Re: [9fans] How to implement a moral equivalent ofautomounter

["Noah Evans" <noah.evans@gmail.com>]

To clarify Rob's point, the phrase "moral equivalence" comes with some
pretty hefty baggage. In modern usage it's primarily a right wing
term, used to derogatorily refer to leftist arguments. "Morally
equivalent" arguments typically assert that pro-western groups have
selfish(typically economic) motivations when acting(e.g. the wars in
Vietnam and Iraq).

Does that help?

Noah



On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:53 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@sun.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2008, at 9:20 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
>>
>> i don't understand this thread.  the "moral" equivalent? surely you
>> mean "functional" or "rough" or "approximate" or some other adjective,
>> not "moral".
>
> Isn't "moral equivalent of an X" an idiomatic expression that goes beyond
> the original use of it in James's essay?
>
>> the phrase "moral equivalent" originates in the "moral
>> equivalent of war".  using it in this context is wrong, misguided,
>> maybe punishable.
>
> Huh? If this is a joke -- its not funny. The fact that I speak with an
> accent (even in writing) doesn't mean I think with an accent.
>
>> the only moral thing about the automounter is that it's not running on
>> this here machine.  life is imperfect and morality is weaker on other
>> machines i use.
>
>
> What is the point of this paragraph?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
>