Jawz II
Oh Dear
The Last Conformist said:I love non-sequitur replies.
not as much as i love clever people who know what non sequitur means
The Last Conformist said:I love non-sequitur replies.
It's Latin for "it does not follow", and used to indicate that a statement doesn't follow from what preceeds it. Here, your question implied an assumption that was in no way motivated by the post of mine you were quoting.Jawz II said:not as much as i love clever people who know what non sequitur means
Post #21.Jawz II said:and what makes you think i didnt know what non sequitur means?
Pointing out that it is not necessary to hold that the method of delivery, per se, makes a moral difference to hold that there is a moral difference.and yes i did notice you said "they could argue"
if your whole post wasnt you arguing it, why post it at all?
whats the point?
The Last Conformist said:BE asked, rhetorically, what was the moral difference in delivering a bomb by car or aircraft. I pointed out there was other differences between the acts that could be seen impacting their moral status, viz. ones relating to purpose. I have said nothing of what I personally might think of the morality of either.
As for big words, well, I tend to use whatever words come most naturally to my mind. I'm afraid I do not see myself changing that just because someone thinks those words are too "big".
That's a dangerously big word you got there.Jawz II said:makes you sound a wee bit pretentious
That of trying to destabilize a dictatorial regime vs trying to destabilize a free one.Jawz II said:ok, what other diffrences would those be?
If I'm forgiven for an apolytonianism, my gives a **** is broken.makes you sound a wee bit pretentious
The Last Conformist said:That of trying to destabilize a dictatorial regime vs trying to destabilize a free one.
If I'm forgiven for an apolytonianism, my gives a **** is broken.
Plenty of people would seem to do so. Personally, I'm not in the habit of refering to regimes of any description as "free".Jawz II said:i see, so you consider the current regime in iraq as a free one?
Bozo Erectus said:Imagine that your country was invaded by a foreign power, its major cities destroyed, 1 or 2 hundred thousand of your fellow citizens dead as a result. Would you write a blog that criticizes the resistance to the occupying forces? I wouldnt either.
Bozo Erectus said:I know, I never understood why dropping a bomb from 20,000 feet in the air was morally superior to delivering one in a car
Would you have supported the Soviet Union if Gorbachov would have invaded Brazil in order to get you rid of the General João Baptista Figueiredo ?luiz said:If my country was ruled by a psychotic dictator I would openly welcome any foreign power that would get me rid of such dictator. Nationalism is for ******s. And if there were an insurgent group using terror tactics and killing thosands of my countryman I would happily cooperate with the occupying forces in order to hunt them down. They would not need to pay me to write some blog.
This whole attitude really bothers me. It should be noted, that we, the USA, started this war. Iraqi citizens did not. They didn't come over and carry out an attack on our country. Was their government tied to terrorism? The jury is still out on that one, and we have two sets of ideologues fighting over whether they did or not. Either way, the great majority of Iraqis had nothing to do with it, because a lot of them were being starved, as the conservative hawks are fond of telling us.Mario Feldberg said:BTW no I wouldn't fight against an occupation that is not permanent. The US doesn't want to stay in Iraq forever you know. There's no reason for bloodshed unless you're a jihadie or another kind of terrorist who want to prevent a free and democratic Iraq at all costs of course.