----- Original Message ----- From: "David Hobby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 9:24 PM Subject: Re: Good and evil (was Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's "ThePassion of the Christ")
> "John D. Giorgis" wrote: > > > > At 07:51 AM 2/4/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote: > > >Proof? I think it is self-evident that treating important issues as > > >black and white is bad. > > > > Did you truly mean to say that? > > > > The above is hardly self-evident to me. Indeed, I think that almost by > > definition, those few issues that happen to be black-and-white tend to be > > the most important. > > If everyone saw them the same way, they would not be "issues" > since there would be little contention. Please accept that good > people can disagree with you on your black-and-white issues, and > that like it or not, compromise is the best solution, which happens > to be gray. Compromise is often the best solution, but is is always? There are historical situations where, in hindsight, it would have been best to compromise, and situations where no compromise was the best thing possible. Two classical examples are compromising on allowing the South to break the union in order to guarantee slavery and compromising with the Nazi movement to take over Europe and slaughter those races they felt were either lesser or in competition with them. It's true that humans tend not to be fully good and fully bad. Its also true that those that fight against horrible evil are rarely perfect saints. But, that doesn't mean that evil doesn't exist, and that if it does, compromise is in order. Genocide is evil. I don't see why, even though a number of people may support it, that the best thing to do is to compromise on the extent of acceptable genocide. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
