"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion."
-- William Ralph Inge
posted by Alex Knapp | Link |

What�s wrong with agreeable pleasure? Are there any pleasures that should not be tasted?

I used to think there�s nothing wrong with pleasure experimentation � sex & drugs especially (and certainly all forms of rock �n roll!) I didn�t try heroin or LSD, but thought I might, and thought I might like it. Also have enjoyed fantasies of some Bondage & Discipline; and Sado-masochism.

But now I don�t think it�s good to experiment so much; and therefore not so good to think about. And therefore I�m not happy with such fantasies, even my own.

Perhaps you�ve seen this quote, Wolves in the Heart:
A First Nations grandfather was talking to his grandson about how he felt.
He said, �I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is the vengeful, angry, violent one. The other wolf is the loving, compassionate one.�
The grandson asked him in a worried way, �Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?�
The grandfather answered, �The one I feed.�

http://nonprofits.accesscomm.ca/wpuc/trumpeter/2002_jan_supp.html

It�s apropos to any conflict of tensions: a �restless, unsatisfied, hungry for new experience� wolf; and a �reasonably fed, satisfied, settled� wolf.

We are the wolves we choose to feed.

I don�t think feeding the BDSM wolf is a good idea.
=====

Nuking Hiroshima was necessary if the US was to insist on unconditional surrender. The alternatives:
a) continued and greater fire-bombing of cities, one-by-one, with many more Americans killed and more Japanese cities destroyed, and no certainty of when the war would end.
b) physical invasion. Extremely high American casualties; as well as Japanese. Mostly combatants.
c) economic blockade -- unlikely to end with unconditional surrender until so many Japanese are starving that it will be virtually impossible for America to "win the peace" after the war.

Compared to the non-unconditional surrenders since that time, and their aftermaths, history teaches me that getting the surrender, and using it wisely, is worth the killing. If you�re going to be involved. Rebuilding Afghanistan may be a chance to demonstrate this, but it might well be very sub-optimal. Rebuilding Iraq may be a better option.


The "rules of war" certainly oppose targeting civilians, but it's not clear to me that the life of a soldier is less valuable than that of civilian. If soldier's lives are not less valuable, then such rules of war, which value them less, must be suspect.

Everard suggests an interesting aspect of democracy: where if a gov't of the people decide to kill others, their self-defense against that gov't and its supporters implies some moral culpability on the part of the "civilians". In more graphic Vietnam era terms, compare an 18 year old against the war with a 58 year old who supports it. A system that basically says it's OK to kill the 18 year old but it's terrible to kill the 58 year old can't be such a great system. And rules of war aren't -- 'cause War is Hell.

The gates to which have already opened.