I suppose the attitude you're referring to may be part of what torqued me a little. The blog author is taking whatever he means by "deeply-held ideals" so much for granted that the idea that someone might read his analogies and react with hey, wait a minute here! is, I can only assume, completely off his radar screen.
One of my "deeply-held ideals" is the idea that acts of war intentionally perpetrated on civilian populations are unjustifiable. Such acts are the quintessential definition of terrorism. I suspect a lot of people would agree with that--then would start getting very uncomfortable when you follow the thought to its logical conclusions. A cynic might think that Mr. Tiemann's deeply-held ideal, ultimately, is that you don't follow thoughts to their logical conclusions if those conclusions aren't flattering to "your side."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2002-07-18 16:33 (UTC)One of my "deeply-held ideals" is the idea that acts of war intentionally perpetrated on civilian populations are unjustifiable. Such acts are the quintessential definition of terrorism. I suspect a lot of people would agree with that--then would start getting very uncomfortable when you follow the thought to its logical conclusions. A cynic might think that Mr. Tiemann's deeply-held ideal, ultimately, is that you don't follow thoughts to their logical conclusions if those conclusions aren't flattering to "your side."