To clarify Rob's point, the phrase "moral equivalence" comes with some pretty hefty baggage. In modern usage it's primarily a right wing term, used to derogatorily refer to leftist arguments. "Morally equivalent" arguments typically assert that pro-western groups have selfish(typically economic) motivations when acting(e.g. the wars in Vietnam and Iraq).
Does that help? Noah On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 6, 2008, at 9:20 PM, Rob Pike wrote: >> >> i don't understand this thread. the "moral" equivalent? surely you >> mean "functional" or "rough" or "approximate" or some other adjective, >> not "moral". > > Isn't "moral equivalent of an X" an idiomatic expression that goes beyond > the original use of it in James's essay? > >> the phrase "moral equivalent" originates in the "moral >> equivalent of war". using it in this context is wrong, misguided, >> maybe punishable. > > Huh? If this is a joke -- its not funny. The fact that I speak with an > accent (even in writing) doesn't mean I think with an accent. > >> the only moral thing about the automounter is that it's not running on >> this here machine. life is imperfect and morality is weaker on other >> machines i use. > > > What is the point of this paragraph? > > Thanks, > Roman. > >
