Carl Remick wrote:
>
> >From: "Max Sawicky" <sawicky at bellatlantic.net>
>
> >I go back to one of my old saws. Violence does indeed solve problems.
> >Brutality is useful. Opponents are eliminated, intimidated, >dispersed,
> >etc.
Of course, violence does solve _SOME_ problems. Terrorism with as widely distributed a base as that behind 911 just doesn't happen to be one of those problems. In fact, all the proceeds of violence (on either side) end up in favor of the terrorists.
>
> No, I don't think mere candy-ass "brutality" solves a thing, Max; it just
> feeds resentments and causes countermeasures.
You don't need to move to this philosophical level. On the whole it is good debating (and forensic) practice to never claim more than you have to claim to secure your case, and in the present instance even vulgar pragmatism leads to a no-violence position. See Daniel Davies's post.
I wish I had a better grasp of the kind of political perspective that leads to Max's wild utopianism.
Carrol
>
> Carl
>