you've got PM, but i'll say it here too...it's not a problem.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
No it's not non-sequiter, it's pertient to the why. I asked you how your viewpoints are formed. You've come up with a deliniated outline as to your philosophy, but there are shades of grey that infest our world, which is why I felt my point is germane.
|
Indeed, the ability to recognize moral ambiguity is not just a nice thing, but clearly necessary in this world. However, i don't think that really enters in to my considerations here. It is my obligation to understand why this is happening, and why people support these measures so i can try to deconstruct that, but i don't really feel that i need to give the morality of such killings a serious consideration. i am aware from my own experience, and the experience of those around me that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that executing a person based on that makes as much sense as lopping off the heads of all the left-handers or something like that. It's asinine and grotesque on it's face, and i have yet to see an argument that makes the situation more gray.
Quote:
|
I have called a spade a spade.
|
I appriciate this. My question reverts to the earlier post. If this is a human rights abuse, and the US government is not counting them like other human rights abuses are...and not confronting them as other human rights abuses are, is this not a problem and one that deserves attention? If there is a specific problem, is specific advocacy not a reasonable response?
Quote:
|
My statement is DON'T SHOOT because there are others that may be unintentionally hurt because I did not act enough. You stop at your interest. I try to think about the rest of the people around, just limiting it to Steve doesn't help the individual behind him that was shot because the person still felt like pulling the trigger. Again, this is where we diverge.
|
I don't quite know what to say. I have tried to make it clear that specific advocacy is not in conflict with general principles. I don't think people would say oncologists are bad doctors because they just focus on cancer. I try to place my specific work in the broader context and framework of human rights advocacy. I have specific interest in several regions of this work, but have been most active in this one. My specialization is not a threat to the broader movement, but an asset. In co-operation with other specialists (and generalists, too), the movement as a whole has a better chance than if everyone were a generalist.