Tsunami, Salami, Boloni

[Inspector]

It has been said that we ought to drop a nuke on Indonesia to "finish the job" that the tsunami started.  The reason?  Indonesia is a predominently Muslim country and, thus, the enemy.

Nonononononono. Please read that quote in context; that is not at all what I said.

[Charles]

Inspector: "The thought has crossed my mind that it would be nice if someone dropped a big bomb on Indonesia to finish the job and to eliminate the "need" for MY rights to be violated."

[RationalBiker]

Moderator's Note: From early on, this thread has been a host for serious contention between users. It then degraded into a battleground, and I'm not sure I see signs of improvement in sight.

This thread is a hair's width away from being closed. If there is one more instance in which the forum rules are violated, the thread will be closed, and the violator will be subject to moderator action.

[Inspector]

...And the context? Are you prepared to actually read the POST that that quote is contained within?

[oldsalt]

Moderator's Note: From early on, this thread has been a host for serious contention between users.  It then degraded into a battleground, and I'm not sure I see signs of improvement in sight.

This thread is a hair's width away from being closed.  If there is one more instance in which the forum rules are violated, the thread will be closed, and the violator will be subject to moderator action.

Rational Cop:

Since you've issued this warning after my last post, I am assuming that this was directed at me. If this is so, I would appreciate it if you would state which rule I broke. I know I didn't quote the passages I was addressing directly, and I stated why I didn't (i.e., I am not technically able to do so). I will grant that I ought to have at least gotten the post numbers, and I apologize for my laziness on that point. I won't do that again. I did not hurl personal insults, however, but tried to address the ideas offered--within the context of Objectivism--that I found to be wrong--so wrong that I could not allow them to pass without pointing out why, based on the facts as I understand them. My purpose wasn't to cause any further degeneration, but to understand for myself how these ideas could be made in the first place, and, maybe, salvage something of value out of the thread. If your warning was directed at me, I obviously wasn't successful and I sincerely want to know why.

[Inspector]

Oldsalt, Charles seems to want to believe things about my position which are not true, and I am not optimistic that I can shake him from his enthusiastic attacks on a straw man.

But you, I think, are just honestly mistaken about what I said. Do please read the original post that I made, and the next few after that. Take a hard look and ask yourself what my position is. Then, after you have taken a serious and careful look, ask yourself if your post was something that it was necessary for me to read.

[RationalBiker]

Rational Cop:

Since you've issued this warning after my last post, I am assuming that this was directed at me.

If I had directed it at you, I would have specified your name, and / or I would have sent you a PM. This was not directed at you. I would have hoped you knew me better than to make such an assumption.

[oldsalt]

Oldsalt, Charles seems to want to believe things about my position which are not true, and I am not optimistic that I can shake him from his enthusiastic attacks on a straw man.

But you, I think, are just honestly mistaken about what I said. Do please read the original post that I made, and the next few after that. Take a hard look and ask yourself what my position is. Then, after you have taken a serious and careful look, ask yourself if your post was something that it was necessary for me to read.

I have gone back and reread this entire thread. I apologize for misstating your position. Your statement was made in the specific context of the altruistic policy of this country, and not because Indonesia is a part of the Muslim world. I was conflating your statement with others that brought in the war on terror.

I agree completely that this country has no business using taxpayers money for the benefit of any other country. I agree completely that our strategy in this war is wrong. I have no problem with bombing into dust those countries who have supported, as a matter of government policy, terrorists (such as Iran, for instance). You are absolutely right that altruism kills any true feelings of benevolence towards others. As I stated in a previous post, however, I disagree that this particular issue is one that ought to be used to argue these points. I don't think it furthers our cause. There are better examples of governmental acts of altruism to choose from to argue the same point, without coming across as humanity hating and petty to those who do not understand why Objectivism finds altruism evil.

While I can sympathize with the general frustration, Inspector, which moved you to make your statement (post $39) about "finishing the job" to eliminate the "need" to violate your rights, I fail to see how dropping a bomb on the heads of innocents will do anything to change the current policies of our government. Not one of the people you would bomb has anything whatsoever to do with those policies. There is less justification for this than there would have been if the context had been that Indonesia was Muslim and, therefore, an enemy.

[oldsalt]

Rational Cop:

Having reread the thread, I've seen my error. I promise that in the future, if I don't have the energy to do make a proper job of commenting, I'll refrain from doing so.

Apologies all around.

[oldsalt]

If I had directed it at you, I would have specified your name, and / or I would have sent you a PM.  This was not directed at you.  I would have hoped you knew me better than to make such an assumption.

Oh geez. I'm not up to par, RC, and I'm having a lot of trouble keeping everything straight. I think I came back too soon--I have no reserves. I don't mean to burden anyone with my uncertainties. That isn't even what I want to say, but I can't focus well enough to get anything together. Please don't be offended. I'm floppin' around like a fish on hot sand today.

[Inspector]

I disagree that this particular issue is one that ought to be used to argue these points.

Well, so do I. I haven't argued such to any non-Objectivist and I don't intend to. If anyone asks, I will point out that there has been more than $15,000 given so far for each victim, and that money will best be spent elsewhere. And that a lot of it is likely to be intercepted by militants.

While I can sympathize with the general frustration, Inspector, which moved you to make your statement (post $39) about "finishing the job" to eliminate the "need" to violate your rights, I fail to see how dropping a bomb on the heads of innocents will do anything to change the current policies of our government.

Of course it won't. As I stated in the post directly following that one, the statement was hyperbole. Also, read it carefully: I did not say "we should drop a bomb" or "someone should drop a bomb;" I said "the thought has crossed my mind" (in the context of being mad at altruism." I did not mention whether I accepted or rejected that thought upon rational evaluation. It wasn't a call to action; it was an example of the kind of thought that altruism breeds.

[oldsalt]

Well, so do I. I haven't argued such to any non-Objectivist and I don't intend to. If anyone asks, I will point out that there has been more than $15,000 given so far for each victim, and that money will best be spent elsewhere. And that a lot of it is likely to be intercepted by militants.

Of course it won't. As I stated in the post directly following that one, the statement was hyperbole.  Also, read it carefully: I did not say "we should drop a bomb" or "someone should drop a bomb;" I said "the thought has crossed my mind" (in the context of being mad at altruism." I did not mention whether I accepted or rejected that thought upon rational evaluation. It wasn't a call to action; it was an example of the kind of thought that altruism breeds.

With all due respect, the thought of calling down further death and destruction upon the heads of victims who have already suffered catastrophy isn't something that would enter my mind. It is unjustified to blame these victims for the actions of others. They didn't cause the tradegy, nor did they do anything to force our government to give them aid. Saying that you want to eliminate the "need" adds nothing of value. The fact is, they are the "need" through no fault of their own.

No matter how you try to dress this up, Inspector, this was an incredibly thoughtless statement to make, even as hyperbole. That you continue to defend it is...well, I'm out of steam and can't find the word I want to describe what I think it is. But it ain't good, my friend. You need to find a venue in which to vent your frustrations other than the pathetic population of South Asia.

If I didn't think you were merely mistaken, and had allowed yourself to get carried away, I certainly wouldn't be the only one left in the room with you besides the moderators. Put the context of what you said within the larger context of this disaster and think again about what you said--without all the self-defenses up. If you still honestly believe that you can defend it, I would like to know it.

[RationalBiker]

The fact is, they are the "need" through no fault of their own

I realize this isn't largely the issue of your post, but I think it bears consideration for other reasons. Whether Indonesia forced or compelled us to aid them, some folks are still frustrated that our government choose to use our tax money in this manner because although their need is "no fault" of their own, nor is it any fault of ours either. Charity should be voluntary.

However, with respect to the fault issue, and using myself as an example, I think some fault can be attributed to them. I knowingly live in a flood zone. Should a tidal wave or other flooding disaster occur and I lose my home (or life), I would bear some fault for choosing to continue to live in that area.

One of the other "faults" mentioned was their failure to utilize existing technology to help reduce or minimize the loss of property and life. So I think the argument can be made that they do bear some fault for their situation.

[oldsalt]

I realize this isn't largely the issue of your post, but I think it bears consideration for other reasons.  Whether Indonesia forced or compelled us to aid them, some folks are still frustrated that our government choose to use our tax money in this manner because although their need is "no fault" of their own, nor is it any fault of ours either.  Charity should be voluntary.

However, with respect to the fault issue, and using myself as an example, I think some fault can be attributed to them.  I knowingly live in a flood zone.  Should a tidal wave or other flooding disaster occur and I lose my home (or life), I would bear some fault for choosing to continue to live in that area.

One of the other "faults" mentioned was their failure to utilize existing technology to help reduce or minimize the loss of property and life.  So I think the argument can be made that they do bear some fault for their situation.

I might say that one could give a nod to the responsibility of the various governments in the countries involved, and even a brief thought to those who are educated and/or wealthy enough to know better. The vast majority of the people in this part of the world, however, are in neither category. Most live very primative lives, especially when compared to what we enjoy.

R.C., I don't think we can remove the entire context of a person's birth, culture, and all of their circumstances when we form a judgment about them. People born in America have an enormous advantage in overcoming the accidental circumstances that they were born into. The vast majority of the earth's population cannot say the same.

Now, if we want to find fault with a collective group of people for an enormous loss of life due to nature, how about Europe? They couldn't handle a heat wave! I DO blame them for their loses. They have absolutely no excuse to let something of that sort kill so many. I had no twinge of sympathy for them whatsoever; indeed, how could anyone feel anything but contempt towards that whole sorry episode.

As to this calamity, perhaps I'm not being ruthless enough in my application of the ethics. My feelings towards human kind as a whole are benevolent. I save my contempt, and other like judgments, for those individuals and governments (which are made up of individuals) that I know to be evil as individuals. I can't fault ignorance for being ignorant. I can't fault those who, unlike most of us, have neither the means nor the opportunity to choose where they live. If you suffered a loss because of where you live, and have made no provision for such an eventuality when you have the means to do so, I would fault you. I don't know how to go about figuring out who, out of the millions involved, is at fault individually. This is a (thankfully rare) case where the vast numbers involved do matter in my consideration. Even the loss of life at Bam, in Iran, mentioned in an earlier thread, doesn't fit in this category. The Iranis set themselves up for their losses and I do find fault with them. They had a better government (bad as it was), one that was rapidly modernizing, and enough of them made a choice, and acted on that choice, that they made great strides backward.

None of this, of course, justifies government largess with taxpayers money, not for South Asia's tragedy any more than the disasters in Florida, the aid packages and subsidies to any country, or the bribes given to entities like Egypt and the Palestinian Authority. I hope that nothing I've said would lead anyone to think otherwise. It's just that, in this instance, the attempt to point fingers or complain about the relief of immediate needs, seems petty to me, no matter how you cut it. There are just too many worse examples out there to point to.

I'll close with something that a businessman in Thailand said: (paraphrasing) "Thank you for the help, of course, but the greatest benefit would come from investment, not hand-outs." I like to think that my few pennies of tax money went to help supply the immediate needs of THAT man. He won't require anything else.

[AisA]

I now live in an area of London populated by Muslims, many of whom are decent and friendly people and I grew up with many Christians who are also decent and friendly people. I study within a group of international students, several of the most dedicated and enthusiastic scientists I know are Singaporean Muslims. They may or may not claim to be as such because of their faith, but the metaphysically invalid ideas, backgrounds and cultures they represent alongside their own personal merits do not mark them for your fascist vision of a nuclear holocaust.

The saying 'one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter' comes to mind: I expect to win a battle of ideas, by the merit of my ideas, not by enforcing some dogmatic right wing doctrine down the globes collective throat.

Charles, I have a few questions.

- Do the Muslims you know condemn terrorism unequivocally? For instance, are they willing to state that suicide bombers are pure evil, without also offering some qualifier such as claiming they are misunderstood or provoked?

- What do they say about the portions of the Koran that exhort followers to kill or enslave infidels?

- What do they say about the various fatwas that have been issued reminding all Muslims of their responsibility to engage in jihad?

- Do they abide by the fatwas that declare the following:

1) Islam forbids unmarried men and women dancing together, even if there is no physical contact, in public or private.

2) Unmarried men and women are not to be alone together late at night, not even in the same car on the way home from worshipping.

3) Girls and boys past the age of 12 cannot be educated in the same classrooms.

4) A sick woman may, for health reasons, break her fast during Ramadan provided she makes up those missed days and pays a fine(!).

5) A woman who discovers her husband is cheating on her must look at her own behavior to find out why.

6) A woman may not have plastic surgery for mere "excessive beautification", for such would be changing Allah's creation. However, Islam grants an exception if the surgery will make the woman more acceptable to her husband.

7) Within the home, the man has the right to dictate virtually all of the woman's behavior, including how she dresses, who can visit her, etc.

8) You cannot be pen pals with a member of the opposite sex.

9) Doing business with a bank that charges interest on loans is forbidden.

10) Women may not ride bicycles or motorcycles.

11) Men may not wear gold in public.

12) Wife beating is permitted, though only as a last resort and only if it does not inflict permanent damage.

13) Salmon Rushdie is to be killed on sight.

(These fatwas, incidentally, are available for review online at http://www.islamonline.net/livefatwa/english/oldresult.asp. )

- Presumably, their belief in God is based on faith. If they do condemn terrorism and if they do reject these fatwas, then on what basis do they judge their faith and interpretation of Islam to be valid, but bin Laden's and the 9/11 hijackers to be invalid?

- Since Islam specifically permits Muslims to further its goals by deception, such as pretending to be tolerant of non-believers to gain entry into enemy society, how would you suggest we identify which of them to trust? Which of the Muslims living in the west are not potential enemy combatants?

I am not arguing for global extermination of Muslims. I am arguing that before we extend them any sort of sanction, we need to know what they believe.

[Inspector]

No matter how you try to dress this up, Inspector, this was an incredibly thoughtless statement to make, even as hyperbole.  That you continue to defend it is...well, I'm out of steam and can't find the word I want to describe what I think it is.

I told you that it was not an endorsed statement or a call to action. It was an example of the kind of thoughts that altruism breeds.

I told you that:

I did not mention whether I accepted or rejected that thought upon rational evaluation

Well, now I am telling you: upon rational evaluation I reject that thought. Is that what you were looking to hear? Because I rejected it about 2 seconds after I had the thought. I didn't think that even needed mention, but apparantly it did. I suppose that I made the mistake of thinking that my personality and values were well-known enough that people wouldn't jump to that kind of conclusion, but that is not, upon reflection, a reasonable thing to suppose. So I am sorry for that.

As for "defending" that statement, well... have I made it clear enough for you to tell whether I am defending it or not?

[Charles]

A decent challenge AisA. Of the few Muslims who are close friends I am certain they condemn terrorism unequivocally. They do, however, vary in their degree of faith - for instance one is from Brunei and the other from Singapore, the latters culture applying the stricter interpretation of Islam.

My friend from Brunei has invited me for dinner at his embassy and I shall certainly bring up some of the fatwas you mention. Im also tempted to ask a few of the friendly local muslims in my area what you have proposed. I shall get back to you on it.

I do think, however, there is a distinction between endorsing terrorism and endorsing the majority of those fatwas. The irrational dogmas being followed in the latter not warranting actions of a form that should be taken against those endorsing terrorism. (with the exception of shooting Salman Rushdie on sight!)

In any case, what we can do, is limited by whether or not they actually attempt to carry out specific fatwas - i.e. agreeing with wife beating may be morally rephrehensible, but only actually carrying out wife beating warrants arrest and trial.

Endorsement of Terrorism is tantamount to encouraging it - such people should be monitored closely as they do represent a potential threat and where publically proclaiming it (Abu Hamza anybody?) arrest and trial/deportation are in order.

One thing a Muslim acquaintance said to me was that the Quaran commands you to fight the jihad against yourself BEFORE the jihad against the world - meaning until you have proven yourself to be a true muslim/altruist you cannot go about the business of bringing Islam to everyone else.

By that count most Muslims dismiss Bin Laden as being anything but a true Muslim.

[Charles]

Apologies to everybody for my earlier post merely quoting Inspector and adding a smiley. He doesn't appear to qualify his statement within a context, but still:- my post was "devoid of intellectual content".

Willingly withdrawn.

[RationalBiker]

Most live very primative lives, especially when compared to what we enjoy.

Indonesia does not live in a vacuum. If it did, I would give this more consideration.

R.C., I don't think we can remove the entire context of a person's birth, culture, and all of their circumstances when we form a judgment about them.

If you show me where I indicated that we should do this, then I'll consider this statement's pertinence to the discussion. Until then, I think it is suggestive of gross exaggeration.

Now, if we want to find fault with a collective group of people for an enormous loss of life due to nature, how about Europe?

Straw man argument.

As to this calamity, perhaps I'm not being ruthless enough in my application of the ethics.

It appears to me, that ethics are something you apply to a situation up until the point that the emotional aspect of the situation is more appealing to you. And if this is the case, that falls squarely in the realm of subjectivism. Is this the case?

Edited by me. I was hasty in my response.

[oldsalt]

I told you that it was not an endorsed statement or a call to action. It was an example of the kind of thoughts that altruism breeds.

I told you that:

Well, now I am telling you: upon rational evaluation I reject that thought. Is that what you were looking to hear? Because I rejected it about 2 seconds after I had the thought. I didn't think that even needed mention, but apparantly it did. I suppose that I made the mistake of thinking that my personality and values were well-known enough that people wouldn't jump to that kind of conclusion, but that is not, upon reflection, a reasonable thing to suppose. So I am sorry for that.

As for "defending" that statement, well... have I made it clear enough for you to tell whether I am defending it or not?

Thank you, Inspector! That is exactly what I was looking for. I am glad to hear you say it. Now I'll tell you why.

After I first posted on this thread, I recieved a couple of PMs from people who are new to Objectivism and new to this forum. The both said that they were ready to quit the forum after reading statements on this thread, even though neither said they were giving up their study of the philosophy. From what was said, I gathered that it was the tone of the thread that made them think, "Do I want to be associated with such hateful people?"

As I said earlier, I didn't think that you, in particular, meant what you said literally, and that I thought you just got emotionally carried away for the moment. But you didn't say that anywhere. You kept defending it in one form or another.

My problem with this whole thing is that we are trying to convince people of the rightness and benevolence of Objectivism. The ethics of rational selfishness is the most misunderstood part of the whole philosophy--even more than the stance on capitalism. Altruism is ingrained in the brain of everyone I've ever met (whether they've accepted or rejected it). Making such statements without the necessary context just makes one sound like a cold-hearted, bitter, hater of humanity, and it causes the listener's mind to close to any further discussion. I personally prefer to wait and watch what I know will happen as the reporting of the consequences of all this largess play out. It is much easier to point to the ill effects, and THEN discuss the whys and wherefores of those consequences (one of which, as you were pointing out, is the destruction of benevolence).

I have read enough of your comments that I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until I knew for sure what you were saying (something that I couldn't do for drdriveby, by the way, because he made me doubt his motives, as well as his knowledge). But you can't take such a thing for granted. We aren't all good-buddies sitting around the kitchen table discussing the day's events. This forum is read everyday by strangers who don't know what you've written before. This is why I've pressed you to think further about what you said, and to explicitly withdraw that statement.

Having said that, I will say that I understand the impulse perfectly. As I sat watching the towers burn, then collapse, all I could think of was turning the ME into one big piece of glass.

Whew! I'm glad that's settled. 'Bout wore me out.

[oldsalt]

Indonesia does not live in a vacuum.  If it did, I would give this more consideration.

"Indonesia" may not live in a vacuum, but many of its people do. 

If you show me where I indicated that we should do this, then I'll consider this statement's pertinence to the discussion.  Until then, I think it is suggestive of gross exaggeration.

I was indicating the context I used in making my judgment about fault, which is what you asked me about.  A gross exaggeration of what, exactly? 

Straw man argument.

No, this is an example to contrast the differences in context that I talked about in the previous paragraph.  There is a difference between someone living in the mostly primative island cultures of Indonesia and someone living in a Paris apartment.  It is mainly one of knowledge.  A principle must be applied to all the known facts, as the facts provide the context to which one applies the principle.  If I am in error, then it is one based on a faulty or incomplete knowledge of the facts. 

It appears to me, that ethics are something you apply to a situation up until the point that the emotional aspect of the situation is more appealing to you.  And if this is the case, that falls squarely in the realm of subjectivism.  Is this the case?

No, it isn't.  I don't make ethical judgments based on what "appeals" to me emotionally.  I understand fully, and know from personal experience, that such a thing is a virulent trap with disasterous long-term consequences.  I am an Objectivist who, due to circumstances beyond my control, is unable to attain two of its chief virtues, that of productive work and independence.  I do think independently, but I have not been able to live independently.  One of the chief aspects of my illness I must contend with on a moment to moment basis is the chemical flooding of my brain--the very chemicals which in noraml people signify an emotional response. This causes me to have inappropriate and/or overblown "emotional" responses to any stimuli.  I don't trust my emotions and never leave them unquestioned.  I cannot treat them as automatic reactions based on my conscious thought.  This is why I questioned my own ruthless adherence in this instance.  (Believe me, it would be easy to fall into self-pity, bitterness, and all the rest of the soul-killing emotions.) It has been, and always will be, a battle.  (It is, in fact, Objectivism that gave me the tools to wage my battles.  This is why I say that Ayn Rand saved my life!)  I made that statement because my own circumstance makes me more empathetic to something like this disaster and I know it. 

I'm using a different color within your statement because I can't break it up the way everyone else does. I haven't tried this before. Does it work for you?

Edited for clarification.

Edited January 23, 2005 by oldsalt

[RationalBiker]

I'm using a different color within your statement because I can't break it up the way everyone else does.  I haven't tried this before. Does it work for you?

The key to splitting up specific parts of posts is to copy/paste the relevant section (which you usually get from the post itself below your reply window), highlight the pasted part and press the quote key.

If that is unclear, or doesn't work, let me know and I'll try to assist you further.

Indonesia" may not live in a vacuum, but many of its people do.

And many people don't. If it were an easy task to seperate who does and who doesn't, a more accurate accountability could occur. As it is, the primary motive of my post was to dispute the concept of "no fault of their own" by demonstrating some faults. I made no attempt to quantify how much fault rests on the country as a whole or any individual within the country as that would require considerably more data.

A gross exaggeration of what, exactly?

There is an implication in the following quote -

R.C., I don't think we can remove the entire context of a person's birth, culture, and all of their circumstances

which suggests I'm dropping that entire context, which I'm not. That implication is what I am referring as being a gross exaggeration of my position. I could have been clearer.

No, this is an example to contrast the differences in context that I talked about in the previous paragraph.

Then I replace my "straw man argument" comment with "This does not apply to me or my argument.' Again, you suggest I'm not seeing a context that I do see. My evaluation of that context is different than yours.

As to this calamity, perhaps I'm not being ruthless enough in my application of the ethics.

Can you see how the wording of this statement implies that the application of ethics are a function of emotion rather than reason or context? Applying ethics to a situation is not a matter or whether a person is being ruthless or benevolent. It is a matter of whether they are acting on principles or objective standards or not. Can you see why I misunderstood what you intended to say? That was one of the reasons why I retracted some initially harsher words and edited it to give you more of an opportunity to explain.

PS: We have had a rough two days, eh?

[AisA]

I do think, however, there is a distinction between endorsing terrorism and endorsing the majority of those fatwas. The irrational dogmas being followed in the latter not warranting actions of a form that should be taken against those endorsing terrorism. (with the exception of shooting Salman Rushdie on sight!)

In any case, what we can do, is limited by whether or not they actually attempt to carry out specific fatwas - i.e. agreeing with wife beating may be morally rephrehensible, but only actually carrying out wife beating warrants arrest and trial.

Endorsement of Terrorism is tantamount to encouraging it - such people should be monitored closely as they do represent a potential threat and where publically proclaiming it (Abu Hamza anybody?) arrest and trial/deportation are in order.

Thanks for the response, Charles. I agree that there is a distinction between an endorsement of terrorism versus those fatwas, with the possible exception of number 13.

In any event, it will be interesting to hear the response from your Muslim acquaintances.

[oldsalt]

The key to splitting up specific parts of posts is to copy/paste the relevant section (which you usually get from the post itself below your reply window), highlight the pasted part and press the quote key.

If that is unclear, or doesn't work, let me know and I'll try to assist  you further.

I am not able to cut and paste with the keyboard I have.  I'm saving every penny to change things, but I'm stuck with the technology I have.  I'm trying to work out a way around the deficiency.

And many people don't.  If it were an easy task to seperate who does and who doesn't, a more accurate accountability could occur.  As it is, the primary motive of my post was to dispute the concept of "no fault of their own" by demonstrating some faults.  I made no attempt to quantify how much fault rests on the country as a whole or any individual within the country as that would require considerably more data.

That was exactly the point I was trying to make!  In my own long-winded fashion.  I said that there was fault that could be assigned in my very first sentence.  Because there is no way to quantify this because of the scope of the disaster, I attempted to address the question within the context that I do know.

There is an implication in the following quote -

which suggests I'm dropping that entire context, which I'm not.  That implication is what I am referring as being a gross exaggeration of my position.  I could have been clearer.

Oh, I should have been clearer.  I shouldn't have used the personal address, which implied that I was addressing the statement to your position, when I was attempting to explain my own.

Then I replace my "straw man argument" comment with "This does not apply to me or my argument.'  Again, you suggest I'm not seeing a context that I do see.  My evaluation of that context is different than yours.

I'm not suggesting that you don't see the context, but trying to clarify the context of my own thinking.  There is nothing personal to be inferred, just my own inability to make myself clear.

Can you see how the wording of this statement implies that the application of ethics are a function of emotion rather than reason or context?  Applying ethics to a situation is not a matter or whether a person is being ruthless or benevolent.  It is a matter of whether they are acting on principles or objective standards or not.  Can you see why I misunderstood what you intended to say?  That was one of the reasons why I retracted some initially harsher words and edited it to give you more of an opportunity to explain.

Please read my edited post.  There is a reason why I monitor my emotions very closely, and I edited the statement to clarify that.  (I hit reply when I meant to preview.)  I am perfectly aware that one applies reason to the facts which form the context of any question, ethical or otherwise.  I thought I had done so.  Things are worse than I thought if I didn't communicate my reasons in a way that would have precluded such a statement!

PS:  We have had a rough two days, eh?

You can say that again.

[RationalBiker]

Please read my edited post.  There is a reason why I monitor my emotions very closely, and I edited the statement to clarify that.  (I hit reply when I meant to preview.)  I am perfectly aware that one applies reason to the facts which form the context of any question, ethical or otherwise.  I thought I had done so.  Things are worse than I thought if I didn't communicate my reasons in a way that would have precluded such a statement!

I have read it, and I think that it clarifies any miscommunication we had.

I also think your method of different colored lettering within a quote is a creative work-around to your hardware limitations.