--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
How, and in what way, did Dan's comment restate the adage that the "ends justify the means?" I read and re-read the post 3 or 4 times and this is NOT what he's saying. What he is saying in point one is that terrorists may be pursuing is worthwhile, i.e. if it will improve the faction's lot in life. He did NOT say that using terrorism is an acceptable method of pursuing that goal. In point two he speculates that the means (i.e. terrorism) taints the ends. There is no moral relativism here. As for what the Archbishop was discussing, I again re-state we cannot make a difinitive conclusion based on a news-byte. We would need to look and examine the original presentation. What was his argument? How did he construct his argument? How, and in what way, did he support his argument. Saying the Archbishop is all for terrorism, based on a tenuous argument of moral relativism, and supported by a handful of quotes from a news article (or reporter) that is a secondary source of unknown bias, is ludicrous. Damon. ===== ------------------------------------------------------------ Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: ------------------------------------------------------------ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
