Posted by OddipusRex on April 7, 2003, at 11:52:29
In reply to Re: Hoping we can get along with each other, posted by Dr. Bob on April 7, 2003, at 10:57:11
> > > > > Here's a paradox: Terrorists in our society are supposedly evil. The definition of a terrorist is a person who plots to kill an innocent civilian. Yet our allied forces conspire to kill the same number of `enemy' human beings who died in the World Trade Towers.
> > > > > Our allied forces are not terrorists?
> > > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030401/msgs/216284.html
> > > >
> > > > Just don't tell me our troops are evil and mindless and that one American life isn't worth saving.
> > > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030401/msgs/216663.html
> > >
> > > Did someone say our troops are evil and mindless and an American life isn't worth saving?
> > > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030401/msgs/216892.html
> >
> > I don't think [the first] statement was sensitive to the feelings of others. It was also logically flawed. I would call it an overgeneralization. It equates innocent civilians with enemy human beings.
>
> It's hard to discuss something controversial and still be sensitive to the feelings of others, and isn't always easy to know where to draw the line. I know I'm not perfect, but I'm doing my best to be fair and to do what I think will be good for this community as a whole.
>
> Logically flawed is one thing, uncivil is another.But logically flawed doesn't mean it is NOT civil. It is an overgeneralization. And it suggests that enemy and innocent civilian are equivalent.
> IMO, it doesn't "equate" innocent civilians with enemy human beings, or terrorists and allied forces, it suggests (note the question mark) parallels.
And suggestings okay with you?
>
> > I don't think there is any factual support for her claim that there is a "conspiracy" to kill a particular number of enemy .
>
> I think "conspire" may have been used in the sense of "to act in harmony toward a common end":What about particular number? I don't think killing anyone is the objective of this war. This implies that killing a particular number is a goal.
>
> http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?conspire
>
> Hoping we can get along with each other,
>
> BobWell that's a lovely hope!
However I don't think putting a ? at the end of a sentence makes everything ok.
Is this civil?
France does not support the war against Saddam Hussein.
Saddam does not support the war against himself.
Saddam is a war criminal
France is a war criminal?I suggest parallels and use a question mark so will this be okay?
You really don't get it do you? (And I kind of hope you don't. I wouldn't want to think you were making these erratic decisions on purpose.) Your bobliness astonishes me.
poster:OddipusRex
thread:216901
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/216982.html