That intentionally making yourself weaker in the face of danger and aggression is somehow more civilized, moral, intelligent, or enlightenedIt's well worth a read. If you don't read it now, it will wash ashore in your email inbox someday, encrusted with the barnacles of three years of Fw:Fw:Fw: and attributed to "Maj. Caudill, USMC". Guaranteed.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
There is no virtue inherent in voluntary helplessness.
Marko writes an excellent rebuttal to the idea
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I have been thinking a lot lately about the morality of being armed verses the morality of not being armed. I'm glad that someone much more eloquent than I took the time to write about it. I'm sure that I will still eventually write a post about it, if only to get my thoughts down on paper (or pixels), but Marko's post sure set the bar pretty high on this topic.
s
Great read, but now it's going to make me have to check in on his blog more frequently.
On a side note, his entry points to a blog by Kit which is also a great read, and one I want to make my wife read. The fact that she ended up with photos of the potential adversary in the situation adds a nice touch.
There is a name for those tribes and groups who have intentionally made themselves weaker in the face of danger and aggression.
That name is "lost to the pages of history."
cj,
"On a side note, his entry points to a blog by Kit which is also a great read"
That's why I linked to it a couple days ago. ;)
I was told to send $5 to Major Caudill and add my name to a list, but it never made me any money.
Lyin' bastard.
Why wait? Hell, I'm going to beat the rush by emailing it to everyone I know and every spammer that's ever sent anything to my old Hotmail account.
Bwaa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Post a Comment