[rant] Re: [OT] Will the SSSCA outlaw Squeak?

Gary Fisher gafisher at sprynet.com
Tue Sep 18 11:56:10 UTC 2001


Well stated and, if I may say so, a fitting close to this wildly off-topic
and unproductive exchange.  Let's put our energies here into making Squeak
part of a better tomorrow.

Gary Fisher
Spectrum Electronics, Inc.


>
> Stephen was not arguing so much against reflection and introspection as
> against the suggestion that the evil of this obscenity can be overlooked
> for any "reasons" raised in its defense.  Stephen was suggesting that
> the nature of the act, in and of itself, was of such enormity as to make
> irrelevant to the culpability of its perpetrators any purported
> justifications.  He is, of course, quite correct: How can the
> indifferent murder of thousands of innocents, requiring detailed
> planning and cold, monstrous calculation in its execution, be justified
> or excused?
>
> It cannot.  Such conduct is, on its face, unforgivable and wholly evil.
>
> It is entirely unnecessary --for purposes of justice-- to contemplate
> any reasons purporting to account for the act.  The premeditated murder
> of thousands directly, and indirectly hundreds more of our bravest and
> best, cannot have been in self-defense, nor been undertaken in the "heat
> of passion," as those justifications are understood in Western
> jurisprudence.
>
> It is, of course, useful for other purposes to understand motives of an
> enemy who would do this, perhaps to better anticipate how to prevent
> them from doing further harm and to apprehend them -- but for no other
> reasons that come to mind.
>
> Their "reasons" are otherwise irrelevant.  Appeasement for terrorism is
> not an option.  However, our reasons and justifications for our conduct
> must, as Richard suggested, be carefully considered.  On the other hand,
> apart from strategic and tactical planning, which is quite hard, this is
> not anywhere near a close question.
>






More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list