----- Original Message ----- From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Archbishop of Canterbury defends Terrorism
> > 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. No, I didn't. I said that good ends may be desired by people who do bad things. For example, just because Oswald killed JFK to remove him as president doesn't make Goldwater's attempt to remove him as president wrong. >The ends never justify the means. Never? How about the benign violence described in an Atlantic Montly article that came out in the '80s? >Anything else is moral relativism. I do not accept moral relativism as valid. So, you are opposed to police? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
