replies to Carol

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/38030>:

<< Is it not evil to plant a suicide bomb on a retarded woman, killing
her and many innocent people around her? Is it not evil deliberately
to fly planes into buildings, using murder in a (failed) attempt to
create panic and terror? >>

In general, yes. 

I used some examples of about the same level of evil in my reply to
Tonks_op because I was trying (unsuccessfully, I think) to show that
if humiliating the opponent in a political campaign is evil, it's much
less evil than some things, and just because a person would humiliate
an opponent in order to win doesn't mean they would assassinate that
opponent in order to win. Meaning, that just because a person doesn't
draw the line of what they won't do at the same place she draws it
doesn't mean they have no line at all.

I don't even know whether humiliating the opponent in a political
campaign IS evil. Maybe it's evil in a low level campaign where the
candidates are amateurs and can be terribly hurt, but not in a
campaign for a high level position (such as President of the United
States) where the candidates are professionals, and used these
negative techniques themselves in previous campaigns, because
'politics ain't beanbag', and are tough enough to take it, or they
wouldn't have lasted long enough to become professional.

Maybe Tonks_op and Susan should explain what they mean by humiliating
an opponent.

<< I don't think that evil is a construct, nor is it the absence of
good. It's real and powerful and it must, somehow, be curtailed though
it can never be destroyed. >>

That's why I was quite uncomfortable with Senator McCain's response to
the question at Saddleback Church; it sounded to me like he said we
should get together and *destroy* evil, and to me 'destroying' evil
is, y,know, maybe God can do it, but humans can't.

<< That's why we have laws, >>

In general, yes.

Some of the laws are simply to keep order when people live crowded
together and/or drive at high speeds, like which side of the road to
drive on. Driving on the other side is not inherently evil (or US and
Britain would try to destroy each other) but everyone driving on the
same side reduces head-on collisions.

And, of course, some laws sometimes enforce evil rather than
forbidding it.

<< and why we sometimes fight wars (World War II). >>

That's why I specified 'in general' about flying planes into buildings
to mass murder people being evil.

And if it is a recognized war between countries or big fractions of
one country, not some kind of sneak attack, then everyone but
pacifists thinks it's not evil for one side to drop bombs from
airplanes on the enemy's cities and railroads and telephone exchanges,
no matter how many civilians are killed as 'collateral damage', If the
planes drop bombs on enemy warships at sea, there aren't even many
civilians killed. So why do Americans thinkn it is so shockingly worse
that WWII Japan reached the point of using piloted planes AS bombs
instead of dropping bombs? 

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/38062>:

<< who dislikes any restriction on the free expression of opinion
in the name of political correctness and the labeling of opinions we
disagree with as bigotry or oppression >>

Oh, does that apply to someone expressing the political opinion that
Hitler was right and all Jews should be killed? I belong to the ACLU
and believe that people have a right to say that opinion, even tho' it
is both evil and bigoted. But I dislike right-wing etiquette accusing
me of 'political correctness' for saying so.