At 01:22 PM 10/5/01 -0700, Brian D Williams wrote:
>It's a matter of definition, in the tradition I was trained in
>(USMC) it is impossible for someone who commits dishonorable acts
>such as these to be considered admirable in any way.
>
>By such tradition it is cowardly to attack unarmed civilians by
>definition. The negative elements of the acts outweigh and cancel
>out any remotely positive act (ethics).
Forgive me here; I don't mean to be flippant. Do you really mean to say
that no generally positive adjective, such as "intelligent", "efficient",
or "obedient", would properly apply to these (or any other) deeply evil
people? How about positive terms unrelated to the evil act, such as
"well-dressed"? Surely it wouldn't be inherently unpatriotic to believe
that the terrorists were more "well-dressed" than my teenaged neighbors,
would it? Certainly it wouldn't be *significantly* positive, but you did
choose to say "*remotely* positive".
---------------------------------------------------
J. Goard, jjgoard@ucdavis.edu/wyattoil@foothill.net
e-gold account #100592 (www.e-gold.com)
---------------------------------------------------
The Beyond outside us is indeed swept away, and the
great undertaking of the Enlightenment complete;
but the Beyond *inside* us has become a new heaven
and calls us to renewed heaven-storming.
--Max Stirner
---------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT