -- all have been met with clean
your own house first, Georgie. Moral equivalence is a very legitimate
argument, and an effective one, as Jesus well knew, especially against those
who claim to be acting in the name of goodness against evil-doers.
Mike Geary
Memphis
Other related posts:
