The US military's first purpose is not to wage war (was: Loving The Troops)

Eugen Leitl eugen@leitl.org
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 23:50:06 +0100 (CET)


On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Russell Turpin wrote:

> That's unfortunate, for someone who reads
> English. People form evaluative and moral
> theories for judging group behavior and
> individual behavior. Note, that previous

Yes, I just don't have local representations for the symbols you floated. 
They just evaluate to NIL. This did raise some exceptions.

> sentence is a positive statement of fact,
> about human behavior, not a normative
> claim. I wasn't using those terms in some

External facts are claims. I'd limit 'facts' to already internalized world 
models. I refuse to internalize anything thrown at me without closer 
scrutiny.

> tacit reference to a singular normative
> theory, but showing how a broad range of
> such theories didn't fit some tacit moral
> assumptions that were underlying the
> thread, a range that many people here
> would consider reasonable, though you
> might not by virtue of your antithesis to
> nationhood. Even so, you should have been
> able to understand what I wrote.

Please realize that these symbols you floated and consider absolute
aren't. I was hoping for a rationally processable definition, not further
assertion of sentiment. (I'm genuinely curious whether those agnosias make
me dysfuntional in some aspects, so I always look for potential patches).
 
> That last paragraph is more difficult, as
> is always the case when you kick up one
> linguistic level to explain what was
> happening in the object sentences of
> the analysis. But even it doesn't sink to
> the level of gibberish. I hope. ;-)

I'm not going all deconstructionist on your ass, but please realize the 
degree of confidence you're projecting might not be entirely founded in 
ratio.