> > On 3/7/07, Ken Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote about the draft: > > > ... > > Those who have been there, and a few other thinking people, will > understand what those words mean and imply.
> > Susan Hogarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, I must not qualify. Is this some sort of understanding which can > be conveyed by words, or do you have to understand why evil might be > necessary through some flash of intuition? > > Also: you didn't answer my question: what do you mean by 'evil'? On 3/7/07, K B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You're right, I didn't answer your question directly BECAUSE I do include > you among the ranks of people who think. I assume that is a major reason that > you are a Libertarian. I still believe that subtlety has a role in > communication, but only among people who have a thorough command of a common > language. Well, I have thought about it quite a bit and the phrase 'necessary evil' is, as far as I can see, nothing but an oxymoron. Something that is necessary is not evil. Something that is evil is not necessary. Those two things combine with as much logical sense as 'dry rain'. 'Necessary' and 'evil' are about as opposite as two things can be in the English language. > Let me suggest that you review one scene in the old movie "Apocalypse Now" in > which Marlon Brando says how many of a particular type of man he needs to win > the war. I don't think I will bother. Obviously you and I disagree on this issue: you apparently think it was correct to kill people for quitting their army posts, and think that Lincoln's war was somehow 'necessary'. I was hoping you would provide some rationale other than "It was good enough for George Washington" and "watch a movie" (which I suppose constitutes what you think of as 'subtlety'), but I suppose that's not going to happen. -- Susan Hogarth http://www.colliething.com
