From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Sun May 01 2005 - 12:27:45 BST
MSH,
You said
You seem to be saying we can never make value judgements regarding
the actions of others, that we can't infer actual intentions and
motives from history. Doen't this mean the Nuremberg defendants
should not have been tried at all? In fact, that no court of law is
legitimate?
No Mark, that's not at all what I'm saying.
We all can, should and do make value judgements about and try people
in courts for their previous intended acts, etc ....
I was talking about MoQ-Discuss - constructive - philsophical debate here.
Over a beer in a bar, at an activist meeting, in the jury room, or on
an impeachment demonstration, I'd agree with nearly everything you've
said.
Ian
On 5/1/05, Mark Steven Heyman <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com> wrote:
> On 1 May 2005 at 12:51, ian glendinning wrote:
>
> MSH said
> Where is this simple argument distorted by my politics?
>
> ian:
> I say, how about ... (just by way of example - I don't want this argument)
> Your choice of the loaded word "conspired" for a start. (just like
> Pirsig used "parasites", Ant)
>
> msh:
> You say you don't want the argument, then try to get in the last
> word. If you don't want the argument, then don't respond.
>
> Here's what I said, so people can see what we're talking about:
>
> "It is a documented fact that the Carter administration, among many
> others, supported the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, and acted to
> prevent the UN from taking any effective measures against the
> invaders. No one denies this. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
> Washington's UN Ambassador in 1978, even braggs about his success
> in this regard. Therefore, the USG (the Carter Administration 77-
> 81) materially conspired with Indonesia in it's aggression against
> East Timor, which locks in at least Counts 1 and 2 of the Nuremberg
> indictment. "
>
> The definition of "conspiracy" is "An agreement to perform together
> an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act."
>
> What's the problem?
>
> ian:
> You are reading into facts, even "admissions" of events by players involved, actual intentions and
> motives for reasoning used historically.
>
> msh:
> You seem to be saying we can never make value judgements regarding
> the actions of others, that we can't infer actual intentions and
> motives from history. Doen't this mean the Nuremberg defendants
> should not have been tried at all? In fact, that no court of law is
> legitimate?
>
> Best,
> Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
> --
> InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
> Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
> Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
>
> "Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why,
> why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he
> understand." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 01 2005 - 12:31:48 BST