From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <56a297000812071232i52effcfen4ceaf1532a507cb6@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:32:52 -0600 From: "Noah Evans" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <2B033310-CD79-4382-AA2C-5A823F15F531@sun.com> <1c5a54806f26063521f7150b27d885ba@coraid.com> <7359f0490812062120j154beb0dw69a266388d2077ad@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] How to implement a moral equivalent ofautomounter Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5d40ee82-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 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 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. > >