About 5yr. log retention

[James A. Donald]

     --
Tom Vogt:
 > >  > all along we've been talking about "evil". suddenly, in your
 > >  > two examples above, the word doesn't appear anymore.

James A. Donald:
 > > The word murder does appear.  Murder is defined as "wrongful
 > > killing.", hence is by definition a particular kind of evil.
 > > Indeed it is the archetypal example of evil, the type specimen of
 > > evil.

Tom Vogt:
 > Weird, a couple thousand years of history disagree with you. until
 > the very recent past, pretty much everyone was sure that killing
 > enemies, unbelievers or other people isn't "evil". probably isn't
 > even "murder".

If you are  confused about the difference between war and peace, you must 
be seriously confused about a lot of things.

 > ironically, you seem to agree somewhat that bombing a couple hectars
 > of an "evil nation" isn't murder, either...

Those who claim to that killing people in warfare is no different from 
killing people in peace, are more likely to exterminate subjects during 
peacetime, than they are likely to refrain from killing enemies in wartime.

Tom Vogt:
 > >  > but the point is that the one point can be settled, the other
 > >  > not.

James A. Donald:
 > > Surely the events of the twentieth century settled the matter
 > > decisively.  Those who believe otherwise are monsters or fools,
 > > knaves or dupes.  When people die as a result of their error,
 > > others should learn.

Tom Vogt:
 > nice, but old trick of passing judgement on someone in such a form
 > that it also invalidates his (possibly different) judgement on you.
 > but it's just cheap dialectics, not "truth".
 >
 > remember that many more non-germans died in WW2 than germans. we
 > really shouldn't use body-count as a measure of truth.

Remembering that both german and non german deaths were caused by germans, 
we should use body count as a measure of evil.

James A. Donald:
 > > Anyone who propagates false moral beliefs also propagates false
 > > emprical claims supporting those false moral beliefs -- hence for
 > > example the continual debates where Marxists claim that Marx's
 > > predictions are coming true.  If there was an is ought gap, they
 > > would find it unnecessary to so tightly couple moral and factual
 > > claims.

Tom Vogt:
 > who decides what is wrong and right in moral beliefs?

Common sense.

James A. Donald:
 > > And evidence that they were wrong is that a great many of them
 > > died of that error, for nazis killed more nazis than they did
 > > commies, just as the commies killed more commies than they did
 > > nazis, something that anyone could have foreseen had he recognized
 > > that killing Jews was murder, that killing capitalists for being
 > > capitalists was murder.

  Tom Vogt:
 > your point is? that the percentage of "friendly fire" defines what
 > is right and what is wrong?

Friendly fire is an accident, an error.  The murder of commies by commies 
and nazis by nazis was planned from the very beginning.

     --digsig
          James A. Donald
      6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
      YivChPEwc3KGWpVxNl2s9XFXHcCSZAlwgBzWfY/U
      4RvCdxlreJ2EC2bq0c1LTl+Q1HNKyDAe8UFcrF4O3