> From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > From: Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > So where, when and how does he defend terrorism? I > > > > have read the entire > > > > report and haven't come across a single statement > > > > that would count as > > > > defence of the terrorists? > > > > > > I think this is a bit of spin-doctoring by The Fool. > > > Sort of the same nonsense that came about with the 1st > > > Lady of Maryland's unfortunate quote. > > > > <Sarcasm> > > Yup. The Ends sure do justify the means. Yep. Every single time. > > </Sarcasm> > > That's not the point under debate. The question is twofold. > > 1) Is the goal supported by the terrorists worthwhile. In other words > would non-violent political action to achieve these goals be considered > worthwhile? > > 2) Does the support of otherwise worthwhile goals by terrorists taint the > goals themselves? > > I think the archbishop was explicitly discussing the second question. For > the most part, I agree with the archbishop; a very valid grievance can be > the excuse for the use of unacceptable means. However, Tom did bring out > an implicit problem with the archbishop's statement, that the likely goal > of the terrorists is not worthwhile.
All you've done is restate the position that the ends do justify the means. The ends never justify the means. Anything else is moral relativism. I do not accept moral relativism as valid. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
