No, Erminia, in English the word connotes (at least to me) the way that
personal irritation or exasperation aroused in the course of a relationship
or confrontation may be sharpened to a needle-point in linguistic form, and
it's especially noticeable in emails (to my mind), whereas humour often gets
lost. Certainly, I was not in any way demeaning the seriousness of the
issues & their discussion here. Your point about the laggardness of the
majority, including oneself, in helping that great body of suffering
innocents* was well taken. But I hope it's all right to occasionally draw
humorous attention to certain features of our intercourse.
With friendly regards,
Martin (John).
*PS I've read what you wrote, Lawrence, but I would hold fast to a
description of suffering children as innocents, not because they are never
mean or nasty, even murderous, but because of their lack of knowledge about
those features of their behaviour. This lack is or should be gradually
eroded by moral education (by experience & by teachers of whatever kind)
till one can no longer speak of innocence except in a limited sense such as
"innocent of this particular crime", which I do suppose myself is true, say,
of a janitor in the Pentagon with respect to that institution's putative
crimes. But justifying a crime or moral offence (like causing "collateral
damage") by devious arguments is always a culpable action devoid of
innocence, whether it's a general or a janitor speaking. I agree, however,
with your supposition of graded guilt or innocence: there are no absolutes
in this matter.
best
mj
|