Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
American Fascism
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Sands: [QB] Cartman, you were nice enough to respond to my points, so I�ll see if I can improve upon what I wrote before to tidy it up a bit. By balance, I meant someone contributing to the conversation who was not of a socialist, a liberal (in American political lexicography), or an opponent of the war. I�m linking to the pieces as opinion. I make no representation that they are purely descriptive. I�m offering alternative opinions, not clarifying facts by them. My reasons for continuing to post are that I enjoy the give and take of our conversations on the Flameboard and that we can all learn something from each other, and that I might have something to offer people here as I have learned from them. As for passing the bar and making the arguments that I have, let me state off the bat that passing the bar is not a measure of someone�s morality. There are good lawyers and bad lawyers. And conservative lawyers and liberal lawyers that fall in both those categories too. As for �minding,� Balaam invited comment, and I had hoped you all would not object to an old member sharing his thoughts. I disagree on your reading of nationalism. The nationalism of the Allies did not lead to the war. It was a combination of bad ideology in Germany, Japan, and Italy (of which [i]their[/i] nationalism was a part), poor diplomacy on our part in the wake of WW1, and perhaps the economic problems that had unbalanced the political economies of the period. (I [i]would[/i], however, agree that nationalism had a great deal more to do as a cause of WW1. Its importance to the second is matched by other factors. What I did not like about the film was that it [i]implied[/i] it was fascism�s primary attribute. I�m not convinced.) I�m not sure I�m reading your second objection correctly, so I�m not sure if I disagree with you or not. I am not an ethical relativist. If I remember the terminology of the field correctly, I would be an ethical objectivist. Specifically, natural law is a system I think comes closest to what Truth we can grasp. Why you act to achieve certain ends I would agree is important. For an ethical objectivist, the thought process entails labeling some systems more consistent with human dignity than others. So I would tentatively say neither of us is wrong. I went with the end result of how I think through the morality of choosing to confront other evils. I could have gone with the first step of Why, but both get you to the same place by these means. �Stamping out� is shorthand metaphor for a longer phrase I didn�t write out. By that I meant thoroughly discrediting the idea in the minds of those who would otherwise be inclined to adopt it as their own. Groups and nations throughout history have worked to discredit ideas. You don�t actually kill them, but you show why they are morally wrong and empirically inapposite. And I stand by discrediting those ideas as one part of winning this conflict. Labeling the ideology we are fighting �Islamofascism� I don�t think is unmerited. We can bicker over which one we like best all day, but fascism had a lot to do with the origins of radical violent Islamic terrorism. It�s a mouth full of syllables, but I stand by my preferred word. Concern over national security? I disagree. I think 2,977 people killed in a single day are good cause for concern. I think it�s more important than any other issue considering how easy it is to kill by more effective means like biological weapons. It�s justified in my mind. As for the media, you�re right, I shouldn�t have pretended I have a window into his head like that. However, I disagree that my characterization (as a reply to what he was saying) is not unfounded. I could have phrased it better, but no one controls the media, and they are free (within certain well-founded constraints) to publish what they like. Between DailyKos and the Drudge Report, we get a media that is independent enough of government to publish stories it thinks are important to the public�s knowledge. I stand by my statement regarding social democracy and capitalism. We�ve chosen one in the United States, and if he insists on labeling it fascist, I�m not miffed by it considering (what I suspect are) his proffered alternatives. Parallels between the EU and fascism are of course speculative, but not unfounded. I don�t think the EU [i]is[/i] fascist, but on cursory examination, it shares some characteristics (just like the US does by Mr. Rich�s measures). There is a higher degree of government intervention in the economic sphere than there is in liberal American capitalism. Intervention in commerce was a distinguishing feature of fascism; therefore, I don�t think it was out of line in pointing out as a criticism of Mr. Rich�s implicit argument that other nations are less fascist than the United States is. I thought the topic too big to expand upon when it was made in a point in passing, but thought it was worth mentioning. As for the aphorism, I�ll leave it to your imagination. And lastly, with religion, I get really tired of the implicit requirement that people have to be apart from religion to understand it and apply it unhypocritically. Secular ethics have their own bedrock assumptions just like religions have. I find it difficult to believe that insulation from religions� ethical and metaphysical systems renders observations of them and exercises in using them (without subscribing to the full panoply of belief) inherently more accurate. But this is too large a topic to elaborate more here. Probably won�t be able to respond to anything else as it�s going to be a busy weekend now, but since I enjoy these exchanges, I thought a bit more wouldn�t hurt. Tim: I understand the point you make. The reason I still use the term is that, while fascism might have something to teach us about totalitarianism in the modern age, understanding fascism is [i]more[/i] relevant to studying our opponents� beliefs since their applied program grew directly out of the ideologies of the early twentieth century. The situation is certainly sui generis, but I, like, say, Victor Davis Hanson, would disagree with Lee Harris that past paradigms have [i]nothing[/i] to offer. (Although I think that might be taking Harris�s statements too far. I need to read his book before I understand him better.) [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3