From: Robbie Lindauer (robblin@thetip.org)
Date: Thu Aug 28 2003 - 06:12:54 MDT
>> Then you have a world full of cowards.
>>
>
> You build a false dichotomy as I already pointed out. People who have
> no
> intention of dying can and do act with considerable bravery and
> dedication
> none the less.
While you may have "no intention of dying" in order to simply maintain
your own desired freedoms (I assume you desire these) it's likely to
become necessary to defend them. If you're unwilling to defend them
with your own life, you're likely to loose versus an opponent that is
(unless you're much, much smarter and better than they at warfare).
> They are also likely to act a great deal more rationally when
> their goal system is not mucked up with some wild notions of bravely
> dying
> being nearly the most noble thing.
Nobody thinks that dying is great. The claim is that fighting with
abandon to protect core values (family, freedom, etc.) is necessary and
good and that if you fight with abandon, you might get killed.
>> If you'd like a world in which people come together to jointly improve
>> their world, promote bravery and goodness.
>
> We can promote "goodness" with great dedication without glorifying
> dying as
> being "brave".
As a father, I know that if the wrong person came into my house with
bad intentions I'd be willing to kill them, it'd be my duty (even
though I'd identify myself as a pacifist). Once you're willing to use
deadly force, you have to assume that your opponent will be too. This
is not to glorify dying but just to point out that in certain
situations it may be the right thing to do.
Would you recommend that if someone came into my house and attacked my
family that I simply run away? That would be cowardice. I may
actually be a coward (never having had this happen to me) but I
certainly won't say that it'd be good if I was.
Best,
Robbie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 28 2003 - 06:26:33 MDT