Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
This is a level of moral relativism that has reached a height I can not even see the top.
Honestly....if you can not see a difference....ummm....  |
I'm aware of the differences.
But there is an odd level of congruence.
And i don't think it's a stunning hieght of anything to point it out.
As i said, i'm not evaluating these rhetorics. I'm just taking them at face value, and setting them up against one another. I'm not postulating that because there are some congruences that these things are morally equivalent in all areas, or that they are equally persuasive as claims to existance. I'm not asking anything about those evaluations...they don't interest me much.
What i'm saying is why they may be particularlly illsuited at dealing with each other. We're going to have a devil of a time trying to marginalize a group that earnestly beleives it's formed for the defense of "civilization as they know it." Especially when our conduct is primarily regulated by concern for our continued existance, and is based on force. Pontificate all ya like, but for the average civilian in a combat zone, they're going to experience war/terrorism in pretty similar ways.
"Centuries of Humiliation" or not...they have an idea of civilization and have offered several ways of defending it in the global arena. Based on the power differential in the current situation...it's not going to be a head to head competition. The question isn't: Which claim is morally superior?
The moral high ground and 2.50 gets you the happy meal.
The question is how to make our claims more persuasive. Yes, you'd be right to point out that force can be awfully persuasive. But it has failure points as well. We didn't surrender when NYC got hit. They aren't surrendering now.