[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace

  • From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:50:35 -0500

LH:
 >>After spending all that time explaining that Liberal Democracy cannot and 
 >>will not be advanced by military means, you are assuming that I said the 
 >>opposite.<<


Oh.  So when you wrote: 

"If (a conditional word) world peace can be achieved by means of the spread of 
Liberal-Democracy, shouldn't it be favored by pacifists EVEN IF IT MEANS A FEW 
WARS HERE AND THERE to prevent Liberal-Democracy from losing ground..." [my 
emphasis]


you didn't mean 'war' like in killing people.  You meant war like in, uh, hmmm, 
well uh, huh -- what did you mean?  

Please tell me by what jesuitical sleight of thought a pacifist can be brought 
to support any program that would mean "a few wars"?  I know there's a 'fist' 
in 'pacifist', but that doesn't mean Pax Fisticuffs.

I don't blame you for being irritated by my sarcasm, but honestly, Lawrence!  
Try better bait if your want to do some serious fishing.

Mike Geary
 

Other related posts: