> Philip Pilkington wrote:
>
>
>
> Then we can begin to try and apply a moralism which isn't, frankly,
> tainted with white guilt. Apart from that, stop bullshitting, as
> you're one step away from justifying ghastly acts which can be
> justified by nonsense "victim-moralism".
>
> Go on try it... there's many acts that could be justified by calling
> into play the fact that the agent of said act was "oppressed"...
>
> [...]
>
> ....
>
>
>
>
> You just won't give that up, will you?
>
>
> Despite the fact that no one in this discussion (and really, no one)
> said anything remotely close to "victim-moralism" you keep playing
> that harp.
>
>
> Also, don't you think it's a bit insulting to assume that Charles, an
> old hand with these issues, isn't already aware of this notion you
> present as if it's a remarkably new observation?
>
>
>
>
> "Go on try it..." you write, as if it's an innovative Gedankenexperiment!
>
>
I see we both repulse each other... you by your puritanical moralism... me by my contrarianism.
Interesting points by both, lets not try and negate either by crass appeals to my keeping "playing the harp". No one else has tried to deploy this judgement within this entire thread for obvious reasons. I haven't "insulted" anyone, I've simply criticised... to think that I've actually "insulted" anyone is exactly the "victim-moralism" I'm talking about...
Appeal to my points, and not my apparent "insults".