>
> > Bob Z But I here I disagree completely. I think it is a very big step
> > for many people in real life.
>
> For some people, probably. But I think you overestimate many people.
> For example, what if some people refused to leave the house that
> was about to be destroyed? Maybe the destruction would continue
> anyway? Maybe not. Maybe the "terrorist supporters" would be dragged
> from their homes. What if they resisted being dragged from their
> homes? What if they used guns to defend their homes? These people are
> shooting from the homes of terrorists. Surely they are military targets
> now?
>
We may be splitting hairs here a bit. My point is
that there is a moral difference for most people
between destruction of property and destruction of life.
That is not to say that there are not circumstances when an individual or group of
individuals will not cross
this line or that there are not individuals for whom
this moral distinction does not exist. My point is
that at least for the moment this distinction has
been maintained in the face of pretty severe pressure.
If you are arguing that property destruction can
degenerate into life destruction then I have no
problem with this. I simply don't think that
most people see these as morally equivalent in most
circumstances.
>
> --
> "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
