Re: OT Hatred (was Re: New Ada compiler for .NET)

[Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
: Therefore, if it is in a
: country's perceived best interests to [...]
: [...]
: as long as we use our powers for good instead
: of for evil, for our own definitions of good and evil.

At least this is an honest statement, of the sort I rarely
see in the headlines, unfortunately.

The US (and allies) did something to stop the evil in Germany (and
elsewhere), and we are lucky they did. But it took some time until
they started.  Could they have started earlier, differently? AFAIK,
there had been little interest or awareness to get involved, until...
But, ported to our days, this openes the door to a discussion of
the continuing failures of international politics.

The difficult part for me now is to reconcile some of the current
rhetoric of US government officials, and what they may be planning
to do.  The rhetoric occasionally appeals to moral positions of
some generality, but what they say they will be doing is
a/ very specifically directed towards singled out "instances", and
b/ leaves other "instances of evil" comparatively untouched.
as John has explained.

I think it will help if there were more official statements
explaining US initiatives, like yours.

Then we would possibly find sentences of more earthly terms.
Like _not_ saying, or writing, "Nation X is evil", but
"Government X does Y to the people of Z, and it does A to O,
so what should O be doing? Is there anything that the people
of Z can do?"

I think this implies that the speaker/author distinguishes government
X and the people of Z, giving them a chance not to feel hurt. Feeling
hurt being one source of unleashed nationalism or current equivalents
thereof.

-- Georg