"Progressive" D.G. Porter Supports The Holocaust
johnz~
In this message, Porter expresses the belief that the Nazis should have
gotten around to murdering a few more innocent victims.
(Headers included for purposes of authentication)
_____________________________________________________________________
Path:
news.uni-mannheim.de!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!new
s-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.nib
ble.net!hub1.nntpserver.com!easynews!cyclone.swbell.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.ne
t!206.13.28.33!news.pacbell.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3B293B...@pacbell.net>
From: "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net>
Reply-To: dgpo...@pacbell.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.impeach.bush,alt.politics,alt.p
olitics.bush
Subject: Re: Germany Horrified by Smirk Attitude toward Nuclear Power
References: <AbNV6.91$0x.6...@nntp2.onemain.com>
<48658b64.01061...@posting.google.com>
<3B284027...@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 13
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:32:39 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.214.187.199
X-Complaints-To: ab...@pacbell.net
X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 992557975 207.214.187.199 (Thu, 14 Jun 2001
15:32:55 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:32:55 PDT
Organization: SBC Internet Services
Xref: news.uni-mannheim.de alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:584004
alt.politics.bush:434578
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
>
> Alan McIntire wrote:
> >
> > So Germany is opposed to both Nuclear energy and fossil fuel energy.
> > They'd better hope there's a lot more global warming in the near
> > future, else they'll
> > wind up freezing to death in the dark.
>
> Or they can massacre people and burn their bodies for fuel, like they
> did to my ancestors back in the mid 1940's.
Mm, too bad they missed one in partickyoular...
______________________________________________________________________
--
A Short History Of The United States of America:
"Laugh all you want...I'm the one goin' down in history
as the Thomas Jefferson of squirrels."
BRIAR
feelings. Asshole Kluxers everyone
--
Z
.45acp because Colt never
made a .46
"johnz~" <johns...@removethishome.net> wrote in message
news:johnsabotta-0362...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
Rob Robertson
"johnz~" <johns...@removethishome.net> wrote in message
news:johnsabotta-0362...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
>
Well, clearly Porter didn't write that, even if he really did and you
include headers and paths and CPU serial numbers to prove it. The
only ones who can see this kind of thing are 'evil right wingers', and
as far as Liberal Democrats are concerned, he never said it.
Sure makes life convenient, at least in the short term.
> --
> A Short History Of The United States of America:
>
> "Laugh all you want...I'm the one goin' down in history
> as the Thomas Jefferson of squirrels."
>
> http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/meatwagon/index.html
_
Rob
P.S., remind your adorable friend that patience is a virtue,
and there are some stains that will never come out of my
dwarf assistant transmogrifier.
Steven Litvintchouk
>
> D.G. Porter - crypto-Nazi?
>
> In this message, Porter expresses the belief that the Nazis should have
> gotten around to murdering a few more innocent victims.
D.G. Porter is an ultra-left-winger who is in love with socialism.
Given how many MILLIONS of innocent people were killed in the name of
building a "socialist paradise" in the 20th century, nothing the
ultra-left-wingers advocate would surprise me.
If you weren't surprised at Stalin or Pol Pot, don't be surprised at
D.G. Porter. Their ideology made them what they were.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
"I guess I could have paid a little closer attention when I was in
English class, but it all worked out OK. I'm gainfully employed."
-- President George W. Bush
D.G. Porter
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
>
> johnz~ wrote:
> >
> > D.G. Porter - crypto-Nazi?
> >
> > In this message, Porter expresses the belief that the Nazis should have
> > gotten around to murdering a few more innocent victims.
No, just one more. ;-)
> D.G. Porter is an ultra-left-winger who is in love with socialism.
No, I'm in love with music. ;-)
> Given how many MILLIONS of innocent people were killed in the name of
> building a "socialist paradise" in the 20th century, nothing the
> ultra-left-wingers advocate would surprise me.
Steveie is brain damaged. Very little can surprise himn because of his
catatonia.
> If you weren't surprised at Stalin or Pol Pot, don't be surprised at
> D.G. Porter. Their ideology made them what they were.
Sure, Stevie, tell me more....
As a mater of fact, a nice Jewish girl once told me that the Nazis
killed off most of the good Jews, and the oneswere left were a band of
fucking assholeslike Menachem Begin, the people we were watned not to
supprt by the likes of that awful turncoat Jew Albert Einstein...
If Stevie here is an example of the ones the Nazis missed, her anecdote
bears out. Stevie is about as bad a fucker as you can get. He spews
forth hatred and xenophobia with his contant rants about "YOU ARE NOT A
REAL AMERICAN! GET OUT, TRAITOR!!! AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY!!!!"
D.G. Porter
Oh, I did say it, and I sort of meant it. Just think, if the Nazis had
gotten one of Stevie's parents -- probably his dad, as Stevarino shows
the classic signs of father-abuse -- and spared another Jew in his
place, some nice guy who just wanted to be a mensch, think of how much
nicer the world would be... no Stev-o screaming "TRAITOR!!!! GET
OUT!!!!"
I have noticed overthe years that "converts" to the American way --
usually people from dictatorships -- like the Ukraine some decads ago --
are themselves the most un-American in their lack of tolerance for
anyone who disagrees with them. Also sprinigng to mind are the Miami
Cubans and the Garden Grove/Westminster Vietnamese.
Rob Robertson
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net>, the Nazi cheerleader, wrote in message
news:3B2A42...@pacbell.net...
Ah, I see. So the Nazi Holocaust might have served some purpose if
only they had killed off the parents of your political opponents. That's
a pretty disgusting thing to suggest, and I'm surprised that "Scott" is
nowhere to be found in this thread, given his sensitive nature regarding
this kind of thing. I've come to expect that, though.
> I have noticed over the years that "converts" to the American way --
> usually people from dictatorships -- like the Ukraine some decads ago --
> are themselves the most un-American in their lack of tolerance for
> anyone who disagrees with them. Also sprinigng to mind are the Miami
> Cubans and the Garden Grove/Westminster Vietnamese.
I've noticed something similar, but I have a different perspective on it. I
think that those who have escaped the inevitable consequences of their
native land's collectivism are all the more determined to fight against it
in their newly adopted home nation. Who better to recognize the stench
of encroaching totalitarianism than those who managed to escape it? Is
it any wonder that they would be horrified by your suggestion that Nazis
should have killed at least one more victim, or in a larger sense, the air
of death and decay that surrounds modern American Liberalism?
And again, I'd note that any criticism from your liberal brethren is
conspicuously absent, and that's because you bloody collectivists
are essentially immoral and socially pathological.
No quarter.
_
Rob Robertson
wrigley
For one who tried to tell me that I need to look at the 60's with an
open mind and read the works of those involved, I am disappointed and
distrubed at your attitude. Your petulant immatuirty astounds me.
Your last part of your rant shows this lack of maturity. You rail
against the intoleration that you claim the right shows by being
equally as intolerant.
Steve's posts are some of the most thought out and rational ones on
this group. If the only way you can "beat" them is to bring out the
ad hominums, well, I for one dismiss anything you say as complete
nonsense. I would like to see one rational reply to one of Steve's or
for that matter, anyone's post that you disagree with. It may take
some effort, but I think you have it in you.
I can only imagine the response I'll get from this. I can hardly
wait.
Oh, and if you think that your response was satire and meant to be
taken as such, you have a lot to learn about satire.
Steven Litvintchouk
> . . . .
> For one who tried to tell me that I need to look at the 60's with an
> open mind and read the works of those involved, I am disappointed and
> distrubed at your attitude.
You didn't need to read D.G. Porter's posts for that.
All you needed to do, was go to your local public library, and read the
archived publications (on microfilm) on how the New Left was behaving in
the 1960's. I could tell you some of the antics I personally witnessed,
but I think it's better if you read about that era for yourself.
What has happened, is that the same left-wing radical filth that
elevated obscenity, personal irresponsibility, filth and savagery to a
political guerrilla tactic, they eventually got older, and got jobs in
academia and other intellectual avenues. From there, they have
instructed a new generation of young people in how to behave just like
they did. They had rioted at Columbia University and the Democratic
National Convention in 1968; now they teach young people to follow their
example at Seattle and Prague and elsewhere.
Search the Web for the name "Todd Gitlin," for starters.
> Oh, and if you think that your response was satire and meant to be
> taken as such, you have a lot to learn about satire.
The left-wing continually and deliberately confuses obscenity with
"satire," and sarcasm with "humor."
When they take pleasure in contemplating the death or illness or
suffering of their political opponents, that is obscenity, not satire.
When they engage in snide innuendos and personal attacks, that is
sarcasm, not humor.
A good place to start, in refuting about 80% of their posts, is a
dictionary of the English language.
wrigley
Thanks for the input. I have tired to ignore most of his stuff, but
that was so far over the top, I couldn't let it go.
I'll look up the name later this evening. And since I was born n
1968, and was in college during the late 80's I had my share of
"propressive" professors. I never could and still can't understand
the comtempt and hatred and anger I saw from them and still see today
in this NG.
wrigley
Well, it should have read tried, not tired.
D.G. Porter
>
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:24:33 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >wrigley wrote:
> >> . . . .
> >> For one who tried to tell me that I need to look at the 60's with an
> >> open mind and read the works of those involved, I am disappointed and
> >> distrubed at your attitude.
> >
> >You didn't need to read D.G. Porter's posts for that.
> >
> >All you needed to do, was go to your local public library, and read the
> >archived publications (on microfilm) on how the New Left was behaving in
> >the 1960's. I could tell you some of the antics I personally witnessed,
Yeah but you won't because we'd all laugh at your pansy-ass selff!
> >but I think it's better if you read about that era for yourself.
> >
> >What has happened, is that the same left-wing radical filth that
> >elevated obscenity, personal irresponsibility, filth and savagery to a
> >political guerrilla tactic,
I'M JUST A CORPSE WHO CAN'T SAY FILLLLLTH, I'M IN A TERRIBLE RAT!
Hey Stevie, just fuck yourself and then die, you worthless piece of
ratshit batshit dirty old twat, 10,000 assholes tied inna knot.
> they eventually got older, and got jobs in
> >academia and other intellectual avenues. From there, they have
> >instructed a new generation of young people in how to behave just like
> >they did. They had rioted at Columbia University and the Democratic
> >National Convention in 1968; now they teach young people to follow their
> >example at Seattle and Prague and elsewhere.
> >
> >Search the Web for the name "Todd Gitlin," for starters.
> >
> >
> >> Oh, and if you think that your response was satire and meant to be
> >> taken as such, you have a lot to learn about satire.
I know more about satire than you will ever know. You probably whined
about South Park when they made fun out of child molestation too. Fuck
off.
> >The left-wing continually and deliberately confuses obscenity with
> >"satire," and sarcasm with "humor."
Oh dear, there's obscentiy present! YOU PATHETIC WEAK SISTER. You
don't have one good GOD DAMN in you and you never will, ball-less loser.
> >When they take pleasure in contemplating the death or illness or
> >suffering of their political opponents, that is obscenity, not satire.
Too fucking bad for you, dipshit...
You sound just like "the old ladies of 1958." The sooner you die and
stop wasting my O2 the better.
> >When they engage in snide innuendos and personal attacks, that is
> >sarcasm, not humor.
Awwwwww... gonna cwy for us, Stevie??
> >A good place to start, in refuting about 80% of their posts, is a
> >dictionary of the English language.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Steven D. Litvintchouk
> >Email: sdli...@earthlink.net
> >
> >"I guess I could have paid a little closer attention when I was in
> >English class, but it all worked out OK. I'm gainfully employed."
> > -- President George W. Bush
>
> Thanks for the input. I have tried to ignore most of his stuff, but
> that was so far over the top, I couldn't let it go.
Awwww, I hurt someone's feelings... Stevie can dish it out but he can't
take it.
As ar as his ridiculous rant about the '60s goes, he wasn't there
either.
And you know who is the most anti-PC when it comes to how the Holocaust
selectively kiled off good people and left assholes?
Other jews!!
> I'll look up the name later this evening. And since I was born n
> 1968, and was in college during the late 80's I had my share of
> "propressive" professors. I never could and still can't understand
> the comtempt and hatred and anger I saw from them and still see today
> in this NG.
Because YOU WEREN'T THERE when they were in control. People do not just
WAKE UP one day and think, "Gosh! I, I think I'll hate conservatives!"
No, we were beaten (sometimes but not always physically) into this mode
by their own actions against us.
I'm really goddam tired of Jews, Armenians, blacks , Injuns and anyone
else -- Irish too -- who think their shit don't stink because "We was
genocided!" in the past! GET OVER IT. TuTu-Tutsi good by, TuTu-Tutsi
don't cry.
Litvinchuck is still an asshole.
And you Wiggley, if that's the kind of person you like, being and want
to be, well, go ahead, but I'll be laffing at you all the way just as I
laff at Stevaloonie.
wrigley
You were that weak that your only response was to become a shallow,
hate-filled man. I guess is was tougher than I can imagine. It's a
wonder my Uncles didn't turn out like that.
>I'm really goddam tired of Jews, Armenians, blacks , Injuns and anyone
>else -- Irish too -- who think their shit don't stink because "We was
>genocided!" in the past! GET OVER IT. TuTu-Tutsi good by, TuTu-Tutsi
>don't cry.
>
>Litvinchuck is still an asshole.
>
>And you Wiggley, if that's the kind of person you like, being and want
>to be, well, go ahead, but I'll be laffing at you all the way just as I
>laff at Stevaloonie.
Well, Porter, you really have a way with words. I have yet to see you
rationally answer any points made by someone with a different point of
view.
I am wasting my time with you.
Kurt Nicklas
Like most people consumed with hatred, D.G., I doubt you are capable of
'laffing'.
God have mercy on you.........
--
Kurt Nicklas
Weasel Quotes:
'Strange fucking morals you got. Your parents disgraced
themselves by not strangling you.'
-- Bryan Z. Jamieson(ze...@snowcrest.net)
Who gives a shit what these nuts like or don't like.
Koresh them all.
--Gary Roselles(rose...@idt.net)
Face it, I know this stuff better than you. You just can't
stand that, can you?
--Scott Erb(scot...@maine.maine.edu)
http://home.sprynet.com/~tiberias/leftwinghate.htm
D.G. Porter
>
> Well, Porter, you really have a way with words. I have yet to see you
> rationally answer any points made by someone with a different point of
> view.
>
> I am wasting my time with you.
You are quite different that Stovieloon. He deserves nothing but my
contempt, and today is his lucky day because I don't feel like trying to
be civil with assholes.
If you have "yet" to see me answer someone with different "points of
view" (a euphemistic crock for someone who is a throwback to 1903),
you're not looking hard.
What you must also be missing is the unadulterated hatred Stevebaby
spews at anyone he doesn't consider a "real and true" American. Which
is exactly why he gets the insults hurled at him.
He doesn't know SHIT about the '60s, and all he complains about is
"filth" and anything "not being a nice emascluated boy." I knw a ot of
Steves. They all have assholes fo Dads and their dads threat them like
shit. They hope thatbecoming a bigger asshole their daddies will
finally love them. So they look for enemies, demonize their opponents,
go on about "filth" and such. And they always tell "us" to get out and
leave "their" America.
I remember these assholes rioting in Chicago in 1968 -- they can't deny
thousands of feet of footage showing their hat-hatted asshole selves
beating up unarmed people. I've heard them cheer the assholes on TV.
I've been called every name you can imagine. And I'm expected to be
"nice" and take it, and when I stop taking it, listen to them howl.
Stev-o-loon is Mr. Hyde 1000%. Making Holocaust references is really
too good for him.
He's a redneck shitkicker wannabe. He hopes he'll fit in with a bunch
of shitkickers in a bar, but they'd kick his Yiddish ass clear into next
week. And then he'd cry out how antiSemitic they were. He's also no
different from the Taliban and they're about as Jewish as a sedimentary
rock is, so throw that crap out the window and see him for what he is --
a whining, pathetic little excuse for a Nazi sympathizer who happens to
be someone other than an Aryan blond. Put him in a position of power
and he'll apply Holocaustian methodogy to anyone he doesn't agree with.
I've had my fill of his kind and today is just his lucky day.
D.G. Porter
>
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:13:01 -0700, "D.G. Porter"
> <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> [snipped stuff that is irrelevant to me]
>
> >
> >Sure, Stevie, tell me more....
> >
> >As a mater of fact, a nice Jewish girl once told me that the Nazis
> >killed off most of the good Jews, and the oneswere left were a band of
> >fucking assholeslike Menachem Begin, the people we were watned not to
> >supprt by the likes of that awful turncoat Jew Albert Einstein...
> problems with Steven Livintchouk, because, basically I agree with you,
> politically. But, your "nice Jewish girl" is wrong, and if you knew
> anything about Holocaust psychology, you would know this to be true.
> My Dad, for instance, NOT an asshole btw, survived through sheer luck,
> even more than determination.
Congratulations to your father. Sincerely.
> And this , "the people we were watned
> not to supprt by the likes of that awful turncoat Jew Albert
> Einstein..." do I not only _not_ understand, but "that awful turncoat
> Jew Albert Einstein"?? Perhaps you wouldn't mind a bit of elucidation
> on this, please?
Sure.
When assholes like Begin were killing Palestinians in order to sieze
land, Jews like Einstein were publicizing warnings that those guys were
not representative of the whole of Jews, but a radical and dangerous
fringe group. Naturally, the assholes turned on him.
For decades, jews and Muslims had lived in pAlestine in peace, and then
a bunch of right-wing wackos decided they were entitled to take land
away from non-Jews.
Have you ever heard Irv Rubin on this subject? Or the late (and not
lamented by me) Meir Kahane (that Brooklyn Creep)? I did. According to
him, Palestinians are not Semitic people, they are Turks, and they are
"squatting" on what is rightly Israeli land. So if you support
Palestinians in any way or form, you are anti-Semitic.
(Kahane also had this disgusting habit of sounding like he was noisily
eating with his fingers whenever he spoke. Ech.)
Some people say there can neve be such a thing as a "Jewish Nazi." of
course there can be. "Nazi-ism" is anoutlook, and all you do is
substitute YOUR group for "German" or "Aryan" and substitute whateve
group you're currently fashionable hating for "Jews" or "Gypsies" and
VOILA! IMO Ariel Sharon in a Jewish Nazi.
I had a run-in with Shelly Rubin, Irv's wife. It's no secret that they
privately supported the assasination of Alex Odeh (who wa a personal
friend of my wife's). But if you called them on this they answered with
libel suit threats. And they also hauled out the old cnard,
"anti-Semite" and "Holocaust supporter!" IOW, if you ain't fer 'em
100%, you agin 'em 100%.
Well, fuck them and theirs.
> >If Stevie here is an example of the ones the Nazis missed, her anecdote
> >bears out. Stevie is about as bad a fucker as you can get. He spews
> >forth hatred and xenophobia with his contant rants about "YOU ARE NOT A
> >REAL AMERICAN! GET OUT, TRAITOR!!! AID AND COMFORT TO THE ENEMY!!!!"
> Although you may be correct about Steven "spew(ing) forth hatred", it
> still does not cause and effect lead to a denigration of anyone from
> his past, or the way in which they perished. Nor, should it cause you
> to wish his death, or anyone else's, although I know where your rage
> comes from, believe me. You, behaving in this way, as Beck did in that
> other thread that (thankfully) has seemed to die, gives those on the
> right ammunition against the left by pointing to you as that "violent
> leftist" they keep talking about. You are certainly entitled to your
> opinions, but perhaps some of them could remain silent ones.
I am not ahsamed for wishing death on assholes. They're lucky I'm
either too lazy or sane to take it any further.
> Scott
>
> All that is necessary for Evil to triumph,
> is for good people to do nothing.
First they came for ... then they came for ... then they came for me...
Steven Litvintchouk
> . . . .
> 1968, and was in college during the late 80's I had my share of
> "propressive" professors. I never could and still can't understand
> the comtempt and hatred and anger I saw from them and still see today
> in this NG.
I also recommend the following book:
"The Making of the President: 1968", by Theodore H. White.
This was journalist Theodore White's chronicle of the 1968 Presidential
election. But as part of that, White also detailed the rise of the New
Left, and their effect upon the American political process.
But one point White doesn't pay enough attention to, is how the American
left-wing intellectual establishment got so turned off to American
society by the early 1960's. (This was long before the Vietnam War
became a big issue.)
I think it had to do with the fact that we started facing major issues
that stripped away our earlier innocence.
First, the development and stockpiling of nuclear weapons meant that
America now faced the possibility of its own destruction. (The
continental U.S. had survived World War II virtually unscathed.) And
this shook intellectuals. Especially since it was the U.S. that had
developed and USED nuclear weapons in the first place, something that
the American left-wing has always felt very guilty about.
Second, the race issue went critical and could no longer be ignored.
The spectacle of seeing Southern state governments brutalizing black
civil-rights demonstrators (look up the name "Bull Connor"), said
something really negative about Americans as a people.
Third, America had always prided itself on a "can-do" spirit. We used
to be very proud of our scientists and inventors: Fulton, Bell, Edison,
etc. But starting with the invention of nuclear weapons, this faith in
science and technology began to erode. In 1960, Rachel Carson published
the explosive seminal book, "Silent Spring" (another book for you to
check out). She discussed a world poisoned by insecticides and other
pollutants of our industrial civilization. This was the beginning of
the modern popular environmental movement, which for the first time
called into question the development of technology for its own sake, and
its impact on world society.
In response to all this, the avant-garde intellectuals responded in a
typical fashion--by rebelling. First you had the beatniks of the
1950's, and then the hippies of the late 1960's. And the liberal
intellectuals in academia and media egged them on to rebel against the
"establishment" in any way possible--drugs, sex, etc.--as a way to
basically say "NO". While the New Left borrowed slogans of old-style
Marxists, they really weren't in the same category as Bakunin or Rosa
Luxembourg. These college students had never worked for a capitalist in
a factory (probably they had never held a full-time job in their lives),
and so this stuff was simply worn on their sleeve. The seminal
manifesto of the New Left was called the "Port Huron Statement," written
by a very influential New Left organization called the Students for a
Democratic Society (SDS). (If there is one organization you need to
learn more about, it's SDS, and its terrorist splinter group, the
Weather Underground.)
This rebellion was made easier by a coincidence: the rise of the Earl
Warren Supreme Court, whose liberal judicial activism tended to weaken
societal strictures. Thus the whole trend in the 1960's was away from
conformity, toward rebellion, away from patriotism and idealism, and
toward cynicism and disrespect for American institutions.
There is a precedent for such trends. World War I had also deeply
shocked intellectuals and media pundits. Science and technology
(airplanes, submarines, tanks, etc.) had been applied to produce a mass
slaughter. Following World War I, you also had a similar intellectual
rebellion: the "dada-ist" movement, accompanied by an increase in the
use of alcohol and drugs, and a flirtation with Marxism. Among the
intellectuals, the affluent, and the avant-garde, Marxism became
considered chic.
Hope this helps.
Steven Litvintchouk
>
> wrigley wrote:
> > . . . .
> > I'll look up the name later this evening. And since I was born n
> > 1968, and was in college during the late 80's I had my share of
> > "propressive" professors. I never could and still can't understand
> > the comtempt and hatred and anger I saw from them and still see today
> > in this NG.
I should have mentioned one other thing: the Vietnam War. As you know,
whenever you ask far-left-wingers why they came to hate the U.S.,
somewhere in their reply they will invariably mention Vietnam. As I
said, cynicism about America was already well under way by the early
1960's among the fringe elements of America's left-wing intellectuals.
But the Vietnam War gave them their first opportunity to build a
broad-based popular political movement.
What made Vietnam such an explosive issue for America's young people, of
course, was that back then we still had a military draft. The Johnson
Administration was never able to explain to America's youth (and their
families) why they should be drafted out of school and sent off to
combat in Vietnam. This gave the left-wing a real issue they could
exploit that resonated with all young people.
Young people felt particularly helpless in that at the time, the legal
voting age was still 21. (It didn't get lowered to 18 until the passage
of a Constitutional Amendment during the Nixon Administration.) So they
couldn't even express their disenchantment at the ballot box. The only
other way, was organized protest. And protest they did--both against
the Vietnam War, and against the military draft that was sending them
there.
Even now, I am at a loss to explain how intelligent men in the Pentagon,
the State Department, and the White House could have blundered us into
Vietnam like they did. The best reference is still "The Pentagon
Papers," the secret history of the Vietnam War during the JFK and LBJ
Administrations, that Daniel Ellsberg (another name you should look up)
had leaked to the press. If you can get a copy of "The Pentagon
Papers," it's a great read. You can read the actual Government
memoranda that explain how and why we blundered into Vietnam. (Since
then we've learned much more, like the origin of the Gulf of Tonkin
incident, but "The Pentagon Papers" is still the best place to start
looking.)
wrigley
Thanks for those sources. Currently I am reading Paul Johnson's
"Modern Times." The first chapter deals with what I think is a major
cause of many of the problems we are facing now, which is moral
relativism. His chapter on the sixties is interesting as well.
Wilson
A little truth always does.
There was also the factor of Soviet money being spread around.
(Yep, the USSR had a budget for ecouraging foment in capitalistic
societies. The Black Panthers and the IRA, were among may groups
that benefited from Soviet largess, some of that commie money
may have paid some of Hillary's legal fees vis a vis the
Panthers)
One reformed (matured) yippie leader of the 'off your parents"
movement allowed later than all he had to do was call a press
conference, and the Media would show up in droves. He was amazed
that the more outrageous his statements the more the press lapped
it up.
Captain Compassion
I find the new left cowardly. You can make an argument for Socialism
or for that matted even Communism. But you cant make any kind of
argument for a hybird of Capitalism/do-good-statism. Their arguments
are shrill and their words drip venom because their arguments are
weak.
Remember, Hitler demonized the "rich jews" who were
"running everything". Today, you guys just leave off the
word "Jew". Same politics, different time.- John Shafto
"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express
it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot
measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind." Lord Kelvin
"You can never really own more than you can carry with two hands while
running at full speed." -- Robert A. Heinlein
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the
baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their
own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to
their self love." Adam Smith 1776
The Greens/Green Party USA
PO Box 1134
Lawrence, MA 01842
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Jeff Zamrzla
conservative than most republicans I know. I just happen to believe that we
are our brothers keepers, unlike most republicans I know.
"Captain Compassion" <dar...@uia.net> wrote in message
news:3b2bf656...@news.uia.net...
Steven Litvintchouk
>
> . . . .
> or for that matted even Communism. But you cant make any kind of
> argument for a hybird of Capitalism/do-good-statism. Their arguments
> are shrill and their words drip venom because their arguments are
> weak.
The New Left was always more sure of what they were AGAINST, rather than
what they were FOR.
I think that reflects the fact that it was largely a youth movement, and
young people are always rebelling against something or other.
Today's "Generation X" anti-globalization protesters are similar, having
been actually instructed in protest and ideology by some of their New
Left predecessors (who are now older and grayer). They protest and riot
against globalization and such, but they haven't the foggiest idea of
just what kind of society they would like to see.
For example, Naomi Klein talks like she got her Marxism-Leninism out of
comic books. (Her parents had been New Left hippies themselves, and
probably knew much more about group sex and marijuana than Marxism.)
Her signature issue is "No Logo"--don't buy designer jeans and other
products with capitalist trademarks prominently displayed.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0616-01.htm
Steven Litvintchouk
> . . . .
> "Modern Times." The first chapter deals with what I think is a major
> cause of many of the problems we are facing now, which is moral
> relativism. His chapter on the sixties is interesting as well.
I would be curious as to what Johnson believes is the origin of moral
relativism.
Partly, the left-wing totalitarian societies (most notably USSR) ran on
this principle. Because whatever Stalin decided had to be rationalized
as consistent with Marxism. So throughout Stalin's rule, the western
Communist parties (including the U.S. Communist party) kept changing
their own policies and programs in order to follow Stalin's lead.
(George Orwell's famous novel "1984" satirizes this, depicting a
totalitarian society that keeps rewriting its own history books to
rationalize current policies.)
Beyond that, the New Left was primarily a youth rebellion, and young
people always like to piss off their parents, have sex, get drunk, and
use drugs. Moral relativism was a convenient rationalization for
rebelling against one's parents and the rest of the "Establishment." If
you're rebelling, you will be suspicious of anyone telling you that you
are not civil or are acting boorishly or not morally. Moral strictures
are viewed as just another set of oppressive rules laid down by the
"Establishment."
That's my take on it.
Scott Erb
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
>
> Captain Compassion wrote:
> >
> > . . . .
> > I find the new left cowardly. You can make an argument for Socialism
> > or for that matted even Communism. But you cant make any kind of
> > argument for a hybird of Capitalism/do-good-statism. Their arguments
> > are shrill and their words drip venom because their arguments are
> > weak.
>
> The New Left was always more sure of what they were AGAINST, rather than
> what they were FOR.
> I think that reflects the fact that it was largely a youth movement, and
> young people are always rebelling against something or other.
Ideologies are interesting, but while the so-called Left can
easily lambast and ridicule conservatives, and the so-called
right can easily lambast and ridicule liberals and the Left, the
fact is that exchanges such as yours represents an attack on a
caricature, your own reconceptualization of what others think,
and is just as simplistic and misguided as the knee jerk attack
by the Left on conservatives.
Still, a couple points: Rebelliousness is the start of creative
intelligence. The key is to question the status quo, and both
the Right and Left have rebellious thinkers, which is good.
Second, most people on the Left now are FOR just as much as the
right is FOR, the other side always sees it as opposition to
their goals.
> Today's "Generation X" anti-globalization protesters are similar, having
> been actually instructed in protest and ideology by some of their New
> Left predecessors (who are now older and grayer). They protest and riot
> against globalization and such, but they haven't the foggiest idea of
> just what kind of society they would like to see.
I disagree there, students both pro- and anti-globalization have
very distinct views of the world they would like to see, even if
they are unsure how to get there. I've talked extensively with
students about issues like globalization, and have seen students
waver from a more WTO-Friendly perspective to opposition, based
on what they think the results of the policy will be -- will it
lead to a world of the sort they'd like to see. (Personally, I
think the WTO is a necessity, though protests play a role to
assure it isn't dominated by monied interests and big business.
Globalization is good, but politics will help determine what
kind of globalization we have).
> For example, Naomi Klein talks like she got her Marxism-Leninism out of
> comic books. (Her parents had been New Left hippies themselves, and
> probably knew much more about group sex and marijuana than Marxism.)
> Her signature issue is "No Logo"--don't buy designer jeans and other
> products with capitalist trademarks prominently displayed.
I'm not sure what the point of that is; I don't think too many
on the Left take that approach, especially the youth!
BitHead
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>wrigley wrote:
>> . . . .
>> Thanks for those sources. Currently I am reading Paul Johnson's
>> "Modern Times." The first chapter deals with what I think is a major
>> cause of many of the problems we are facing now, which is moral
>> relativism. His chapter on the sixties is interesting as well.
>
>I would be curious as to what Johnson believes is the origin of moral
>relativism.
>
>Partly, the left-wing totalitarian societies (most notably USSR) ran on
>this principle. Because whatever Stalin decided had to be rationalized
>as consistent with Marxism. So throughout Stalin's rule, the western
>Communist parties (including the U.S. Communist party) kept changing
>their own policies and programs in order to follow Stalin's lead.
>(George Orwell's famous novel "1984" satirizes this, depicting a
>totalitarian society that keeps rewriting its own history books to
>rationalize current policies.)
Moral relativism is at the very heart of socialism.
I've written about this previously.....
"It is interesting and revealing to note that among those who during
our history sought world domination, and those who seek an end
to Western civilization, each is uniformly seen as attacking the
MORALITY of the people of the west. Marx, Neitzsche, Sumner,
Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Che, Mao, and more recently the cultural
revolutionaries of 1960’s America who hold the above as role
models, all have held our morality to be their biggest enemy.
According to all these, the religions which taught and reinforced this
morality (Judaism as much as Christianity) were and remain EVIL
influences, opiates from which the world needed to be freed… if
they were ever to attain their supposedly utopian goals of socialism
and moral relativism. Even to the biased observer, it seems clear
that those seeking an end of our way of life uniformly understand the
biggest reason for America's success is our morality.
Indeed, this understanding goes back as far as socialism does. Marx
himself of course wanted to end all religion as being counter
productive to the needs of the state. But that view's been refined
somewhat, to get us to the point where we are today:
Back in the early 1900’s there was an Italian communist by the name of
Antonio Gramsci. He theorized that it would take a ‘long
march through the institutions" before socialism and relativism would
overcome the existing social structures and mores. Now, up to
that time, socialists had tended to think (at Marx's instruction) that
the only way socialism would grab hold of world power, was to
get enough workers to unite to the cause, who would then violently
overthrow the power in place.
But Gramsci rejected that argument. It was he who figured out that by
capturing control of key institutions such as schools, social
centers, social programs, etc, and using their societal position and
the power obtained from that position, that the cultural values of
the people could be changed, traditional morals could and would be
broken down, and that the wheels would be set into motion to
bring down the political and economic power of the west. The key,
thought Gramsci, was to undermine and subvert the belief in
God. Chip away at the the western cultural concept that there are a
set of divinely inspired moral attributes, enshrine the attitudes in
the codification of the socialist's tool, big government, and the
problem of pushing socialism, moral relativism, and materialism as a
totality, becomes far easier. In short, remove the bedrock and the
whole thing washes away.
I suggest to you that it is Gramsci’s version of cultural warfare we
are fighting today. It is simply impossible to fight such a war on
electoral politics alone; you cannot sell people on the ideas behind
the socialist movement without altering their perception of moral
reality first. The basis of politics, I.E.: the culture needs to be
re-defined for the socialists to win."
>
>Beyond that, the New Left was primarily a youth rebellion, and young
>people always like to piss off their parents, have sex, get drunk, and
>use drugs. Moral relativism was a convenient rationalization for
>rebelling against one's parents and the rest of the "Establishment."
It was also a great foothold for those seeking to overthrow the west.
Consider the moral fights the left involves itself in. Think of it
this way; They complain loud and long about the morality of the rest
of us being imposed on THEM, but they seem to have no problem with
their morality being imposed on US, by means of law. Consider the
number of idiots telling us SUV's are immoral, for example.
The only conclusion one may draw is that their objection isn't that a
morality is being imposed, but WHOSE. So how does one explain their
push toward relativism shile still trying to impose their version of
morality? Why, simply this; one must tear down an existing building
before putting up a new, desired one, in it's place.
Scott Erb
BitHead wrote:
> Moral relativism is at the very heart of socialism.
It depends on the socialist, or how you are defining socialism.
I doubt must on the left in the US or Europe today are moral
relativists.
Also, what do you mean by "moral relativism?" If a socialist
has a moral vision that is atheistic and humanist, but yet
clings to very specific values, is that relativist? Is a moral
relativist anyone that denies the moral views you hold? What if
you have two moral absolutists with different moral beliefs, how
do you determine which of them is right? How are moral beliefs
applied in context?
These are difficult decisions. For someone like me, a moral
absolutist, I'm not always sure how to apply my moral beliefs in
context. I also know I can't prove my moral beliefs in terms of
science or rational argumentation because they rest on
non-falsifiable value judgements. So what happens if I meet
someone with different moral views? Does my absolutist beliefs
mean I should condemn them and try to destroy their position, or
should I recognize that as a fallible human I may be wrong in my
beliefs. What about applying moral views on context. Some of
the flamesters (who have become more a joke in recent months,
especially in their amusing little friends and enemies thread
which gave me a lot of belly laughs), point to a moral decision
I made in context at age 18 not to charge employees for pizza
because I felt they were getting underpaid by a wealthy owner.
At this point in my life, I would say I misapplied my moral
reasoning and that was the wrong thing to do. But my moral
beliefs remain the same, my thoughts about their application to
context have become more sophisticated over the years. But is
there one way to do that?
Moral relativism is too often used as a blanket attack on people
with "different" moral beliefs, or those who question the
veracity of the beliefs of one group of moral absolutists. The
challenge to the absolutists is to explain how absent proof of
their moral view they deal with those with different moral
beliefs, and how they apply their moral beliefs in context. I
try to live my own life by my moral beliefs, and assess their
application. But what do I do when I confront someone with
different moral beliefs? Am I a relativist because I accept I
might be wrong in my view?
Clearly, the issue is more complicated than you suggest.
Martin McPhillips
>
> BitHead wrote:
>
> > Moral relativism is at the very heart of socialism.
>
> It depends on the socialist, or how you are defining socialism.
> I doubt must on the left in the US or Europe today are moral
> relativists.
You really make me laugh, Scott.
Your definition of socialism changes as you see fit; you
can't even keep that much straight. Suddenly you "doubt most
on the left...are moral relativists."
> Also, what do you mean by "moral relativism?"
You're a moral relativist, Scott. You don't believe in
an inherent right to life. You believe that one man's
property isn't necessarily his. You think that killing
unborn children is a "reproductive choice" that "protects
women." The beginning and end of life are relative to you,
and you see no inherent just claim on life.
You also admit that you don't know the difference between
good and evil, that this is a difficult proposition, with
too great a variance in meaning to say which is really
which.
And this moral relativism of yours, Scott, extends to every
topic you discuss, and amounts not just to moral relativism,
but to moral confusion. That's why it's such a hilarity
when you speak of your ethics: you have none. You are only
obedient to the prevailing social constructs, and you'd
gladly string barbed wire around a gulag if the wind blew
you in that direction.
Steven Litvintchouk
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> BitHead wrote:
>
> > Moral relativism is at the very heart of socialism.
>
> It depends on the socialist, or how you are defining socialism.
> I doubt must on the left in the US or Europe today are moral
> relativists.
Are you kidding?
The left-wing is constantly complaining that the "religious right" is
trying to impose their morality on the lefties.
In response to this, I've pointed out that the left-wing is not only
pro-choice, but wants the U.S. Government to PAY for women's abortions,
not only in the U.S. but overseas as well. This would mean that
pro-life taxpayers would be paying their tax money to support a practice
THEY regard as morally abhorrent. The left-wing couldn't care less
about that though.
In addition to this, the left-wing is absolutely intolerant of people's
practice of their own religion. I once got into a discussion with some
left-wingers about medical circumcision. But I was surprised to see
that they would like the U.S. Government to actually BAN circumcision
outright, even for orthodox Jews who regard circumcision as a religious
practice. When I pointed this out to them, their answer was that if
Jews don't like this, they should change their religion.
Also consider the issue of "political correctness."
Many feminists claim that pornography exploits women. OK, but then they
also demand that the Government impose strict curbs on pornography, some
of which would directly violate the First Amendment.
> Also, what do you mean by "moral relativism?" If a socialist
> has a moral vision that is atheistic and humanist, but yet
> clings to very specific values, is that relativist?
No. It is relativist if the socialist doesn't have strong moral values,
but believes that one person's morality is no better or worse than
another.
This assumption is at the heart of the left-wing's
"multiculturalism"--tacit acceptance of tyranny in the Third World. The
left-wing is constantly howling about how the U.S. is trying to "impose
its values" on the Third World. As if the "values" of the Third World
are worth preserving. In reality, most of central Africa is a PESTHOLE
of oppression, war, and ethnic cleansing (remember Rwanda and Sudan?).
> These are difficult decisions. For someone like me, a moral
> absolutist, I'm not always sure how to apply my moral beliefs in
> context. I also know I can't prove my moral beliefs in terms of
> science or rational argumentation because they rest on
> non-falsifiable value judgements. So what happens if I meet
> someone with different moral views? Does my absolutist beliefs
> mean I should condemn them and try to destroy their position, or
> should I recognize that as a fallible human I may be wrong in my
> beliefs.
That depends on your fundamental definition of good vs. evil. If you
met Jeffrey Dahmer while he was preparing his cuisine, would you have
considered that "different moral values"? Or true evil? Did you
consider Hitler's belief it was OK to massacre the Jews as "different
moral values"?
I have real problems with people who are such moral relativists that
they don't support the Golden Rule: "What is hurtful to you, do not do
to others." If someone hurts innocent people, that's evil, not
"different". (Sometimes it may be a NECESSARY evil, such as in
wartime--but a necessary evil is still evil.)
I guess for me, the aforementioned Golden Rule (don't hurt others who
have done you no harm) is a litmus test.
Steven Litvintchouk
> . . . .
Gramsci had a good point about undermining the ties that bind a society
together.
HOWEVER: The problem with the rest of Gramsci's argument, and your
critique of it, is that you both seem to assume that RELIGION is the
bedrock of capitalist society, which then must be undermined. The
successful Communist takeovers of Russia, China, Vietnam, etc., didn't
depend on overthrowing religion first. (Religion was oppressed after
the Communists took over.)
I think Gramsci got off the track there, and so the New Left didn't just
focus on attacking RELIGION alone.
Rather, there are a whole series of emotional ties, ethical ties, and
philosophical ties that have bound Western society together, not just
religion. I suggest some of these are: material well-being (having
enough to eat, etc.), patriotism, a sense of community, optimism (faith
in the future), belief in individual rights trumping majority (mob)
rule. And especially the "Golden Rule": "What is hurtful to you, do
not do to others." Each and every one of these principles has been
under systematic attack by the modern left-wing. Their goal is not so
much to promote moral relativism per se, but to inculcate a sense of
cynicism, pessimism and despair in the populace. If the people come to
believe their society is just not worth preserving, they won't summon
the will to defend it against a real challenge.
By the way, though not leftists, Hitler's Nazis also successfully
practiced this principle of "undermine your enemies from within."
France became so internally weakened by cynicism and despair (Hitler's
so-called "Fifth Columnists") that she proved unequal to the task of
confronting Hitler. Read Shirer's "The Collapse of the Third Republic"
sometime.
Wilson
>
>
>BitHead wrote:
>
>> Moral relativism is at the very heart of socialism.
>
>It depends on the socialist, or how you are defining socialism.
>I doubt must on the left in the US or Europe today are moral
>relativists.
>
>Also, what do you mean by "moral relativism?"
Good luck bithead, you'll need it!
Wilson
>BitHead wrote:
>> . . . .
>> "It is interesting and revealing to note that among those who during
>> our history sought world domination, and those who seek an end
>> to Western civilization, each is uniformly seen as attacking the
>> MORALITY of the people of the west. Marx, Neitzsche, Sumner,
>> Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Che, Mao, and more recently the cultural
>> models, all have held our morality to be their biggest enemy.
>> According to all these, the religions which taught and reinforced this
>> morality (Judaism as much as Christianity) were and remain EVIL
>> they were ever to attain their supposedly utopian goals of socialism
>> and moral relativism. Even to the biased observer, it seems clear
>> that those seeking an end of our way of life uniformly understand the
>> biggest reason for America's success is our morality.
>
>> Indeed, this understanding goes back as far as socialism does. Marx
>> himself of course wanted to end all religion as being counter
>> productive to the needs of the state. But that view's been refined
>> somewhat, to get us to the point where we are today:
>
>> Back in the early 1900=92s there was an Italian communist by the name o=
>f
>> Antonio Gramsci. He theorized that it would take a =91long
>> march through the institutions" before socialism and relativism would
>> overcome the existing social structures and mores. Now, up to
>> that time, socialists had tended to think (at Marx's instruction) that
>> the only way socialism would grab hold of world power, was to
>> get enough workers to unite to the cause, who would then violently
>> overthrow the power in place.
>
>> But Gramsci rejected that argument. It was he who figured out that by
>> capturing control of key institutions such as schools, social
>> centers, social programs, etc, and using their societal position and
>> the power obtained from that position, that the cultural values of
>> the people could be changed, traditional morals could and would be
>> broken down, and that the wheels would be set into motion to
>> bring down the political and economic power of the west. The key,
>> thought Gramsci, was to undermine and subvert the belief in
>> God. Chip away at the the western cultural concept that there are a
>> set of divinely inspired moral attributes, enshrine the attitudes in
>> the codification of the socialist's tool, big government, and the
>> problem of pushing socialism, moral relativism, and materialism as a
>> totality, becomes far easier. In short, remove the bedrock and the
>> whole thing washes away.
>
>Gramsci had a good point about undermining the ties that bind a society
>together.
>
>HOWEVER: The problem with the rest of Gramsci's argument, and your
>critique of it, is that you both seem to assume that RELIGION is the
>bedrock of capitalist society, which then must be undermined. The
>successful Communist takeovers of Russia, China, Vietnam, etc., didn't
>depend on overthrowing religion first. (Religion was oppressed after
>the Communists took over.)
>
>I think Gramsci got off the track there, and so the New Left didn't just
>focus on attacking RELIGION alone.
The communists and their socialist friends, see the road to power
as co-opting all of society's institutions.
Religion is just another social insitution to be controlled.
Socialists always used the argument that the church was alive and
functioning in the USSR during the 70 years of communist rule. It
wasn't totally "Godless" they reminded us.
Far easier to control a popular institution, than destroy it.
A Pope's visit can do wonders for your popularity when the vast
proletariat are in dire straights. Ask Castro.
Gandalf Grey
Wilson <hee...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:_w7X6.21389$Mb7.7...@brie.direct.ca...
When of course they can wrest the planned control of American religion out
of the hands of the Christian Coalition, that is.
What a joke you are, Witless.
Wilson
Welcome back, Paperboy.
You're late.
D.G. Porter
>
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:41:59 -0700, "D.G. Porter"
> <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >I had a run-in with Shelly Rubin, Irv's wife. It's no secret that they
> >privately supported the assasination of Alex Odeh (who wa a personal
> >friend of my wife's). But if you called them on this they answered with
> >libel suit threats. And they also hauled out the old cnard,
> >"anti-Semite" and "Holocaust supporter!" IOW, if you ain't fer 'em
> >100%, you agin 'em 100%.
> >Well, fuck them and theirs.
>
> talking about. Resources?
Alex Odeh was one of my wife's professors. They became friends. One
night Odeh was on TV giving the "Palestianian" (or whatever) point of
view, and defending them, in the face of someone else who baseically
thought they had no right to exist. I didn't see this but I read about
it in the aftermath. The next day Odeh was bombed at his office. The
people who bombed himand his ffice got away into Israel. As far as I
know they are still there, Israel refuses to extradite them. The Rubins
were of the opinion that Odeh got what he deserved. They were open
about it until their lawyer told them to shut up.
When I was on the phone with the bitch (she wanted a reference for some
crackpot I knew who was pretending to be a journalist), I suddenly
realized she was Irv's wife, and I said something (keeping very
circumspect) about Odeh. Man, she just went ballistic! Threatened to
sue me!
BitHead
wrote:
>
>
>BitHead wrote:
>
>> Moral relativism is at the very heart of socialism.
>
>It depends on the socialist, or how you are defining socialism.
>I doubt must on the left in the US or Europe today are moral
>relativists.
Are you kidding? You're telling me that most socialists aren't
relativists, because the definition of socialism itself is relative?
You've been watcing Monty Python again, right?
>
>Also, what do you mean by "moral relativism?" If a socialist
>has a moral vision that is atheistic and humanist, but yet
>clings to very specific values, is that relativist?
I DEFY YOU; Name one such individual.
BitHead
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Gramsci had a good point about undermining the ties that bind a society
>together.
>
>HOWEVER: The problem with the rest of Gramsci's argument, and your
>critique of it, is that you both seem to assume that RELIGION is the
>bedrock of capitalist society,
And so it is....
> which then must be undermined. The
>successful Communist takeovers of Russia, China, Vietnam, etc., didn't
>depend on overthrowing religion first. (Religion was oppressed after
>the Communists took over.)
By Marx's method of violent overthrow.
>
>I think Gramsci got off the track there, and so the New Left didn't just
>focus on attacking RELIGION alone.
>
>Rather, there are a whole series of emotional ties, ethical ties, and
>philosophical ties that have bound Western society together, not just
>religion. I suggest some of these are: material well-being (having
>enough to eat, etc.), patriotism, a sense of community, optimism (faith
>in the future), belief in individual rights trumping majority (mob)
>rule. And especially the "Golden Rule": "What is hurtful to you, do
>not do to others." Each and every one of these principles has been
>under systematic attack by the modern left-wing. Their goal is not so
>much to promote moral relativism per se, but to inculcate a sense of
>cynicism, pessimism and despair in the populace. If the people come to
>believe their society is just not worth preserving, they won't summon
>the will to defend it against a real challenge.
But all of these have their roots in the Judeo - Christian ethic.
>
>By the way, though not leftists, Hitler's Nazis also successfully
>practiced this principle of "undermine your enemies from within."
Hitler, too, was a leftist.
Where is it, you think, he got the tactics from?
D.G. Porter
>
> Hitler, too, was a leftist.
You're pretty fucking STRUPID for someone who can use a computer.
Note to self: Disregard this piece of lizard piss in future.
Wilson
Well, see, Erb has this "friend".........
Scott Erb
is wrong. The only way you seem to be able to debate is to
make stuff up about another person's opinion and attack your
made up position.
You are the moral relativist: you do not believe in acting
ethically in confronting those with opinions different than
your own.
BitHead
Man, I dunno as I can take many more of these revelations....
BitHead
But we're already avoiding you, Potty.....
Wilson
Well to save you a little frustration, you'll get Scotti debating
every definition of every term you use.
Kinda hard to debate if you don't have a common everyday
language.
You'll finish up where you started and Scotti will be able, by
his shifting definitions, to prove (to himself anyway) that he
didn't really say or mean what you thought he said or meant.
In fact he'll usually cover all sides the issue so he can always
point to one line that got it right.
But go for it. It's every man for himself here.
Martin McPhillips
>
> One thing Martin: almost everything you claim about my beliefs
> is wrong. The only way you seem to be able to debate is to
> make stuff up about another person's opinion and attack your
> made up position.
>
> You are the moral relativist: you do not believe in acting
> ethically in confronting those with opinions different than
> your own.
Actually, Scott, just say the word and I'll document every
word I wrote about you. I'm not talking about what you
think of yourself, conveniently, at any given moment. But
your own stated positions, many of which I have explored with
you ad infinitum.
Just say the word. But you don't want to start talking
about "old bits" after I go to the trouble of putting it
together.
Steven Litvintchouk
Bertrand Russell
H. G. Wells
Steven Litvintchouk
>
> A Pope's visit can do wonders for your popularity when the vast
> proletariat are in dire straights. Ask Castro.
Only if you ask Lech Walesa.
The visit to Poland by Pope John Paul II didn't help the Jarulelski
(sp?) Communist regime in Poland. It helped the "Solidarity" movement
tremendously.
Kurt Cagle
>philosophical ties that have bound Western society together, not just
>religion. I suggest some of these are: material well-being (having
>enough to eat, etc.), patriotism, a sense of community, optimism (faith
>in the future), belief in individual rights trumping majority (mob)
>rule. And especially the "Golden Rule": "What is hurtful to you, do
>not do to others." Each and every one of these principles has been
>under systematic attack by the modern left-wing. Their goal is not so
>much to promote moral relativism per se, but to inculcate a sense of
>cynicism, pessimism and despair in the populace. If the people come to
>believe their society is just not worth preserving, they won't summon
>the will to defend it against a real challenge.
>By the way, though not leftists, Hitler's Nazis also successfully
>practiced this principle of "undermine your enemies from within."
>France became so internally weakened by cynicism and despair (Hitler's
>so-called "Fifth Columnists") that she proved unequal to the task of
>confronting Hitler. Read Shirer's "The Collapse of the Third Republic"
>sometime.
Hmm, so what you're saying is that the Left is responsible for destroying
civilization by depressing them. The Right, on the other hand, is merely
destabilizing the social framework through cutting suport programs for those
without the means to support themselves, for rewarding a handful of people
by giving them net worths billions of times highter than the poorest third
of all humanity, by promoting deregulation at the cost of befouling the
environment and sickening those who are unable or unwilling to move away,
for forcing the acceptance of one god and one belief system (and one global
market ruled by a handful of megalithic corporations) on people who do not
believe in that god, that belief system or the right of those corporations
to do what they want.
The Left believes that the more voices that are allowed to speak, even if
those voices are not in agreement, the more that a representative government
will be available to all, and not merely the rich and powerful, while a very
small number of extremist Right wing moguls have been buying up all of the
papers, radio stations, television stations, and ISPs and limiting what they
may say.
By your arguments, the Left attempts to destroy a society by introducing
moral relativism and undermining religion, yet some of the most influential
voices in support of the people (and not the moneyed interests so typical of
the Right) were religious leaders that were assassinated for stating their
beliefs. Those on the Left feel that it is the responsibility of the
government, as the duly elected representation of the people, to defend the
people who can least defend themselves from the powerful and wealthy. The
Right seems to feel that it is the right of the powerful and wealthy to do
whatever they choose, that they are the annointed of God, and that everyone
else is somehow inferior because they were not given the grace of good
families, good education, and good opportunities.
Oh, and then you finally butress your argument about the insidious and
pervasive effects of this "depressing" class (only depressing, of course, if
you happen to be in power and are annoyed by having to deal with all of
these ugly little moral conundrums that these people keep insisting on
thrusting in your face) by invoking one of the most Right wing, fascist
regimes in modern history to justify the contention that the left is
undermining the authority of the state; the Nazi's invaded countries with
tanks, soldiers, and aircraft, as well as propaganda, at a time when the
French basically had little in the way of a national army; they still
managed despite these odds to keep half the country and maintained a
partisan resistance that was critical in the overthrow of the Nazis. This
depression sapping morality seems to have been used far more often by
ultra-nationalist states (most often run by Right-wing idealogues) who only
wanted absolute power than by the intellectuals who argued primarily that
there was too much inequity in a region, which destabilized the democratic
process.
I think that you'll find that there have been very true "Leftist" takeovers
in history, but quite a few Rightist ones. In Russia, the Mencheveks were
the ones that managed to overthrow the Czar, and they started instituting
many of the same reforms that are in the American Bill of Rights. The
Bolsheviks essentially took over in a coup, replacing the ideals of common
ownership with a strong hierarchy of party affiliations - the currency was
different, but the reality was basically that of an authoritarian central
leadership with great power over a population who were fed the propaganda of
equality. In the West, starting with the Bretton Woods Accords during World
War II, moves were made to create a central World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), with the express goal of creating growth in the
industrialized countries economies. We got growth, but over time those who
were responsible for Bretton Wood were replaced by those who saw in these
institutions and globalized Free Trade without national regulation a way of
creating wealth and power for themselves.
Now we have a situation where we have economies that are dependent upon
growth beginning to encounter an environment that has been stressed beyond
its limits. That's a big part of the reason that you're increasingly seeing
labor activists worried about the untrammelled export of jobs to the lowest
cost regions (read, less governmental regulations like pesky labor laws)
while the environmentalists are worried about the fact that these same
corporations can skirt environmental laws and pollute the global economy,
while consumer advocates see a world where the consumer is increasingly
offered false choices that frequently involve foods that are poisonous,
civil liberatarians see a world where the right of free speech, assembly and
congress are all disappearing. Many religious leaders, even those that have
been traditionally toward the right part of the spectrum, are worried about
the increasing number of indigent people that they are having to support as
part of their ministries, while educators worry that the messages that they
are feeding to children are increasingly bought and paid for by public
relations firms for large trade industries to sell their particular (toxic)
viewpoint.
This is why the New Left is emerging. This is a left that is more typical of
what you saw emerge after the Great Depression than the youth culture of the
1960s that were a product of the baby boomers; it was very easy at that time
to paint over the very real concerns that many legitimate liberals had with
the broad brush of hippies, drugs, and loose sex, which was far more
symptomatic of a culture where a significant portion of the population was
just entering early adulthood, a very common tactic used by the "New Right"
that emerged in the mid-1970s and that led to the election of Ronald Reagan
in 1980.
Grow up. Adults are expected to make their own decisions about moral issues
every day - it's one of the characteristics that define being an adult in
this society. This has nothing to do with morales, save for the lack of
scruples of a very few at the very top who stand to gain while the rest of
the world burns.
-- Kurt Cagle
-- Author
Steven Litvintchouk
>
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:54:08 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Rather, there are a whole series of emotional ties, ethical ties, and
> >philosophical ties that have bound Western society together, not just
> >religion. I suggest some of these are: material well-being (having
> >enough to eat, etc.), patriotism, a sense of community, optimism (faith
> >in the future), belief in individual rights trumping majority (mob)
> >rule. And especially the "Golden Rule": "What is hurtful to you, do
> >not do to others." Each and every one of these principles has been
> >under systematic attack by the modern left-wing. Their goal is not so
> >much to promote moral relativism per se, but to inculcate a sense of
> >cynicism, pessimism and despair in the populace. If the people come to
> >believe their society is just not worth preserving, they won't summon
> >the will to defend it against a real challenge.
>
> But all of these have their roots in the Judeo - Christian ethic.
I don't think so. The Judeo-Christian ethic doesn't say much about
patriotism, nor about optimism in the future of man here on earth--until
the end of days at which time the Messiah is supposed to arrive. In
fact, the Judeo-Christian ethic is rather suspicious of materialism. Do
you think Jesus would have approved of SUVs? Don't you know how many
encyclicals the Vatican has issued against material greed and chasing
after the almighty dollar?
I think you are giving short shrift to all of Western secular moral
philosophy, going all the way back to Plato (at least). The roots of
Western-style democracy can be traced from the Greek and Roman
civilizations. The Greek philosophers analyzed democracy and other
societal models in detail. And the Ionian and Phoenician traders had
developed free-trade economies which antedated modern capitalism.
When I spoke of optimism and faith in the future, I was referring to
having faith in your country and/or your society and its ability to
solve its problems and make progress. I wasn't referring to the future
of eternal salvation in Heaven.
> Hitler, too, was a leftist.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one too.
>
> Where is it, you think, he got the tactics from?
If you read "Mein Kampf," you will find that Hitler had studied the
tactics of the German communists carefully. But he wasn't one of them.
He saw himself as fighting fire with fire.
The following excerpt describes the very first time Hitler unleashed his
"storm troopers" (S.A.-Sturmabteilung) on the communists.
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch07.html
johnz~
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:41:59 -0700, "D.G. Porter"
> > <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > >I had a run-in with Shelly Rubin, Irv's wife. It's no secret that they
> > >privately supported the assasination of Alex Odeh (who wa a personal
> > >friend of my wife's). But if you called them on this they answered with
> > >libel suit threats. And they also hauled out the old cnard,
> > >"anti-Semite" and "Holocaust supporter!" IOW, if you ain't fer 'em
> > >100%, you agin 'em 100%.
> > >Well, fuck them and theirs.
> >
> > Heard of Alex Odeh, but have no idea at this time _what_ you are
> > talking about. Resources?
>
> Alex Odeh was one of my wife's professors. They became friends.
Depending on how close their friendship was, it seems to me that motive
might possibly lie with someone else - don't you think, Porter?
I have no idea, of course, who that someone might be.
"I am not ahsamed for wishing death on assholes. They're lucky I'm
either too lazy or sane to take it any further."
- From a recent post by D.G. Porter.
Just a thought, David.
> One
> night Odeh was on TV giving the "Palestianian" (or whatever) point of
> view, and defending them, in the face of someone else who baseically
> thought they had no right to exist. I didn't see this but I read about
> it in the aftermath. The next day Odeh was bombed at his office. The
> people who bombed himand his ffice got away into Israel. As far as I
> know they are still there, Israel refuses to extradite them. The Rubins
> were of the opinion that Odeh got what he deserved. They were open
> about it until their lawyer told them to shut up.
Oh, gosh, Dave - I wonder what the Rubins (and the JDL) might think
about you accusing them of being accessories to murder.
>
> When I was on the phone with the bitch (she wanted a reference for some
> crackpot I knew who was pretending to be a journalist), I suddenly
> realized she was Irv's wife, and I said something (keeping very
> circumspect) about Odeh. Man, she just went ballistic! Threatened to
> sue me!
The JDL has an interesting website.
JS
And just to remind our audience of just what a anti-Semitic,
Nazi-cheerleading son-of-a-bitch David G. Porter really is...
(Headers included for purposes of authentication)
_____________________________________________________________________
Path:
news.uni-mannheim.de!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!new
s-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.nib
ble.net!hub1.nntpserver.com!easynews!cyclone.swbell.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.ne
t!206.13.28.33!news.pacbell.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3B293B...@pacbell.net>
From: "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net>
Reply-To: dgpo...@pacbell.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.impeach.bush,alt.politics,alt.p
olitics.bush
Subject: Re: Germany Horrified by Smirk Attitude toward Nuclear Power
References: <AbNV6.91$0x.6...@nntp2.onemain.com>
<48658b64.01061...@posting.google.com>
<3B284027...@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 13
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:32:39 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.214.187.199
X-Complaints-To: ab...@pacbell.net
X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 992557975 207.214.187.199 (Thu, 14 Jun 2001
15:32:55 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:32:55 PDT
Organization: SBC Internet Services
Xref: news.uni-mannheim.de alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:584004
alt.politics.bush:434578
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
>
> Alan McIntire wrote:
> >
> > So Germany is opposed to both Nuclear energy and fossil fuel energy.
> > They'd better hope there's a lot more global warming in the near
> > future, else they'll
> > wind up freezing to death in the dark.
>
> Or they can massacre people and burn their bodies for fuel, like they
> did to my ancestors back in the mid 1940's.
Mm, too bad they missed one in partickyoular...
______________________________________________________________________
(End of D.G. Porter post)
Write another hilarious, comical post for us, Porter. If you can.
--
A Short History Of The United States of America:
"Laugh all you want...I'm the one goin' down in history
as the Thomas Jefferson of squirrels."
Gandalf Grey
johnz~ <johns...@removethishome.net> wrote in message
news:johnsabotta-5F5E...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> In article <3B2D23...@pacbell.net>,
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Scott wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:41:59 -0700, "D.G. Porter"
> > > <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I had a run-in with Shelly Rubin, Irv's wife. It's no secret that
they
> > > >privately supported the assasination of Alex Odeh (who wa a personal
> > > >friend of my wife's). But if you called them on this they answered
with
> > > >libel suit threats. And they also hauled out the old cnard,
> > > >"anti-Semite" and "Holocaust supporter!" IOW, if you ain't fer 'em
> > > >100%, you agin 'em 100%.
> > > >Well, fuck them and theirs.
> > >
> > > Heard of Alex Odeh, but have no idea at this time _what_ you are
> > > talking about. Resources?
> >
> > Alex Odeh was one of my wife's professors. They became friends.
>
> Depending on how close their friendship was, it seems to me that motive
> might possibly lie with someone else - don't you think, Porter?
>
> I have no idea, of course, who that someone might be.
>
>
> "I am not ahsamed for wishing death on assholes. They're lucky I'm
> either too lazy or sane to take it any further."
>
> - From a recent post by D.G. Porter.
"How about SHOOTING statist assholes who want more taxes in the face, and
SHOOTING them and SHOOTING them and SHOOTING them until "those
monstrosities will be EXTINCT by 2010?"
Of course, I would deplore violence, personally."
From a recent post by John Sabotta
Billy Beck
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>One thing Martin: almost everything you claim about my beliefs
>is wrong. The only way you seem to be able to debate is to
>make stuff up about another person's opinion and attack your
>made up position.
>
>You are the moral relativist: you do not believe in acting
>ethically in confronting those with opinions different than
>your own.
That thing is beyond shibboleth, now. It's gone all the way out
to mindless "mantra". Any chimpanzee could type those words "opinions
different than your own" or some minute variation of it, and most do,
now. It now requires the chore of actual analysis -- the chore of
analyzing the impertinent -- to elevate it to the level of mere
shibboleth.
Observe the package deal of "acting ethically" in the above
context. What the dear Professorboy is getting at is tolerating any
and all opinions regardless of "difference", and more: *respecting*
them, too. What constitutes "moral relativis[m]" to him is *judgment*
-- the (to him) completely incomprehensible and intolerable act of
weighing the value of disparate ideas and choosing between them with
positive endorsement. "Acting ethically" consists of...well, the
smiley-faced Mr. Rogers style of Scott Erb, who never met an idea he
didn't heartily welcome to the Kumbaya Circle.
Except the idea of *freedom*, of course. That's the one thing he
always consigned to "Dilbertaria", long before The Tombschool Queen
turned out to regale us with his imperial stylings.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Billy Beck
Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>BitHead wrote:
>> Hitler, too, was a leftist.
>
>We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one too.
>The following excerpt describes the very first time Hitler unleashed his
>"storm troopers" (S.A.-Sturmabteilung) on the communists.
>http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch07.html
They were the *competition*, Litvintchouk.
Figure it out.
Scott D. Erb
BitHead wrote:
>
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 17:09:31 GMT, Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Moral relativism is at the very heart of socialism.
> >
> >It depends on the socialist, or how you are defining socialism.
> >I doubt must on the left in the US or Europe today are moral
> >relativists.
>
> Are you kidding? You're telling me that most socialists aren't
> relativists, because the definition of socialism itself is relative?
Where do I say that socialists aren't relativist
because the definition of socialism itself is
relative? Do you even know what these terms mean?
> You've been watcing Monty Python again, right?
You snipped my entire post where I explained patiently
to you the problems, and engage in a crap response like
this? Pathetic.
> >Also, what do you mean by "moral relativism?" If a socialist
> >has a moral vision that is atheistic and humanist, but yet
> >clings to very specific values, is that relativist?
>
> I DEFY YOU; Name one such individual.
Me.
Now, you can either do some work and respond, or you
can call names and avoid thinking, like far too many on
the usenet. The choice is yours. Here is the part you
snipped out:
Also, what do you mean by "moral relativism?" If a
socialist
has a moral vision that is atheistic and humanist, but
yet
clings to very specific values, is that relativist? Is
a moral
relativist anyone that denies the moral views you
hold? What if
you have two moral absolutists with different moral
beliefs, how
do you determine which of them is right? How are moral
beliefs
applied in context?
These are difficult decisions. For someone like me, a
moral
absolutist, I'm not always sure how to apply my moral
beliefs in
context. I also know I can't prove my moral beliefs in
terms of
science or rational argumentation because they rest on
non-falsifiable value judgements. So what happens if I
meet
someone with different moral views? Does my absolutist
beliefs
mean I should condemn them and try to destroy their
position, or
should I recognize that as a fallible human I may be
wrong in my
beliefs. What about applying moral views on context.
Some of
the flamesters (who have become more a joke in recent
months,
especially in their amusing little friends and enemies
thread
which gave me a lot of belly laughs), point to a moral
decision
I made in context at age 18 not to charge employees for
pizza
because I felt they were getting underpaid by a wealthy
owner.
At this point in my life, I would say I misapplied my
moral
reasoning and that was the wrong thing to do. But my
moral
beliefs remain the same, my thoughts about their
application to
context have become more sophisticated over the years.
But is
there one way to do that?
Moral relativism is too often used as a blanket attack
on people
with "different" moral beliefs, or those who question
the
veracity of the beliefs of one group of moral
absolutists. The
challenge to the absolutists is to explain how absent
proof of
their moral view they deal with those with different
moral
beliefs, and how they apply their moral beliefs in
context. I
try to live my own life by my moral beliefs, and assess
their
application. But what do I do when I confront someone
with
different moral beliefs? Am I a relativist because I
accept I
might be wrong in my view?
Clearly, the issue is more complicated than you
suggest.
Scott D. Erb
Wilson wrote:
>
> Well to save you a little frustration, you'll get Scotti debating
> every definition of every term you use.
>
> Kinda hard to debate if you don't have a common everyday
> language.
>
> You'll finish up where you started and Scotti will be able, by
> his shifting definitions, to prove (to himself anyway) that he
> didn't really say or mean what you thought he said or meant.
>
> In fact he'll usually cover all sides the issue so he can always
> point to one line that got it right.
>
> But go for it. It's every man for himself here.
Actually, Wilson, I frustrate you guys because I win
debates and challenge your biases. That creates a
tendancy for many people to avoid the actual discussion
(knowing they can't adequately defend their ideas or
may have to question strongly held beliefs) and resort
to argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy, instead.
You guys don't realize that every flame, every attempt
to go through old posts and try to find something I
said that might be taken out of context to try to make
me look bad, every thread where you all are attacking
me is affirmation of my efficacy at countering
propaganda and irrational ideological perspectives.
You guys don't realize that in trying to attack me, you
compliment me. That's what keeps me posting, I realize
I'm being effective. People with strong biases won't
admit they are wrong or have a week argument, so they
tend to resort to name calling and bluster instead.
That's not most posters, to be sure, there are
thoughtful conservatives out there, and even a few
thoughtful anarcho-capitalists. At one time I tried to
counter all those personal attacks and develop
communication with others, but that only enhanced the
depth of their attacks which often go to bizarre
extremes (something you usually avoid, you are actually
one of the more thoughtful conservatives in my opinion,
which is why I'm willing to respond to you). Martin
can be thoughtful (one just has to figure out what
posts of his to ignore and what ones are worth
responding to), Steve L. seems thoughtful and
reasonably considerate, and Gordon S. and a few
libertarians are very congenial and thoughtful. The
others, well, they wear their emotions on their
sleeves.
So I'll make my points, and you all can take your
shots, not realizing that the time you spend on me and
the obvious impact I have on the posting of so many
right wingers and hard core capitalist libertarians is
really something I welcome.
cheers, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
Scott D. Erb
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
>
> > It depends on the socialist, or how you are defining socialism.
> > I doubt must on the left in the US or Europe today are moral
> > relativists.
>
> Are you kidding?
>
> The left-wing is constantly complaining that the "religious right" is
> trying to impose their morality on the lefties.
And Christians complain that the moral absolutists in
Iran and Afghanistan are trying to impose their
morality on the public in violation of human rights.
Does that make Christians non-moral relativists?
Do you see your error: you are defining as relativist
anyone who disagrees with a PARTICULAR type of moral
absolute. One can deny that the morality of the
religious right is the true moral absolute and yet
still not be a relativist.
> In response to this, I've pointed out that the left-wing is not only
> pro-choice, but wants the U.S. Government to PAY for women's abortions,
> not only in the U.S. but overseas as well.
A number of pro-choice people see this as a moral
imperative, and their opposition to the right is based
on absolutist moral views, albeit ones different than
that of the Christian right. Have you ever read
Margaret Sanger's work?
> This would mean that
> pro-life taxpayers would be paying their tax money to support a practice
> THEY regard as morally abhorrent. The left-wing couldn't care less
> about that though.
I regard a lot of what the government does as morally
abhorrent. By your logic, those who force me to pay
taxes that pay for our military excursions are doing
the exact same thing: making me pay taxes to support a
practice I find morally abhorrent. So those people who
support high military expenses and making me pay for it
are moral relativists?
See: you are defining the term in a way that snaps back
and bites you as well.
> In addition to this, the left-wing is absolutely intolerant of people's
> practice of their own religion. I once got into a discussion with some
> left-wingers about medical circumcision. But I was surprised to see
> that they would like the U.S. Government to actually BAN circumcision
> outright, even for orthodox Jews who regard circumcision as a religious
> practice. When I pointed this out to them, their answer was that if
> Jews don't like this, they should change their religion.
A lot of people on the right or left are intolerant of
other views, I run into both. I don't think the left
is any less tolerant than the right, in my experience
the right tends to be less tolerant. But both sides
err that way, you'd be silly to say only the left is
intolerant. I'm on the left and have absolutely
nothing against medical circumcision.
> Also consider the issue of "political correctness."
> Many feminists claim that pornography exploits women. OK, but then they
> also demand that the Government impose strict curbs on pornography, some
> of which would directly violate the First Amendment.
Many on the right are opposed to pornography, gambling,
etc., especially on the religious right. Does that
make them moral relativists? I'm opposed to censorship
or adult pornography so again you're obviously not
describing everyone on the left.
> > Also, what do you mean by "moral relativism?" If
a socialist
> > has a moral vision that is atheistic and humanist, but yet
> > clings to very specific values, is that relativist?
>
> No. It is relativist if the socialist doesn't have strong moral values,
> but believes that one person's morality is no better or worse than
> another.
Almost every leftist I know has strong moral values.
Most are active politically because they believe their
moral values are correct, just as those on the right
have that belief. The tolerance you are correctly
calling for requires that we also recognize that as
fallible humans we may be wrong, and thus while we act
on our moral beliefs, we have to recognize that in this
world we can't simply try to impose them on everyone
because we think they are right. That is why we have a
constitutional republic based on democracy.
> This assumption is at the heart of the left-wing's
> "multiculturalism"--tacit acceptance of tyranny in the Third World. The
Multiculturalism is simply a fact of life in a
globalizing world. And I don't see much tacit
acceptance of tyranny in the Third World (though US
foreign policy has consistently supported third world
tyrants).
> left-wing is constantly howling about how the U.S. is trying to "impose
> its values" on the Third World. As if the "values" of the Third World
> are worth preserving. In reality, most of central Africa is a PESTHOLE
> of oppression, war, and ethnic cleansing (remember Rwanda and Sudan?).
Simply: you are ignorant of reality. Most of the third
world is not a pesthole, despite events in places like
Rwanda and the Sudan (a miniscule portion of the third
world) that are indeed horrid. Your charge is vague,
unclear, and rooted in an emotional outburst rather
than any rational analysis.
> > These are difficult decisions. For someone like me, a moral
> > absolutist, I'm not always sure how to apply my moral beliefs in
> > context. I also know I can't prove my moral beliefs in terms of
> > science or rational argumentation because they rest on
> > non-falsifiable value judgements. So what happens if I meet
> > someone with different moral views? Does my absolutist beliefs
> > mean I should condemn them and try to destroy their position, or
> > should I recognize that as a fallible human I may be wrong in my
> > beliefs.
>
> That depends on your fundamental definition of good vs. evil. If you
> met Jeffrey Dahmer while he was preparing his cuisine, would you have
> considered that "different moral values"? Or true evil? Did you
> consider Hitler's belief it was OK to massacre the Jews as "different
> moral values"?
They are certainly different moral values, and I
believe they are morally repulsive moral values which I
would confront in every way I could, though I would not
do so in a way that would contradict my own moral
values. That, I believe, is the essence of moral,
ethical behavior.
> I have real problems with people who are such moral relativists that
> they don't support the Golden Rule: "What is hurtful to you, do not do
> to others." If someone hurts innocent people, that's evil, not
> "different". (Sometimes it may be a NECESSARY evil, such as in
> wartime--but a necessary evil is still evil.)
Ah, so some evil is OK, other evil is bad...that is
precisely where the problem of applying moral beliefs
in context comes into play. That's my point. Many
pacifists would say you are a moral relativist in your
claim above. See the difficulty?
> I guess for me, the aforementioned Golden Rule (don't hurt others who
> have done you no harm) is a litmus test.
I find Kant's categorical imperative (which has been
compared to the Golden Rule) compelling, and certainly
we should not use other humans as a means alone, but as
ends in and of themselves.
cheers, scott
Jack Dawes
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> BitHead wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 17:09:31 GMT, Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Moral relativism is at the very heart of socialism.
> > >
> > >It depends on the socialist, or how you are defining socialism.
> > >I doubt must on the left in the US or Europe today are moral
> > >relativists.
> >
> > Are you kidding? You're telling me that most socialists aren't
> > relativists, because the definition of socialism itself is relative?
>
> Where do I say that socialists aren't relativist
> because the definition of socialism itself is
> relative? Do you even know what these terms mean?
>
> > You've been watcing Monty Python again, right?
>
> You snipped my entire post where I explained patiently
> to you the problems, and engage in a crap response like
> this? Pathetic.
No what is pathetic is to watch the " King of the Snippers " who
always snips anything posted that will refute his arguments to cry
out in pain when someone else does it to him!!!
Jack
Billy Beck
Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Even now, I am at a loss to explain how intelligent men in the Pentagon,
>the State Department, and the White House could have blundered us into
>Vietnam like they did. The best reference is still "The Pentagon
>Papers," the secret history of the Vietnam War during the JFK and LBJ
>Administrations, that Daniel Ellsberg (another name you should look up)
>had leaked to the press. If you can get a copy of "The Pentagon
>Papers," it's a great read. You can read the actual Government
>memoranda that explain how and why we blundered into Vietnam. (Since
>then we've learned much more, like the origin of the Gulf of Tonkin
>incident, but "The Pentagon Papers" is still the best place to start
>looking.)
(The following transcribed from hearings before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, J. William Fulbright, Chair, with
Ellsberg testifying, May 13, 1970 -- the week after Kent State)
CHAIRMAN: I would like to make this observation... If my memory
serves me correctly, it was quite clear... in the early days of the
hearings before this committee, particularly with Secretary Rusk...
that the decisive question was not the balance of power other than the
ideological obsession we then had. Much of it grew out of our
domestic situation. That is the influence that Senator McCarthy had
developed here. It had great domestic political implications, which,
as you have already described, caused Secretary Dulles to decline to
even participate personally in the Geneva Accords.
In the many questions at the time, I think we reduced it to the
point of asking if Ho Chi Minh had not been a Communist, do you think
we would ever have intervened? I think it is quite clear we would not
have. It was the ideological aspect that triggered our intervention,
and this was true of situations not only in Southeast Asia,
especially, but in Europe. I mean, in the fear of Stalin and his
effect.
I always thought our departure from our traditional role, in
supporting French colonial power, was because of our fear of French
weakness in Europe...
MR. ELLSBERG: Mr. Chairman, having studied the documents of a number
of administrations and found the internal rationales in terms of
strategic interests palpably inadequate, I have more and more come to
look at the domestic political contexts in which those decisions were
made year after year. This is something that rarely gets into the
internal documentation, and even if it is talked about in the
executive branch, it is done very privately, one or two people at a
time. I am speaking of the relation of these strategic moves to
domestic politics.
CHAIRMAN: By strategic you mean in the interest of the security of
our country.
MR. ELLSBERG: That is right. As a friend of mine, Morton Halperin,
said recently, people other that the president, bureaucrats in fact,
make their decisions on the basis of bureaucratic and agency
considerations, and presidents typically make their own choices in
terms of domestic political consderations, far more than the public
realizes; but in describing their motives and reasoning to each other
and to the public, both talk a language of national security and
strategy, which creates certain confusions.
In this particular case, I would say that since 1949 no American
president has been willing to see the fall of Indochina added to the
fall of China during his administration. And that, I think, has
warped very much his perception and weighing of priorities with
respect to short-run and long-run interests of this country.
I believe that each president really has been willing to invest
major resources to take considerable risks in order simply to postpone
the fall of Saigon. He has not wanted to be in office, in effect,
when the red flag went up over Saigon.
CHAIRMAN: That is, for political reasons here at home and not
strategic reasons?
MR. ELLSBERG: Essentially political reasons. And this has led us to
take strategies that were risky and costly but did promise that they
would postpone this event, even if they offered little hope of
averting it indefinitely, that is, of "winning" at acceptable cost.
SENATOR CASE: Can I throw out a suggestion? This unwillingness to be
in office at a time when Saigon fell might be based upon a
consideration that the people of the country don't believe it is a
wise thing to let happen --
MR. ELLSBERG: That is right.
SENATOR CASE: And not for unworthy reasons, but from some deep
instinctive feeling about what is in the national interest.
Presidents, in following this feeling, haven't therefore been unworthy
of the move. That is not the least worthy, I suppose, of motives: to
an important degree to follow what I think is our basic guide here,
and that is the instinctive movement of the people of this country in
one direction or another. And that doesn't mean that everybody hasn't
got the obligation to do his own thinking. But the people of this
country, when they have been sufficiently informed -- and they have an
amazing way of getting information, including, I think, osmosis as
well as watching television or listening to people on the radio and
reading newspapers or listening to political speeches or whatnot --the
people, I think, probably are our best reliance when it comes to great
policy.
MR. ELLSBERG: I agree completely. I think that is one of the
premises that goes into the president's mind, and I am talking now, as
I keep repeating, of five presidents. I should say I know of the
premises of the most recent, Nixon, only from newspapers; the others
from considerable documentation.
But I think the problem, as the president sees it, is a little
more complex than that in this area. He sees, in the first instance,
as you say, that the people may well punish him politically if he lets
Indochina fall, and, to that extent, acting to prevent that is doing
the peoples' will, which is his democratic responsibility. But at the
same time he reads his intelligence analyses and his operational
estimates, which tell him what will be required to prevent that from
happening, and he compares those calculated requirements with what he
thinks the public and the Congress will let him do. And there always
has been a great gap between these sets of considerations.
Each president has seen, I think, that although he will lose
prestige and power -- that is, lose votes -- if Indochina falls, he
probably cannot get Congress or the people to let him do what his
advisers tell him is needed to keep it from falling, reliably and
indefinitely. That has meant various things. First, it meant backing
a colonial regime, which we did with some distaste. We accepted that.
Later it meant backing an authoritarian police state, which we did,
though we didn't want to publicize it. Third, when that began to fail
in 1963 and 1964 (I came into the Department of Defense in August
1964), the president's military and civilian advisers believed
strongly that unless we were prepared to bring direct military
pressure on North Vietnam, the situation was irretrievable. Finally,
ground troops appeared necessary.
Now during that whole period bombing and ground troops looked
perhaps ultimately necessary but were ruled out. Thus, up to 1965,
each president was led to take steps short of those measures, steps
which he believed to be probably inadequate to the situation. He
hoped these lesser steps might work and believed they would at least
postpone the dilemma of using troops or bombing or of losing.
This put one further pressure on him to mislead the public as to
how these measures were working. We were under great pressure to
imply, since advisors were all wer could afford to put over there,
that advisors were doing the job; or Diem was doing the job; or
earlier that the French were doing the job. And this meant
consciously distorting what our reports were conveying to the
president.
SENATOR CASE: We have had direct experience with this again and
again, for what, fifteen, twenty years.
MR. ELLSBERG: Yes. When the President starts lying he begins to need
evidence to back up his lies because in this democracy he is
questioned on his statements. It then percolates down through the
bureaucracy that you are helping the Boss if you come up with evidence
that is supportive of our public position and you are distinctly
unhelpful if you commit to paper statements that might leak to the
wrong people.
The effect of that is to poison the flow of information to the
president himself and to create a situation where a president can be
almost, to use a metaphor, psychotically divorced from the realities
in which he is acting...
The recent U.S. adventure in Cambodia, with the U.S.
administration imitating in presidential style Thieu's "loose
construction" of his own constitution, warns clearly that this
administration is no more ready to contemplate the "loss" of Indochina
to communism, during its term of office, than any of its predecessors.
It is in the full tradition of earlier administrations, hopeful
of victory in the long run but obsessed with avoiding defeat in the
short run. They have their eye on the ball, and avoiding short-run
defeat is an objective that is worthy of a great many American and
Vietnamese lives in their opinion, I am sorry to say.
This administration is no less ready than earlier ones to incur
escalation risks and domestic dissent to avoid or postpone such
"humiliation." The rhetoric has changed, and I refer here to the fact
that we talk more about self-determination than we did in some recent
years, but the policy has not. It is one that condemns Vietnam to
endless war and Americans to endless participation in it in support of
a corrupt and unpopular military dictatorship.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Naturally, there are great issues involved in all this. To begin
with, I would point to Berlin (1948) or Hungary (1956), for instance,
as answer to Fulbright's remark concerning "Stalin and his effect".
It is always an amusement of tedium, to me, when I hear the
fashionable "the Cold War is over" song & dance. The fact is that
"the Cold War" began with the Bolshevik Revolution and is not "over"
by a long shot. That's a judgment available only to a certain
perspicacity of mind, however, which has been appallingly deficient at
large for generations already.
However, that is not to say that the actual handling of Vietnam
was anything like competent, for decades on end and culminating with
some sixty thousand American dead in a losing effort. The remark
attributed to some North Vietnamese general when confronted by Col.
David Hackworth is perversely illuminating: when Hackworth pointed out
that "you never defeated us in battle," the man said, "That is true,
but it is also irrelevent." Well, that's not entirely correct.
If at any time the actual military situation had been met with
the courage of authentic American conviction of the cause, North
Vietnam would have ceased to exist as a political entity capable of
engineering the Easter Offensive of 1975 which ended at Saigon. The
proof of this lies in the success of the "Linebacker" operations at
stemming the NVA offensive across the DMZ begun in March of 1972 in
flagrant violation of negotiations at the time. It worked, and it
would have worked even better in 1965, regardless of who was seated at
Saigon at the moment.
What Ellsberg points out in his testimony above is the investment
of five U.S. administrations in not losing instead of *winning*.
That's because not a single one of them had the simple nerve to face
what they were actually doing. In terms of subsequent big-picture
implications, this moral failing is second only to the matter of black
slavery in American history. Understand my contention that the
failure is perfectly complete: *if* it was necessary to "save Vietnam
from communism", then that *necessarily* entailed facing down the
prospect of direct Soviet intervention in the same way that Kennedy
faced Khrushchev in 1962. The moral and military calculus of Vietnam
required full global scale, to the point of telling the Soviets:
"Look, this is what we're going to do, and if you've got anything to
say about it, just save it and light up your ICBM's and we'll all have
at it." Five U.S. administrations tried to cheat their way around
that necessity, however, and that's why they always lied to us about
what they were doing: they were lying to themselves, first.
(Among more general notes: the "command-pyramid insanity" dynamic
that Ellsberg illustrates is quite alive, well, and pervasive
throughout the entire project of American government, today. This
government is busy lying to itself about everything in sight, from the
War on Drugs to the War on Poverty and, now, the War on Education.
That is the first, main, reason why it is not to be dealt with, and
the self-reinforcing principle here -- a positive self-feedback loop
-- is why, as I say, "the pace of this thing is picking up".)
Martin McPhillips
>
> Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Well to save you a little frustration, you'll get Scotti debating
> > every definition of every term you use.
> >
> > Kinda hard to debate if you don't have a common everyday
> > language.
> >
> > You'll finish up where you started and Scotti will be able, by
> > his shifting definitions, to prove (to himself anyway) that he
> > didn't really say or mean what you thought he said or meant.
> >
> > In fact he'll usually cover all sides the issue so he can always
> > point to one line that got it right.
> >
> > But go for it. It's every man for himself here.
>
> Actually, Wilson, I frustrate you guys because I win
> debates and challenge your biases.
What nonsense. What's frustrating about you, Scott, is your
dishonesty, your *abject* dishonesty, your constantly shifting
positions, your inability to deal with serious intellectual
questions, and most of all, you don't know your own field.
It's all fleeting now, but I could replay post after post
demonstrating that your conceptions in the realm of politics
are a mixture of your utopian fantasies, your slipshod
ethics, your relentless adherence to the trade winds of
Leftist thinking, and a basic lack of knowledge.
Worst of all is the lack of knowledge, the gaps in which
are filled in with the other stuff. And when your back is
against the wall, when you're really pressed to explain
yourself, you turn to your fellow Weasels, like the
demented bigot Kennemur, the pathetic Glenn Yeadon, or
the abysmal psycho Kurt Lochner.
I've never seen anything like it: one minute you're boasting
about your degrees and the next you're reaching out to
the worst element of Usenet -- as *bad* as the Nazis in
my opinion -- as though it were second nature to you.
You've disgraced yourself, Professor, and not because of
a single incident, but repeatedly, over and over again.
Yet your capacity to just press the reset button and start
your babble all over again must be counted alongside the
resilience of Marxist thinking itself, which you flirt
with openly, only to draw back into its substrates or
derivatives as the mood strikes you.
But you are a man of the Left in every respect and your
whole intellectual edifice is based on lies.
spamm...@sucks.com
>Billy
Where's the part where you get your adoring public to cheer, BATSHIT?
==================================================
" I've told
you many times: bring your bad-ass "real person" self on, and I'll
just kill you dead, and then carry on with my day."
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>BitHead wrote:
>> >Also, what do you mean by "moral relativism?" If a socialist
>> >has a moral vision that is atheistic and humanist, but yet
>> >clings to very specific values, is that relativist?
>>
>> I DEFY YOU; Name one such individual.
>
>Me.
With one word, Scott ("I may be wrong -- I'm so confused!") Erb
transcends Richard ("I am not a crook") Nixon and The Lying ("I did
not have sex with that woman") Bastard.
An astounding performance of concision in mendacity.
McCloudy should be taking notes.
Lynette Warren
> One can deny that the morality of the
> religious right is the true moral absolute
> and yet still not be a relativist.
.
Yes. One can.
However, one can't say, "ethics and norms cannot be posited upon
objective criteria. Rather one starts with premises and core values,
and then builds from there," and still claim to be a moral absolutist.
Lynette
Lynette Warren
Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
> These are difficult decisions. For someone like me, a moral
> absolutist, I'm not always sure how to apply my moral beliefs
> in context.
Here's a pretty good test as to how to apply what you know about
morality.
Let's say you've been tasked to safeguard the property of someone. Then
the man who pays you for that task comes around one night and you decide
that you don't like his looks, his lifestyle, or the way he spends his
money. You then use the your disgust for his character as a rationale
for stealing some of the property he pays you to look after. Was it
moral for you to steal his property under those conditions?
Lynette
I also know I can't prove my moral beliefs in terms of
> science or rational argumentation because they rest on
> non-falsifiable value judgements. So what happens if I meet
> someone with different moral views? Does my absolutist beliefs
> mean I should condemn them and try to destroy their position, or
> should I recognize that as a fallible human I may be wrong in my
> beliefs. What about applying moral views on context. Some of
> the flamesters (who have become more a joke in recent months,
> especially in their amusing little friends and enemies thread
> which gave me a lot of belly laughs), point to a moral decision
> I made in context at age 18 not to charge employees for pizza
> because I felt they were getting underpaid by a wealthy owner.
> At this point in my life, I would say I misapplied my moral
> reasoning and that was the wrong thing to do. But my moral
> beliefs remain the same, my thoughts about their application to
> context have become more sophisticated over the years. But is
> there one way to do that?
>
> Moral relativism is too often used as a blanket attack on people
> with "different" moral beliefs, or those who question the
> veracity of the beliefs of one group of moral absolutists. The
> challenge to the absolutists is to explain how absent proof of
> their moral view they deal with those with different moral
> beliefs, and how they apply their moral beliefs in context. I
Jack Dawes
<BIG SNIP>
Sad to say you are absolutely right about our ability to totally wipe out
any opposition in the North in a short time. What was lacking was
a real commitment to win the thing. I think we thought that they
would get tired before we did. What was also sad was how
absolutely nothing was done without specific approval from
Washington. The places to bomb were picked out by Washington
and if perchance our bombers failed to knock out some wooden
bridge somewhere in the North they had to return to the same
bridge the next day until it was knocked out. Only problem
was that the NVA knew this too so the next day they were met
with all kinds of artillery and of course we lost planes because of
this. Hell of a way to run a war! I was at Takli TAFB and heard these
tales all the time from our pilots.
>
> What Ellsberg points out in his testimony above is the investment
> of five U.S. administrations in not losing instead of *winning*.
> That's because not a single one of them had the simple nerve to face
> what they were actually doing. In terms of subsequent big-picture
> implications, this moral failing is second only to the matter of black
> slavery in American history. Understand my contention that the
> failure is perfectly complete: *if* it was necessary to "save Vietnam
> from communism", then that *necessarily* entailed facing down the
> prospect of direct Soviet intervention in the same way that Kennedy
> faced Khrushchev in 1962. The moral and military calculus of Vietnam
> required full global scale, to the point of telling the Soviets:
> "Look, this is what we're going to do, and if you've got anything to
> say about it, just save it and light up your ICBM's and we'll all have
> at it." Five U.S. administrations tried to cheat their way around
> that necessity, however, and that's why they always lied to us about
> what they were doing: they were lying to themselves, first.
>
> (Among more general notes: the "command-pyramid insanity" dynamic
> that Ellsberg illustrates is quite alive, well, and pervasive
> throughout the entire project of American government, today. This
> government is busy lying to itself about everything in sight, from the
> War on Drugs to the War on Poverty and, now, the War on Education.
> That is the first, main, reason why it is not to be dealt with, and
> the self-reinforcing principle here -- a positive self-feedback loop
> -- is why, as I say, "the pace of this thing is picking up".)
Jack
Jack Dawes
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Well to save you a little frustration, you'll get Scotti debating
> > every definition of every term you use.
> >
> > Kinda hard to debate if you don't have a common everyday
> > language.
> >
> > You'll finish up where you started and Scotti will be able, by
> > his shifting definitions, to prove (to himself anyway) that he
> > didn't really say or mean what you thought he said or meant.
> >
> > In fact he'll usually cover all sides the issue so he can always
> > point to one line that got it right.
> >
> > But go for it. It's every man for himself here.
>
> Actually, Wilson, I frustrate you guys because I win
> debates and challenge your biases.
You mean in your dreams you really win! WOW I'm impressed!
Jack
Jack Dawes
Lynette Warren wrote:
> Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > These are difficult decisions. For someone like me, a moral
> > absolutist, I'm not always sure how to apply my moral beliefs
> > in context.
>
> Here's a pretty good test as to how to apply what you know about
> morality.
>
> Let's say you've been tasked to safeguard the property of someone. Then
> the man who pays you for that task comes around one night and you decide
> that you don't like his looks, his lifestyle, or the way he spends his
> money. You then use the your disgust for his character as a rationale
> for stealing some of the property he pays you to look after. Was it
> moral for you to steal his property under those conditions?
A good one Lynette, one that I expect that our dear Professor Fraud
will not answer, at least not truthfully. But we never expected the truth
from Scottie now did we?
Jack
lung
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
what about lung? isn't lung thoughtful and reasonably considerate?
remember that lung is nice.
think carefully about your answer.
ominously waiting,
lung
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<ar...@nospamsurfari.net> wrote:
>
>Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> These are difficult decisions. For someone like me, a moral
>> absolutist, I'm not always sure how to apply my moral beliefs
>> in context.
>
>Here's a pretty good test as to how to apply what you know about
>morality.
>
>Let's say you've been tasked to safeguard the property of someone. Then
>the man who pays you for that task comes around one night and you decide
>that you don't like his looks, his lifestyle, or the way he spends his
>money. You then use the your disgust for his character as a rationale
>for stealing some of the property he pays you to look after. Was it
>moral for you to steal his property under those conditions?
The word "steal" begs the question, of course.
You must be a libertarian.
On her way to some sort of question-begging destination.
Right?
Scott D. Erb
Billy Beck wrote:
> That thing is beyond shibboleth, now. It's gone all the way out
> to mindless "mantra". Any chimpanzee could type those words "opinions
> different than your own" or some minute variation of it, and most do,
> now. It now requires the chore of actual analysis -- the chore of
> analyzing the impertinent -- to elevate it to the level of mere
> shibboleth.
Definitely teh chore is actual analysis. That requires
logic, reason, and dialogue between those who hold
different views. My experience is that people who
don't like their views challenged and resort to
personal attacks tend to be avoiding a challenge that
might show their views to be misguided or irrational.
> Observe the package deal of "acting ethically" in the above
> context. What the dear Professorboy is getting at is tolerating any
> and all opinions regardless of "difference", and more: *respecting*
> them, too.
Here you delve into simple dishonesty. I do not think
that all opinions should be respected. Many opinions
are irrational and evil, and deserve no respect.
However, one counters those opinions with the hard
truth of logic and reason. Simply insulting (an
irrational form of argumentation) or attacking actually
plays into the hands of those with the opinions not
deserving of respect.
>What constitutes "moral relativis[m]" to him is *judgment*
> -- the (to him) completely incomprehensible and intolerable act of
> weighing the value of disparate ideas and choosing between them with
> positive endorsement. "Acting ethically" consists of...well, the
> smiley-faced Mr. Rogers style of Scott Erb, who never met an idea he
> didn't heartily welcome to the Kumbaya Circle.
Again, you simply lie. I find your dishonesty to be
unethical, and it is not deserving of respect. There
are many ways to analyze different moral belief
systems. One is to determine if it is internally
consistent, or built upon contradictions. Another is
to lay bear the core values, and assess and critique
them. Here, however, there is a limit to what we can
prove scientifically. Core values that are not based
on falsifiable hypotheses about reality lie beneath
almost all ethical belief systems, making such systems
of thought "outside science." At some point, after
analyzing and critiquing the ethical system in question
-- its internal coherence, the consequences of acting
under that system, the core values and beliefs and
their rationality or acceptability -- one has to take a
stand based on something that at our current level of
knowledge about reality can't be proven through reason
or logic.
> Except the idea of *freedom*, of course. That's the one thing he
> always consigned to "Dilbertaria", long before The Tombschool Queen
> turned out to regale us with his imperial stylings.
I don't think I've ever used the term "Dilbertaria," so
again you are being dishonest. I have stated that
freedom is to me the primary human value, something I
believe Mr. McCloskey disagreed with me on.
The thing, Billy, is that ideas and ideologies reflect
human attempts to interpret and understand our social
world and how we ought to act. Strong ideas withstand
rational discussion, weak ideas lend themselves to
being "defended" via something like a Jihad, a holy war
where the non-believers are insulted, attacked, and
derided. Too many in some of these newsgroups act more
like the Taliban in defense of their ideologies than
rational, reasonable thinking humans.
Scott D. Erb
Good point -- I remember being fascinated by how much
the Pope and Castro had in common when the two met in
Cuba a few years ago. The Pope, an anti-communist,
non-materialist, spiritual man with a strong and
consistent set of core religious values, and Castro, a
Communist, materialist, non-religious man with a shakey
set of values which allows him to rationalize
repression in order to achieve what he considers a
worthwhile goal, joined to condemn capitalist excess
and the way the first world treats the third world.
There were other points of agreement which were
intriguing.
I think the Pope represents the traditional
conservative view, which is collectivist (the
individual is not as important as society), elitist,
and traditional, and that there are connections between
that and the Communist view which is collectivist,
elitist and secular. Most American conservatives now
have veered from that traditional conservative
perspective, of course.
> I think you are giving short shrift to all of Western secular moral
> philosophy, going all the way back to Plato (at least). The roots of
> Western-style democracy can be traced from the Greek and Roman
> civilizations. The Greek philosophers analyzed democracy and other
> societal models in detail. And the Ionian and Phoenician traders had
> developed free-trade economies which antedated modern capitalism.
> When I spoke of optimism and faith in the future, I was referring to
> having faith in your country and/or your society and its ability to
> solve its problems and make progress. I wasn't referring to the future
> of eternal salvation in Heaven.
In your discussion of Gramsci, jailed by Mussolini in
fascist Italy, you have to remember he wasn't talking
primarily about overthrowing a functional western
democracy where everyone was happy and well off. Italy
had been authoritarian traditionally, and had embraced
fascism. Gramsci was trying to figure out why the
working class went for what he thought was totally
contrary to their interests. Also don't forget that in
the thirties especially it appeared that capitalism and
democracy were failures, leading to depression and
instability (everywhere but the US and Great Britain,
where democratic institutions were firmly in place).
> > Hitler, too, was a leftist.
>
> We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one too.
>
> >
> > Where is it, you think, he got the tactics from?
>
> If you read "Mein Kampf," you will find that Hitler had studied the
> tactics of the German communists carefully. But he wasn't one of them.
> He saw himself as fighting fire with fire.
>
> The following excerpt describes the very first time Hitler unleashed his
> "storm troopers" (S.A.-Sturmabteilung) on the communists.
> http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch07.html
The first half the twentieth century in Europe is an
example of modernism reaching a point where the moral
relativism that was discussed in the thread laid bare
its contradictions. If there are no values or
absolutes, then who is to counter the fascist argument
that "power is truth?" Marxism shows the opposite
problem. Communism was an attempt to find moral truth
through objective laws of human nature and history,
seeking moral truth in reason alone. But, of course,
all theories rest on assumptions, and all Marx did was
create a belief system that proported to be objectively
true, but was in essence just a human construct. The
claim to be objectively true rationalized for its
adherents a belief that "anything goes" to try to
implement it, which led to disasters as bad as the
fascist irrational approach.
Billy Beck
Jack Dawes <jac...@bwn.net> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
><BIG SNIP>
<little snip>
>> If at any time the actual military situation had been met with
>> the courage of authentic American conviction of the cause, North
>> Vietnam would have ceased to exist as a political entity capable of
>> engineering the Easter Offensive of 1975 which ended at Saigon. The
>> proof of this lies in the success of the "Linebacker" operations at
>> stemming the NVA offensive across the DMZ begun in March of 1972 in
>> flagrant violation of negotiations at the time. It worked, and it
>> would have worked even better in 1965, regardless of who was seated at
>> Saigon at the moment.
>Sad to say you are absolutely right about our ability to totally wipe out
>any opposition in the North in a short time. What was lacking was
>a real commitment to win the thing. I think we thought that they
>would get tired before we did. What was also sad was how
>absolutely nothing was done without specific approval from
>Washington.
Col. Jack Broughton tells of an F-105 strike commander who was
called out of his cockpit -- turned his jet around at the arming pad
and taxied back to the operations shack at Takhli with his whole force
sitting there burning fuel and upsetting a theater-wide timetable --
in order to receive ROE orders on a telephone from the Secretary of
Defense, in person. The very idea of SecDef involvement at that level
is an astonishing absurdity.
Broughton is somewhat personna-non-grata in some of the
Vietnam-era fighter community, but he has some wild stories to tell
about this kind of bullshit, and it's all damning evidence in the
general indictment.
Of course, the ground war was at least as sick, by the time they
got it cranked up.
>The places to bomb were picked out by Washington
>and if perchance our bombers failed to knock out some wooden
>bridge somewhere in the North they had to return to the same
>bridge the next day until it was knocked out. Only problem
>was that the NVA knew this too so the next day they were met
>with all kinds of artillery and of course we lost planes because of
>this. Hell of a way to run a war!
We taught them air defense with great big arrows in the sky
saying, "Shoot *here*!!" Recall the prohibited zones around
Hanoi/Haiphong, and the Chinese border zone. There was a railway that
ran down from China, and there were less than fifteen miles of that
railway open to attack. Guess where the attacks were ordered. Guess
where the AAA and SAMs ended up.
The worthless shits Johnson and McNamara should have taken a ride
in a combat two-seater now & then. For years, they had things set up
so that the main threat NVA air-defense sites was being squashed by
flaming fighter planes. It was absolutely criminal.
>I was at Takli TAFB and heard these tales all the time from our pilots.
When was that? What unit?
BearBiz
"BitHead" <eflo...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3b2d4d86.1877940@news...
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 17:09:31 GMT, Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >BitHead wrote:
> >
> >> Moral relativism is at the very heart of socialism.
> >
> >It depends on the socialist, or how you are defining socialism.
> >I doubt must on the left in the US or Europe today are moral
> >relativists.
>
> Are you kidding? You're telling me that most socialists aren't
> relativists, because the definition of socialism itself is relative?
>
>
>
> >
> >has a moral vision that is atheistic and humanist, but yet
> >clings to very specific values, is that relativist?
>
>
> I DEFY YOU; Name one such individual.
I can't, but I can name the roots of the New Left: see list of newsgroups in the
header of this post or any post in this thread.
- - BearBiz
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
<shutthefuckup>
>> Except the idea of *freedom*, of course. That's the one thing he
>> always consigned to "Dilbertaria", long before The Tombschool Queen
>> turned out to regale us with his imperial stylings.
>
>I don't think I've ever used the term "Dilbertaria,"...
Of course, not, because you don't have the imperial style of that
Hahvahd man. You're just a pizza-crook who conned a gig at
Farmington.
Lynette Warren
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <tyre...@workmail.com> wrote:
>> You then use the your disgust for his character as a rationale
>> for stealing some of the property he pays you to look after.
>> Was it moral for you to steal his property under those conditions?
>
> The word "steal" begs the question, of course.
The agreement between the employees and the owner at the restaurant
Scott managed was that employees would pay for the food they consumed.
Stealing is exactly what Scott did when he took the owner's food without
paying for it, but I'll rephrase the question to the newly born moral
absolutist.
Scott, is it moral to pilfer from your employer because you don't like
him? If you think so, then you should also agree that he's entitled to
short your payroll check because he doesn't like the way you spend your
money.
Lynette
Scott Erb
Yes one can. I don't know of any serious philosophy which
claims morals and values can be built on objectively provable
criteria. The closest (and perhaps most persuasive attempt)
comes from Kant. Most moral absolutists rely on religious or
spiritual beliefs which cannot be objectively verified. Unless
you want to claim that a religious moral absolutist is not
really an absolutist, your statement is false on its face.
Scott Erb
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." wrote:
> >Let's say you've been tasked to safeguard the property of someone. Then
> >the man who pays you for that task comes around one night and you decide
> >that you don't like his looks, his lifestyle, or the way he spends his
> >money. You then use the your disgust for his character as a rationale
> >for stealing some of the property he pays you to look after. Was it
> >moral for you to steal his property under those conditions?
>
> The word "steal" begs the question, of course.
>
> You must be a libertarian.
>
> On her way to some sort of question-begging destination.
>
> Right?
Such questions are pretty useless. There was a point in my life
I would rationalize on the grounds of "defensive use of force"
theft if it was because I believed people were being exploited
(e.g., giving free food to employees when they should pay half
price, etc.) Over time, I've decided that is inappropriate, as
it is responding to a misdeed by another misdeed. But the exact
context and the nature of moral dilemmas is tough.
Here's one we talked about today in a seminar: a man's wife is
dying and she needs medication. The druggist refuses to lower
the price, and the man can't afford it. He pleads, but to know
avail. If the woman doesn't get the drug, she will die. Should
he steal it? Surprisingly, EVERYONE argued that he should,
saying that life is more valuable than property, and therefore
he would be justified stealing the drug, provided he plan to
compensate the store owner somewhere down the line (a few people
didn't even think that was necessary, believing that the store
owner should be punished for his coldness). As one person said,
"even if people argue that he shouldn't steal it, I bet they
would if they were in that position."
In such a case I'd have to agree theft would be legitimate, but
only as a last resort, and only if the theif made a
conscientious effort to negotiate all possibilities and to repay
the owner down the line.
Martin McPhillips
Is there something that you need to be objectively verified
Scott, because I'll be happy to take care of that for you,
today, at no extra charge?
How about the Golden Rule? My direct apprehension through
intuition of my own interests and my direct apprehension
through the form of intuition known as empathy of your
interests, tells me quite objectively that if I want to
be treated fairly by you that I will treat you fairly.
Nothing spiritual or religious there. No a priori
core values, just reflexion on, and intuition and
apprehension of the objective relationship between you
and me and a simple reciprocal rule governing it.
One begins with this objective criteria and finds
its implications cascade forth into other objective
situations. it is possible to know, therefore, without
having been told, and if one is mindful, that one
should keep one's dog on a leash in a public park
where there are other humans and other dogs.
Tim Starr
>Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
> However, that is not to say that the actual handling of Vietnam
>was anything like competent, for decades on end and culminating with
>some sixty thousand American dead in a losing effort. The remark
>attributed to some North Vietnamese general when confronted by Col.
>David Hackworth is perversely illuminating: when Hackworth pointed out
>that "you never defeated us in battle," the man said, "That is true,
>but it is also irrelevent."
That was Col. Harry Summers, not Hackworth.
> If at any time the actual military situation had been met with
>the courage of authentic American conviction of the cause...
That was never gonna happen, because North Vietnam never even threatened to
attack US territory (not counting the US embassy in Saigon). Fehrenbach has
an excellent discussion of the motivation of American soldiers in "This Kind
of War." It's about the Korean War, but it applies to the Vietnam War as
well. He points out that citizen-soldiers fight for their country, while
professionals fight out of pride in their training, and that for wars like
Korea & Vietnam, which are in defense of imperial frontiers rather than
homeland, professionals are needed rather than citizen-soldiers. The
problem
with that is that the US has always been hostile to the notion of standing
armies. The only ground force that survived the demobilization after WWII
relatively intact was the Marines, because it was part of the Navy, not the
Army. The Air Force was split off from the Army & expanded after WWII,
partly
because that was also consistent with anti-Army sentiment.
>North Vietnam would have ceased to exist as a political entity capable of
>engineering the Easter Offensive of 1975 which ended at Saigon. The
>proof of this lies in the success of the "Linebacker" operations at
>stemming the NVA offensive across the DMZ begun in March of 1972 in
>flagrant violation of negotiations at the time. It worked, and it
>would have worked even better in 1965, regardless of who was seated at
>Saigon at the moment.
It worked in '72 partly because North Vietnam was far enough down the path
of
switching from being a Chinese to a Soviet client by that time. In '65,
North
Vietnam was still primarily a Chinese client and Soviet sponsorship of North
Vietnam was just starting up as the main instance of Brezhnev's policy of
supporting national liberation fronts around the world as part of his
strategy
for Soviet expansion. This is significant because at their peak the Chinese
had 300,000 people working in North Vietnam in non-combat roles to free up
Vietnamese personnel for combat against South Vietnam. Any threat to wipe
North Vietnam off the map would've threatened the Chinese in North Vietnam
and
threatened to bring China into the war directly - a repeat of Korea. That
would've provided more than enough ground forces to protect North Vietnam.
In
order to counter that, the US would've had to have been willing to go
nuclear,
and the Soviets threatened nuclear retaliation if that happened. Both China
&
the Soviets made their willingness to protect North Vietnam clear by secret
dipolomatic messages. When it came down to it, the US wasn't willing to
risk
having the Soviets nuke Western Europe or even the US in retaliation for a
full-scale attack on North Vietnam.
The only solution was diplomatic: use the Sino-Soviet split to break Vietnam
away from China & into the Soviet camp, thus eliminating the threat of
Chinese
ground intervention & making the war winnable without nuclear escalation.
Then win the ground war. Unfortunately for the South Vietnamese, Laotians,
and Cambodians, Nixon was only able to accomplish the first part of this,
too
late for many, and unable to accomplish the last due to overextension of the
American people's willingness to accept casualties on behalf of other
countries.
Tim Starr
Scott Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> Is there something that you need to be objectively verified
> Scott, because I'll be happy to take care of that for you,
> today, at no extra charge?
You first need to know what objectively verified means. It
means something that can be proven through direct evidence to
others in a manner replicable and visible. You provide a
subjective test, something very similar to my approach:
> How about the Golden Rule? My direct apprehension through
> intuition of my own interests and my direct apprehension
> through the form of intuition known as empathy of your
> interests, tells me quite objectively that if I want to
> be treated fairly by you that I will treat you fairly.
Then obviously, you don't want to be treated fairly by me.
But, Martin, here's a beginning lesson for you: what you just
described was SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. Tuition and empathy
are subjectively experienced, they cannot be objectively
measured, at least not at our current level of knowledge. Don't
get me wrong -- my path for choosing my moral and ethical
beliefs is essentially based on the same as what you describe
above: intuition and empathy, a subjective understanding that
cannot be measured in a materialist/secular way. But that isn't
something that can be objectively proven.
> Nothing spiritual or religious there. No a priori
> core values, just reflexion on, and intuition and
> apprehension of the objective relationship between you
> and me and a simple reciprocal rule governing it.
No, that's subjective, not objective, Martin. It doesn't prove
that this is the right moral value, it only suggests that your
experience tells you in most cases people will treat you as you
treat them. Obviously, that doesn't happen all the time, it
isn't a universal truth. And, of course, that doesn't make any
statement about moral absolutes, only an expectation of
behavior.
> One begins with this objective criteria and finds
> its implications cascade forth into other objective
> situations. it is possible to know, therefore, without
> having been told, and if one is mindful, that one
> should keep one's dog on a leash in a public park
> where there are other humans and other dogs.
Just because you use the word "objective" doesn't mean you are
talking about any objective proof for a moral absolute. You
aren't. Not even close.
cheers, scott
Lynette Warren
Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Most moral absolutists rely on religious or
> spiritual beliefs which cannot be objectively verified.
That people have a right to life, liberty, and their property is not
derived from religion. You believe that each one of those rights can be
revoked by committee.
> Unless you want to claim that a religious moral absolutist
> is not really an absolutist, your statement is false on its face.
I'm not arguing any such claim and your dragging it doesn't distract
anyone who is paying attention from the fact that you are as relativist
as they come.
Lynette
Billy Beck
Tim Starr <tims...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> However, that is not to say that the actual handling of Vietnam
>>was anything like competent, for decades on end and culminating with
>>some sixty thousand American dead in a losing effort. The remark
>>attributed to some North Vietnamese general when confronted by Col.
>>David Hackworth is perversely illuminating: when Hackworth pointed out
>>that "you never defeated us in battle," the man said, "That is true,
>>but it is also irrelevent."
>
>That was Col. Harry Summers, not Hackworth.
(Dammit) Thank you. As I wrote that, I idly wondered whether I
had the episode wrong and if you would jump in and correct it for me.
>> If at any time the actual military situation had been met with
>>the courage of authentic American conviction of the cause...
>
>That was never gonna happen, because North Vietnam never even threatened to
>attack US territory (not counting the US embassy in Saigon). Fehrenbach has
>an excellent discussion of the motivation of American soldiers in "This Kind
>of War." It's about the Korean War, but it applies to the Vietnam War as
>well. He points out that citizen-soldiers fight for their country, while
>professionals fight out of pride in their training, and that for wars like
>Korea & Vietnam, which are in defense of imperial frontiers rather than
>homeland, professionals are needed rather than citizen-soldiers.
That's exactly right, but I also temper that whole concept with
the idea that the NVA would have died like patriots in wholesale
droves under the weight of serious air assault, and that the political
entity of North Vietnam they served would have been next in line.
IOW: the "professionals" necessary to a successful campaign were ready
in the Air Force and Navy, and just waiting for the word. They could
have done what was necessary, *if* the object had been to win that
thing.
It will behoove understanding here if you stop and read the rest
of this.
>>North Vietnam would have ceased to exist as a political entity capable of
>>engineering the Easter Offensive of 1975 which ended at Saigon. The
>>proof of this lies in the success of the "Linebacker" operations at
>>stemming the NVA offensive across the DMZ begun in March of 1972 in
>>flagrant violation of negotiations at the time. It worked, and it
>>would have worked even better in 1965, regardless of who was seated at
>>Saigon at the moment.
>
>It worked in '72 partly because North Vietnam was far enough down the path
>of switching from being a Chinese to a Soviet client by that time. In '65,
>North Vietnam was still primarily a Chinese client and Soviet sponsorship of North
>Vietnam was just starting up as the main instance of Brezhnev's policy of
>supporting national liberation fronts around the world as part of his
>strategy for Soviet expansion. This is significant because at their peak the Chinese
>had 300,000 people working in North Vietnam in non-combat roles to free up
>Vietnamese personnel for combat against South Vietnam.
Big deal. So what? My previously-stated implied necessity of
confronting the Soviets all the way out to explicit nuke-stakes in
this matter of proxy conflicts obtains in the case of the Chinese,
too. "Get your people out of North Vietnam, because we're going to
completely wreck the place. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you don't like
it, then come get some."
I don't know if I made completely clear that *this* sort of thing
was exactly the question that the North Vietnamese begged of Johnson
and Nixon, at least, with both the Soviets and Chinese laughing over
their shoulders when it wasn't answered. This is the entire reason
why that mess dragged out as long as it did, and it was always the
question that needed to be settled before a single American soldier
set foot in that place. Like I said: American political leaders tried
to cheat their way around it, and that's why things went the way they
did. When the NVA rolled Russian tanks down Route 1 in 1975, they
were nothing but a fatter target in all the right tactical terms.
There was no *essential* military difference from their situation in
1965: a determined effort could have completely blotted them out --
along with their commanders and political leadership, as a matter of
chewing up the food-chain -- but nobody ever looked down the road at
that sort of a prospect, and I maintain that that was exactly the
question that should have been resolved as a matter of *strategy* --
in global terms -- before any of it got started.
"Never whistle while you're pissing."
Or, "Whatever thou might find to fill your hand, take it up with
thine whole heart and soul."
They tried to fake it. They bought their own "proxy conflict"
"counter-insurgency" bullshit, and...
>Any threat to wipe North Vietnam off the map would've threatened
>the Chinese in North Vietnam and threatened to bring China into the
>war directly - a repeat of Korea. That would've provided more than
>enough ground forces to protect North Vietnam. In order to counter
>that, the US would've had to have been willing to go nuclear,
>and the Soviets threatened nuclear retaliation if that happened. Both
>China & the Soviets made their willingness to protect North Vietnam
>clear by secret dipolomatic messages. When it came down to it,...
...when it came down to it, the Communists knew where the action
was and we got to bag-up sixty thousand men and come home with nothing
for it because U.S. leadership didn't resolve the essentials before
they got started.
Understand me: in my original post here, I begged the essential
question with an "if", by precise design. I have never been convinced
that anything in the world was going to save South Vietnam, because
what was necessary for *us* to do it was simply far too expensive in
big-picture terms.
My point here is about the simply awesome nonsense that this
government ran on the whole deal from the very beginning.
Lynette Warren
So you no longer hold the following sentiment?:
"Was I stealing? Sure, according to the law. But I felt morally
justified and still do. He was stealing from us, having us work hard to
make him rich, paying minimum wage to most of us."
> There was a point in my life
1997 is the point in your life when you wrote the above justification
for stealing from your employer.
> I would rationalize on the grounds of "defensive use of force"
> theft if it was because I believed people were being exploited
> (e.g., giving free food to employees when they should pay half
> price, etc.) Over time, I've decided that is inappropriate,
"Inappropriate" as in wrong or as in, "I'd better stop admitting to the
pizza thing or people will realize what a morally bankrupt weasel I
really am."
> Here's one we talked about today in a seminar: a man's wife is
> dying and she needs medication. The druggist refuses to lower
> the price, and the man can't afford it. He pleads, but to know
> avail. If the woman doesn't get the drug, she will die. Should
> he steal it? Surprisingly, EVERYONE argued that he should,
Surprisingly. You're surprised that in the Age of Entitlement the
educational system and a generation of mostly braindead parents have
delivered a bumper crop of mind numbed relativists to your classroom
doorstep.
Lynette
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > Is there something that you need to be objectively verified
> > Scott, because I'll be happy to take care of that for you,
> > today, at no extra charge?
>
> You first need to know what objectively verified means. It
> means something that can be proven through direct evidence to
> others in a manner replicable and visible. You provide a
> subjective test, something very similar to my approach:
What you first need to know, Scott, is what objectively
verified means. It means something that can be proven through
direct evidence to others in a manner replicable and visible.
I provide such an objective example, completely different
from your approach:
> > How about the Golden Rule? My direct apprehension through
> > intuition of my own interests and my direct apprehension
> > through the form of intuition known as empathy of your
> > interests, tells me quite objectively that if I want to
> > be treated fairly by you that I will treat you fairly.
>
> Then obviously, you don't want to be treated fairly by me.
Really? I've always been fair with you, Scott. You lie, I tell
you that you lie. You misstate something, I tell you that
you misstate it. You demonstrate that you don't know your
field, I tell you. What could be fairer than that?
> But, Martin, here's a beginning lesson for you: what you just
> described was SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. Tuition and empathy
> are subjectively experienced, they cannot be objectively
> measured,
Yes, you see, I told you two/three years ago that you were
a positivist, but you wouldn't listen to me.
The relationship between the subject and the object, Scott,
can be quite complicated, but we know, for instance, that the
Golden Rule is an objective proportional sense of mutualized
individual interests. That's not subjective, it's an essential
state of being, observable at all times, in all human situations,
in various degrees of complexity, both by its presence and when
it is absent.
Subjectivity plays a part in *any* situation where two or
more subjects observe an object. That doesn't mean that the
object is thereby subjectivized, because in order for it to
remain what it in fact is, the object will, no matter how
many different appearances it might take on to no matter
how many individuals, remain what it is.
Intuition and empathy (a form of intuition) are not subjective
per se, since they are attempts to apprehend an object. For
instance, when a quarterback drops back to pass a ball 35 yards
downfield to a receiver traveling crossways at a given speed,
he doesn't take out a plumb line, a meter to measure velocity,
and a surveyor's tool to plan how he's going to get the
ball to the receiver. He judges all of the factors intuitively;
he apprehends and comprehends the factors, and it is his
objective to get the ball onto the receiver's fingertips within
about 5-6 seconds after he takes the ball from center. He
does all of this intuitively based on essential knowledge
Were he to be acting *subjectively* without reference to the
objective situation he might just throw the ball anywhere,
believing that it might be caught without reference to
any objective reality. That's how you deal with things, Scott.
> at least not at our current level of knowledge. Don't
> get me wrong -- my path for choosing my moral and ethical
> beliefs is essentially based on the same as what you describe
> above: intuition and empathy, a subjective understanding that
> cannot be measured in a materialist/secular way. But that isn't
> something that can be objectively proven.
I think, Scott, that you would have a very hard time making
a case that the Golden Rule is not objectively proven, given
that it lies essentially at the base of human interaction, and
that one can observe its presence or its absence in the conduct
of said interaction.
> > Nothing spiritual or religious there. No a priori
> > core values, just reflexion on, and intuition and
> > apprehension of the objective relationship between you
> > and me and a simple reciprocal rule governing it.
>
> No, that's subjective, not objective, Martin.
See above.
> It doesn't prove
> that this is the right moral value, it only suggests that your
> experience tells you in most cases people will treat you as you
> treat them. Obviously, that doesn't happen all the time, it
> isn't a universal truth. And, of course, that doesn't make any
> statement about moral absolutes, only an expectation of
> behavior.
Very odd paragraph. Parsing it would take many moons. But
to cut to the core: You *can* observe the Golden Rule
at work both when it is present in any given situation
and when it is absent--it describes proportional reciprocity.
But it inheres in any given human situation, and *is* an
objective basis of relationship between two subjects.
> > One begins with this objective criteria and finds
> > its implications cascade forth into other objective
> > situations. it is possible to know, therefore, without
> > having been told, and if one is mindful, that one
> > should keep one's dog on a leash in a public park
> > where there are other humans and other dogs.
>
> Just because you use the word "objective" doesn't mean you are
> talking about any objective proof for a moral absolute. You
> aren't. Not even close.
I would never expect to convince a positivist that essential
things are objective. But I have proved it with respect to
the objectivity (the goal being the object) of intuition
and empathy (as a form of intuition), and I've explained
the relationship between the subject and the object, briefly,
a bite size not too large for you.
Bill Moore
Lynette Warren <ar...@nospamsurfari.net> wrote:
>> Here's one we talked about today in a seminar: a man's wife is
>> dying and she needs medication. The druggist refuses to lower
>> the price, and the man can't afford it. He pleads, but to know
>> avail. If the woman doesn't get the drug, she will die. Should
>> he steal it? Surprisingly, EVERYONE argued that he should,
>
>Surprisingly. You're surprised that in the Age of Entitlement the
>educational system and a generation of mostly braindead parents have
>delivered a bumper crop of mind numbed relativists to your classroom
>doorstep.
So... the "correct" moral choice in this contrived situation is for
the man to let his wife die rather than steal medication? Stealing
is wrong but letting someone die like that is worse. Obviously.
--
Remove 'blackhole.' from the address to send e-mail.
Tim Starr
>
>>>Steven Litvintchouk <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> However, that is not to say that the actual handling of Vietnam
>>>was anything like competent, for decades on end and culminating with
>>>some sixty thousand American dead in a losing effort. The remark
>>>attributed to some North Vietnamese general when confronted by Col.
>>>David Hackworth is perversely illuminating: when Hackworth pointed out
>>>that "you never defeated us in battle," the man said, "That is true,
>>>but it is also irrelevent."
>>
>>That was Col. Harry Summers, not Hackworth.
>
> (Dammit) Thank you. As I wrote that, I idly wondered whether I
>had the episode wrong and if you would jump in and correct it for me.
Yah, well, it's probably my fault for confusing you last time by mentioning
how Hackworth had tried to check Summers' story and been unable to do so.
[snip]
>IOW: the "professionals" necessary to a successful campaign were ready
>in the Air Force and Navy, and just waiting for the word. They could
>have done what was necessary, *if* the object had been to win that
>thing.
Only from the air, and no war has ever been won with air power alone. The
Marines didn't have enough men to defend South Vietnam on the ground,
neither
Johnson nor Nixon was willing to use the National Guard, so that leaves the
Army.
>...When the NVA rolled Russian tanks down Route 1 in 1975, they
>were nothing but a fatter target in all the right tactical terms.
>There was no *essential* military difference from their situation in
>1965...
Not true, the threat of Chinese combat troops participating in either the
defense of North Vietnam or the invasion of South Vietnam was greatly
lessened, due to the change in the dipolmatic situation.
>...a determined effort could have completely blotted them out --
>along with their commanders and political leadership, as a matter of
>chewing up the food-chain -- but nobody ever looked down the road at
>that sort of a prospect, and I maintain that that was exactly the
>question that should have been resolved as a matter of *strategy* --
>in global terms -- before any of it got started.
Granted that it ought to have been resolved before it was started, but I
think
it's more that when faced with the prospect of sacrificing Western Europe
for
the sake of Southeast Asia, the US political leadership decided it would
prefer to lose Southeast Asia.
>...I have never been convinced that anything in the world was going to save
>South Vietnam, because what was necessary for *us* to do it was simply far
too
>expensive in big-picture terms.
>
> My point here is about the simply awesome nonsense that this
>government ran on the whole deal from the very beginning.
I understand your point, but I don't think that the use of air power against
North Vietnam was the only thing that could've made the war winnable. I
think
that if Johnson and Westmoreland hadn't squandered popular support for the
war
with their search-and-destroy attrition strategy between '65-'68 and started
off with a population security strategy as implemented by Abrams after
Westmoreland was relieved that South Vietnam could've enjoyed about as much
security as South Korea. And if Kennedy hadn't given away Laos to the
Commies
and Sihanouk's claims to neutrality along the Cambodian border had been
properly ignored, since he not only couldn't keep the Commies out but sold
rice to them as well.
Tim Starr
Billy Beck
bmo...@blackhole.nyx.net (Bill Moore) wrote:
>Lynette Warren <ar...@nospamsurfari.net> wrote:
>>> Here's one we talked about today in a seminar: a man's wife is
>>> dying and she needs medication. The druggist refuses to lower
>>> the price, and the man can't afford it. He pleads, but to know
>>> avail. If the woman doesn't get the drug, she will die. Should
>>> he steal it? Surprisingly, EVERYONE argued that he should,
>>
>>Surprisingly. You're surprised that in the Age of Entitlement the
>>educational system and a generation of mostly braindead parents have
>>delivered a bumper crop of mind numbed relativists to your classroom
>>doorstep.
>
>So... the "correct" moral choice in this contrived situation is for
>the man to let his wife die rather than steal medication? Stealing
>is wrong but letting someone die like that is worse. Obviously.
"Worse", to whom, and by what standard?
If the guy comes to me with his grievous misfortune and begs my
assistance, I might sell my guns to help him out.
If I catch him stealing my stuff, he's an ant-food dead-guy
laying out in the gutter as fast as I can lay a bead on him.
BitHead
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>BitHead wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:54:08 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk
>> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> . . . .
>> >Rather, there are a whole series of emotional ties, ethical ties, and
>> >philosophical ties that have bound Western society together, not just
>> >religion. I suggest some of these are: material well-being (having
>> >enough to eat, etc.), patriotism, a sense of community, optimism (faith
>> >in the future), belief in individual rights trumping majority (mob)
>> >rule. And especially the "Golden Rule": "What is hurtful to you, do
>> >not do to others." Each and every one of these principles has been
>> >under systematic attack by the modern left-wing. Their goal is not so
>> >much to promote moral relativism per se, but to inculcate a sense of
>> >cynicism, pessimism and despair in the populace. If the people come to
>> >believe their society is just not worth preserving, they won't summon
>> >the will to defend it against a real challenge.
>>
>> But all of these have their roots in the Judeo - Christian ethic.
>
>I don't think so. The Judeo-Christian ethic doesn't say much about
>patriotism, nor about optimism in the future of man here on earth--until
>the end of days at which time the Messiah is supposed to arrive. In
>fact, the Judeo-Christian ethic is rather suspicious of materialism. Do
>you think Jesus would have approved of SUVs?
I rather think he'd not give a crap about them, either way.
> Don't you know how many
>encyclicals the Vatican has issued against material greed and chasing
>after the almighty dollar?
Have you ever been to the Vatican?
>> Hitler, too, was a leftist.
>
>We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one too.
>
>
>>
>> Where is it, you think, he got the tactics from?
>
>If you read "Mein Kampf," you will find that Hitler had studied the
>tactics of the German communists carefully. But he wasn't one of them.
>He saw himself as fighting fire with fire.
If it walks like a duck....
Billy Beck
Tim Starr <tims...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>>===== Original Message From wj...@mindspring.com =====
>>>> However, that is not to say that the actual handling of Vietnam
>>>>was anything like competent, for decades on end and culminating with
>>>>some sixty thousand American dead in a losing effort. The remark
>>>>attributed to some North Vietnamese general when confronted by Col.
>>>>David Hackworth is perversely illuminating: when Hackworth pointed out
>>>>that "you never defeated us in battle," the man said, "That is true,
>>>>but it is also irrelevent."
>>>
>>>That was Col. Harry Summers, not Hackworth.
>>
>> (Dammit) Thank you. As I wrote that, I idly wondered whether I
>>had the episode wrong and if you would jump in and correct it for me.
See? I knew you were involved in this, somehow.
>Yah, well, it's probably my fault for confusing you last time by mentioning
>how Hackworth had tried to check Summers' story and been unable to do so.
>
>[snip]
>
>>IOW: the "professionals" necessary to a successful campaign were ready
>>in the Air Force and Navy, and just waiting for the word. They could
>>have done what was necessary, *if* the object had been to win that
>>thing.
>
>Only from the air, and no war has ever been won with air power alone. The
>Marines didn't have enough men to defend South Vietnam on the ground,
>neither Johnson nor Nixon was willing to use the National Guard, so that
>leaves the Army.
Impertinent trivia, Tim. To begin with, I always condition that
particular complaint against airpower with reference to specific
instances, and this one was perfectly ripe. Again: Linebacker II
demonstrated what I'm talking about. Even after years of Rolling
Thunder, the NVA had never imagined anything like what was unleashed
in 1972, and they knew that they were looking at the bitter end. It's
why Le Duc Tho suddenly found Paris a comparatively pleasant place to
be by January of '73 and after only eleven days of the attack on
Hanoi. This was not WW II: the technology and the specific character
of the enemy added up to a scene just *begging* for air power. Hell,
the proposed attacks on the dikes alone would have gone halfway to
putting them out of business for the duration. >WHACK< -- no ugly
attrition problem of the NVA bringing draft-age infantry online every
year.
If they don't exist, they're not a ground problem, and if the
command and control structure is floating in the paddies with them,
then everybody comes home to have a beer.
It is precisely because they had nothing but heart -- no air
force to speak of, and the most lethal air defences in world history
were a smoking shambles by the end of December -- that they were
vulnerable to air power as a strategic and tactical stroke of
unprecedented efficacy in this particular case.
>>...a determined effort could have completely blotted them out --
>>along with their commanders and political leadership, as a matter of
>>chewing up the food-chain -- but nobody ever looked down the road at
>>that sort of a prospect, and I maintain that that was exactly the
>>question that should have been resolved as a matter of *strategy* --
>>in global terms -- before any of it got started.
>
>Granted that it ought to have been resolved before it was started, but I
>think it's more that when faced with the prospect of sacrificing Western
>Europe for the sake of Southeast Asia, the US political leadership
>decided it would prefer to lose Southeast Asia.
Of *course*, and all that is part of the "global military and
moral calculus" that I stated at the beginning.
Look: all this is a matter of principles. I say that anyone who
did not understand that all that lay at the bottom of things, is also
someone who had no business at all ordering our soldiers to Vietnam...
which includes every one of "the best and the brightest" who pissed
'em all away with some of the most spectacular foolishness this
country has ever witnessed, and (like I said) discovered what it all
really about when they realized that they couldn't do anything about
any of it without going all-out, so they gave it up.
>> My point here is about the simply awesome nonsense that this
>>government ran on the whole deal from the very beginning.
>
>I understand your point, but I don't think that the use of air power against
>North Vietnam was the only thing that could've made the war winnable. I
>think that if Johnson and Westmoreland hadn't squandered popular
>support for the war with their search-and-destroy attrition strategy between
>'65-'68 and started off with a population security strategy as implemented
>by Abrams after Westmoreland was relieved that South Vietnam could've
>enjoyed about as much security as South Korea.
Why *bother*? Look: I'm talking about *war*, which is what it
*was*, and you're still talking about politics with entire army corps
in-country, and likely for decades into the future, just like South
Korea.
Fuck that. "Never whistle while you're pissing."
*If* you're going to do it, then -- given the particulars of this
case -- let the air troops do what they do, and then it's Miller Time.
John T. Kennedy
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:03:52 -0700, "Lynette Warren"
><ar...@nospamsurfari.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> These are difficult decisions. For someone like me, a moral
>>> absolutist, I'm not always sure how to apply my moral beliefs
>>> in context.
>>
>>Here's a pretty good test as to how to apply what you know about
>>morality.
>>
>>Let's say you've been tasked to safeguard the property of someone. Then
>>the man who pays you for that task comes around one night and you decide
>>that you don't like his looks, his lifestyle, or the way he spends his
>>money. You then use the your disgust for his character as a rationale
>>for stealing some of the property he pays you to look after. Was it
>>moral for you to steal his property under those conditions?
>
>The word "steal" begs the question, of course.
It begs no question, it's a stipulation of the test.
But if you want to tie this back to Scott's original post he admitted
it was theft.
Hey Erb! Could you be wrong about whether or not morality is relative?
-
John T. Kennedy III
No Treason - A Journal of Liberty
http://www.mindspring.com/~jtkennedy/no_treason/
The Wild Shall Ever Wild Remain!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jtkennedy/itswhatitisnow.html
John T. Kennedy
>Such questions are pretty useless. There was a point in my life
>I would rationalize on the grounds of "defensive use of force"
>theft if it was because I believed people were being exploited
>(e.g., giving free food to employees when they should pay half
>price, etc.) Over time, I've decided that is inappropriate, as
>it is responding to a misdeed by another misdeed. But the exact
>context and the nature of moral dilemmas is tough.
How is the decision of whether or not to steal pizza a moral dilemma?
D.G. Porter
Cheers.
Bill Moore
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>bmo...@blackhole.nyx.net (Bill Moore) wrote:
>
>>Lynette Warren <ar...@nospamsurfari.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Here's one we talked about today in a seminar: a man's wife is
>>>> dying and she needs medication. The druggist refuses to lower
>>>> the price, and the man can't afford it. He pleads, but to know
>>>> avail. If the woman doesn't get the drug, she will die. Should
>>>> he steal it? Surprisingly, EVERYONE argued that he should,
>>>
>>>Surprisingly. You're surprised that in the Age of Entitlement the
>>>educational system and a generation of mostly braindead parents have
>>>delivered a bumper crop of mind numbed relativists to your classroom
>>>doorstep.
>>
>>So... the "correct" moral choice in this contrived situation is for
>>the man to let his wife die rather than steal medication? Stealing
>>is wrong but letting someone die like that is worse. Obviously.
>
> "Worse", to whom, and by what standard?
Would you let a loved one die rather than steal medication?
No reasonably sane person would.
Gandalf Grey
D.G. Porter <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3B2E99...@pacbell.net...
> I hereby wish death, maiming and bad breath upon John Sabota.
God beat you to all of them. Suicide Sabotta: obsessed with death, maimed
with a twisted mindset and a bad case of newsgroup halitosis.
Scott Erb
Lynette Warren wrote:
>
> Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > Such questions are pretty useless.
>
> So you no longer hold the following sentiment?:
>
> "Was I stealing? Sure, according to the law. But I felt morally
> justified and still do. He was stealing from us, having us work hard to
> make him rich, paying minimum wage to most of us."
>
> > There was a point in my life
>
> 1997 is the point in your life when you wrote the above justification
> for stealing from your employer.
It's still a tough call. I do think that the employer was
exploiting workers, and there is justification in retaliatory
force. It is similar to how Billy justifies not paying his
taxes, which is also considered by most a form of theft. But in
thinking it through I'm leaning much stronger towards avoiding
that kind of logic, as it makes it too easy to rationalize what
is convenient. But it's a tough call.
> > I would rationalize on the grounds of "defensive use of force"
> > theft if it was because I believed people were being exploited
> > (e.g., giving free food to employees when they should pay half
> > price, etc.) Over time, I've decided that is inappropriate,
>
> "Inappropriate" as in wrong or as in, "I'd better stop admitting to the
> pizza thing or people will realize what a morally bankrupt weasel I
> really am."
Given the kind of folk you hang around with on the internet
group, your comment is ironic.
> > Here's one we talked about today in a seminar: a man's wife is
> > dying and she needs medication. The druggist refuses to lower
> > the price, and the man can't afford it. He pleads, but to know
> > avail. If the woman doesn't get the drug, she will die. Should
> > he steal it? Surprisingly, EVERYONE argued that he should,
>
> Surprisingly. You're surprised that in the Age of Entitlement the
> educational system and a generation of mostly braindead parents have
> delivered a bumper crop of mind numbed relativists to your classroom
> doorstep.
>
> Lynette
Must be tough for you to live in this world when you're so
convinced that almost everyone has it wrong and only you and a
few others see the light. But hey, that's where the fantasies
of "ruination" come in, dreaming it all come crashing down, and
the those with the proper belief will emerge on top! Pathetic.
Scott Erb
I agree. I'd like to see Lynnette justify her supposedly moral
point of view. I doubt she can.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Lynette Warren wrote:
> >
> > Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > Such questions are pretty useless.
> >
> > So you no longer hold the following sentiment?:
> >
> > "Was I stealing? Sure, according to the law. But I felt morally
> > justified and still do. He was stealing from us, having us work hard to
> > make him rich, paying minimum wage to most of us."
> >
> > > There was a point in my life
> >
> > 1997 is the point in your life when you wrote the above justification
> > for stealing from your employer.
>
> It's still a tough call. I do think that the employer was
> exploiting workers,
(Love the Marxist rhetoric, by the way.)
You mean he wasn't paying them, Scott? Or that he wasn't paying them
what you would have been paying them if you owned the Pizza store?
> and there is justification in retaliatory
> force.
Sure, if he was withholding their pay, or if you were, in fact, as
his designee, stealing from him.
> It is similar to how Billy justifies not paying his
> taxes, which is also considered by most a form of theft.
No. Nonpayment of taxes is not considered by most a form of theft.
It's non-payment of taxes. The difference is that you're being
billed for something that you didn't order. And the United
States was founded on that principle. There's a question of
proportionality at work here that's too difficult for you.
> But in
> thinking it through I'm leaning much stronger towards avoiding
> that kind of logic, as it makes it too easy to rationalize what
> is convenient. But it's a tough call.
No, it's not a tough call. You wanted to be a cool guy. Your employer
was a slob. You decided that you would steal from him based on that.
You expropriated his goods for your need to feel like a good
guy. You stole from him.
You might just as well have opened the cash register and helped
yourself.
But I certainly wouldn't hold it against you, the original act.
You were a dopey young Marxist in the making, what did you know?
What I hold against you is retelling it as though it were a
moral parable in which you were the moral actor. You weren't.
You were a bigger slob than the boss.
<snip further blather>
Scott Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > You first need to know what objectively verified means. It
> > means something that can be proven through direct evidence to
> > others in a manner replicable and visible. You provide a
> > subjective test, something very similar to my approach:
>
> What you first need to know, Scott, is what objectively
> verified means. It means something that can be proven through
> direct evidence to others in a manner replicable and visible.
> I provide such an objective example, completely different
> from your approach:
You are parroting my words back to me? How cute. Yet the fact
is that you gave a subjective test and called it objective. You
got it wrong.
> > But, Martin, here's a beginning lesson for you: what you just
> > described was SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. Tuition and empathy
> > are subjectively experienced, they cannot be objectively
> > measured,
>
> Yes, you see, I told you two/three years ago that you were
> a positivist, but you wouldn't listen to me.
Objective has a clear meaning, Martin, as does subjective.
You're simply wrong and I think you know it.
> The relationship between the subject and the object, Scott,
> can be quite complicated, but we know, for instance, that the
> Golden Rule is an objective proportional sense of mutualized
> individual interests. That's not subjective, it's an essential
> state of being, observable at all times, in all human situations,
> in various degrees of complexity, both by its presence and when
> it is absent.
What world salad saying nothing. Christ, Martin, you'd have it
easier if you'd just admit you screwed up and used a subjective
test and called it objective. The fact is that you have not
proven the Golden Rule to be a universal absolute correct moral
principle in any objective sense. Not only doesn't it always
lead to the kind of result you say you expect (really all you
provide is expectation based on experience -- if you treat
people nice the chances are greater they will reciprocate than
if you do not). That is not the same as providing objective
proof for a moral absolute.
And you know it.
> Subjectivity plays a part in *any* situation where two or
> more subjects observe an object. That doesn't mean that the
> object is thereby subjectivized,
Who said the object was subjectivized? You're going out off the
deep end trying to rationalize a position you surely know is
indefensible.
You have provided no objective proof for any moral absolute.
You have not proven that it is a moral absolute that people must
follow the golden rule. You know that.
>because in order for it to
> remain what it in fact is, the object will, no matter how
> many different appearances it might take on to no matter
> how many individuals, remain what it is.
In order to remain what it is it will remain what it is.
Brilliant. Reminds me of the song, "whatever will be, will
be." (I like Mary Hopkin's version). Yet that has nothing to
do with objective proof of a moral absolute.
> Intuition and empathy (a form of intuition) are not subjective
> per se, since they are attempts to apprehend an object.
By that definition, the only thing that is subjective is
something which involves no object. You are obliterating the
common definition of subjective, which includes subjective
perceptions and interpretations (of objects), and subjective
opinions (about objects.) Not only that, but your whole world
salad is meant to obfuscate the fact that you have not come
close to providing an iota of objective proof for an absolute
moral principle.
> For
> instance, when a quarterback drops back to pass a ball 35 yards
> downfield to a receiver traveling crossways at a given speed,
> he doesn't take out a plumb line, a meter to measure velocity,
> and a surveyor's tool to plan how he's going to get the
> ball to the receiver. He judges all of the factors intuitively;
> he apprehends and comprehends the factors, and it is his
> objective to get the ball onto the receiver's fingertips within
> about 5-6 seconds after he takes the ball from center. He
> does all of this intuitively based on essential knowledge
He uses experience and practice to throw a pass. Brilliant.
And this is supposed to provide objective proof for a moral
absolute?
> Were he to be acting *subjectively* without reference to the
> objective situation he might just throw the ball anywhere,
> believing that it might be caught without reference to
> any objective reality. That's how you deal with things, Scott.
Martin, you're still just describing a rather trite and normal
thing: we use experience and understanding to make predictions
about what will happen if we do things a certain way. These
predictions are not always right; the golden rule sometimes
fails to evoke positive behavior from others, it gets
misunderstood, and quarters overshoot receivers.
And none of that provides objective proof for a moral absolute.
> > at least not at our current level of knowledge. Don't
> > get me wrong -- my path for choosing my moral and ethical
> > beliefs is essentially based on the same as what you describe
> > above: intuition and empathy, a subjective understanding that
> > cannot be measured in a materialist/secular way. But that isn't
> > something that can be objectively proven.
>
> I think, Scott, that you would have a very hard time making
> a case that the Golden Rule is not objectively proven, given
How can you prove the statement: "Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you." That is a command, a moral imperative.
How do you objectively prove it? You're not making any sense.
> that it lies essentially at the base of human interaction, and
> that one can observe its presence or its absence in the conduct
> of said interaction.
What the hell does that mean? Be specific.
> > It doesn't prove
> > that this is the right moral value, it only suggests that your
> > experience tells you in most cases people will treat you as you
> > treat them. Obviously, that doesn't happen all the time, it
> > isn't a universal truth. And, of course, that doesn't make any
> > statement about moral absolutes, only an expectation of
> > behavior.
>
> Very odd paragraph. Parsing it would take many moons. But
> to cut to the core: You *can* observe the Golden Rule
> at work both when it is present in any given situation
> and when it is absent--it describes proportional reciprocity.
> But it inheres in any given human situation, and *is* an
> objective basis of relationship between two subjects.
The golden rule can't be present if people aren't treating
others as they would want to be treated. If they are, then they
are acting in accord with a maxim. Sometimes it leads others to
behave similarly, other times people respond by saying, "what an
easy mark" and take advantage of the person.
But nothing you write, vague and abstract as it is, with no real
meaning, provides any sort of objective proof of any moral
absolute.
> I would never expect to convince a positivist that essential
> things are objective. But I have proved it with respect to
> the objectivity (the goal being the object) of intuition
> and empathy (as a form of intuition), and I've explained
> the relationship between the subject and the object, briefly,
> a bite size not too large for you.
Face it, Martin. Your abstract and vague language hides the
fact that you know you can't prove an absolute moral truth. You
"prove" that intuition and empathy can sometimes help one
predict behavior and know what to expect. I agree completely.
But how does that prove any absolute moral code?
johnz~
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I hereby wish death, maiming and bad breath upon John Sabota.
>
> Cheers.
Feel free to try and do more than "wish". I'm in Seattle and not hard to
find.
That's spelled "Sabotta", by the way.
So, tell me - is it very easy to become "close friends" with your wife,
David?
Is it worth it?
Just wondering.
JS
(original post restored below. Gee, I wonder why Porter wanted to snip
this part?)
In article <3B2D23...@pacbell.net>,
"D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:41:59 -0700, "D.G. Porter"
> > <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > >I had a run-in with Shelly Rubin, Irv's wife. It's no secret that they
> > >privately supported the assasination of Alex Odeh (who wa a personal
> > >friend of my wife's). But if you called them on this they answered with
> > >libel suit threats. And they also hauled out the old cnard,
> > >"anti-Semite" and "Holocaust supporter!" IOW, if you ain't fer 'em
> > >100%, you agin 'em 100%.
> > >Well, fuck them and theirs.
> >
> > Heard of Alex Odeh, but have no idea at this time _what_ you are
> > talking about. Resources?
>
> Alex Odeh was one of my wife's professors. They became friends.
Depending on how close their friendship was, it seems to me that motive
might possibly lie with someone else - don't you think, Porter?
I have no idea, of course, who that someone might be.
"I am not ahsamed for wishing death on assholes. They're lucky I'm
either too lazy or sane to take it any further."
- From a recent post by D.G. Porter.
Just a thought, David.
> One
> night Odeh was on TV giving the "Palestianian" (or whatever) point of
> view, and defending them, in the face of someone else who baseically
> thought they had no right to exist. I didn't see this but I read about
> it in the aftermath. The next day Odeh was bombed at his office. The
> people who bombed himand his ffice got away into Israel. As far as I
> know they are still there, Israel refuses to extradite them. The Rubins
> were of the opinion that Odeh got what he deserved. They were open
> about it until their lawyer told them to shut up.
Oh, gosh, Dave - I wonder what the Rubins (and the JDL) might think
about you accusing them of being accessories to murder.
>
> When I was on the phone with the bitch (she wanted a reference for some
> crackpot I knew who was pretending to be a journalist), I suddenly
> realized she was Irv's wife, and I said something (keeping very
> circumspect) about Odeh. Man, she just went ballistic! Threatened to
> sue me!
The JDL has an interesting website.
JS
And just to remind our audience of just what a anti-Semitic,
Nazi-cheerleading son-of-a-bitch David G. Porter really is...
(Headers included for purposes of authentication)
_____________________________________________________________________
Path:
news.uni-mannheim.de!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!new
s-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out.nib
ble.net!hub1.nntpserver.com!easynews!cyclone.swbell.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.ne
t!206.13.28.33!news.pacbell.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3B293B...@pacbell.net>
From: "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net>
Reply-To: dgpo...@pacbell.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.impeach.bush,alt.politics,alt.p
olitics.bush
Subject: Re: Germany Horrified by Smirk Attitude toward Nuclear Power
References: <AbNV6.91$0x.6...@nntp2.onemain.com>
<48658b64.01061...@posting.google.com>
<3B284027...@earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 13
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:32:39 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.214.187.199
X-Complaints-To: ab...@pacbell.net
X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 992557975 207.214.187.199 (Thu, 14 Jun 2001
15:32:55 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:32:55 PDT
Organization: SBC Internet Services
Xref: news.uni-mannheim.de alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater:584004
alt.politics.bush:434578
Steven Litvintchouk wrote:
>
> Alan McIntire wrote:
> >
> > So Germany is opposed to both Nuclear energy and fossil fuel energy.
> > They'd better hope there's a lot more global warming in the near
> > future, else they'll
> > wind up freezing to death in the dark.
>
> Or they can massacre people and burn their bodies for fuel, like they
> did to my ancestors back in the mid 1940's.
Mm, too bad they missed one in partickyoular...
______________________________________________________________________
(End of D.G. Porter post)
--
A Short History Of The United States of America:
"Laugh all you want...I'm the one goin' down in history
as the Thomas Jefferson of squirrels."
Scott Erb
Lynette Warren wrote:
>
> Scott Erb <scot...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Most moral absolutists rely on religious or
> > spiritual beliefs which cannot be objectively verified.
>
> That people have a right to life, liberty, and their property is not
> derived from religion. You believe that each one of those rights can be
> revoked by committee.
Obviously these rights have been "revoked" in reality in many
situations, and obviously the widespread belief in these rights
is relatively recent. I believe in these rights too, though
define them in context different than you. But you can't
objectively prove them to be true rights. You simply can't do
it. Try. I dare you.
> > Unless you want to claim that a religious moral absolutist
> > is not really an absolutist, your statement is false on its face.
>
> I'm not arguing any such claim and your dragging it doesn't distract
> anyone who is paying attention from the fact that you are as relativist
> as they come.
You are free to believe what you want. I simply recognize that
as a fallible human being my beliefs may be wrong. You don't
seem to want to recognize that, you want to cling to your faith.
Gandalf Grey
johnz~ <johns...@removethishome.net> wrote in message
news:johnsabotta-FF4B...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
> In article <3B2E99...@pacbell.net>,
> "D.G. Porter" <dgpo...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > I hereby wish death, maiming and bad breath upon John Sabota.
> >
> > Cheers.
>
> Feel free to try and do more than "wish". I'm in Seattle and not hard to
> find.
>
> That's spelled "Sabotta", by the way.
Actually, it's Slobotta. Or as we like to refer to him, Suicide Boy.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > > You first need to know what objectively verified means. It
> > > means something that can be proven through direct evidence to
> > > others in a manner replicable and visible. You provide a
> > > subjective test, something very similar to my approach:
> >
> > What you first need to know, Scott, is what objectively
> > verified means. It means something that can be proven through
> > direct evidence to others in a manner replicable and visible.
> > I provide such an objective example, completely different
> > from your approach:
>
> You are parroting my words back to me? How cute. Yet the fact
> is that you gave a subjective test and called it objective. You
> got it wrong.
I parroted your words back for a purpose, as an introduction to
why I had it right, and you had it wrong.
> > > But, Martin, here's a beginning lesson for you: what you just
> > > described was SUBJECTIVE, not OBJECTIVE. Tuition and empathy
> > > are subjectively experienced, they cannot be objectively
> > > measured,
> >
> > Yes, you see, I told you two/three years ago that you were
> > a positivist, but you wouldn't listen to me.
>
> Objective has a clear meaning, Martin, as does subjective.
> You're simply wrong and I think you know it.
But you don't understand what objective and subjective mean,
and what they have to do with one another. And that's due
in part because you are a positivist, which is a lazy and
unfortunate thing to be.
> > The relationship between the subject and the object, Scott,
> > can be quite complicated, but we know, for instance, that the
> > Golden Rule is an objective proportional sense of mutualized
> > individual interests. That's not subjective, it's an essential
> > state of being, observable at all times, in all human situations,
> > in various degrees of complexity, both by its presence and when
> > it is absent.
>
> What world salad saying nothing.
I always know when you are losing an argument, Scott. Do you
know how I know?
> Christ, Martin, you'd have it
> easier if you'd just admit you screwed up and used a subjective
> test and called it objective. The fact is that you have not
> proven the Golden Rule to be a universal absolute correct moral
> principle in any objective sense. Not only doesn't it always
> lead to the kind of result you say you expect (really all you
> provide is expectation based on experience -- if you treat
> people nice the chances are greater they will reciprocate than
> if you do not). That is not the same as providing objective
> proof for a moral absolute.
>
> And you know it.
All that I know, Scott, is that the Golden Rule is an objective
moral value, and that you don't understand why.
> > Subjectivity plays a part in *any* situation where two or
> > more subjects observe an object. That doesn't mean that the
> > object is thereby subjectivized,
>
> Who said the object was subjectivized? You're going out off the
> deep end trying to rationalize a position you surely know is
> indefensible.
Not really. I'm not off any deep end. I'm actually discussing
with you the relationship between subject and object.
> You have provided no objective proof for any moral absolute.
> You have not proven that it is a moral absolute that people must
> follow the golden rule. You know that.
What are you talking about, Scott? No one can "prove" that people
"must follow the Golden Rule." The Golden Rule is. People either follow
it or they do not. It's present in every situation, at all times,
between individual human beings. They can perceive it and not follow
it. They may not be aware of it, yet still follow it. They might
deliberately take advantage of it (sociopathy and psychopathy).
What I know is that you can grasp this if you try, but that
you are desperate not to know.
> >because in order for it to
> > remain what it in fact is, the object will, no matter how
> > many different appearances it might take on to no matter
> > how many individuals, remain what it is.
>
> In order to remain what it is it will remain what it is.
> Brilliant. Reminds me of the song, "whatever will be, will
> be." (I like Mary Hopkin's version). Yet that has nothing to
> do with objective proof of a moral absolute.
Scott, step into your nearest hallway, preferably short and
narrow. The space you encounter, where is it? Forget about
it's obvious physical contents: air, dust particles, etc.
Where is the space? Is it not there for you as it is enclosed
by the idea of a hallway built into a physical object?
Yes, I'm afraid, it is there, though the only proof of it
is a physical enclosure by an idea -- a hallway -- brought
into physical reality by blueprints and carpenters.
The Golden Rule, Scott, is far more objective than the
space in that hallway: it is the rule that governs the
region of being between two human beings, brought into
existence by their existence, revealed by their interaction,
observed by their own attendant reciprocity.
It's like the space in your hallway, objective, but not
there in any sense but that it is enclosed by another
idea, which in the case of the Golden Rule is two individuals
reciprocating in the world.
It is moral because it is good. It is objective because
it is directly knowable.
> > Intuition and empathy (a form of intuition) are not subjective
> > per se, since they are attempts to apprehend an object.
>
> By that definition, the only thing that is subjective is
> something which involves no object.
No, you're not paying attention. All subjectivity involves
objects: first and foremost the object of the subject himself,
the knower, knowing, known.
> You are obliterating the
> common definition of subjective,
Not at all. You just aren't familiar with any real technical
philosophy. It's not your fault. Try E. Husserl: Ideas. (There
you go, old boy, I've given you a cite. Run with it.)
> which includes subjective
> perceptions and interpretations (of objects), and subjective
> opinions (about objects.)
I've already covered that, I think. Objects remain themselves,
however many different appearances are observed by the subject.
A chair doesn't suddenly become a table if someone asserts
an opinion -- that would be what might be called *subjectivism*.
A chair remains a chair, true to the idea that formed it. Someone
might say it is a good chair, a bad chair, an inadequate chair,
a comfortable chair, but it remains a chair. Same thing goes
for reciprocal relationships between human beings: the Golden
Rule is the expressed objective principle. "He is not true
to the rule; he is observant of the rule; he misunderstands
the rule; he defies the rule, etc."
> Not only that, but your whole world
> salad is meant to obfuscate the fact that you have not come
> close to providing an iota of objective proof for an absolute
> moral principle.
I'm not trying to obfuscate anything. I've proved the existence
of the Golden Rule objectively. And demonstrated that it inheres
right *there* in the midst of all human interaction.
And I think that I've got you on an awfully uncomfortable hook,
denying as you are that this basic and objective moral principle
exists.
> > For
> > instance, when a quarterback drops back to pass a ball 35 yards
> > downfield to a receiver traveling crossways at a given speed,
> > he doesn't take out a plumb line, a meter to measure velocity,
> > and a surveyor's tool to plan how he's going to get the
> > ball to the receiver. He judges all of the factors intuitively;
> > he apprehends and comprehends the factors, and it is his
> > objective to get the ball onto the receiver's fingertips within
> > about 5-6 seconds after he takes the ball from center. He
> > does all of this intuitively based on essential knowledge
>
> He uses experience and practice to throw a pass. Brilliant.
> And this is supposed to provide objective proof for a moral
> absolute?
No, it demonstrate the effective nature of intuition, Scott.
Try to pay attention. You won't get valuable information like
this in too many places.
> > Were he to be acting *subjectively* without reference to the
> > objective situation he might just throw the ball anywhere,
> > believing that it might be caught without reference to
> > any objective reality. That's how you deal with things, Scott.
>
> Martin, you're still just describing a rather trite and normal
> thing: we use experience and understanding to make predictions
> about what will happen if we do things a certain way.
Trite? Normal? Scott, there's nothing trite about the effective
use of intuition to grasp objective circumtances. This isn't
about "predictions," it's about objective circumstances: motion,
time, space, velocity, muscle coordination, all coordinated into
one specific action in communication with someone else.
Intuition in apprehension of the object, Scott. You said that
it was subjective. I've shown that it is most certainly not
subjective. You must pay closer attention, or you'll be floating
in subjectivism all your life.
> These
> predictions are not always right; the golden rule sometimes
> fails to evoke positive behavior from others, it gets
> misunderstood, and quarters overshoot receivers.
>
> And none of that provides objective proof for a moral absolute.
Again, you can't follow the work, Scott. This is a demonstration
of intuition apprehending objective circumstances.
I drew that example because you claimed that intuition and empathy
are strictly subjective. I've shown you that they are not.
What more can I do for you?