--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because they mean two different things. The blame > game drives us apart > from one another -- how else do terrorists justify > their actions but > with a self-righeous conviction that we are to blame > for their troubles?
Yes, but again, all you're doing is engaging in pointless relativism - moral masturbation, basically. Yes, they justify themselves by saying that we are to blame for their troubles. So what? Does that make them right? Does that make us wrong when we blame them? Just saying we both make the same arguments, is, yet again, abdicating moral judgment. > > Decide that the other guys are to blame and that I > have the right, if > not the obligation, to straighten them out by wiping > them off the earth, > if necessary -- that's the path to hell, paved with > hubris. OK. You'll just sit safe in your home and let other people do it while talking about how morally superior you are, is that it? Come on. Speak English, for God's sake, Nick. You write professionally, I know you're capable of it. When a bunch of the "other guys" wander into a school, hold 800 children hostage, and then start shooting them in the back...maybe they _are_ to blame. Maybe instead of focusing on our behavior we should say, hmm, the problem is _their_ behavior. Specifically, shooting kids in the back. Would you tell a battered wife "What you need to do is figure out what wrongdoing you did to provoke the assault." Ask a rape victim "How did you send the message asking to be raped?" No? Then don't pretend that refusing judgment in this situation is somehow morally better than making judgments. > That sounds to me like another way to obsess about > blame. I'm not > willing to rent out space in my head to terrorists, > which is how I see > giving in to the blame game. When I fail and yield > to that thinking, > I'm surrendering my nothing less than my freedom, > yielding to the > fantasy their behavior is forcing a certain response > from me. > Ultimately, it's like I'm a little kid, justifying > hitting Tommy because > he "made me angry." I know that I can choose more > freedom than to just > react. That's true. You can choose the freedom of sitting on your hands until they kill you. You do have that freedom. Of course, since they'll try to kill other people along with you, and those other people are more concerned with protecting freedom than refusing to blame terrorists for acts of terror, you'll probably make out okay. > You see it as refusing to blame people, I see it as > disengaging from the > kind of thinking that turns me into a slave to > self-righteousness and an > addict to personal power. None of which is to > suggest that disengaging > from such selfishness is easy; it is not, as it > requires something that > seems to go completely against my nature -- a spirit > of self-surrender, > which I suspect you see as surrender to terrorists, > in this case, eh? > > Nick Sure. What I see is the writing of someone who would rather pontificate on what we have done to deserve this than acknowledge that we haven't done anything to deserve this. Basically, you appear to suffer from battered woman syndrome to me, Nick. Maybe I'm wrong. But if I am, it's not for lack of trying to figure out what the hell it is you're trying to communicate. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
