On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:19:04PM -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Erik Reuter wrote:
> 'pologize for speaking metaphorically. What I mean is that violence > begets violence. You claimed that directly attacking terrorist killers is a bad idea because more will be created by your actions than you eliminate. Now you "apologize", but do you now retract that claim as being a bad metaphor? I am not being deliberately obtuse here -- I think it is a key point. If killing 1 creates X, then it is absolutely key to know whether X is more or less than 1, and helpful to know by how much, when deciding on what to do. (Of course, X could depend on the situation, sometimes being greater, sometimes less than 1, but the general point remains) > The more we invoke extreme emotion, the less we should expect a > rational reaction. Anger and hate can be infectious memes, and our > position atop the hill makes us the prime target. IMO anyway. And sometimes the only rational reaction to an irrational person is force or violence. > >That is fine. But so is directly attacking the problem. We need both > >police AND social programs. > > I couldn't agree more. So you support the US attacking Saddam's regime? It is hard to imagine a more clear-cut case of where force is the only rational solution. Afterwards, then the more gentle means should be employed for long-term peace, but now with a crazy, violent dictator in charge? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
