Wednesday, March 03, 2010
The Logic of Dr Guillotine
(fm the BC thread "The Rumor of War")
(who linked Nazi genocide to US concepts)
Giving you allowance for not always seeing how things appear in translation you must be made realize how deeply offensive it is to many of us to use a disreputable source on that issue in that manner. It does what we call "jumping the shark" and impedes our ability to evaluate your contributions. If you want to make the point that part of the horror of what the Nazis did was to extend logically, but unbound by moral restraints, some of the intellectual currents of the 19th and early 20th centuries, then there are better ways to make that point. It is certainly true that Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood and is considered a saint by the Left, was a racist and a eugenicist.
It is possible that the practice of extending a theoretical construct to its logical conclusion, without the interference of irregular moral restraints, is a legacy of the same Cartesian concepts that gave rise to the excesses of the French Revolution and subsequently to Socialism. It is more in keeping with illogical Anglo-saxon prejudices to admire the technical virtuosity involved and still reject the act as morally repugnant. There are no absolutes in either case and each event of possible questionable moral conduct must be considered as unique. The evidence seems to be that the sloppier and more diffuse approach prevalent in Britain or America relies on individual moral integrity and over time is a surer protector of Liberty against abuse.
(who searched a story about an Iranian UAV flying over a USN CV)
That was old news. They keep tugging Superman's cape.
(who reviewed the import of Intel in UAV ops and satellite vulnerabilities)
Concur, we are far to vulnerable to satellite interference. That is why I blogged about the Signalmen the other day and regret the loss of LORAN. The next big war may prove very low tech, after the nukes go off.
sorry if I crashed the legend of the “always good” people being on your side
That isn't the point and you have no grounds to think that I assume all the always good people are on a side. The point is that some arguments are "over the top" but tolerable, like idiomatic expressions, within a setting where everyone knows that it is done for dramatic effect. Some in fact are considered offensive even within a narrow context. My point was that the flaw of Eugenics within the West, including America, was known but was outside of the mainstream of our dominant culture. When you take it and offer it as a "proof" of a controversial point all the reason behind the argument is lost and only the polemics remain. It should be possible to find examples from European writers who make points in a manner that you would hate to see quoted by an American.
There is no reason to draw this out. Just please be aware of the issue and do us all a courtesy by acknowledging that you have found what seems to be a deliberately challenging or possibly offensive comment when you link to it. There is no intent on my part to censor you, only to encourage you to approach these sources in a skeptical manner and elicit our opinion rather than provoke our outrage.
When offered the comment on Europe's bloody history why challenge the "other" by saying "you are one to?" That gains nothing. You would do your own position and this Club more good if you had said "Yes we have a very bloody history. We know what war is so do not think that we are all weak." The pacifism and bureaucratization and politics of Europe are very frustrating to Americans, because we give a damn about what is being lost as Europe decays. Most Americans do not understand the legacy of violence behind the restraints that Europeans have imposed on themselves. If you can bear witness for what happened at the Somme and Verdun then you are being useful. The constant response to every comment that could be seen as a criticism of something over there is unproductive. If someone tried to provoke me by saying that we had slavery in America I would not try to tear them down by doing a survey of slavery to prove that everybody did it. I would point out that 600,000 Americans, proportionate to almost 6 million today, died to free those slaves. Honestly acknowledging a true statement or responding to the issue by putting it in context is not a sign of weakness. Not everything needs to be defended. The best thing you have said is to express your own contempt for Villepen.