On Mar 18, 10:40 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.

Yes, you did -- "doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead
to perpetual war"

You have INFERRED that I implied that a doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye
was a limitation or requirement. As I am the one who had the thought,
only I am able to provide a clarification of my intent.

My point is, that if one monkey hits another, and the doctrine of
an-eye-for-an-eye prevails within the group, the hitee will hit back
add infinitum. The doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye perpetuates
violence.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to phrase this more clearly earlier.

You were very clear and I still must conclude that you don't
understand the concept.

And Eye for an eye means if one is wronged, the recompense cannot
exceed the damage.

Period.

Your's is actually the first argument I've ever heard that this
doctrine perpetuates harm.


Dan Mc