I would not think I'd take part of this discussion, but...
Brice said : "Without war there is no resistance to oppression. The
only way what you can say is true is if you consider it immoral to
resist oppression by force. This is why all pacifist cultures have
failed."
So you legalise force and oppression. Did you ever thought that
oppression could be immoral? Do you think one is right when he didactes
his own rules and his own will to his *neighbourhood* ?
Did you ever thought that the World could be better and life much more
pleasant if EVERY men have respect for their fellows, if EVERY men act
first for the community interest instead of his own interest ? I agree
it looks like a wonderful utopia because there will always be ONE man to
be selfish to make that a nosense.
What's wrong in thinking this hope CAN be reality ? Is it silly to think
that the civilised and social humans can be convinced of this truth (not
by force nor oppression) ?
Just my 2 cents.
Xavier Mouton
-----Message d'origine-----
De : HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] De la
part de Brice Yokem
Envoyé : jeudi 6 mars 2003 20:32
À : [log in to unmask]
Objet : [HP3000-L] US uses Indian 'threat' to force Pak support on Iraq
This is in response to Mr Rosenblatt
He said -
Since the arguments I made
originally were based on political reasons that this war is wrong and
not the moral ones why every war is wrong, I am ready to cede every
point.
I say -
Well, OK, but I think you have ceded every point for the wrong reasons.
Since the points you made were based upon presumptions which contradict
reality.
He said -
As I have said, on numerous occasions, my main objection to this war is
that it is war. I am opposed to all war. I am especially saddened by
wars that are nothing more than a cheap excuse to show who has more
testosterone.
I say -
This is an unrealistic argument. Without war there is no resistance to
oppression. The only way what you can say is true is if you consider it
immoral to resist oppression by force. This is why all pacifist
cultures have failed.
He said -
While preparing my response to Mr. Yokem, a thought occurred to me. It
may not be an epiphany but I realized that intellectuals, fight with
"facts." Not all testosterone battles involve weapons. My need to have a
"killer" argument is as morally reprehensible as the combatant's need to
have a "killer" weapon. I am no better than those I disparage if my all
I seek is to prove that *I* am right to the exclusion of others.
I say -
I am not sure how this is relevant. If your claim is I am in some kind
of testosterone high for revealing the truth, then I do not know how you
arrived at that conclusion.
If your claim is that a position on an issue can be valid if based upon
untrue foundations, then I would have to say it can only be valid
elsewhere than this universe.
I will say that the United Nations, with the stated goal of world peace,
operates much like this, using 'facts'. I don't have read on their
hormone level, but I have not seen any bloodbaths on the floor of the
UN, so it might be a better way.
He says -
My thanks to Mr. Yokem and others that have helped me swallow this hard
dose of reality.
I say -
Based upon this, I conclude you do not believe in the validity of the
unreal. I agree.
He says -
I will continue to use the word Peace as often as I can. I do believe
that just reading, seeing and saying the word Peace has a power to bring
Peace into our lives. I may attempt to spread the message further if I
can do so without it being an act of self-aggrandizement.
I say -
You are correct, with the caveat that words alone are not enough.
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
