Pirate Freedom and the Morals Of Gene Wolfe

Jerry Friedman · 18 Mar 2009, 20:21 · from 2009-March.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: jerry_friedman at yahoo.com (Jerry Friedman)
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:21:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: (urth) Pirate Freedom and the Morals Of Gene Wolfe
In-Reply-To: <93d4039f0903181049md8b35c8n473884e92282cc6a at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <985385.22624.qm at web50706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


--- On Wed, 3/18/09, John Watkins <john.watkins04 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jerry,
> 
> My understanding is that, to a 1st century Jew, the
> teaching about turning
> the other cheek when slapped wouldn't be a teaching
> about self-defense at
> all--the slap wasn't a threat of physical injury so
> much as it was a profound insult.

I'd say that's still true.

> A more equivalent saying today would be
> that if someone
> spits in your face, don't strike him, but wipe it off
> and offer your face again.
> 
> Clearly it isn't difficult to differentiate between
> retributive punishement
> ("eye for an eye") and self-defense.  Our law
> does it all the time.

I'd have thought the key statement was not to resist
evildoers, which would not be limited to the examples about
turning the other cheek, giving your cloak along with
your shirt, and walking the second mile.  But thanks to
you and others who explained how this passage doesn't
have to be taken as forbidding self-defense.

Jerry Friedman

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net