Judge Moore
buc...@exis.net
The Associated Press, May 1, 2000
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/p/AP-Ten-Commandments-Judge.html
GADSDEN, Ala. (AP) -- A small-town judge who gained a national
following by hanging a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom
is the front-runner in a four-way Republican race for Alabama Supreme
Court chief justice.
"I feel I have a responsibility to take what I have learned to higher
office," said Circuit Judge Roy Moore, who in 1995 took on the
American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged his display of the
Old Testament laws at the Etowah County Courthouse.
Moore, 53, argues that American law is based on nature's laws, "and
nature is God." In Moore's view, that means God cannot legally be
removed from public life, whether it's prayer in public school or a
religious symbol in his courtroom. Years of court rulings to the
contrary are wrong, he says.
The state's GOP power structure has lined up behind one of Moore's
pro-business opponents, Justice Harold See. But a poll released last
week showed that Moore is leading among likely GOP voters in this
Bible Belt state.
A survey April 10-17 of 265 registered voters who are likely to
participate in the June 6 GOP primary showed nearly 38 percent backing
Moore, followed by 14 percent for Jefferson County Circuit Judge Wayne
Thorn, 10 percent for See and about 8 percent for Criminal Appeals
Judge Pam Baschab. More than 29 percent of the voters were undecided.
The poll margin of error is plus or minus 6 percentage points.
Pollster Gerald Johnson said Moore's big lead reflects the fact people
have been hearing his name associated with the Ten Commandments for
years.
"In a general election, that identification might hurt," said Johnson,
who conducted the poll for the Alabama Education Association.
Alabama is one of eight states that picks judges through partisan
elections, according to a 1998 American Bar Association report. It
said 13 other states pick judges in nonpartisan elections, while the
rest select jurists through nominating commissions, appointments
without nominating panels, or a combination of methods.
The only Democratic candidate for chief justice is Civil Appeals Court
Judge Sharon Yates. It is uncertain how Yates would fare against Moore
or another Republican nominee in a state where the GOP holds most
statewide posts but lost the governor's office to a Democrat in 1998.
A West Point graduate who served in Vietnam, Moore was known to few
outside Gadsden until civil libertarians challenged his right to
display a handmade plaque of the Ten Commandments in court. The fight
made Moore a hero to conservatives, who flew him all over the country
to make speeches.
A rally for the judge drew a throng to Alabama's Capitol in 1997, and
his poetry decrying abortion, homosexuality and what he sees as
American moral decay is posted on the Internet.
When the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the battle over the Ten
Commandments on technical grounds, Moore was able to keep displaying
the plaque in his courtroom, where it remains today. He was also
cleared of wrongdoing by judicial investigators who looked into a fund
started by a supporter to pay Moore's legal bills.
The decision helped clear the way for him to run for chief justice.
Moore earned his law degree from the University of Alabama. He was a
prosecutor and a lawyer in private practice before being appointed
circuit judge in 1992 by then-Gov. Guy Hunt. He was elected to a
six-year term in 1994.
*****The state of Alabama is running (red) neck in (red) neck with
South Carolina in the race to see which can look like the biggest
laughing stock in America.
As always, follow the URL above to read the entire article.
Volt
Ecrasons l'infame
Join the War on Right Wing Ignorance
http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/
Campaign 2000
http://clusterone.home.mindspring.com/campaign2000.html
=============================================================
"Did you know Elián liked to lick my face?"
--Dalrymple(The 'Fisherman'/ House Cleaner)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21491-2000Apr26.html
==============================================================
Hoyer
<buc...@exis.net> wrote in message
news:ubitgsoa2hoefkcq5...@4ax.com...
> Alabama 'Ten Commandments Judge' Leads GOP Pack
>
> The Associated Press, May 1, 2000
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/p/AP-Ten-Commandments-Judge.html
>
> GADSDEN, Ala. (AP) -- A small-town judge who gained a national
> following by hanging a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom
> is the front-runner in a four-way Republican race for Alabama Supreme
> Court chief justice.
A vote for Gore will help assure that the federal Supreme Court will be able
should it so choose to overrule any of this judge's decisions. Keep all
religion, especially the locally dominant religion, out of politics. If it
infects public policy, excise it. Faith is irrational and public policy must
be based on reason and compassion.
Craig Hoyer a.a#821
Rick Gardiner
>
> Moore was known to few
> outside Gadsden until civil libertarians challenged his right to
So you know who you have to blame for this guy's popularity.
RG
buc...@exis.net
>:|
Speak up son, why don't you tell us.
Explain this straNge phenomenon to us.
Explain to us the strange outdated bible belt politics of Alabama.
Do you support breaking the law?
Do you support Judge Moore?
Why you are at it check out the following
School Prayer in Alabama — 1999 By Pamela L. Sumners civil
rights/constitutional attorney in Alabama.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/sum_hub1.htm
Audio Links Section: Links allowing you to listen to a speech by
Pamela Sumners, Civil-Rights Lawyer, and links to oral arguments
before the Supreme Court in selected Establishment/Free Exercise
Clause cases--------
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/audio.htm
Pamela Sumners -- Civil Rights Lawyer— speaks on "Fighting the Religious
Reich: Tales from Alabama."
http://americanatheist.org/conv25/m2-c.html
AND
http://www.hotbot.lycos.com/?MT=Judge+Roy+Moore&SQ=1&TR=39622&x=59&y=7
http://www.aclu.org/issues/religion/alabamaspec.html
**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
Page is a member of the following web rings:
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
American History WebRing--&--Legal Research Ring
**********************************************
Ted Kegebein
>
> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> Moore was known to few
> >:|> outside Gadsden until civil libertarians challenged his right to
> >:|> display a handmade plaque of the Ten Commandments in court.
> >:|
> >:|So you know who you have to blame for this guy's popularity.
> >:|
>
> Speak up son, why don't you tell us.
>
> Explain this straNge phenomenon to us.
>
> Explain to us the strange outdated bible belt politics of Alabama.
>
> Do you support breaking the law?
>
> Do you support Judge Moore?
>
Nothing strange about it. Alabama is a solid state,
with solid citizens, who want the Fascist Left to
butt out of their business.
Check out the Alabama state constitution, the
First Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment.
<Inabilities to read and comprehend the above SNIPPED>
buc...@exis.net
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|> >:|>
>:|> >:|> Moore was known to few
>:|> >:|> outside Gadsden until civil libertarians challenged his right to
>:|> >:|> display a handmade plaque of the Ten Commandments in court.
>:|> >:|
>:|> >:|So you know who you have to blame for this guy's popularity.
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Speak up son, why don't you tell us.
>:|>
>:|> Explain this straNge phenomenon to us.
>:|>
>:|> Explain to us the strange outdated bible belt politics of Alabama.
>:|>
>:|> Do you support breaking the law?
>:|>
>:|> Do you support Judge Moore?
>:|>
>:|
>:|Nothing strange about it. Alabama is a solid state,
>:|with solid citizens, who want the Fascist Left to
>:|butt out of their business.
Facist is more frequently associated with the far right.
if you want to refer to extreme left, you miught try communism.
>:|
>:|Check out the Alabama state constitution,
Ok, I have, any particular portion you would like to discuss?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
ON CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS
[as of 1993]
STATE OF ALABAMA
PREAMBLE
We, the people of the Stare of Alabama, in order to establish
justice insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty
God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of
government for the State of Alabama.
ARTICLE I--Declaration of Rights
That the great, general, and essential principles ofliberty and free
government may be recognized and established, we declare:
Sec. 1. Inalienable rights.
That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Sec. 3. Religious freedom
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be
given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of
worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of
worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or
repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or
ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to
any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights,
privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner
affected by
his religious principles.
ARTICLE IV--Legislative Department
Sec. 73. Aid to charitable or educational institutions.
No appropriation shall be made to any charitable or educational
institution not under the absolute control ofthe state, other than normal
schools established by law for the professional training of teachers for
the public schools of the state, except by a vote of two-thirds of all the
members elected to each house.
Sec. 91. Exemptionsfrom taxation.
The legislature shall not tax the property, real or personal, ofthe state,
counties, or other municipal corporations, or cemeteries; nor lots in
incorporated cities and towns, or within one mile of any city or town to
the extent of one acre, nor lots one mile or more distant from such cities
or towns to the extent of five acres, with the buildings thereon, when same
are used exclusively for religious worship, for schools, or the purposes
purely charitable.
ARTICLE XI Taxation
Sec. 217. [as amended in 325(i)]
The following property shall be exempt from all ad valorem taxation, the
real and personal property ofthe state, counties and municipalities and
property devoted exclusively to religious, educational, or charitable
purposes.
ARTICLE XIV--Education
Sec. 263. Support of sectarian schools.
No money raised for the support ofthe public schools shall be appropriated
to or used for the support of any sectarian or denominational school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:|the
>:|First Amendment,
Ok, what about it:
You might like to check out the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separation of church and state, the principle, where can it be found, or
can it be found in the Constitution?
One might consider the following:
====================================================================
Directly, the unamended constitution, Article VI, Section III
" but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States."
Indirectly the entire document as a whole.
See in general:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
AND
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg1.htm
See specifically:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban1.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban2.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban3.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban4.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban5.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban6.htm
THEN
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/basic2a.htm
In the amended constitution we have what is mentioned above, reinforced
with
Amendment I (1791)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nopower.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/1stdebat.htm
AND
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/origntro.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/origp2.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/origp3.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/origp4.htm
NEXT
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm
THEN
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bthot-lr.htm
AND FINALLY if you need more
the ten part series of historical documentation that begins at
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/ref1.htm
and ends with
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/ref10.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>:| and the Tenth Amendment.
Ok, what about it?
and while I am doing that, you might want to check out some of the various
court cases that have been decided over the years that might shed some
light on various aspects of this:
Stone v Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Wallace v Jaffee, 472 U.S. 38 (1983)
The above and others can be found at the following:
[These are summaries of the case, once having read those and clicking on
the case cite, you will then be taken to the complete opinion]
Important Establishment Clause Cases
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tableidx.htm
Important Establishment Clause cases dealing with religion and education:
1899 to 1970.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/table1.htm
Important Establishment Clause cases dealing with religion and education:
1971 to 1977
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/table2.htm
Important Establishment Clause cases dealing with religion and education:
1978 to present.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/table3.htm
AS WELL AS;
First Amendment: Religion and Expression
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/crs1sta1.htm
>:|
>:|<Inabilities to read and comprehend the above SNIPPED>
Let's see what was snipped:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why you are at it check out the following
School Prayer in Alabama — 1999 By Pamela L. Sumners civil
rights/constitutional attorney in Alabama.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/sum_hub1.htm
Audio Links Section: Links allowing you to listen to a speech by
Pamela Sumners, Civil-Rights Lawyer, and links to oral arguments
before the Supreme Court in selected Establishment/Free Exercise
Clause cases--------
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/audio.htm
Pamela Sumners -- Civil Rights Lawyer— speaks on "Fighting the Religious
Reich: Tales from Alabama."
http://americanatheist.org/conv25/m2-c.html
AND
http://www.hotbot.lycos.com/?MT=Judge+Roy+Moore&SQ=1&TR=39622&x=59&y=7
http://www.aclu.org/issues/religion/alabamaspec.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting things you elected to **SNIP**
Brian E. Clark
Ted Kegebein wrote:
> Nothing strange about it. Alabama is a solid state,
> with solid citizens, who want the Fascist Left to
> butt out of their business.
How droll. I suppose the many Alabamans who object to
church/state entaglement aren't "solid"? Are you perhaps the
genius who came up with slogan, "Beef: real food for real
people"? :)
--
Brian E. Clark
brian<at>telerama<dot>com
Neville Lindsay
<buc...@exis.net> wrote in message
news:r613hs4a6tjb6689i...@4ax.com...
> Ted Kegebein <kege...@planttel.net> wrote:
>
> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>
> >:|> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >:|> >:|>
> >:|> >:|> Moore was known to few
> >:|> >:|> outside Gadsden until civil libertarians challenged his right to
> >:|> >:|> display a handmade plaque of the Ten Commandments in court.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|> >:|So you know who you have to blame for this guy's popularity.
> >:|> >:|
> >:|>
> >:|> Speak up son, why don't you tell us.
> >:|>
> >:|> Explain this straNge phenomenon to us.
> >:|>
> >:|> Explain to us the strange outdated bible belt politics of Alabama.
> >:|>
> >:|> Do you support breaking the law?
> >:|>
> >:|> Do you support Judge Moore?
> >:|>
> >:|
> >:|Nothing strange about it. Alabama is a solid state,
> >:|with solid citizens, who want the Fascist Left to
> >:|butt out of their business.
>
> Facist is more frequently associated with the far right.
> if you want to refer to extreme left, you miught try communism.
>
Fascist is simply used these days as a form of abuse, so it doesn't matter
what part of the spectrum you connect it with, left right or centre. Just a
longer four letter word. However, he is technically correct - it was very
strongly socialist - its inventor and manager Mussolini was so radically
left that he was expelled from the Italian socialist party.
Communism is a theoretical position used to describe regimes that were in
fact State Capitalism governed by a monolithic bureaucracy - an apparently
far right position. Again it has come into common usage as another abusive
and even longer four letter word - just something handy to lambast your
opponents with.
Perhaps Socialist-Left or Far-Left is a more accurate phrase if we are going
for accuracy.
NL
> School Prayer in Alabama - 1999 By Pamela L. Sumners civil
> rights/constitutional attorney in Alabama.
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/sum_hub1.htm
>
>
>
> Audio Links Section: Links allowing you to listen to a speech by
> Pamela Sumners, Civil-Rights Lawyer, and links to oral arguments
> before the Supreme Court in selected Establishment/Free Exercise
> Clause cases--------
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/audio.htm
>
> Pamela Sumners -- Civil Rights Lawyer- speaks on "Fighting the Religious
buc...@exis.net
>:|On Wed, 03 May 2000 23:33:17 -0400, Ted Kegebein
>:|<kege...@planttel.net> wrote:
>:|
>:|>buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>>
>:|>> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>>
>:|>> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>> >:|>
>:|>> >:|> Moore was known to few
>:|>> >:|> outside Gadsden until civil libertarians challenged his right to
>:|>> >:|> display a handmade plaque of the Ten Commandments in court.
>:|>> >:|
>:|>> >:|So you know who you have to blame for this guy's popularity.
>:|>> >:|
>:|>>
>:|>> Speak up son, why don't you tell us.
>:|>>
>:|>> Explain this straNge phenomenon to us.
>:|>>
>:|>> Explain to us the strange outdated bible belt politics of Alabama.
>:|>>
>:|>> Do you support breaking the law?
>:|>>
>:|>> Do you support Judge Moore?
>:|>
>:|>Nothing strange about it. Alabama is a solid state,
>:|>with solid citizens, who want the Fascist Left to
>:|>butt out of their business.
>:|
>:|The US Constitution always gives you red neck crackers the red ass
>:|doesn't it, Ted?
>:|
>:|>Check out the Alabama state constitution,
>:|
>:|Which is inferior to the US Constitution.
>:|
>:|>the First Amendment,
>:|
>:|Whose Establishment Clause you support violating.
>:|
>:|> and the Tenth Amendment.
>:|
>:|Which has nothing to do with a right wing theocrat trying to impose
>:|his religion on his fellow citizens, Ted.
>:|
>:|You forget to mention the Alabama state motto:
>:|
>:|"#49 In Everything: Thank Gawd for Mississippi!"
>:|
I see he hasn't bothered to respond back.
Nor did Gardiner, what a shame.
Rick Gardiner
buc...@exis.net wrote:
>
> Volt...@mindspring.com (Volt) wrote:
>
> >:|On Wed, 03 May 2000 23:33:17 -0400, Ted Kegebein
> >:|<kege...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >:|
> >:|>buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >:|>>
> >:|>> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> >:|>>
> >:|>> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >:|>> >:|>
> >:|>> >:|> Moore was known to few
> >:|>> >:|> outside Gadsden until civil libertarians challenged his right to
> >:|>> >:|> display a handmade plaque of the Ten Commandments in court.
> >:|>> >:|
> >:|>> >:|So you know who you have to blame for this guy's popularity.
> >:|>> >:|
> >:|>>
> >:|>> Speak up son, why don't you tell us.
Your own quote explains it quite clearly: "Moore was known to few
until civil libertarians challenged his rights," and now he is the
front runner for a high judicial position.
RG
buc...@exis.net
>:|
>:|
>:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|
Yes, that was the point of the post.
Only in Alabama, a state with a rich history is such crap.
But since you felt you needed to respond, which didn't you give the readers
your thoughts and I see you didn't bother to address the other questions
that were asked.
Now, why doesn't that surprise me.
ALSO. you went to all this trouble to cut and paste this information from
--- ----- ------ ------ ------- ------- -------
Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|It's haphazard post time again, huh? Okay.
>:|
Gardiner has cut and pasted the following information from the following
site:
[Source: Benjamin Hart, Faith & Freedom: The Christian Roots of
American Liberty, 1997. (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/ff/chap22.html)]
Here is what is at the above addy
Faith & Freedom: The Christian Roots of American Liberty,
Benjamin Hart
CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO
The True Thomas Jefferson
© Copyright 1988, Benjamin Hart
Published by the Christian Defense Fund. © Copyright 1997 by the Christian
Defense Fund. All rights reserved. copyright © 1995-1999 Leadership U. All
rights reserved. This site is part of the Telling the Truth Project.
That you posted in the thread Federal Constitution.
Gee, I have been busy addressing each of the points made in that article
you "borrowed" yet I don't see you responding back
Now, I wonder why.
You are sort of endorsing the guy, since you selected his writing to post
in response to something i had posted.
[it also pretty much echoes much of what you have been trying to sell
people in these newsgroups since your arrival here in feb/mar 1999.]
Jeff Sinclair
alt.politics.usa.constitution, and alt.atheism.
alt.history and alt.history.colonial dropped from the headings>>
In article <3912F3FF...@pitnet.net>,
Gard...@pitnet.net wrote:
>
>
> buc...@exis.net wrote:
> >
> > Volt...@mindspring.com (Volt) wrote:
> >
> > >:|On Wed, 03 May 2000 23:33:17 -0400, Ted Kegebein
> > >:|<kege...@planttel.net> wrote:
> > >:|
> > >:|>buc...@exis.net wrote:
> > >:|>>
> > >:|>> Rick Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
> > >:|>>
> > >:|>> >:|buc...@exis.net wrote:
> > >:|>> >:|>
> > >:|>> >:|> Moore was known to few
> > >:|>> >:|> outside Gadsden until civil libertarians challenged his
right to
> > >:|>> >:|> display a handmade plaque of the Ten Commandments in
court.
> > >:|>> >:|
> > >:|>> >:|So you know who you have to blame for this guy's
popularity.
> > >:|>> >:|
> > >:|>>
> > >:|>> Speak up son, why don't you tell us.
>
> Your own quote explains it quite clearly: "Moore was known to few
> until civil libertarians challenged his rights," and now he is the
> front runner for a high judicial position.
Wow. So by the same basic logic, one could say that David Koresh was
relatively unknown until law enforcement uncovered evidence of the fact
that he was probably breaking the law, to say the least, and affix the
blame on law enforcement and the media for their subsequent notoriety.
Same thing goes for Oliver North, who is a convicted felon and an
admitted liar. Amazing.
That he is a contender for that high judicial position is also similar
in nature to the reasons that so many especially on the far political
right have made Koresh and North into icons (certainly not due to their
moral chharacter). Seeing government conspiracies in the fenceposts,
especially during the time of an administration not dominated by
far-right ideologues, they are willing to suspend their so-called
committment to "morality" and "family values" in order to search for an
angle by which they can make unsupported accusations against the current
adminsitration in order to, as they think, "win a throw" for the forces
of intolerance.
In Judge Moore's case, as Jim has lectured you on, he sought to portray
government opposition to his posting the Ten Commandments in a public
courtroom as opposition to the government to _religion_ and to
_Christianity_, which made effective propaganda in Alabama but which
simply is not true. Again, as you have been lectured on time and time
again, The Establishment Clause ensure that government is officially
neutral on all matters regarding the promotion or denigration of any
religion or religions. As it protected religious minorities from the
predations of religious majorities in any public location such as a
courtroom, so also here it protects religious minorities or even
atheists and/or agnostics from the tyranny of the majority in public
life concerning religious affairs. It had, after all, been the
experience of such peiople of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in
noting not only the history of interreligious struggle resulting from
various forms of establishment, but also noting recent history in their
own native Virginia especially as concerned tensions between the
Episcopalians, Prebyterians, and Baptists.
The only thing that this all proves is that Judge Moore and/or his
allies are effective propagandists in an area where the majority hold
similar religious and social beliefs as they do, and are similarly
intolerant of other religious. political, or social trains of thought
which differ much from their own. It speaks more about intolerance in
Alabama and their own lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights
especially than it does about the merits of Judge Moore's position.
--
Quod si nihil cum potentiore juris humani relinqui
tur inopi, at ego ad Deos vindices humanea superbiae
confugiam - Livy, bk 9, ch. 1
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeff Sinclair
and alt.atheism. alt.history and alt.history.colonial dropped from the
headings>>
In article <8f1f90$tob$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
rbbo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Dear Buckeye,
> Did someone in this thread use the locution "Fascist Left?" Is
> there any way a person could be one of those?
> --Russ Bomberger
Yes, someone did so post:
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=618988279
Ted Kegebien:
"Nothing strange about it. Alabama is a solid state,
with solid citizens, who want the Fascist Left to
butt out of their business."
Last time I saw such an oxymoron was in reading George Orwell's _1984_
in describing the term "blackwhite". Given that the general
philosophies, focuses and outlooks of fascism and socialism (of the
democratic and not of the "national" kind or the kind found in the
former "people's republics") are diametrically opposite and opposed in
so many areas, it is a little like calling the late Andre the Giant
"Tiny".
Scott Erb
Jeff Sinclair wrote:
> Last time I saw such an oxymoron was in reading George Orwell's _1984_
> in describing the term "blackwhite". Given that the general
> philosophies, focuses and outlooks of fascism and socialism (of the
> democratic and not of the "national" kind or the kind found in the
> former "people's republics") are diametrically opposite and opposed in
> so many areas, it is a little like calling the late Andre the Giant
> "Tiny".
There are always folk who try to argue that fascism is socialism (or from
the Left, that Communism wasn't really leftist, but as constituted in the
old USSR actually far right). The reality is indeed that fascism and
socialism rest on very different ideological bases, even though in each case
trying to implement an ideology led to some similar forms of centralized
power and abuse of individual liberties. This, however, doesn't make the
ideologies equivalent. That attempt is simply rhetoric on the part of one
"side" to try to make it appear that nothing bad comes from there "side" of
the left/right divide, and all bad is on the other "side."
You see a lot of that in political groups, it gets old after awhile.
cheers, scott
Martin McPhillips
>
>
> There are always folk who try to argue that fascism is socialism (or from
> the Left, that Communism wasn't really leftist, but as constituted in the
> old USSR actually far right). The reality is indeed that fascism and
> socialism rest on very different ideological bases, even though in each case
> trying to implement an ideology led to some similar forms of centralized
> power and abuse of individual liberties. This, however, doesn't make the
> ideologies equivalent. That attempt is simply rhetoric on the part of one
> "side" to try to make it appear that nothing bad comes from there "side" of
> the left/right divide, and all bad is on the other "side."
But you condemn without reservation both fascism and communism?
mscu...@my-deja.com
To get back within these news group topics I'd say that the Pilgrims
rejected communal requirements that were much like the principles of
communism. The needs to continue such principles exhausted itself.
There is really no true communism existing in the world and there never
has been. The closest version might be the Hershey Chocolate Factory in
the 1920s. That failed also. Why should there be reservations
condemning something that has never existed and in the forms it showed
it was known under failed?
As for fascism we have the Nazis and the Italians to look at. But they
are really outside the topics of this news group.
--
Mike Curtis
Scott D. Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> >
> > There are always folk who try to argue that fascism is socialism (or from
> > the Left, that Communism wasn't really leftist, but as constituted in the
> > old USSR actually far right). The reality is indeed that fascism and
> > socialism rest on very different ideological bases, even though in each case
> > trying to implement an ideology led to some similar forms of centralized
> > power and abuse of individual liberties. This, however, doesn't make the
> > ideologies equivalent. That attempt is simply rhetoric on the part of one
> > "side" to try to make it appear that nothing bad comes from there "side" of
> > the left/right divide, and all bad is on the other "side."
>
> But you condemn without reservation both fascism and communism?
I condemn particular actions or calls to particular acts based on the actions,
regardless of the ideological rationale for those actions. A communist "commune"
in the boonies that exists voluntarily (or experiments in socialist factories such
as Owen and others engaged in) certainly isn't something I'd condemn. Its harder
to imagine a benign, voluntary fascism, but since fascism by definition lacks a
coherent ideology (it is anti-intellectual, anti-rational, and focused on emotion
-- thus defying any rational, objective set of ideological principles) I suppose
one could imagine a benign fascism.
The key is to focus on real acts and not abstract ideologies. Doing the latter
often leads to logical and factual errors, as one ignores real conditions in order
to fight the abstraction.
cheers, scott
Martin McPhillips
O.K. Let's be more specific. You condem without reservation Nazism, Soviet
Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge?
Scott D. Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> O.K. Let's be more specific. You condem without reservation Nazism, Soviet
> Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge?
Again, I condemn any acts taken by those governments or proponents of those
ideologies which violated human rights and the ethical principles I believe in,
or who defended or rationalized such violations. I prefer, again, to condemn
actions rather than "isms" because when you abstract to an "ism" you open the
door to errors of logic and fact.
mscu...@my-deja.com
Martin McPhillips
>
>
>Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
>> O.K. Let's be more specific. You condem without reservation Nazism,
Soviet
>> Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge?
>
>Again, I condemn any acts taken by those governments or proponents of those
>ideologies which violated human rights and the ethical principles I believe
in,
>or who defended or rationalized such violations. I prefer, again, to
condemn
>actions rather than "isms" because when you abstract to an "ism" you open
the
>door to errors of logic and fact.
I see. So you can't condemn the ideological structures of Nazism, Soviet
Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge, only the specific acts.
So, an ideology which calls for anti-semitism or the abolition of private
property or the eradication of all links to the past, that's not enough for
you to condemn these four historical totalitarian movements.
You will only deal with the *positive* acts. So, I suppose, it follows that
there is a parallel reality in which Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot could
all be acceptable to you (i.e., you wouldn't condemn them) because?
mscu...@my-deja.com
"Martin McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
> Scott D. Erb wrote in message <3916E1BD...@maine.edu>...
> >
> >
> >Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >
> >> O.K. Let's be more specific. You condem without reservation Nazism,
> Soviet
> >> Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge?
> >
> >Again, I condemn any acts taken by those governments or proponents
of those
> >ideologies which violated human rights and the ethical principles I
believe
> in,
> >or who defended or rationalized such violations. I prefer, again, to
> condemn
> >actions rather than "isms" because when you abstract to an "ism" you
open
> the
> >door to errors of logic and fact.
>
> I see. So you can't condemn the ideological structures of Nazism,
Soviet
> Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge, only the specific acts.
>
> So, an ideology which calls for anti-semitism
As I said, It beomes an emotional argument that looks at the worst
aspects.
1. The Nazi party was NOT the only party in Germany to have anti-
Semitism as a feature of its ideology. In fact, they weren't the only
country to have such parties. Even the United States has had parties
that were anti-Semitic. So I guess we should condemn republicanism.
> or the abolition of private
> property
Communism (the real thing) did not abolish private property.
> or the eradication of all links to the past,
That is not a facet of capital 'C' Communism. In fact it needed a
capitalist past and structure for it to work.
> that's not enough for
> you to condemn these four historical totalitarian movements.
On those emotional aspects and as totalitarian regimes we can condemn
those actions.
> You will only deal with the *positive* acts. So, I suppose, it
follows that
> there is a parallel reality in which Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot
could
> all be acceptable to you (i.e., you wouldn't condemn them) because?
This is off-topic to this news group. Would you mind, if you are going
to discuss the 1940s, to remove the revolutionary group.
buc...@exis.net
>:|As for fascism we have the Nazis and the Italians to look at. But they
>:|are really outside the topics of this news group.
Yea, they are, but I can't help but notice that there has been a continual
attempt to bring such into these NGs over and over again.
This particular thread dealt with Judge Moore. One might has, well, what
does that have to do with early American history, etc.
Quite a bit, since much of what he is about is re-defining that history,
and a lot of what his speeches, writings, etc has been about his version of
legal and American history.
Scott D. Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> I see. So you can't condemn the ideological structures of Nazism, Soviet
> Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge, only the specific acts.
No, I said that condemning an "ism" is tricky, especially since you wanted an
unconditional condemnation, and some "isms" that I would strongly disagree with
might have some benign or even agreeable aspects. Furthermore, ideologies are
complex and varied. My point is that you tend toward error when you condemn
abstractly with a broad brush against an "ism," you open the doors to
caricatures, mistakes, rationalization of other acts, etc. Hence, I focus not
on an "ism" but specific acts or calls to act. Note that I had the term "calls
to act" in my original, meaning I can condemn things like a call out abolish
private property, acts against certain racial or ethnic groups, etc.
I think you're playing word games here, Martin, not really engaged in real
discourse. If you have a point in all of this, please state it clearly.
Otherwise, its not really worth my time to see you try to deconstruct my words
like a post-modernist who wants to say up is down and black and white. I've
better things to do.
cheers, scott
Martin McPhillips
>In article <fMBR4.21344$0o4.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> "Martin McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>> Scott D. Erb wrote in message <3916E1BD...@maine.edu>...
>> >
>> >
>> >Martin McPhillips wrote:
>> >
>> Soviet
>> >> Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge?
>> >
>> >Again, I condemn any acts taken by those governments or proponents
>of those
>> >ideologies which violated human rights and the ethical principles I
>believe
>> in,
>> >or who defended or rationalized such violations. I prefer, again, to
>> condemn
>> >actions rather than "isms" because when you abstract to an "ism" you
>open
>> the
>> >door to errors of logic and fact.
>>
>Soviet
>> Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge, only the specific acts.
>>
>
>As I said, It beomes an emotional argument that looks at the worst
>aspects.
Yes, I can see.
>
>1. The Nazi party was NOT the only party in Germany to have anti-
>Semitism as a feature of its ideology. In fact, they weren't the only
>country to have such parties. Even the United States has had parties
>that were anti-Semitic. So I guess we should condemn republicanism.
>
>> or the abolition of private
>> property
>
>Communism (the real thing) did not abolish private property.
>
>> or the eradication of all links to the past,
>
>That is not a facet of capital 'C' Communism. In fact it needed a
>capitalist past and structure for it to work.
>
>> that's not enough for
>> you to condemn these four historical totalitarian movements.
>
>On those emotional aspects and as totalitarian regimes we can condemn
>those actions.
>
>> You will only deal with the *positive* acts. So, I suppose, it
>follows that
>> there is a parallel reality in which Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot
>could
>> all be acceptable to you (i.e., you wouldn't condemn them) because?
>
>This is off-topic to this news group. Would you mind, if you are going
>to discuss the 1940s, to remove the revolutionary group.
Your Honor, I intend to tie this back into topic, if your indulgence
and the opportunity to do so allow it.
Martin McPhillips
>
>
>Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
>> I see. So you can't condemn the ideological structures of Nazism, Soviet
>> Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge, only the specific acts.
>
Why would that be? What is tricky about condemning Nazism and
Soviet Communism?
>especially since you wanted an
>unconditional condemnation, and some "isms" that I would strongly disagree
with
>might have some benign or even agreeable aspects.
Yes, Hitler was quite fond of children, no reason to throw the baby out
with the bathwater?
>Furthermore, ideologies are
>complex and varied. My point is that you tend toward error when you
condemn
>abstractly with a broad brush against an "ism," you open the doors to
>caricatures, mistakes, rationalization of other acts, etc.
You think so? You think that you open the door to caricatures, mistakes,
rationalizations of other acts, etc. by condemning Nazism, Soviet Communism
and Maoism?
> Hence, I focus not
>on an "ism" but specific acts or calls to act.
But earlier in this thread you were making quite a fuss about the
differences
in the ideological origins of Fascism and Communism. So, is the ideology
important or not? If ideology is important enough to describe its origins,
its roots, why wouldn't it to be important enough to condemn for its total
failure to come to grips with human reality and resulting in mass murder?
> Note that I had the term "calls
>to act" in my original, meaning I can condemn things like a call out
abolish
>private property, acts against certain racial or ethnic groups, etc.
>
>I think you're playing word games here, Martin, not really engaged in real
>discourse. If you have a point in all of this, please state it clearly.
Well, Scott, you always claim that people are playing word games with
you. Now, you're claiming that I'm playing word games with you by asking,
first, if you would condemn Fascism and Communism equally. When
you demurred on that question I asked you if you would condemn Nazism,
Soviet Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge. You demurred
again. I phrased it differently, and now I'm playing word games.
Apparently, asking you whether you condemn these monstrous totalitarian
mass movements that have been responsible for untold numbers of dead
and the enslavement of hundreds of millions of people strikes you as
a technically unfeasible request, and therefore a "word game," and not
a question of "real discourse."
>Otherwise, its not really worth my time to see you try to deconstruct my
words
>like a post-modernist who wants to say up is down and black and white.
I've
>better things to do.
Asking you whether you condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism, and
trying to pin you down on it, is an attempt to "deconstruct [your] words
like
a post-modernist who wants to say up is down [etc.]?" I hardly think
so, Scott.
Sorry to have pinned you down there old boy.
John L.
<jeffrey...@my-deja.com> wrote:
..
> > Did someone in this thread use the locution "Fascist Left?"
> Is
> > there any way a person could be one of those?
> > --Russ Bomberger
> Yes, someone did so post:
> http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=618988279
> Ted Kegebien:
> "Nothing strange about it. Alabama is a solid state,
> with solid citizens, who want the Fascist Left to
> butt out of their business."
> _1984_
> in describing the term "blackwhite". Given that the general
> philosophies, focuses and outlooks of fascism and socialism (of the
> democratic and not of the "national" kind or the kind found in the
> former "people's republics") are diametrically opposite and
> opposed in
> so many areas, it is a little like calling the late Andre the Giant
> "Tiny".
Try this from the real world:
Communist state: Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
Fascist state : National SOCIALIST Democratic Workers Party (NAZI)
What do they have in common: SOCIALIST, same government structure,
same police state, same death camps.
Where do they differ: economic policy
And so the communist socialists call the fascist socialists
'right wing'. Where both are so far left on the scale of
government control they are like page 1 calling page 2 of a
400 page book 'right wing', (by the way, page 400 is anarchy).
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Mike Curtis
>mscu...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8f6sfj$iqu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <fMBR4.21344$0o4.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
>> "Martin McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>>> Scott D. Erb wrote in message <3916E1BD...@maine.edu>...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Martin McPhillips wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> O.K. Let's be more specific. You condem without reservation Nazism,
>>> Soviet
>>> >> Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge?
>>> >
>>> >Again, I condemn any acts taken by those governments or proponents
>>of those
>>> >ideologies which violated human rights and the ethical principles I
>>believe
>>> in,
>>> >or who defended or rationalized such violations. I prefer, again, to
>>> condemn
>>> >actions rather than "isms" because when you abstract to an "ism" you
>>open
>>> the
>>> >door to errors of logic and fact.
>>>
>>> I see. So you can't condemn the ideological structures of Nazism,
>>Soviet
>>> Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge, only the specific acts.
>>>
Then do so. Don't tell me your going to do it. Just do it.
as algernon sidney wrote:
Liars ought to have good memories.
Discourses on Government. Chap. ii. Sect. xv.
Mike Curtis
Mike Curtis
The word "socialist" does not mean the same thing in each of these
instances. The death camps were not the same. The government structure
was not the same. The last thing is the only thing you are correct
about.
>And so the communist socialists call the fascist socialists
>'right wing'.
And the Nazis were right wing.
> Where both are so far left on the scale of
>government control they are like page 1 calling page 2 of a
>400 page book 'right wing', (by the way, page 400 is anarchy).
<yawn>
Scott Erb
John L. wrote:
> Try this from the real world:
> Communist state: Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
> Fascist state : National SOCIALIST Democratic Workers Party (NAZI)
> What do they have in common: SOCIALIST, same government structure,
> same police state, same death camps.
> Where do they differ: economic policy
See, this is an example from someone who doesn't understand the philosophies
using the terms in a propagandistic fashion. I have a whole file I can post
which shows this in error (from other discussions).
But the quickest response is to note that the EAst German Communist state was
called the German DEMOCRATIC republic. If the poster puts so much into a name,
then he'd have to accept that East Germany was a democracy. (And historians
note that Hitler's use of the word socialist in the Nazi party name was designed
mostly to try to woo the working class; he despised socialism).
Scott Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> But earlier in this thread you were making quite a fuss about the
> differences
> in the ideological origins of Fascism and Communism.
No, Martin, I simply pointed out the fact, agreeing with Jeff, that they rest
on very different ideologies. If you want to look into that more, I suggest
you read "Political Ideologies" by Leon Baradat (or a simplier book by the same
title by Thobaben and Funderburk). This isn't anything that is denied at all
by students of political philosophy, though as I pointed out some people on
both the Left and the Right try to make it seem like all the "bad" ideologies
are on the "other" side.
So far, that has been undenied. In fact, you seem to ignore how I condemn any
actions against human rights and in fact calls to act in ways I consider
unethical in order to somehow try to, well, I have no idea what you're trying
to do. Until you make a point, I'll simply note again that:
1. Fascism and communism rest on very different ideologies; many on the "left"
try to claim communism was really far right and many on the "right" try to say
fascism is really far left out of emotive and propagandistic motives.
2. Condemning an abstract "ism" is usually a way to error, as the abstraction
is vague; it is better to condemn specific acts or calls to act, while simply
disagreeing with ideological claims one believes wrong but doesn't entail a
denial of human rights.
3. Some forms of communism, like a voluntary commune, or a group who
voluntarily agree to pool property, is not offensive too me. And if a group of
racists wanted to live on their own racist commune and not deal with those on
the outside, it wouldn't bother me either. If they act against others or urge
acts against others to promote various ideas, then I'll act politically against
them.
Martin McPhillips
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> > But earlier in this thread you were making quite a fuss about the
> > differences
> > in the ideological origins of Fascism and Communism.
>
> No, Martin, I simply pointed out the fact, agreeing with Jeff, that they rest
> on very different ideologies.
Well, you were making quite a fuss about it, so I asked a very simple
question: But you condemn both Fascism and Communism equally?
You wouldn't answer that, perhaps because it was too general, so
I asked you if you condemned Nazism, Soviet Communism, Maoism,
and the Khmer Rouge. This was not to your liking, so I asked you
if there were a parallel scenario to the known historical facts
where you would find acceptable (i.e. would not condemn) Hitler,
Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
At that point you accused me of playing "word games," etc.
It's somewhat startling to me that you don't stand on a firm enough
footing to condemn, even in the perfection of hindsight, Nazism
and Soviet Communism, et al.
> If you want to look into that more, I suggest
> you read "Political Ideologies" by Leon Baradat (or a simplier book by the same
> title by Thobaben and Funderburk).
You're a card, Scott.
> This isn't anything that is denied at all
> by students of political philosophy, though as I pointed out some people on
> both the Left and the Right try to make it seem like all the "bad" ideologies
> are on the "other" side.
Right. And so I ask you, again: But you would condemn these totalitarian
ideologies equally, *since* you recognize that they are bad and take
root at different ends of the political spectrum?
> So far, that has been undenied. In fact, you seem to ignore how I condemn any
> actions against human rights and in fact calls to act in ways I consider
> unethical in order to somehow try to, well, I have no idea what you're trying
> to do. Until you make a point, I'll simply note again that:
I asked you a simple question, Scott. What I'm trying to do is to get
you
to answer it, and you have. On grounds that condemning "isms" is
"tricky" you won't condemn Nazism, Soviet Communism, Maoism or the Khmer
Rouge. I have my answer, and my next question was "what is so *tricky*
about condemning" those four ideological catastrophes?
<snip diversionary lather>
Martin McPhillips
But you would condemn Nazism and East German Communism equally?
Mike Curtis
>Scott Erb wrote in message +ADw-39173F4B.D70282D8+AEA-maine.edu+AD4-...
>+AD4-
>+AD4-
>+AD4-John L. wrote:
>+AD4-
>+AD4APg- Try this from the real world:
>+AD4APg- Communist state: Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
>+AD4APg- Fascist state : National SOCIALIST Democratic Workers Party (NAZI)
>+AD4APg- What do they have in common: SOCIALIST, same government structure,
>+AD4APg- same police state, same death camps.
>+AD4APg- Where do they differ: economic policy
>+AD4-
>+AD4-See, this is an example from someone who doesn't understand the
>philosophies
>+AD4-using the terms in a propagandistic fashion. I have a whole file I can
>post
>+AD4-which shows this in error (from other discussions).
>+AD4-
>+AD4-But the quickest response is to note that the EAst German Communist state
>was
>+AD4-called the German DEMOCRATIC republic. If the poster puts so much into a
>name,
>+AD4-then he'd have to accept that East Germany was a democracy. (And
>historians
>+AD4-note that Hitler's use of the word socialist in the Nazi party name was
>designed
>+AD4-mostly to try to woo the working class+ADs- he despised socialism).
>
>
>But you would condemn Nazism and East German Communism equally?
When were you going to tie this nonsense into the subject matter of
the news group?
Mike Curtis
Scott Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> Well, you were making quite a fuss about it, so I asked a very simple
> question: But you condemn both Fascism and Communism equally?
Again, Martin, there was no fuss, just pointing out a fact -- that communism and
fascism rest on different ideologies.
Do you disagree?
I don't know what you mean by "condemn equally." Condemn is a word like unique, you
either condemn or you don't. I pointed out that condemning an "ism" is a path to
error and misjudgement, both as it devolves into emotionalism and isms are varied in
how they are understood and implemented. Some communists are very libertarian and
want only voluntary communes; others want a thug type government that denies human
rights. I focus on condemning the acts or calls to act that come from people,
regardless of the ideology that motivates them. I don't know why you seem to have a
problem with that.
You seem to be trying in vain to somehow score some debate points, but you still
haven't made a point or even said anything of content. Until you do, I just have to
shrug my shoulders, wondering what on earth you're all in a huff about.
-rest of bluster deleted-
Scott Erb
Mike Curtis wrote:
> >But you would condemn Nazism and East German Communism equally?
>
> When were you going to tie this nonsense into the subject matter of
> the news group?
I'm just wondering how one can condemn things unequally. I guess that's like
saying something is "sort of unique..."
Certainly he doesn't wish to say that torturing someone in the name of
Communism is "less condemnable" than torturing someone in the name of Christ,
or Allah, or Hitler...
But, Mike, you're right, this is veering far from any of the relevant subjects,
so if Martin really wants to know my views on this I'll invite him to take this
to e-mail. I doubt any of this is of interest to anyone else at this point.
Scott Erb
rbbo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> Dear Scott (and others interested in this discussion),
> The discussion is interesting to some of us lurkers, but it
> probably seems quite off-topic to most. Could you guys take it to
> another forum and let us know which? (I'm the wrong person to express an
> opinion on stuff like this because I believe that the Declaration of
> Independence's second paragraph made us the great hope of humankind for
> freedom, and thus any discussion of freedom or its lack seems relevant
> to the cause of the American Revolution.)
> --Russ
I like your broad interpretation of the topic of the group -- I don't feel
so bad for veering off topic!
But at this point I'm not even sure what the issue is. I suspect Martin and
I agree with you on the importance of freedom and the distaste we have for
any government that violates human liberty. He seemed to suggest that there
was something wrong with my pointing out that Communism and Fascism come
from different philosophical roots (or my agreement with Jeff on that
point), but he hasn't said if he disagrees with that claim or not. As near
as I can tell its a semantic debate on whether I "equally" condemn communism
and nazism, or if I focus on the issue of human liberty and condemn acts and
calls to act that violate notions of liberty and freedom. I'm not sure why
he seems to think my focus is misguided, or how that would prevent me from
condemning the things he would condemn from Stalinism and Hitler's Germany.
So I'm not even sure if there is an issue being debated here! In any event,
this has been cross posted to alt.society.liberalism, soc.history, and
alt.politics.usa.constitution. We can choose one or more of those to
continue the discussion (though I will be away from posting for a couple
weeks this month -- gotta travel!) Still, unless Martin can tell me what
the heck the issue is we disagree on and what the debate is about, I don't
know if I'm going to find it worthwhile to continue. But perhaps you see a
point I missed? Sometimes a third party sees more clearly what the one or
all other participants miss.
cheers, scott
Martin McPhillips
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> > Well, you were making quite a fuss about it, so I asked a very simple
> > question: But you condemn both Fascism and Communism equally?
>
> Again, Martin, there was no fuss, just pointing out a fact -- that communism and
> fascism rest on different ideologies.
>
> Do you disagree?
Not particularly.
> I don't know what you mean by "condemn equally." Condemn is a word like unique, you
> either condemn or you don't. I pointed out that condemning an "ism" is a path to
> error and misjudgement, both as it devolves into emotionalism and isms are varied in
> how they are understood and implemented. Some communists are very libertarian and
> want only voluntary communes; others want a thug type government that denies human
> rights. I focus on condemning the acts or calls to act that come from people,
> regardless of the ideology that motivates them. I don't know why you seem to have a
> problem with that.
I'll mark you down as "unable to condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism."
> You seem to be trying in vain to somehow score some debate points, but you still
> haven't made a point or even said anything of content. Until you do, I just have to
> shrug my shoulders, wondering what on earth you're all in a huff about.
Rarely do I interest myself in simply scoring "debate points." What I'm
demonstrating
here is the essential weakness of your approach to history and politics.
I refer anyone who disagrees with that assessment to the paragraph above
that
begins "I don't know what you mean...," and where, after deleting the
vital
challenge to you to condemn Nazism, Soviet Communism, Maoism, and the
Khmer Rouge,
you ramble on about such nonsense as "devolves into emotionalism," and
how
"some communists are very libertarian and want only voluntary communes,"
which
has less than zero to do with the question I posed to you, but which you
repeat for a second time in this thread after stripping away the
context.
As I said, I'll just mark you down as "unable to condemn Nazism and
Soviet
Communism."
> -rest of bluster deleted-
At the end of the 20th Century, unique for its mass murder, you can't
bring
yourself to condemn the specific ideologies promulgated by the mass
murderers.
It's a very telling thing, and it returns us to the objectivity of moral
good
and the ability of a properly formed conscience to distinguish it from
mere
neutrality and, of course, from evil.
Scott Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> At the end of the 20th Century, unique for its mass murder, you can't
> bring
> yourself to condemn the specific ideologies promulgated by the mass
> murderers.
I condemn all the murders, the calls to murder, the violations of human rights, the
government tyranny, and I argue that ideological dogmatism often makes such things more
likely.
What you are doing is really a word game. You want to pretend that since I condemn the
acts and calls to act associated with various ideologies, that somehow means that I'm not
really condemning what happened strong enough.
That is a damned lie.
You haven't dealt with any of the reasons why I think blanket condemnation of an abstract
"ism" is a mistake, or the examples I gave of how communism could be an OK ideology if a
group of people voluntarily choose that path (anarcho capitalism would be fine that way
too). The crimes of Soviet Communism or even Hitler's Nazism can be undertaken by a
democracy, and if so they are just as bad.
Its the things humans do that are evil. Their various beliefs may make doing evil more or
less likely (someone who believes sincerely in the teachings of Jesus or Buddha are less
likely to engage in evil than others, for instance), but condemning an abstract ism that
has many variations within it, and which might in many facets be understandable isn't a
profitable route in assessing human actions. Ideologies can be analyzed on their own
merits, and argued against. But I'm not a thought police. I'm not about to start
condemning beliefs. When people act on beliefs in ways I consider unethical or in
violation of human rights, I will act and, yes, condemn.
If you somehow think that is misguided, make an argument. Word games are irrelevant.
cheers, scott
mscu...@my-deja.com
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Mike Curtis wrote:
>
> > >But you would condemn Nazism and East German Communism equally?
> >
> > When were you going to tie this nonsense into the subject matter of
> > the news group?
>
> I'm just wondering how one can condemn things unequally. I guess
that's like
> saying something is "sort of unique..."
I only wish he'd tie it to the period of this news group and then we
can discuss this. Should we condemn the French Revolution along with
the Texas Revolution?
> Certainly he doesn't wish to say that torturing someone in the name of
> Communism is "less condemnable" than torturing someone in the name of
Christ,
> or Allah, or Hitler...
Or for the Republic. :-) There are certain acts that regimes of all
kinds that go against principles. Maybe we should condemn the american
Revolution for not living up to its rhetoric?
Martin McPhillips
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> > At the end of the 20th Century, unique for its mass murder, you can't
> > bring
> > yourself to condemn the specific ideologies promulgated by the mass
> > murderers.
>
> I condemn all the murders, the calls to murder, the violations of human rights, the
> government tyranny, and I argue that ideological dogmatism often makes such things more
> likely.
As I said earlier, I'll mark you down as "unable to condemn Nazism or
Soviet Communism." You raised the issue of the important, to some,
differences in the origins of these ideologies. I just wanted to find
out if you would condemn them with equal vigor. You've evaded
the question, per usual, and I'll leave it there: "Scott Erb is unable
to condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism." Most people condemn murder,
calls
to murder, etc., and that wasn't the question. Nor am I playing "word
games." I asked you a very direct question, and I have your answer.
<snip bizarre rationalizations>
Scott Erb
mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I only wish he'd tie it to the period of this news group and then we
> can discuss this. Should we condemn the French Revolution along with
> the Texas Revolution?
He seems only to desire to be able to make some rhetorical flourish.
> > Certainly he doesn't wish to say that torturing someone in the name of
> > Communism is "less condemnable" than torturing someone in the name of
> Christ,
> > or Allah, or Hitler...
>
> Or for the Republic. :-) There are certain acts that regimes of all
> kinds that go against principles. Maybe we should condemn the american
> Revolution for not living up to its rhetoric?
Drew Carey made the comment in regards to the confederate flag that if we
want to condemn a flag that represents not only slavery but also things much
worse, we should look to the American flag, which was used to attack many
native Indian cultures as well as representing pre-confederate slavery.
That is an issue that is fascinating for political scientists -- we moved to
democracy step by step, starting with a a system that by current standards
would not only be seen as undemocratic, but contrary to basic principles of
human rights. It was tough to get to where we are from where we were. Now
we expect non-democratic states to make that leap "all at once." Is that
reasonable? (That's a rhetorical question, I'm not sure about the
answer).cheers, scott
Scott Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> As I said earlier, I'll mark you down as "unable to condemn Nazism or
> Soviet Communism."
???? Yet I condemned all the horrors of each, quite clearly. I condemned concentration
camps, denials of liberty, murder, torture, and the system of government. What on earth can
your point be in making a statement like that, unless you're just playing rhetorical games?
Oh well, play your games, but since you haven't responded to my arguments about why
condemning an abstract "ism" isn't as useful as focusing on human choices and acts, and how
it can lead to errors, I simply have to shrug my shoulders and wonder what the heck you're
posting all this for.
Martin McPhillips
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4-Martin McPhillips wrote:
+AD4-
+AD4APg- As I said earlier, I'll mark you down as +ACI-unable to condemn Nazism or
+AD4APg- Soviet Communism.+ACI-
+AD4-
+AD4-???? Yet I condemned all the horrors of each, quite clearly. I condemned
concentration
+AD4-camps, denials of liberty, murder, torture, and the system of government.
What on earth can
+AD4-your point be in making a statement like that, unless you're just playing
rhetorical games?
Scott Erb is unable to condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism. Where are
the word games in that, sir? I should add that Scott Erb is also unable to
condemn Maoism and the Khmer Rouge. And what is the reason you give?
Wasn't it that condemning +ACI-isms+ACI- is +ACI-tricky?+ACI-
What is +ACI-tricky+ACI- about condemning totalitarian mass movements that result
in mass murder? You are the one here who is playing +ACI-rhetorical games,+ACI-
per usual.
I have your answer, Scott. There's no reason to prolong this, unless you
want to indulge in more rationalizations.
Martin McPhillips
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4-mscurtis+AEA-my-deja.com wrote:
+AD4-
+AD4APg- I only wish he'd tie it to the period of this news group and then we
+AD4APg- can discuss this. Should we condemn the French Revolution along with
+AD4APg- the Texas Revolution?
+AD4-
+AD4-He seems only to desire to be able to make some rhetorical flourish.
Scott Erb is unable to condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism. Not
much rhetorical flourish there, sir.
Rob Robertson
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > John L. wrote:
> >
> >
> >
>
> But you would condemn Nazism and East German Communism equally?
Didn't Scotti already say that Nazism and Societ Communism "might have some benign
or even agreeable aspects"? I guess it takes a political philosopher to tease out
those aspects from underneath the millions of those murdered because of ideology.
_
Rob
Scott D. Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> Scott Erb is unable to condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism. Not
> much rhetorical flourish there, sir.
I remind people of the post awhile back on flametrolls. I have condemned
everything Martin condemns associated with each. I certainly condemn communism
as practiced by the Soviet Union, and I have repeatedly condemned Nazi actions
and the calls to action within their ideology. I think by any common parlance
that means I have forcefully condemned both Soviet communism and Nazism.
Martin is simply playing games.
mscu...@my-deja.com
"Martin McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
> Scott Erb wrote in message +ADw-39181976.16656FBC+AEA-maine.edu+AD4-
...
> +AD4-
> +AD4-
> +AD4-mscurtis+AEA-my-deja.com wrote:
> +AD4-
> +AD4APg- I only wish he'd tie it to the period of this news group and
then we
> +AD4APg- can discuss this. Should we condemn the French Revolution
along with
> +AD4APg- the Texas Revolution?
> +AD4-
> +AD4-He seems only to desire to be able to make some rhetorical
flourish.
>
> much rhetorical flourish there, sir.
There's an actual discussion going on that is on topic and you're
avoiding it. I'll go back and respond to the second paragraph of
Scott's that you cut.
mscu...@my-deja.com
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
> mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
Not many states have been able to leap to republicanism right away.
They have troubles and all experiences are different. Madison felt that
the United States should set the example and stay out of other nations.
The Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion were examples of fights over
what people thought the Revolution meant.
Scott D. Erb
Rob Robertson wrote:
>
> Didn't Scotti already say that Nazism and Societ Communism "might have some benign
> or even agreeable aspects"? I guess it takes a political philosopher to tease out
> those aspects from underneath the millions of those murdered because of ideology.
This kind of post really doesn't deserve the dignity of an answer. Rob is
flametrolling:
The components of flametrolls:
1. Inability to admit if they are wrong.
2. Inability to overcome personal animosity and in fact to thrive on insults
and personalized fights.
3. Tendancy to revert to semantics or word games if they are wrong or in
trouble in a substantive argument.
4. Tendancy to distract to divert away from weak arguments, usually with
insults designed to emotionalize the debate and try to hide their weakness.
5. Tendancy to insult more the weaker their argument.
6. Tendancy to see the world in a very polarized way, whereby they can
rationalize their tactics by believing that the "other" represents some
dangerous or evil ideology.
Clearly, I have condemned any act against human rights or any call to violate rights.
That includes condemnation of all aspects of any ideology which calls for many kinds of
actions taken by Soviet communist government and Nazi Germany. By any measure, I have
condemned those systems forcefully. The fact that Martin and Rob want to pretend I
haven't through word games and personal insults is, in fact, an insult to readers of
these newsgroups.
Alas, that is what one runs into a lot. But I think the point is clear now. I'll let
them shovel one more bit of dishonesty. I need to learn to take my own advice and
ignore flametrolls, they thrive on attention if they can goad someone into getting
frustrated by their tactics. I'm being too nice to them by giving them that attention
:)
cheers, scott
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
mscu...@my-deja.com
have some benign
> or even agreeable aspects"?
One SS Guard said he followed Hitler because he was given a job. With
Weimar he had no job and the money was worthless. That's one. Now what
kind of job was this guy given?
> I guess it takes a political philosopher to tease out
> those aspects from underneath the millions of those murdered because
of ideology.
The Russian Revolution replaced the monarchy with a like acting middle-
class. The Monarchy Murdered and the new group murdered. WE ought to
condemn both. However, Marxist-Lenninism is not Communism. What was the
ideology? It was an attempt, they claimed, to build a capitalist
economy by force. It is far more complex than the simplistic spin you
and McPhillips want to put on it.
Martin McPhillips
tease out
>those aspects from underneath the millions of those murdered because of
ideology.
As I commented when he said that: Hitler was very fond of children, so why
throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Martin McPhillips
>
>
>Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
>>
>> Scott Erb is unable to condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism. Not
>> much rhetorical flourish there, sir.
>
>everything Martin condemns associated with each. I certainly condemn
communism
>as practiced by the Soviet Union, and I have repeatedly condemned Nazi
actions
>and the calls to action within their ideology. I think by any common
parlance
>that means I have forcefully condemned both Soviet communism and Nazism.
Well, if it *means* that you have "forcefully condemned both Soviet
communism
and Nazism," why haven't you actually said that?
>Martin is simply playing games.
The hell I am. Are you officially changing your answer to the question "do
you
condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism?"
mscu...@my-deja.com
What is Nazism to you since you refuse to apply this any on-topic part
of this news group?
Same question for "Soviet Communism."
Scott D. Erb
mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> The Russian Revolution replaced the monarchy with a like acting middle-
> class. The Monarchy Murdered and the new group murdered. WE ought to
> condemn both. However, Marxist-Lenninism is not Communism. What was the
> ideology? It was an attempt, they claimed, to build a capitalist
> economy by force. It is far more complex than the simplistic spin you
> and McPhillips want to put on it.
I don't think they're addressing the issues, so its probably not worth
pursuing, but I think one difficulty here is definitional. When one says
"Soviet Communism" like Martin does, does he mean a vague communist
ideology, which often counterdicted actual actions by government, or does
he mean the specific policies and structure of the system? Does he refer
to how the ideology was used to rationalize those policies, or is he saying
that the basic principles are evil?
Again, it seems more like its a debate about nothing at all. By common
parlance my condemnation of the Soviet system, governmental style, and
rationalization for acts denying human liberty is a condemnation of Soviet
communism. But is that condemnation of an ideology or a system? Does
Martin make that distinction?
Does this debate mean anything, or is it more heat than light?
Martin McPhillips
>
>
>Rob Robertson wrote:
>
>>
>> Didn't Scotti already say that Nazism and Societ Communism "might have
some benign
>> or even agreeable aspects"? I guess it takes a political philosopher to
tease out
>> those aspects from underneath the millions of those murdered because of
ideology.
>
>flametrolling:
>
>The components of flametrolls:
>
>1. Inability to admit if they are wrong.
Sound like you're a "flametroll," Scott, by your own definition.
You haven't copped to your misuse of the word "consistently"
yet, either, even as you weasel your way around to saying that
your words *mean* that you condemn Nazism and Soviet
Communism even though you've so far refused to state it clearly.
>2. Inability to overcome personal animosity and in fact to thrive on
insults
>and personalized fights.
Your constant use of passive aggressive taunts, up to and including
this self-righteous list, makes you one of the biggest "flametrolls"
according to your own item No. 2.
>3. Tendancy to revert to semantics or word games if they are wrong or in
>trouble in a substantive argument.
Hah! That's a good one. The way you've wiggled around in a flood of
rationalizations in this thread, all the while accusing me of playing "word
games" because I asked you very direct questions about very
specific ideologies would make you the king of "reversion to
semantics" or "word games" when you are "in trouble in a substantive
argument" and therefore an egregious "flametroll" by your own
definition under item No. 3 of your own list.
>4. Tendancy to distract to divert away from weak arguments, usually with
>insults designed to emotionalize the debate and try to hide their weakness.
Here you must be talking about your own running around this
newsgroup patting certain posters on the back and then
declaring them the winners in posts to their opponents, thereby
setting yourself up as hectoring magpie whose clear intent is to annoy.
By your own item 4, you are a persistent "flametroll."
>5. Tendancy to insult more the weaker their argument.
Yeah, that's you all right, particularly when you wave your academic
position around and hand out reading lists instead of responding
directly to arguments. By your own item 5, you're one of the
most ready insulters on the board, and a serious "flametroll"
by your own definition.
>6. Tendancy to see the world in a very polarized way, whereby they can
>rationalize their tactics by believing that the "other" represents some
>dangerous or evil ideology.
Well, there you go. People who have strong views on both sides of
any given issue are "flametrolls." I'd have to judge that on the basis
of your item No. 6, you wouldn't be a "flametroll," Scott, owning
to the difficulty of pinning down your views. But 5 out of 6 isn't
bad.
Thanks for the help in understanding your peculiar posts and
the hectoring passive aggressive rhetoric you employ in them.
buc...@exis.net
>:|Martin is simply playing games.
>:|
He sure is, it's called distractions. Smoke blowing, topic and discussion
control, any number of names.
Scott D. Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> Thanks for the help in understanding your peculiar posts and
> the hectoring passive aggressive rhetoric you employ in them.
??? Your post was nothing but a lengthy insult. That's fine, but it really
doesn't add anything to the debate (insulting post snipped). As to your litany
of insults and attempts to psychoanalyze me, suffice it to say that you
obviously don't know me at all. I am what I appear to be -- a basically nice
guy who enjoys discussions of issues but tends to not understand why people tend
to want to personalize things and look at those who disagree as evil or bad. It
just seems pointless to me. Oh well.
cheers, scott
Martin McPhillips
>have some benign
>> or even agreeable aspects"?
>
>Weimar he had no job and the money was worthless. That's one. Now what
>kind of job was this guy given?
Well, that certainly shines a light on the bright side of Nazism.
>> I guess it takes a political philosopher to tease out
>> those aspects from underneath the millions of those murdered because
>of ideology.
>
>The Russian Revolution replaced the monarchy with a like acting middle-
>class. The Monarchy Murdered and the new group murdered.
There's not even a comparison between the two. Lenin and Stalin
are a "like acting middle-class?" They murdered about 15 million
people between them, Lenin and Stalin did. As Robert Conquest
points out, nothing that the Russian state did prior to the Revolution
could be compared to the slaughter brought about by attempting
to force Communism into practice.
> WE ought to
>condemn both. However, Marxist-Lenninism is not Communism. What was the
>ideology? It was an attempt, they claimed, to build a capitalist
>economy by force. It is far more complex than the simplistic spin you
>and McPhillips want to put on it.
I just asked Scott Erb a simple question, based on his fuss about the
different origins of Fascism and Communism. A simple question is
not a simplistic one. He demurred and I was more specific: Nazism
and Soviet Communism, did he condemn them with equal vigor?
In his latest posts he's finally getting around to slipping in through the
back door and saying that contained in his refusal to answer my
"tricky" question, was a clear "meaning" that he condemned both.
Like pulling teeth.
Scott D. Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> I just asked Scott Erb a simple question, based on his fuss about the
> different origins of Fascism and Communism.
Correction: there was no "fuss." I pointed out a simple fact, agreeing with
Jeff, that Communism and Nazism are very different ideologies. Why do you
think it was a "fuss?" Second, I answered your question very fully.
> A simple question is
> not a simplistic one. He demurred and I was more specific: Nazism
> and Soviet Communism, did he condemn them with equal vigor?
At least you have changed from asking if they were equally condemned to
condemning with equal vigor ;)
I have always condemned the systems, acts, and ideological rationalizations of
acts with as much vigor as I can in both cases. I don't consider any one of
the two systems better than the other. I've made this very clear from the
very first posts (indeed, long before this thread), even if you try to pretend
I haven't. I reacted to your question about condemning an ideology (you
originally said condemning fascism and communism with equal vigor) and I
pointed out the dangers in having a condemnation that is broad and sweeping to
an "ism." You didn't deny this, as far as I can tell, and have tried to
refine your question to a way where its possible to interpret it as asking for
a condemnation of a system or its acts/rationalizations and not for a broad
ism. IF that is the case, we have no disagreement.
Martin McPhillips
>
>
>mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>
>> The Russian Revolution replaced the monarchy with a like acting middle-
>> condemn both. However, Marxist-Lenninism is not Communism. What was the
>> ideology? It was an attempt, they claimed, to build a capitalist
>> economy by force. It is far more complex than the simplistic spin you
>> and McPhillips want to put on it.
>
>pursuing, but I think one difficulty here is definitional. When one says
>"Soviet Communism" like Martin does, does he mean a vague communist
>ideology, which often counterdicted actual actions by government, or does
>he mean the specific policies and structure of the system? Does he refer
>to how the ideology was used to rationalize those policies, or is he saying
>that the basic principles are evil?
All of it. Clearly, Scott, history has shown that the basic principles
espoused
by Lenin and Stalin et al. are evil, in that they do not conform to human
reality and by their very nature required their own contradiction, unlimited
force and terror, and all sorts of bizarre permutations to sustain their
implementation. The ideology and its practice are the idea and the
reality conjoined, and cannot be picked apart as if policy analysis
could have saved this monstrous utopian nightmare from itself.
The same goes for Nazism, with its peculiar "race as destiny" formula,
which is remarkably parrallel to the "history as destiny" formula
of Marxist-Leninism/Soviet Communism. Both of these corrupt and
evil ideologies, taken off the drawing board and put into practice,
resulted in untold slaughter, unlike anything seen before. They both
draw upon a peculiar self-loathing found in the bourgeosie and
rely upon a particular inflammation of the mind that leads to
the mighty power of "men who have ceased to think."
Given the enhancements of the miracle of hindsight, condemning
them both as aberrations and disasters, shouldn't be any great
task. But you seem to have a terrific problem with it.
I asked the question originally because I know you have problems
distinguishing good from evil, even as you go on at length about
your opposition to "murder, torture, etc." If your own empathic
intuitive insight into human nature tells you that "murder, torture,
etc." are wrong, then there's no grand leap to be made to
understanding the evil nature of these ideologies, which are
size four shoes into which minds inflammed by their fundamental
precepts try to force human society's size eight foot.
The data is in, and the result of these experiments is mass
slaughter, enslavement, the butchering of reality and the
truth, and the abyss.
Scott D. Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> I asked the question originally because I know you have problems
> distinguishing good from evil,
With insults like that, Martin, I have no reason to take you or the rest of your
post seriously. Come back if you can put together an argument that doesn't
require you to attack your opponent personally. I believe that a moral,
ethical form of argumentation focuses on the issues and the arguments, and does
not entail trying to belittle or insult an opponent. I personally think that
one should behave ethically in newsgroups and discussions with other
individuals, just as one should behave ethically in political life.
cheers, scott
Martin McPhillips
>
>
>Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
>>
>> I just asked Scott Erb a simple question, based on his fuss about the
>> different origins of Fascism and Communism.
<snip>
>I answered your question very fully.
No you didn't. You said that condemning an "ism" was "tricky"
and I wanted to know what was so "tricky" about condemning
Nazism and Soviet Communism, given their historical
product and the benefits of hindsight.
>> A simple question is
>> not a simplistic one. He demurred and I was more specific: Nazism
>> and Soviet Communism, did he condemn them with equal vigor?
>
>At least you have changed from asking if they were equally condemned to
>condemning with equal vigor ;)
That's right. I'm trying to make it easier for you to answer the question.
>I have always condemned the systems, acts, and ideological rationalizations
of
>acts with as much vigor as I can in both cases. I don't consider any one
of
>the two systems better than the other. I've made this very clear from the
>very first posts (indeed, long before this thread), even if you try to
pretend
>I haven't.
O.K. So you've changed your answer to, in effect, "Yes, I unquivocally
condemn both Nazism and Soviet Communism" and you now claim
that you've been saying that from the beginning. I challenge anyone to
go back upstream and find you giving that answer at the outset in
*this* thread, even if you try to pretend you have.
I'm happy to annouce to the world that Scott Erb has changed his
answer to "Yes" on the question of whether he condemns *both* Nazism and
Soviet Communism, even though this terribly "tricky" question caused
much semantical hubbub and rhetorical fever during a lengthy examination
of conscience.
Scott D. Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> I'm happy to annouce to the world that Scott Erb has changed his
> answer to "Yes" on the question of whether he condemns *both* Nazism and
> Soviet Communism, even though this terribly "tricky" question caused
> much semantical hubbub and rhetorical fever during a lengthy examination
> of conscience.
You're playing games, Martin, my position is the same as it was it was at the
beginning.
And, of course, you haven't disagreed with any point I've made, or any issue of
substance. Apparently your whole purpose was to play a personalized word game.
I hope you had fun, but suffice it to say I do not share your interpretation of
the result as you claim it above. C'est la vie.
cheers, scott
Martin McPhillips
>In article <LhWR4.21561$0o4.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> "Martin McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Martin McPhillips wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Scott Erb is unable to condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism. Not
>> >> much rhetorical flourish there, sir.
>> >
>> >I remind people of the post awhile back on flametrolls. I have
>condemned
>> >everything Martin condemns associated with each. I certainly condemn
>> communism
>> >as practiced by the Soviet Union, and I have repeatedly condemned
>Nazi
>> actions
>> >and the calls to action within their ideology. I think by any common
>> parlance
>> >that means I have forcefully condemned both Soviet communism and
>Nazism.
>>
>> Well, if it *means* that you have "forcefully condemned both Soviet
>> communism
>> and Nazism," why haven't you actually said that?
>>
>>
>question "do
>> condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism?"
>
>What is Nazism to you since you refuse to apply this any on-topic part
>of this news group?
>
>Same question for "Soviet Communism."
Go back now and re-read the thread on natural law, with particular
reference to the Nuremberg trials. That's precisely how it ties
into this newsgroup.
Is there a precursor to the laws of all societies that can be found
in the nature of human society itself, by the light of moral reason,
that is called "natural law," the egregious violation of which in
the revolutionary restructuring and transvaluation of societies
leads to unequivocal disaster?
Is it important to condemn the false gods of
race and history at the foundation of these two modern
ideologies, which seek to force society to observe their
man-made constructs, at any cost? It is not simply their
"acts" that need to be condemned; it is the bizarre
and dysfunctional premises on which they are founded,
woven from whole cloth in the face of reality itself.
Martin McPhillips
>
>
>Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
>> I'm happy to annouce to the world that Scott Erb has changed his
>> answer to "Yes" on the question of whether he condemns *both* Nazism and
>> Soviet Communism, even though this terribly "tricky" question caused
>> much semantical hubbub and rhetorical fever during a lengthy examination
>> of conscience.
>
>You're playing games, Martin, my position is the same as it was it was at
the
>beginning.
No it's not. You're just lying now. You constantly accuse people of playing
games with you, Scott. Apparently you never heard of the little boy who
cried "wolf."
>And, of course, you haven't disagreed with any point I've made, or any
issue of
>substance. Apparently your whole purpose was to play a personalized word
game.
>I hope you had fun, but suffice it to say I do not share your
interpretation of
>the result as you claim it above. C'est la vie.
The thread is there for anyone who wants to look at it. It wouldn't have
gone on for as long as it has if you had given the answer that you are
now claiming you've given all along. You said that condemning an
"ism" was "tricky" and led into all sorts of logical errors, etc. You have
changed your answer, and have stopped all the previous rationalizations
only to start in with the obvious lie that you said what you are now saying
all along. You did *not* respond by condemning Nazism and Soviet
Communism all along. You were full of strange equivocations.
Why lie about it?
Rob Robertson
>
> Rob Robertson wrote:
>
> >
> > Didn't Scotti already say that Nazism and Societ Communism "might have some benign
> > those aspects from underneath the millions of those murdered because of ideology.
>
And yet,... here you are!
<snip diversion>
> Clearly, I have condemned any act against human rights or any call to violate rights.
> That includes condemnation of all aspects of any ideology which calls for many kinds of
> actions taken by Soviet communist government and Nazi Germany. By any measure, I have
> condemned those systems forcefully. The fact that Martin and Rob want to pretend I
> haven't through word games and personal insults is, in fact, an insult to readers of
> these newsgroups.
You're such a phony, Erb. I haven't followed the thread closely, but when I see 'Erb
and McPhillips' trading posts, I check in on the progress, and it's always the same;
Martin holding a consistent position, developing the foundation of his argument, and
you squirming around in a desperate attempt to avoid taking a definite position even
as you profess that you *have* taken a definite position. Here's what I saw when I
checked in on the progress between you and Martin;
> I see. So you can't condemn the ideological structures of Nazism, Soviet
> Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge, only the specific acts.
No, I said that condemning an "ism" is tricky, especially since you wanted an
unconditional condemnation, and some "isms" that I would strongly disagree with
might have some benign or even agreeable aspects. Furthermore, ideologies are
complex and varied.
Yeah, the Khmer Rouge and their mountain of skulls were just *so* confusing.
<snip>
> I'm being too nice to them by giving them that attention
Thanks, by the way.
_
Rob Robertson
Scott D. Erb, disingenuous fraud;
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.sp?AN=578507637
Erb on Waco (until he cut and ran);
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=601912857
Scott D. Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> Go back now and re-read the thread on natural law, with particular
> reference to the Nuremberg trials. That's precisely how it ties
> into this newsgroup.
Well, this is good! Martin is apparently moving to explain what his point
is. Thanks.
> Is there a precursor to the laws of all societies that can be found
> in the nature of human society itself, by the light of moral reason,
> that is called "natural law," the egregious violation of which in
> the revolutionary restructuring and transvaluation of societies
> leads to unequivocal disaster?
I fail to see how the current discussion, which appears nothing more than a
word game, addresses those issues.
> Is it important to condemn the false gods of
> race and history at the foundation of these two modern
> ideologies, which seek to force society to observe their
> man-made constructs, at any cost?
Hmmm, you're making an error there, Martin. The argument about social
construction is not a normative argument, but a descriptive/scientific one.
If societies are constructs, then OF COURSE its possible to construct
something like communism, or something like nazism, or something like
American democracy. Each is seen as a construct.
Seeing each as a construct does not mean one can't morally condemn different
systems or argue for others based on whatever beliefs one wants, including a
belief in natural law (though again, the thing you seem to skim over is the
fact that natural law can be used to support a myriad of different views,
with no clear epistemological method of distinguishing which is "right").
Also, you seem to be mixing up "natural law" with "scientific law."
> It is not simply their
> "acts" that need to be condemned; it is the bizarre
> and dysfunctional premises on which they are founded,
> woven from whole cloth in the face of reality itself.
You're again drifting into abstract rhetoric. Be specific: what
"dysfunctional premises" do you identify, and how do you determine whether a
premise is dysfunctional or not. Your weakness in the earlier argument was
your reliance on abstract and vague rhetoric. I think you can make a
stronger argument if you add specificity to it. As I told you before, I
don't think a view of society as a social construct at all makes it
impossible to hold a belief in natural law; indeed, my own view, as I noted
to you before, is very sympathetic to a view of natural law, though current
concepts of it tend to be vague and emotive, with no clear way to distinguish
natural law and its results, from how cultures operate. Unless you go
deeper into these issues, it looks like you're skimming over the surface of
complex philosophical issues that have been debated for centuries -- and,
assuredly, -- will continue to be debated.
And again, don't forget that my view is not so distant from yours, I'm
concerned only with the epistemological assumptions you make and the
assertions that rest on vague claims that aren't proven (or are perhaps
unprovable). If you stop seeing me as an enemy of sorts and simply as
someone to talk this through with, we can perhaps make more progress.
cheers, scott
Martin McPhillips
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <391840B7...@maine.edu>...
>
>
>Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
>> I asked the question originally because I know you have problems
>> distinguishing good from evil,
>
>With insults like that, Martin, I have no reason to take you or the rest of
your
>post seriously. Come back if you can put together an argument that doesn't
>require you to attack your opponent personally
From the thread dealing with natural law--
<begin cite>
McPhillips:
> You don't have a fundamental understanding of the difference
> between good and evil? And you put both words into quotes?
Erb in response:
Those have been concepts debated by philosophers, theologians, and humans
for
centuries. There is no one answer to what the nature of good is, and what
evil
is. If you think you've found it, please explain it, it tends to be a very
subjective and/or culturally contingent set of definitions (what is
considered
evil in Iran may not be considered evil here, for instance). Certainly
throughout history each have been defined in very different ways.
<end cite>
I repeat: I asked the question originally [i.e. do you condemn both
Nazism and Soviet Communism] because I know you have problems
distinguishing good from evil.
And that's the truth from two perspectives. It is *why* I asked the
question,
and by your own words you seem to have no firm understanding of
the difference between good and evil.
And your lengthy hesitation until finally condemning both Nazism and
Communism, I think, bears me out on the problems you have distinguishing
good from evil, as indicated by your own "philosophical" words, above.
Martin McPhillips
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <391836A1...@maine.edu>...
You're quite a character, Scott. And endless.
Scott D. Erb
Martin McPhillips wrote:
> Erb in response:
>
> Those have been concepts debated by philosophers, theologians, and humans
> for
> centuries. There is no one answer to what the nature of good is, and what
> evil
> is. If you think you've found it, please explain it, it tends to be a very
> subjective and/or culturally contingent set of definitions (what is
> considered
> evil in Iran may not be considered evil here, for instance). Certainly
> throughout history each have been defined in very different ways.
Yes, please answer those questions, Martin. But don't forget that I have stated
my views on ethics in other threads.
I have no trouble distinguishing good and evil, based on my personal view
(indeed, I've been rather forceful in stating my position on such issues, as I
see ethics as the primary issue in life, and my primary goal and desire is to
live an ethical life). However, you tried to make a claim that these things are
based on natural law, and I correctly pointed out that such a claim entails
epistemological problems and a myriad of issues you haven't dealt with.
Insulting me doesn't make those issues go away. They have existed for
centuries, and will be discussed for centuries.
I'm certainly willing to discuss them -- and again, I suggest you stop
personalizing this discussion and seeing it as a competition, and instead let's
together approach these issues and develop arguments and positions.
cheers, scott
Edgar J. Lawrence II
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> > As I said earlier, I'll mark you down as "unable to condemn Nazism
or
> > Soviet Communism."
>
> ???? Yet I condemned all the horrors of each, quite clearly. I
condemned concentration
> camps, denials of liberty, murder, torture, and the system of
government. What on earth can
> your point be in making a statement like that, unless you're just
playing rhetorical games?
> Oh well, play your games, but since you haven't responded to my
arguments about why
> condemning an abstract "ism" isn't as useful as focusing on human
choices and acts, and how
> it can lead to errors, I simply have to shrug my shoulders and wonder
what the heck you're
> posting all this for.
It's a typical right-wing attempt to smear those who are not
ideologically pure enough for them. I wonder if he would be so
willing to condemn Christianity because of the multitudinous
misdeeds of its practioners. Of course if he's an Emmett Tyrell
(sp?) clone, he may give lip service to condemnation of
Christianity.
Edgar
Rob Robertson
<snip>
> > Didn't Scotti already say that Nazism and Soviet Communism "might
> > have some benign or even agreeable aspects"?
>
> One SS Guard said he followed Hitler because he was given a job. With
> Weimar he had no job and the money was worthless. That's one. Now what
> kind of job was this guy given?
"It's the economy, Schweinhund!"
> > I guess it takes a political philosopher to tease out
> > those aspects from underneath the millions of those murdered because
> of ideology.
>
> The Russian Revolution replaced the monarchy with a like acting middle-
> class.
Oh really?
> The Monarchy Murdered and the new group murdered. WE ought to
> condemn both. However, Marxist-Lenninism is not Communism. What was the
> ideology? It was an attempt, they claimed, to build a capitalist
> economy by force. It is far more complex than the simplistic spin you
> and McPhillips want to put on it.
I didn't put any "spin" on it. Martin asked a simple question, and got
a bunch of squirming in response. Typical.
> --
> Mike Curtis
_
Rob Robertson
Edgar J. Lawrence II
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>
> John L. wrote:
>
> > Try this from the real world:
> > Communist state: Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
> > Fascist state : National SOCIALIST Democratic Workers Party (NAZI)
> > What do they have in common: SOCIALIST, same government structure,
> > same police state, same death camps.
> > Where do they differ: economic policy
>
> See, this is an example from someone who doesn't understand the
philosophies
> using the terms in a propagandistic fashion. I have a whole file I
can post
> which shows this in error (from other discussions).
I concluded years ago that this sort of thing is not an
error resulting from misunderstanding, but a very crude and
deliberate propaganda ploy.
> But the quickest response is to note that the EAst German Communist
state was
> called the German DEMOCRATIC republic. If the poster puts so much
into a name,
> then he'd have to accept that East Germany was a democracy. (And
historians
> note that Hitler's use of the word socialist in the Nazi party name
was designed
> mostly to try to woo the working class; he despised socialism).
I'm pretty sure the NSDAP existed before Hitler came on the
scene. Basically, he took an existing, ineffectual minor party
and changed it to suit his own purposes, while retaining the
name. Also, didn't the Khmer Rouge call their government the
Peoples Democratic Republic of Kampuchea?
Martin McPhillips
>
>
>Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
>> Erb in response:
>>
>> Those have been concepts debated by philosophers, theologians, and humans
>> for
>> centuries. There is no one answer to what the nature of good is, and
what
>> evil
>> is. If you think you've found it, please explain it, it tends to be a
very
>> subjective and/or culturally contingent set of definitions (what is
>> considered
>> evil in Iran may not be considered evil here, for instance). Certainly
>> throughout history each have been defined in very different ways.
>
>Yes, please answer those questions, Martin. But don't forget that I have
stated
>my views on ethics in other threads.
Ethics? You might have "views on ethics," but you certainly don't
have any ethics of your own. And I answer those questions all the
time. Pay attention.
Re-run the post you are pretending to respond to with the context
left in--
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <391840B7...@maine.edu>...
>
>
>Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
>> I asked the question originally because I know you have problems
>> distinguishing good from evil,
>
>With insults like that, Martin, I have no reason to take you or the rest of
your
>post seriously. Come back if you can put together an argument that doesn't
>require you to attack your opponent personally
From the thread dealing with natural law--
<begin cite>
McPhillips:
> You don't have a fundamental understanding of the difference
> between good and evil? And you put both words into quotes?
Erb in response:
Those have been concepts debated by philosophers, theologians, and humans
for
centuries. There is no one answer to what the nature of good is, and what
evil
is. If you think you've found it, please explain it, it tends to be a very
subjective and/or culturally contingent set of definitions (what is
considered
evil in Iran may not be considered evil here, for instance). Certainly
throughout history each have been defined in very different ways.
<end cite>
Martin McPhillips
>In article <3918186E...@maine.edu>,
> Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>>
>> > As I said earlier, I'll mark you down as "unable to condemn Nazism
>or
>> > Soviet Communism."
>>
>> ???? Yet I condemned all the horrors of each, quite clearly. I
>condemned concentration
>> camps, denials of liberty, murder, torture, and the system of
>government. What on earth can
>> your point be in making a statement like that, unless you're just
>playing rhetorical games?
>> Oh well, play your games, but since you haven't responded to my
>arguments about why
>> condemning an abstract "ism" isn't as useful as focusing on human
>choices and acts, and how
>> it can lead to errors, I simply have to shrug my shoulders and wonder
>what the heck you're
>> posting all this for.
>
> It's a typical right-wing attempt to smear those who are not
>ideologically pure enough for them.
Excuse me? I asked him, after he made a fuss about the differences
between the ideological roots of Fascism and Communism, if he
condemned both equally? He demurred. I restated the proposition
more specifically to be would he condemn both Nazism and
Soviet Communism. He called that a "tricky" proposition. Finally
he said that he condemned both Nazism and Soviet Communism and
claimed that he had said that all along.
Your knee jerked somewhere in the middle of the exchange.
Martin McPhillips
>
>
>Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
>> Go back now and re-read the thread on natural law, with particular
>> reference to the Nuremberg trials. That's precisely how it ties
>> into this newsgroup.
>
>Well, this is good! Martin is apparently moving to explain what his point
>is. Thanks.
>
>> Is there a precursor to the laws of all societies that can be found
>> in the nature of human society itself, by the light of moral reason,
>> that is called "natural law," the egregious violation of which in
>> the revolutionary restructuring and transvaluation of societies
>> leads to unequivocal disaster?
>
>I fail to see how the current discussion, which appears nothing more than a
>word game, addresses those issues.
Anyone who follows this newsgroup can go to deja.com, and using
your user ID(s) (I think you have at least two), search in your posts
for the phrase "word game."
I could probably come up with a list of a half-dozen to a dozen readymade
phrases and platitudes that you use virtually every time you are backed
into a corner, which, of course, is all the time.
<rest of windy abstract blather canned>
Scott Erb
(inappropriate insults deleted)
> The thread is there for anyone who wants to look at it. It wouldn't have
> gone on for as long as it has if you had given the answer that you are
> now claiming you've given all along. You said that condemning an
> "ism" was "tricky" and led into all sorts of logical errors, etc.
Exactly, that remains my position. Only when you clarify your question
to make it clear that the condemnation is of a system of governance and
a set of laws and actions which clearly violate human rights do I
condemn it -- the system, not a vague "ism." If you redefine
"communism" as "soviet communism" with the definition being not just the
vague ideological goals but the specific form of government, then your
redefinition fits exactly into the type of thing I've been condemning
all along. However, I'm not sure you redefine it that precisely; you
have been trying to restate your question to handle my objections (and I
appreciate it), but it still isn't clear. I think we agree the same
things are bad, but I still don't condemn communism writ large, or even
the ideas of all Soviet Communists. I know many who believed they were
doing the right thing, and the ideology as taught and understood was
itself utopian. It was the way humans implemented it that was evil --
and one can argue that many aspects of that ideology led themselves to
such implementation. However, people have implemented Christian and
Islamic ideals in evil ways too...I'm not ready to condemn Christianity
or Islam in the abstract for that reason.
> You have
> changed your answer,
Obviously that is not true.
> and have stopped all the previous rationalizations
> only to start in with the obvious lie that you said what you are now saying
> all along. You did *not* respond by condemning Nazism and Soviet
> Communism all along. You were full of strange equivocations.
> Why lie about it?
There is no lie, and if anyone looks back in the thread they will see
that my claim above is precisely what I claimed all along. But Martin,
these are serious issues and instead of falling into a personalized
flame war of who said what, it might be better to focus on the issues.
I've reposted my bit about natural law, and you had an intriguing post
earlier which tied some of this into concerns about that. Sure, we
disagree on politics and a few other things, but that doesn't mean we
can't have a decent discussion that avoids flames and personal
animosity. Heck, we're probably more alike than either of us would want
to admit, why else would we keep drawing such exchanges ;)
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
awhile back -- this post was not responded to, but clarifies my position --
perhaps this can help us move back to content and avoid falling into a flame
war)
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Martin finally does what we've been trying to get Rick to do -- defend a
concept of natural law. And he does a pretty good job -- thanks -- but I have a
few
nits to pick...
> >Exactly. What kinds of relationships constitute incest and what kind of
> >killing constitutes murder vary from culture to culture, and as such
> >there is no agreed upon cross-cultural standard as to exactly _what_
> >behavior constitutes examples of these.
>
> Well, right there, you clearly understand that incest and murder
> transcend any given culture, even if a culture holds narrower
> or broader standards for each. Incest taboos between mother
> and son, father and daughter, brother and sister, are probably
> close to universally observed. But I don't think that that is
> necessarily a good example of natural law.
It depends on how one defines natural law. If one ties it to biology, one can
make a strong argument that these taboos are based on human physiology and not
culture. In that sense, it could be one of the stronger examples of a
"natural" ethic, or one that transcends culture.
> The murder prohibition is a much better example. Murder is the
> unjust taking of a life. What is considered just or unjust will vary.
Thats what makes the concept of "natural law" about this rather iffy. What is
unjust varies, so sometimes it is OK to kill, sometimes it isn't (unless you
want to embrace radical pacifism). The right to life is protected if and only
if the culture has defined just in a way that makes killing wrong. That seems
to make the right to life (or the prohibition against murder) much more a
cultural rather than natural prohibition. How about this: humans have an
objective interest to live. It is rationally in our interest to have a
prohibition against killing in order to achieve a universal objective interest.
By universal I don't mean that everyone defines their own self-interest as
staying alive. A tautological definition of self-interest
(people's actions imply their interests) don't really help. It is an objective
interest because IF people are going to have the identity as a human, they must
by definition be alive. Its an objective interest of anyone in the category of
"human" to survive (interest defined as what is required to maintain identity).
As you can imagine, there are other objective interests that come out of being
human. Autonomy or liberty is one, as is economic well being (at least enough
to survive). That corresponds rather closely with life, liberty, and property,
there is a tie in here with Lockean thought. People build moral systems around
objective interests; we will expect moral systems across cultures to still
address these objective human interests. (Foucault might argue that autonomy is
a cultural interest because the notion of a possessive individual is cultural;
many societies were more collective...I'll leave that argument aside for now).
> Killing a
> man for having intercourse with your wife is murder in our
> culture, but it might be considered just in another culture, and
> therefore not a murder. But simply killing another person without
> any just cause would be murder in virtually any culture. And each
> culture will hold broader or narrower standards for what is a just
> and an unjust taking of another human life.
But that contains within it an unraveling possibility. You could imagine a
culture where killing because of dishonor or superstition is just, and even
where virtually any killing could be rationalized. Rather, I'd argue that we
can't start from murder. Murder is a cultural phenomenon because it is defined
by culture (what is just or unjust). Killing is the act that is either morally
wrong or not in a manner which transcends culture. Obviously, the admonition
"thou shalt not kill" is not considered universally valid, even by most
Christians.
If, however, we argue that moral systems are built around objective (or
natural) interests, then we can still argue that morality has a basis in a type
of
natural law, but that its actualization is very much culture-determined. The
error many make is to juxtapose culture and "nature," believing that which is
cultural to be natural.
> That is a good example of natural law. Person A has a just
> claim to his own life. Person B does not have a just claim on
> Person A's life. This lies at the very foundation of what it means
> to be a human being.
Close. But you mess it up abit with the culturally determined notion of "just
claim." Person A may have a just claim to person B's life in many cultures;
slavery was not self-evidently wrong to many people, and in war it is seen as
just for people to send soldiers to die, or to drop bombs knowing they'll kill
people.
But your last sentence is important: if we kill someone, they are no longer a
human. Life is the foundation of being human. Moral systems protecting life
are in the objective (or "natural") interest of humans. How that gets defined
is cultural. I go more an absolutist route than almost anyone here (surprise,
surprise, given how I've been called a relativist!), in that to me this
requires even an unwillingness to kill in wartime or to protect property. This
would create a dilemma for me in issues of self-defense (I'd probably sacrifice
self
before killing, trying to escape harm), and more importantly other-defense.
Still, the goal for me would have to be to try to save someone and prevent
another from doing harm in a non-lethal way, and only if the threat was direct.
I'm still not sure how I would react in that kind of dilemma -- hopefully I'll
never have to find out! But the point is that this is more absolutist than a
"right to life is surrendered when someone tries to take my stereo" or "I have
a right to bomb Serbians or Iraqis because of their leaders actions."
> One knows through reflexion that he is himself,
> that the other is not him and he is not the other, and that only
> he has a claim to his life and not to the life of the other.
That could be debated; many cultures have a very collective sense of identity,
you may be imposing your own western/individualist understandings on all
humans. Thats the trouble with this kind of reasoning, unless we have
operationally clear ways to distinguish between natural law and cultural laws,
it ends up being argument by assumption (we assume reflection and a conclusion
to that reflection). If we look at objective interests in context, we can
explain the development of moral systems, argue that certain moral codes better
protect those interests, and develop a universal set of ethics which are not as
tied to cultural assumptions. Its still difficult, but to me it seems a better
path than assuming things about human reflection or, in Rick and Richard's
argument, divine law.
> Likewise,
> the other has no claim to his life. Now, you can say "that's not
> what the Romans believed," but it doesn't have to be. Culture
> does not trump natural law, it can only more or less align itself
> with it. Because surely Person A is not Person B and never
> will be, and no culture can state otherwise.
Ah, but you fall into a bit of a conundrum here. Just because person A is not
person B doesn't mean that only person A has a just claim on his own life. The
notion of "just claim" as you note, is cultural. We do consider ourselves to
have a just claim on many living beings (not our species) even as we recognize
them as others. Also many cultures and philosophies would deny your assertion
that individual identity is all there is; person A is not person B, but person
A's hand is not person A's foot either. Simply: just because A is not B
doesn't mean we automatically can assume A has no just claim on B's life to be
natural law.
> And what makes
> this operative is the human self-awareness, the consciousness
> of consciousness, that manifests itself first in intuition and then
> in rational thought and self-expression through language.
That unleashes a loud of assumptions and beliefs that are at base cultural.
Rationality is defined usually as being able to choose the best means to a
desired end, based on one's expectations. A rational choice can be wrong, and
rational choices for different people will vary depending on their preferences
and how they weigh various options. Language is a cultural construct, and
intuition is hard to grasp -- certainly many people intuit very different
things. I intuit that I am a spiritual being in a material world, that the
spiritual is more important than the material, and a whole host of various
ethical and personal beliefs. But a lot of these intuitions are not shared by
my more materialist friends -- which is OK, I don't want them to judge my
intuitions, so I won't judge theirs.
Consciousness and awareness are also unclear. Certainly consciousness can be
defined biologically, and awareness can be measured even in lower primates.
What this MEANS in terms of human belief and ethics is very unclear.
> These
> transcend any culture, inhere at the foundation of human existence,
> and predicate virtually all of the positive norms that govern
> human societies.
That statement is a bit too vague to support anything but a general sense of
there existing a commonality among humans that creates a set of ethical
principles that should exist across cultures. On that vague sense, I agree.
But what exactly these are, and where they come from (what is meant by
'natural'?), and how they apply to political questions...THAT is a more
difficult issue. But it does start to address some of Jeff's objections to
Rick's claims (Jeff being skeptical of anything but cultural norms) more than
Rick did. However, one other point has to be made: regardless of whether or
not natural laws or ethical principles exist, they are meaningless unless
actualized by human behavior -- behavior being the result of ideas and action.
That makes a focus on culture and shared understandings very important, and
makes it hard to determine what is a cultural norm, and what is a 'natural'
norm.
> And that is exactly what the Founders are referring to with
> respect to "self-evident truths." Yes, each society or culture will
> "culture" the manifestations of these basic substrates of
> human existence and action, but they cannot be changed without
> destroying the inherent meaning of human existence itself.
But many could argue again that the founders defined natural and self-evident
culturally; your statement above is an assertion, you haven't defined the
inherent meaning of human existence (and dealt with the epistemological issue
of how we address questions on that meaning). I think the idea of an objective
interest to life (without it we would no longer be human) is as good a starting
point as any. That could grow, as per Locke and classical liberalism, to
protect the ability to sustain that life (though Confucian thought and other
more 'collective approaches could be said to deal with these interests in a
non-individualist way just as well). In short, you offer a reasonable
hypothesis, but its still speculative. That doesn't make it wrong, of course.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
> Ethics? You might have "views on ethics," but you certainly don't
> have any ethics of your own.
That, Martin, is not only out of line, but contrary to many things I've
posted, including an explanation of my ethical premises and beliefs.
They tend to be based a lot on Kantian thought (the universal principle,
as one poster helped me understand better in an exchange awhile back)
and my own spiritual views I won't go into at this time.
(rest deleted -- they were misunderstandings about my position answered
in other posts)
Scott Erb
>
> Edgar J. Lawrence II wrote in message <8f9lp1$n74$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <3918186E...@maine.edu>,
> > Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> > It's a typical right-wing attempt to smear those who are not
> >ideologically pure enough for them.
That could explain it.
> Excuse me? I asked him, after he made a fuss about the differences
> between the ideological roots of Fascism and Communism,
Again, Martin, you keep saying I 'made a fuss,' when as I pointed out I
simply agreed with Jeff on the obvious fact that the two have different
roots. What is the "fuss"? And, more importantly, you never denied or
argued against that claim!
> if he condemned both equally? He demurred.
Untrue -- I pointed out that I condemn all acts violating human rights
and liberties, as well as calls to violate such, regardless of what
ideologies engage in those violations. I explained, in an argument
Martin has not rebuted, why it is dangerous to simply condemn a vague
"ism."
> I restated the proposition
> more specifically to be would he condemn both Nazism and
> Soviet Communism. He called that a "tricky" proposition.
You're selectively quoting to create a wrong impression. I noted that I
condemned the systems engaged in each and the acts they undertook. To
the extent that your redefinition of the "ism" was limited to the system
and not the broad ideology, my position could be fit into common
parlance of "condemning Soviet communism." However, that is really a
redefinition on your part to fit into the claims and objections I made,
essentially meaning you came to agree with me.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
>
> I could probably come up with a list of a half-dozen to a dozen readymade
> phrases and platitudes that you use virtually every time you are backed
> into a corner, which, of course, is all the time.
Ah, but the fact is that I have stayed with my position completely, and
in fact you have not rebuted: a) the fact communism and fascism come
from different roots; b) the fact that condemning an abstract "ism" is
dangerous and tricky; c) you have not responded to my attempt to get you
to be more specific about the tie in this has to natural law; d) you
have not responded to my lengthy post critiquing your belief in natural
law and offering a sympathetic but I believe more logically sound
alternative -- I reposted that today in case you feel up to the
challenge; e) you have restated your question on condemning to fit into
my claim all along -- I condemn the acts, the calls to act, and the
rationalizations of acts that violate human rights and liberties, which
include the basic system of governance in Nazi Germany and Soviet
Russia. That is a move away from condemning an abstract "ism," a good
move away on your part.
So a look at the thread shows that I have given complete answers and
considerable content. You seem to want to avoid those arguments and
personalize things. Why?
perplexed, scott
Martin McPhillips
>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
>>:|Martin is simply playing games.
>>:|
>
>He sure is, it's called distractions. Smoke blowing, topic and discussion
>control, any number of names.
FYI, buckeye, it was not I who raised a question about Fascism and
Communism. I merely posed a question in response to a fussy attempt
to distinguish between the two. It was a fairly simple question: "But do you
condemn them both equally?" And some dozen or two dozen posts later
I got the final revised answer to the simple question, after which Dr. Erb
claimed that he had been giving that answer all along, which was a lie.
Yes, indeed, it is "called distractions, smoke blowing, topic and discussion
control, any number of names."
Jeff Sinclair
response>>
<<soc.history.war.us-revolution snipped from headers as it is off topic
in this group>>
In article <FpVR4.21541$0o4.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
"Martin McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
> Scott Erb wrote in message 3918186E.A340FCD7maine.edu...
>
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> As I said earlier, I'll mark you down as unable to
condemn Nazism or
> Soviet Communism.
He condemned both quite unequivocally. He also noted that there were
significant differences between the two. He condemned the totalitarian
nature of both of them very clearly. However, he did also note that
where at least in theory Communism had as its ideal goal in theory the
liberation of people from oppression (although quite the opposite
occured), Naziism never pretended even in theory to be a political
theory geared toward the liberation of broad masses of people despite
their race, ethnicity, or creed. On the contrary, it was quite upfront
about its intention to enslave millions of üntermenschen to serve the
"master race".
In addition, it could be added that Naziism focused on a return to a
"pure pristine Teutonic past" which existed largely in the imaginations
of its "theorists" such as Goebbels and Rosenberg while communism in
theory was focused upon a future "dictatorship of the proletariat"
which, of course, never got past the dictatorship of the "vanguard
party". Naziism's primary emphasis in addition was primarily on race and
on setting up a "master race"/"subhuman" caste system of priviledge with
people locked into very narrow socially-defined roles. Communism in
theory was more concerned about leveling ecomomic relations by
eliminating inequalities, although as the aftermath of the Russian
Revolution showed, it became in actuality more concerned about power
relationships. Where, however, communism or socialism as economic
theory was tempered by politically democratic structures, such as for
example in Sweden or in Norway, it helped to contribute to some mixed
economies (mixed in terms of cpaitalism and socialism) which were some
of the healthiest economies and societies in the world.
So, you see, it is not entirely accurate to identify Naziism and Soviet
Communism as the same things, even while it is entirely appropriate to
roundly condemn the totalitarian systems which arose out of each in
actuality, as Scott has.
So please go back, and read the thread carefully, noting carefully where
he has indeed done so. It is easy enough for me or anyone else to access
those posts of his and note their Deja News URLs with proof that he has
done this. These word games accomplish absolutely nothing except to make
the motivations for continuing this thread to appear to be petty.
> > ???? Yet I condemned all the horrors of each, quite clearly. I
condemned
> > concentration
> > camps, denials of liberty, murder, torture, and the system of
government.
> > What on earth can
> > your point be in making a statement like that, unless you're just
playing
> > rhetorical games?
>
> Scott Erb is unable to condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism. Where are
> the word games in that, sir? I should add that Scott Erb is also
unable to
> condemn Maoism and the Khmer Rouge. And what is the reason you give?
(Sigh) So be it:
http://x27.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=0&AN=621078531.1
"I condemn all the murders, the calls to murder, the violations of human
rights, the government tyranny, and I argue that ideological dogmatism
often makes such things more likely."
http://x27.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=0&AN=620695199.1
"Martin McPhillips wrote:
> O.K. Let's be more specific. You condem without reservation Nazism,
Soviet
> Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge?
Again, I condemn any acts taken by those governments or proponents of
those ideologies which violated human rights and the ethical principles
I believe in, or who defended or rationalized such violations. I
prefer, again, to condemn actions rather than "isms" because when you
abstract to an "ism" you open the door to errors of logic and fact."
> Wasn't it that condemning "isms" is tricky?
>
> What is "tricky" about condemning totalitarian mass movements
that result
> in mass murder? You are the one here who is playing rhetorical
games,
> per usual.
He was condemining the particular historical and concrete expressions of
those "isms". As it the case of Sweden, for example, there is no
guarantee that communism or socialism in economics will lead to a
totalitarian or repressive regime, which is why in this case condeming
an "ism" is not entirely appropriate, especially when in the case of the
latter, the stated goals of the ism is human liberation rather than
human bondage, as it in in the theory of Naziism.
However, the same question could be therefore asked of you, Martin,
concerning your response to my post concerning the Alien and Sedition
Acts during Federalist times:
Jeff Sinclair:
http://x27.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=1&AN=620934751
Martin McPhillips:
http://x27.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=1&AN=621152140
Do you condemn without reservation the acts aimed not in this case at
protecting national security, but in silencing political opponents, as
subsequent events in late 1790's America proved to be the case, as with
the use of Federalist militias to tear down "liberty poles" of private
citizen, to viciously assault political opponents and editors of
opposition newspapers, to call for the expulsion of all people of
Irish or French extraction or ethnic origin (kinda like calls to
expel people of Japanese origin during WWII, and we all know what
resulted from that) etc.? Your response did not leave it at all clear
that you found that kind of behavior objectionable.
Furthermore, do you condemn without reservation current attempts,
similar in nature to what happened during "the reign of witches" back in
the late 1790s to silence critics, in this case of attempts to fuse
religion and government? The recent attempt of some political allies of
Pat Robertson to bring a frivolous lawsuit against Barry Lynn, chair of
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State in order to
silence this organization is a rather "loud" example of such efforts
occuring during a time in which our nation is not at war.
To wit:
The six--Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Paul Coverdell of Georgia, Jeff
Sessions of Alabama, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Don Nickles of Oklahoma
and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina--charged in a letter to Attorney
General Janet Reno that Americans United may have "attempted to
disenfranchise religious voters by intimidating people of faith into not
participating in the political process."
The senators were referring to projects undertaken by Americans United
in 1996 and 1998 during which the group sent educational materials to
churches nationwide, advising them Christian Coalition "voter guides"
are partisan material and that distributing them in church could result
in revocation of tax-exempt status.
Helms and the others filed the complaint just a few weeks after
Christian Coalition President Pat Robertson traveled to Washington to
meet with the GOP Senate leadership last June to discuss campaign
strategy for the year 2000. Americans United charged that the scheme to
harass the organization was drafted then. (Two weeks after the meeting,
the Coalition issued a statement applauding the senators' move.)
But the Justice Department rejected the overture. In the Feb. 4 letter
to Lynn, Keeney wrote,"[T]he two criminal statutes that were potentially
involved...reach only threats of physical or economic harm that are
communicated to voters to stimulate or deter them from registering to
vote or voting in federal elections. They do not reach the mere
expression of opinions concerning the possible tax ramifications to
organizations that engage such activities. For that reason, we declined
to initiate a criminal investigation of the matter about which the
Senators had complained."
Lynn said that Americans United will not be intimidated by Helms, his
far-right Senate allies or the Religious Right. "If the Christian
Coalition and its political cronies thought they could harass and bully
Americans United into dropping its efforts to educate churches about the
perils of partisan political activity, they were wrong," Lynn said.
Do you condemn this?
Yes or no? Turnabout _is_, after all, fair play. :-)
--
Quod si nihil cum potentiore juris humani relinqui
tur inopi, at ego ad Deos vindices humanea superbiae
confugiam - Livy, bk 9, ch. 1
Martin McPhillips
+AD4-Martin McPhillips wrote:
+AD4-
+AD4APg- Ethics? You might have +ACI-views on ethics,+ACI- but you certainly don't
+AD4APg- have any ethics of your own.
+AD4-
+AD4-That, Martin, is not only out of line, but contrary to many things I've
+AD4-posted, including an explanation of my ethical premises and beliefs.
You're clearly a man without ethics or the honesty to admit it.
You've stated clearly, for one, that you don't understand the difference
between good and evil, and, as far as I'm concerned, you've proved
it. You forget, Scott, that I've read thousands of your posts. You're
as slippery and dishonest a human being as I've ever encountered,
and I won't stand still while you pretend to lecture me about your
+ACI-ethical premises and beliefs.+ACI-
You just today lied in the most bald-faced manner about your
willingness to condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism, while
it took at least a dozen posts for you to get to that point. You then
claimed you had said it all along, imagining, I suppose that somehow
a simple +ACI-Yes+ACI- in response to even my modified questions could
be found at the outset.
Don't talk about your ethics to me. Try some other sucker.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >
> > Edgar J. Lawrence II wrote in message <8f9lp1$n74$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > >In article <3918186E...@maine.edu>,
> > > Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
>
> > > It's a typical right-wing attempt to smear those who are not
> > >ideologically pure enough for them.
>
> That could explain it.
>
> > Excuse me? I asked him, after he made a fuss about the differences
> > between the ideological roots of Fascism and Communism,
>
> Again, Martin, you keep saying I 'made a fuss,' when as I pointed out I
> simply agreed with Jeff on the obvious fact that the two have different
> roots. What is the "fuss"? And, more importantly, you never denied or
> argued against that claim!
I never contested your bleeding claim. In response to it I asked you
a simple questions: But you condemn both Fascism and Communism
equally.
You demurred. I restated the question: You condemn both Nazism and
Soviet Communism equally? You responded that condemning "isms" was
a "tricky" proposition.
> > if he condemned both equally? He demurred.
>
> Untrue -- I pointed out that I condemn all acts violating human rights
> and liberties, as well as calls to violate such, regardless of what
> ideologies engage in those violations.
That wasn't the question I asked you. I asked you if you could
condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism, not whether you could condemn
specific "acts violating human rights, etc."
> I explained, in an argument
> Martin has not rebuted, why it is dangerous to simply condemn a vague
> "ism."
Well, are you now recanting your eventual condemnation of both
Nazism and Soviet Communism? (And, Scott, it's not "dangerous"
to "simply condemn" Nazism and Soviet Marxism. If you are
contending that they are "vague 'ism[s]'" then perhaps you'll ask
yourself why you are so ready to jump up and mark the distinction
between the two, yet so incapable of answering "Yes" to the
question: Do you condemn them?)
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >
> > phrases and platitudes that you use virtually every time you are backed
> > into a corner, which, of course, is all the time.
>
> Ah, but the fact is that I have stayed with my position completely, and
> in fact you have not rebuted: a) the fact communism and fascism come
> from different roots;
I never contested your position on the question of "different roots,"
so why would I need to rebut it?
>b) the fact that condemning an abstract "ism" is
> dangerous and tricky;
There is nothing "tricky" about condemning Nazism and Soviet
Communism. Now, since you're back to this does it mean that
you are recanting your eventual condemnation of both?
> c) you have not responded to my attempt to get you
> to be more specific about the tie in this has to natural law;
I urge you to re-read the entire natural law discussion, not
that it will do you any good. Try the parts on Nuremberg, and
then maybe ask yourself the question why perpetrators of
Communist horrors haven't been properly brought to the bar
of justice as well.
> d) you
> have not responded to my lengthy post critiquing your belief in natural
> law and offering a sympathetic but I believe more logically sound
> alternative -- I reposted that today in case you feel up to the
> challenge;
You drifted off into a discussion of realism, and then asserted
a bunch of nonsense about "constuctivism," which is pure abstraction,
and then tried to play 20 questions. If I had even the slightest
sense that the discussion was headed somewhere other than back
down the hole of another one of your infinite regresses I would
have responded. I was tempted to cite Kant on natural law as
the source of all positive law, Morgenthau on his profound
doubts about the validity of his own theory of realism, Kissinger
on the moral basis for the Cold War (these are all the realists
you cited), but I already knew that it would be a waste of time,
and worst of all it would be real time wasted on you, after which
you'd come back with one of your canned responses (probably
something along the lines of "anyone can find a quote to
support any position").
> e) you have restated your question on condemning to fit into
> my claim all along -- I condemn the acts, the calls to act, and the
> rationalizations of acts that violate human rights and liberties, which
> include the basic system of governance in Nazi Germany and Soviet
> Russia. That is a move away from condemning an abstract "ism," a good
> move away on your part.
You're a sick guy, Scott. And you're really lying there. I didn't
restate my question to "fit" into your claim. I simply changed it
to ask if you condemned Nazism and Soviet Communism with equal
vigor? I was attempting to accomodate you sympathies for Communism,
and your weak conscience.
Scott Erb
>
> You're clearly a man without ethics or the honesty to admit it.
Now you're just name calling...
> You've stated clearly, for one, that you don't understand the difference
> between good and evil,
And lying.
You're nothing, Martin, you're avoiding real discussion in order to just
flame.
Goodbye. Come back when you have content.
Kurt Nicklas
Yes, Scott is eager to the last to see the good in all things and is loathe
to condemn the gunman 'till the gunman pulls the trigger.
But then, alas,it is too late.
--
Kurt Nicklas
Algore for President 2000:
'Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud
hatch out.'
('Claudius the God, R. Graves)
Martin McPhillips
+AD4-Martin McPhillips wrote:
+AD4-
+AD4-(inappropriate insults deleted)
+AD4-
+AD4APg- The thread is there for anyone who wants to look at it. It wouldn't have
+AD4APg- gone on for as long as it has if you had given the answer that you are
+AD4APg- now claiming you've given all along. You said that condemning an
+AD4APg- +ACI-ism+ACI- was +ACI-tricky+ACI- and led into all sorts of logical errors, etc.
+AD4-
+AD4-Exactly, that remains my position. Only when you clarify your question
+AD4-to make it clear that the condemnation is of a system of governance and
+AD4-a set of laws and actions which clearly violate human rights do I
+AD4-condemn it -- the system, not a vague +ACI-ism.+ACI- If you redefine
+AD4AIg-communism+ACI- as +ACI-soviet communism+ACI- with the definition being not just the
+AD4-vague ideological goals but the specific form of government, then your
+AD4-redefinition fits exactly into the type of thing I've been condemning
+AD4-all along. However, I'm not sure you redefine it that precisely+ADs- you
+AD4-have been trying to restate your question to handle my objections (and I
+AD4-appreciate it), but it still isn't clear. I think we agree the same
+AD4-things are bad, but I still don't condemn communism writ large, or even
+AD4-the ideas of all Soviet Communists. I know many who believed they were
+AD4-doing the right thing, and the ideology as taught and understood was
+AD4-itself utopian. It was the way humans implemented it that was evil --
+AD4-and one can argue that many aspects of that ideology led themselves to
+AD4-such implementation. However, people have implemented Christian and
+AD4-Islamic ideals in evil ways too...I'm not ready to condemn Christianity
+AD4-or Islam in the abstract for that reason.
+AD4-
+AD4APg- You have
+AD4APg- changed your answer,
+AD4-
+AD4-Obviously that is not true.
+AD4-
+AD4APg- and have stopped all the previous rationalizations
+AD4APg- only to start in with the obvious lie that you said what you are now
saying
+AD4APg- all along. You did +ACo-not+ACo- respond by condemning Nazism and Soviet
+AD4APg- Communism all along. You were full of strange equivocations.
+AD4APg- Why lie about it?
+AD4-
+AD4-There is no lie, and if anyone looks back in the thread they will see
+AD4-that my claim above is precisely what I claimed all along. But Martin,
+AD4-these are serious issues and instead of falling into a personalized
+AD4-flame war of who said what, it might be better to focus on the issues.
+AD4-I've reposted my bit about natural law, and you had an intriguing post
+AD4-earlier which tied some of this into concerns about that. Sure, we
+AD4-disagree on politics and a few other things, but that doesn't mean we
+AD4-can't have a decent discussion that avoids flames and personal
+AD4-animosity. Heck, we're probably more alike than either of us would want
+AD4-to admit, why else would we keep drawing such exchanges +ADs-)
+AD4-cheers, scott
You are lying. You were asked a simple question. I made it more
specific. For several posts you rationalized in the usual manner,
and then finally said that yes, you condemned both Nazism and
Soviet Communism. You're simply making up all that stuff about
how I modified my question. My only modifications were to
substitute Nazism for Fascism and to substitute Soviet Communism
for Communism and to say +ACI-condemn with equal vigor+ACI- in place
of +ACI-condemn equally.+ACI-
All you did was dance around for the usual dozen or more posts
and then state flatly that you condemned both Nazism and
Soviet Communism and then lie by claiming that you'd said
that all along.
You turned a simple question into an agonizing pulling of
teeth, and now you're trying to paper over your problem with
the +ACI-tricky+ACI- question of whether you could take the +ACI-dangerous+ACI-
step of condemning Nazism and Soviet Communism. There's no
end to your utter nonsense.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >
> > You're clearly a man without ethics or the honesty to admit it.
>
> Now you're just name calling...
You should stop lying, and not try to turn it around and claim
that I am...
> > You've stated clearly, for one, that you don't understand the difference
> > between good and evil,
>
> And lying.
I've already quoted you once today on this, and in direct response
to a question as to whether you understood the difference
between good and evil. You were certainly quick in stripping
the context out when you responded. Do I have to repost it again,
and again if need be, to back up my statement? You admit in
your own words that you do not understand the difference between
good and evil.
> You're nothing, Martin, you're avoiding real discussion in order to just
> flame.
You're a liar, and that's not a flame. It's the truth.
> Goodbye. Come back when you have content.
You're a real character, Scott. A dozen posts to get you to condemn
the two monstrous ideologies of the 20th Century, and then you
balk and modify and claim that you had condemned them from the
start. Come back when you *have* character, instead of just
being one.
Scott Erb
>
>
> You are lying. You were asked a simple question.
Sigh. Martin, you're squirming around, but you haven't dealt with any
content, nor have you denied that my answer was clear and to the point.
Other posters have noted it. I was specific, and repeated myself over
and over.
Now, while you continue to try to do the "you said I said" game, there
is a plethora of arguments and claims I've made you haven't replied to
or rebuted. Until you offer something of content, you're not worth much
effort. Also, its clear you are the one lying. I've stuck precisely to
my claims on what I condemn and why, you simply tried to redefine your
question in a way to fit my claims. I appreciate your efforts, but have
no reason what the heck your point is in all of this - unless, driven by
an unnecessary personalization of the debate, your desire to "win" a
personal contest has caused you to lose sight of rationality and logic.
cheers, scott
Scott Erb
>
> > > You've stated clearly, for one, that you don't understand the difference
> > > between good and evil,
> >
> > And lying.
>
> I've already quoted you once today on this,
Yes, and I clearly noted that I waa asking *you* questions on how you
deal with epistemological problems. Noting that these questions cannot
be answered in a way that is provable is very different than saying one
can't subjectively make distinctions on good and evil. You neglected
those statements of mine, even after I corrected you, and thus I know
you are not simply in error now, but lying. You failed to quote my
posts stating my view on ethics, which I've detailed, and you neglect my
indepth critique and sympathetic alternative to your post on natural
law.
In short, you're being dishonest, all because you refuse to put aside
whatever personal grudge you have and look at issues, not games.
Still, if you provide content, we can simply chalk this up to
misunderstandings and typical net flame miscommunication and do
something worthwhile -- like focus on these important issues and try to
work them through. I'm ready to do that if you are.
Scott Erb
> > Ah, but the fact is that I have stayed with my position completely, and
> > in fact you have not rebuted: a) the fact communism and fascism come
> > from different roots;
>
> I never contested your position on the question of "different roots,"
> so why would I need to rebut it?
Excellent.
> >b) the fact that condemning an abstract "ism" is
> > dangerous and tricky;
>
> There is nothing "tricky" about condemning Nazism and Soviet
> Communism. Now, since you're back to this does it mean that
> you are recanting your eventual condemnation of both?
I have maintained a very clear position, described in recent posts.
Briefly: I am not condemning an "ism," but any violation of human
rights, rationalization for the violation of human rights, or calls to
violate human rights. In the old Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, those
things were present throughout the governmental system, and that system
is what I condemn.
> > c) you have not responded to my attempt to get you
> > to be more specific about the tie in this has to natural law;
>
> I urge you to re-read the entire natural law discussion, not
> that it will do you any good. Try the parts on Nuremberg, and
> then maybe ask yourself the question why perpetrators of
> Communist horrors haven't been properly brought to the bar
> of justice as well.
Actually, you should ask yourself that question. The answer basically
proves the point Mike, I and others were making on international law --
it doesn't rest on natural law, but on agreements, treaties, and
international custom. The example of changes in the legal system in
Germany and how former East Germans were dealt with is an interesting
case study.
Simply, this is outside international law!
> > d) you
> > have not responded to my lengthy post critiquing your belief in natural
> > law and offering a sympathetic but I believe more logically sound
> > alternative -- I reposted that today in case you feel up to the
> > challenge;
>
> You drifted off into a discussion of realism, and then asserted
> a bunch of nonsense about "constuctivism," which is pure abstraction,
No, its the post I reposted today, which talks about objective human
interests and the like. You must have it mixed up with another post.
I'll repost it in a couple of days.
> and then tried to play 20 questions. If I had even the slightest
> sense that the discussion was headed somewhere other than back
> down the hole of another one of your infinite regresses I would
> have responded. I was tempted to cite Kant on natural law as
> the source of all positive law,
Heck, I cited Kant's religious beliefs and (in essence) his belief God
put his law into a form that humans could understand.
> Morgenthau on his profound
> doubts about the validity of his own theory of realism, Kissinger
Ultimately, Morgenthau remained a strong proponent of his own theories
until his death, even engaging in very entertaining debates with the new
"behavioralists." Still, any theorist, philosopher, or scientist worth
his salt doubts his own theories at times. I certainly question and
doubt mine, which is why I prefer discussion rather than competition.
We should be trying to find truth, not just holding grudges based on
imagined images of opponents.
> on the moral basis for the Cold War (these are all the realists
> you cited),
Realists were divided on the Cold War. I am well aware of Kissinger's
views, as well as Kennan's (who ended up more cynical) and
Morgenthau's. Still, unless you make an argument and show how it
relates to an issue at hand, you have very little.
>but I already knew that it would be a waste of time,
Martin, you seem to be engaged in self-defeating behavior, based on the
fact you aren't looking to discuss issues but have some silly personal
competition. That is not a path to truth. Let it go.
> and worst of all it would be real time wasted on you, after which
> you'd come back with one of your canned responses (probably
> something along the lines of "anyone can find a quote to
> support any position").
Gee, its easy when you can imagine an opponent's answer and assert it
without having to make the argument, isn't it.
> > e) you have restated your question on condemning to fit into
> > my claim all along -- I condemn the acts, the calls to act, and the
> > rationalizations of acts that violate human rights and liberties, which
> > include the basic system of governance in Nazi Germany and Soviet
> > Russia. That is a move away from condemning an abstract "ism," a good
> > move away on your part.
>
> You're a sick guy, Scott. And you're really lying there. I didn't
> restate my question to "fit" into your claim.
Sure seems like you did to me.
>I simply changed it
> to ask if you condemned Nazism and Soviet Communism with equal
> vigor? I was attempting to accomodate you sympathies for Communism,
> and your weak conscience.
ROTFLOL! Sympathies for communism?!!!! ME??!!! Your lies are getting
more bizarre and brazen as you go. Sheesh. Get real, you're going off
the deep end!
mscu...@my-deja.com
"Martin McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
> mscu...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8f9dik$ddf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <LhWR4.21561$0o4.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> > "Martin McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
> >> Scott D. Erb wrote in message <39182A20...@maine.edu>...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Scott Erb is unable to condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism. Not
> >> >> much rhetorical flourish there, sir.
> >> >
> >> >I remind people of the post awhile back on flametrolls. I have
> >condemned
> >> >everything Martin condemns associated with each. I certainly
condemn
> >> communism
> >> >as practiced by the Soviet Union, and I have repeatedly condemned
> >Nazi
> >> actions
> >> >and the calls to action within their ideology. I think by any
common
> >> parlance
> >> >that means I have forcefully condemned both Soviet communism and
> >Nazism.
> >>
> >> Well, if it *means* that you have "forcefully condemned both Soviet
> >> communism
> >> and Nazism," why haven't you actually said that?
> >>
> >> >Martin is simply playing games.
> >>
> >question "do
> >> you
> >> condemn Nazism and Soviet Communism?"
> >
> >What is Nazism to you since you refuse to apply this any on-topic
part
> >of this news group?
> >
> >Same question for "Soviet Communism."
>
> Go back now and re-read the thread on natural law, with particular
> reference to the Nuremberg trials. That's precisely how it ties
> into this newsgroup.
I don't need to. The Nuremberg Trials were not totally based on natural
law. They also took place in 1946 which is a far cry from 1775 to 1800.
> Is there a precursor to the laws of all societies that can be found
> in the nature of human society itself, by the light of moral reason,
> that is called "natural law,"
It was defined differently by different philosphers. It always amuses
me when those posts of mine get ignored. I posted in one of these
threads a quote describing all the different constructs of "natural
law" and how they are viewed today. No one responded. I'm not surprised.
> the egregious violation of which in
> the revolutionary restructuring and transvaluation of societies
> leads to unequivocal disaster?
Like what?
[snipped rhetoric]
--
Mike Curtis
mscu...@my-deja.com
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu> wrote:
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> > I urge you to re-read the entire natural law discussion, not
> > that it will do you any good. Try the parts on Nuremberg, and
> > then maybe ask yourself the question why perpetrators of
> > Communist horrors haven't been properly brought to the bar
> > of justice as well.
>
> Actually, you should ask yourself that question. The answer basically
> proves the point Mike, I and others were making on international law -
-
> it doesn't rest on natural law, but on agreements, treaties, and
> international custom. The example of changes in the legal system in
> Germany and how former East Germans were dealt with is an interesting
> case study.
>
> Simply, this is outside international law!
Also there is a difference. The post war world was now tired of war.
This is a very complex history and cannot be presented in a single
paragraph. The German, during the war, transported people from one
country to another and murdered them. Other crimes, such as those by
the Russians stayed within their borders. Plus the Cold War made things
a little more difficult.
mscu...@my-deja.com
"Martin McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
> Scott D. Erb wrote in message <391835B7...@maine.edu>...
> >
> >
> >mscu...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The Russian Revolution replaced the monarchy with a like acting
middle-
to
> >> condemn both. However, Marxist-Lenninism is not Communism. What
was the
> >> ideology? It was an attempt, they claimed, to build a capitalist
> >> economy by force. It is far more complex than the simplistic spin
you
> >> and McPhillips want to put on it.
> >
worth
> >pursuing, but I think one difficulty here is definitional. When one
says
> >"Soviet Communism" like Martin does, does he mean a vague communist
> >ideology, which often counterdicted actual actions by government, or
does
> >he mean the specific policies and structure of the system? Does he
refer
> >to how the ideology was used to rationalize those policies, or is he
saying
> >that the basic principles are evil?
>
> All of it. Clearly, Scott, history has shown that the basic principles
> espoused
> by Lenin and Stalin et al. are evil, in that they do not conform to
human
> reality and by their very nature required their own contradiction,
unlimited
> force and terror, and all sorts of bizarre permutations to sustain
their
> implementation. The ideology and its practice are the idea and the
> reality conjoined, and cannot be picked apart as if policy analysis
> could have saved this monstrous utopian nightmare from itself.
>
> The same goes for Nazism, with its peculiar "race as destiny" formula,
> which is remarkably parrallel to the "history as destiny" formula
> of Marxist-Leninism/Soviet Communism. Both of these corrupt and
> evil ideologies, taken off the drawing board and put into practice,
> resulted in untold slaughter, unlike anything seen before. They both
> draw upon a peculiar self-loathing found in the bourgeosie and
> rely upon a particular inflammation of the mind that leads to
> the mighty power of "men who have ceased to think."
>
> Given the enhancements of the miracle of hindsight, condemning
> them both as aberrations and disasters, shouldn't be any great
> task. But you seem to have a terrific problem with it.
>
> I asked the question originally because I know you have problems
> your opposition to "murder, torture, etc." If your own empathic
> intuitive insight into human nature tells you that "murder, torture,
> etc." are wrong, then there's no grand leap to be made to
> understanding the evil nature of these ideologies, which are
> size four shoes into which minds inflammed by their fundamental
> precepts try to force human society's size eight foot.
>
> The data is in, and the result of these experiments is mass
> slaughter, enslavement, the butchering of reality and the
> truth, and the abyss.
Martin McPhillips
>response>>
>
><<soc.history.war.us-revolution snipped from headers as it is off topic
>in this group>>
>
>In article <FpVR4.21541$0o4.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> "Martin McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
>> Scott Erb wrote in message 3918186E.A340FCD7maine.edu...
>>
>>
>> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>>
>> As I said earlier, I'll mark you down as unable to
>condemn Nazism or
>> Soviet Communism.
>
>He condemned both quite unequivocally.
You need to re-read the thread, from the beginning, and
re-check the meanings of "equivocal and unequivocal."
The very quotes you attempt to bring in support of that
claim show extraordinary equivocation on his part.
His initial responses were unquestionably equivocal,
and far from condemnatory. After the post you are responding
to he finally said, first, that the "meaning" of his posts
demonstrated that he condemned them both, and then
later he stated, finally, his unequivocal condemnation,
and then promptly lied and said he had done so all along.
>He also noted that there were
>significant differences between the two.
That wasn't the issue.
<snip non-germane lecture on the differences between
Nazism and Communism>
>So please go back, and read the thread carefully, noting carefully where
>he has indeed done so.
Ah, I was *in* the thread, and I asked him the question point blank,
and was told, after I had changed the question to specifically address
Nazism and Soviet Communism, that condemning "isms" was a
"tricky" matter, which was "dangerous" and would lead into "errors
of logic, etc."
There is nothing "tricky" or "dangerous" about condemning Nazism
or Soviet Communism *as* ideologies, and that is not the same
thing as condemning murder, torture, etc., which I'm sure most
people would condemn generically.
> It is easy enough for me or anyone else to access
>those posts of his and note their Deja News URLs with proof that he has
>done this.
Oh, stop, please.
>These word games accomplish absolutely nothing except to make
>the motivations for continuing this thread to appear to be petty.
They are far from petty, my friend. They go to matters of judgement.
The difficulty I had in dragging Erb's condemnation of those two
ideologies out of him was obvious throughout the thread, and
he began equivocating and qualifying himself yet again in the
aftermath, and insisted that he had been unequivocal from the
beginning. I'll repeat this again: condemning "murder, torture, etc."
and related human rights abuses is not the same thing as condemning
these two insane ideologies per se.
This is *not* an "unequivocal condemnation" of Nazism and
Soviet Communism--
>http://x27.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=0&AN=621078531.1
>
>"I condemn all the murders, the calls to murder, the violations of human
>rights, the government tyranny, and I argue that ideological dogmatism
>often makes such things more likely."
It's about as equivocal as anyone could be without actually apologizing
for the ideology: "I argue that ideological dogmatism often makes such
things more likely" is not a condemnation of two ideologies that have
seen between them a good 25 to 30 million people to their graves. If you
think
that it is--when the writer even attempts to universalize the question
of Nazism and Soviet Communism to "ideological dogmatism"--then
you've got a very low standard for the use of language.
>http://x27.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=0&AN=620695199.1
>
>"Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> > O.K. Let's be more specific. You condem without reservation Nazism,
>Soviet
> > Communism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge?
>
>Again, I condemn any acts taken by those governments or proponents of
>those ideologies which violated human rights and the ethical principles
>I believe in, or who defended or rationalized such violations. I
>prefer, again, to condemn actions rather than "isms" because when you
>abstract to an "ism" you open the door to errors of logic and fact."
I didn't ask about the acts, but the ideologies themselves which *led*
to the acts. I asked him to focus on the four best known instances
of where political thought was translated into mass slaughter, slavery,
and the butchering of truth, and that was the answer he gave. You
began this post by saying that he had indeed made an unequivocal
condemnation of these ideologies, and here you are quoting him
saying "I prefer, again, to condemn actions rather than "isms" because
when you abstract to an "ism" you open the door to errors of logic
and fact."
These ideologies led directly to mass slaughter. They were ideologies
which placed themselves *above* individual human lives and took
human life in the service of their ideas. It is not the same thing to
"prefer" to "condemn actions" as it is to condemn the ideologies
themselves for their own self-conceived license to take lives in
service to the Idea.
>He was condemining the particular historical and concrete expressions of
>those "isms". As it the case of Sweden,
Stop the nonsense. The books are closed on the evil of Nazism, Soviet
Communism, Khmer Rouge, and Maoism. And Sweden has nothing
to do with the discussion of these ideologies.
>However, the same question could be therefore asked of you, Martin,
>concerning your response to my post concerning the Alien and Sedition
>Acts during Federalist times:
>
>Jeff Sinclair:
>http://x27.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=1&AN=620934751
>
>Martin McPhillips:
>http://x27.deja.com/threadmsg_md.xp?thitnum=1&AN=621152140
>
>Do you condemn without reservation the acts aimed not in this case at
>protecting national security, but in silencing political opponents,
Of course.
>as
>subsequent events in late 1790's America proved to be the case, as with
>the use of Federalist militias to tear down "liberty poles" of private
>citizen, to viciously assault political opponents and editors of
>opposition newspapers, to call for the expulsion of all people of
>Irish or French extraction or ethnic origin (kinda like calls to
>expel people of Japanese origin during WWII, and we all know what
>resulted from that) etc.? Your response did not leave it at all clear
>that you found that kind of behavior objectionable.
My response was to your assertion that this was the most
severe expression of this kind of thing in U.S. history. It wasn't,
as the measures enacted under Wilson demonstrated. And the
tenor of the quote from Samuel Eliot Morison that I gave expressed
the foolishness of those measures, and they would hardly be
acceptable to an outspoken opponent of the current government
such as myself.
And what's this...
>Furthermore, do you condemn without reservation current attempts,
>similar in nature to what happened during "the reign of witches" back in
>the late 1790s to silence critics, in this case of attempts to fuse
>religion and government?
That's nonsense. There is no "attempt to fuse religion and government."
And if I thought that there was I'd be the first to condemn it.
>The recent attempt of some political allies of
>Pat Robertson to bring a frivolous lawsuit against Barry Lynn, chair of
>Americans United for the Separation of Church and State in order to
>silence this organization is a rather "loud" example of such efforts
>occuring during a time in which our nation is not at war.
Oh...
>To wit:
>
>http://www.au.org/pr21000.htm
>
>Do you condemn this?
Condemn what? A letter written to Janet Reno suggesting that Barry Lynn's
organization was violating a law? No, I don't condemn it, nor do I support
it. Are you trying to draw a moral equivalance between a political dispute
in which both sides are being obnoxious to one another to Nazism
and Soviet Communism? As in...
>Yes or no? Turnabout _is_, after all, fair play. :-)
If you think that's "Turnabout" on the questions raised in this
thread--and I'll assume that smiley face means that you're not
serious--then I think you need to get your premise checked,
by a specialist.
mscu...@my-deja.com
"Martin McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
> Jeff Sinclair wrote in message <8f9usd$1sk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> ><<Flotsam and Jetsam caused by browser/e-mail problems edited out of
> >response>>
> >
So did Parliamentarianism, Republicanism, Democracy, Monarchism,
Christianity and many other "nice" type forms of government.
--
Mike Curtis
Scott Erb
>
> In article <cdgS4.22546$0o4.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
> "Martin McPhillips" <cay...@nyct.net> wrote:
> > Jeff Sinclair wrote in message <8f9usd$1sk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > ><<Flotsam and Jetsam caused by browser/e-mail problems edited out of
> > >response>>
> > >
>
> Christianity and many other "nice" type forms of government.
The danger is that when you remove responsibility for acts away from
individual choices and to an "ideology," one starts justifying attacks
on people for believing an ideology rather than for doing particular
acts.
The most obvious example of this kind of danger is McCarthyism, where in
the name of "anti-communism" people's liberties and civil rights were
violated by a democratic government (and individuals were blackballed,
etc.). Ideologies are often vague and subject to multiple
interpretations. If someone condemns an "ism" on the basis of how one
group or government (or set of governments) interpreted and implemented
that "ism," there is a danger that this will be used rationalize things
like mass slaughter in the name of defending ideological purity, not in
responding to real crimes.
Martin's never denied those objections, he's simply ignored them.