[lit-ideas] Re: Too painful to talk about?
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:35:46 -0800
Irene, you say the military should be criticized for wrong doing, but you
haven't produced any wrong doing. If the action you condemn isn't normative
for the military, and if the military punishes such action, then the
military is not guilty of wrong doing. You cannot apply a synecdoche here
and assert that the criminal action of a few soldiers, which may be
normative for them, is normative to the entire military force. The fact
that these soldiers, were they American, would have violated the Code of
Military Justice, proves (as long as the Code is enforced, which it is) that
such action is not normative. Your criticisms, therefore, should be applied
to the individual soldiers guilty of crimes and not to the entire military.
You make another bold logical step when you write, "You say that "by that
standard, however, the USSR had a wonderful government, since on the books
their constitution guaranteed all sorts of wonderful things." I do not see
how you get from a Code of Military Justice to an entire constitution. I
argued that you can not blame the military for a criminal act of one of its
soldiers if the military has declared such an act illegal and punishable,
and in fact does punish it. If you were to argue that the USSR had an
equivalent Code of Military Justice that covered the crimes under discussion
and also punished them, then I would say the same thing about the USSR Code
of Military Justice (insofar as it dealt with the crimes under discussion).
But I fail to see how this has anything to say about the USSR's
constitution.
We should be talking about the Islamists and the behavior they deem
normative, e.g., bombing moms/dads/children. How can we tolerate the
Islamists when their normative behavior is anathema to us? Though the
Guardian writer (Kiku Day living in London) is appalled that the Danes are
appalled at Islamist behavior, how can he (and you, Irene) not be appalled
when Islamists (and Islamist sympathizers) blow up buildings and murder
people because they are offended at cartoons? The Guardian writer wants the
Danes to become more tolerant. I am relieved to see the Danes are
abandoning the belief that Islamists and liberal Europeans can live together
in a multicultural environment without conflict. Either the Islamist
Muslims are going to have to be absorbed into Danish Society and Culture, at
least to the point of accepting pluralism as normative. Or the Danes are
going to have to be absorbed into Islamist Society and Culture.
I have read several articles wherein the writers predict that Western Europe
will one day be predominantly Islamic. The writers assume that the
Europeans won't be able to stand up to Islamic pressures. Are the Danes an
exception to that, or is there something else at work here?
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:12 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Too painful to talk about?
I used a question mark and implicit within the question mark is an ellipsis
("Too painful [for you] to talk about?"). So, clearly, it was not too
painful for me to talk about, but rather I questioned other people's silence
on the subject. Regarding whether the actions are normative or not, agreed,
it is not normative in the sense that it is certainly not encouraged. By
that standard, however, the USSR had a wonderful government, since on the
books their constitution guaranteed all sorts of wonderful things. The
reality was quite different. If the military or the government isn't
criticized for wrongdoing, how will it ever be any good? How will we ever
have a democracy except by questioning? They're humans Lawrence, and give
them half a chance, humans will be evil. They have to be questioned if you
want to stay superior. Questioning is what makes us superior. You would
take away our questioning, which is to say, our democracy.
Regarding patriotism, the Soviets were extremely patriotic. Patriotic and
paranoid. Fortunately, they were sane because we never had a war with them.
Americans are patriotic and paranoid too and ironically quicker on the draw
than were the Soviets. The Soviets allowed no disagreement, no questioning,
no reading or discussion except what supported Party actions, which is
pretty much your position. You would have made an exemplary Soviet man. Of
course, your response to me will be that I am unpatriotic, I don't see the
danger, I'm on the dark side, never hearing your own words. Whatever. Go
for it, Tovarischt Lawrence. Drop your bombs and make the world safe for
democracy. I really don't want to talk about this anymore. It's like
talking about creating better humans (not perfect, just better). It's
pointless. People like war, so let them have war. They like dir ty air,
let them have dirty air. I'm done.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 2/15/2006 10:40:49 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Too painful to talk about?
Irene wrote: Lawrence's saying I'm on the dark side implies that issues
break down to good/bad. We're good, they're bad; or, from their
perspective, they're good and we're bad. Military solutions are perfect for
such things. If one were to look for a middle ground of some sort, a
win/win not involving force, that's more complicated, too much trouble.
It's much easier in the short run to just drop a bomb. Lawrence continues
to support an action that even members of the U.S. Congress and the military
have agreed was counterproductive.
Lawrence replies: You use the word implies, to take what I wrote, which
was pretty clear, off into something that has no relationship with the
subject you brought up (unless of course you didnt care what the issue was
and only wanted to criticize the U.S.) You brought up an act you thought
had been done by our military and wrote as if it was normative. Your
subsequent comments reinforced that you thought it was normative. I wrote
that our military SOP did not condone the actions you described as
normative. I further commented that the force you were siding with (by
criticizing Americans rather than people engaged in activities you
ostensibly excoriate) did condone such actions, i.e., harming children.
You, Irene, chose the title too painful to talk about, and then wanted to
talk about this horrible painful act, but when I point out that the enemy we
are fighting condones such horrible painful acts as normative, you have no
criticism for them but merely expand your criticism from the U.S. to
Coalition Forces.
I am sticking to the subject you brought up Irene. I say the normative
(standard) behavior of our military is morally superior to the normative
behavior of our enemies. The last time I said that, you responded with the
note below.
I notice you have criticism for our military for the behavior you thought
too painful to talk about, and which you obviously wanted to talk about.
But when I describe the behavior of our enemy as normatively practicing the
behavior you describe, it apparently really does become too painful to talk
about.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
