Support the Troops...

By -
who have integrity..

Comments

  1. Wabulon4:49 PM

    I've always (well, usually) been concerned re the position that obeying orders is no excuse for war crimes. What about self defense? If I kill someone only because otherwise he (or more likely, she) would have certainly killed me, I get off. OK, maybe if we're talking about me vs. 1000 of them, it's different. Any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah2:06 AM

    Self-defense applies to killing the person who was going to kill you. It doesn't legally permit you to shoot A because otherwise B was going to shoot you!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wabulon4:19 PM

    Interesting--never thought of it that way.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more