- #36
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,522
- 10,864
A lot of people differ with me on that, so I don't recall it specifically, but in any case, my opinion has always been that people know where they stand and they know why they say things like "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It isn't because they don't think definitions in general are/should be consistent, it is because they are unwilling to attach a consistent definition to that particular word because of the implications for their own beliefs. I tend to assume people are self-aware when it comes to their own motives (though I admit I've been disappointed on that score more than once).CaptainQuasar said:(Though, as you may recall russ, I consider "terrorist" to be a relative term. But that's because I really believe that, unlike a concept such as "murder" where it seems you can give at least examples that most people agree is a case of murder, even if they can't agree on a definition, the way "terrorist" is applied it seems pretty dependent on whether you're on the same political side, not solely on qualities of the act itself. But not to re-open that argument, I just wanted to explain because as I recall we differed on that.)
Or, they see other people do it and think that because a lot of people do it, that makes it ok. If you think that through, you may just find you are letting yourself be played - allowing others to weaken your morality by slipping in some moral relativism.