-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf
Of joedees@bellsouth.net
Sent: 12 September 2002 09:10 PM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: RE: virus: Virian Hall of Shame.
On 12 Sep 2002 at 20:52, Blunderov wrote:
> [rhinoceros]
> Well, there is the "point of view" point of view. There is also the
> quasiabsolute point of view defined by our morality. Morality is
> informed by the first one ("it could happen to me too") as well as by
> social experience (social effects of accepting a practice such as
> torture).
>
> This is a goal/means issue. Take, for example, the hate memes
> recently tossed around. Millions of eleven year old kids are catching
> them. Although the hate propaganda may or may not succeed in achieving
> its goals in the short term, those kids will still be around after a
> few years. Statistically, some of them will become social rejects for
> completely unrelated reasons, and then they will turn against society
> as they have done in the past.
>
> The same holds true for the morals of the international community and
> the recent trend to discard rules of behaviour which have been
> established through painful historical lessons. It seems Russia has
> already caugh on this new informal Holy Alliance (or is it formal?),
> according to an articla posted by Hermit on the BBS
>
> Using the US' arguments
> http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=7;action=display;threadid
> =1 1541;start=150
>
> In an international environment defined by the rule of force,
> eventually more incidents will follow. Should one use rational
> thinking informed by history and social sciences or just wishful
> thinking to predict where the new morality in international relations
> is going to lead? I haven't seen much discussion about this.
>
> [Blunderov]
> So it appears that we inhabit two worlds simultaneously? There is the
> global world where nations interact with one another on the basis of
> realpolitik, and there is the world of people who interact with one
> another on the basis of what is considered to be right or wrong.
>
> Given that this distinction is not all that obvious, one could wonder
> whether "criminals" are simply confused rather than bad; how much can
> they be blamed for emulating the heroes of the nation?
>
> How is it that the "sometimes a real man/woman has to take the law
> into his/her own hands to get the 'true' justice that the system is
> too pansy-assed to provide" meme is so very prevalent in modern
> popular culture?
>
> I suspect that it might be good to reconcile these two worlds. (While
> I'm busy with my wish list I would also like to mention that I would
> like an anti-gravity engine. Thank you for your attention wherever you
> are.)
>
[joedees]
Dubya observed that this situation was exactly the kind of situation
that
the UN was created to deal with, and urged them not to shirk their
duties and responsibilities vis-a-vis Iraq; John McCain added that if
the
UN did not act to enforce its mandates with regard to Iraq, they risked
losing all credibility and degenerating into another ineffective League
of
Nations.
>
[Blunderov]
I am very happy to see this turn of events at the UN. I earnestly hope
that it bears fruit.
It remains only to add that there are many other UN resolutions that are
being violated and I hope the US will be just as ardent in calling these
transgressors to account.
A more effective UN is a consummation devoutly to be wished indeed.
Warm regards
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:22 MDT