Faux bravery

[erudito]

Once upon a time, there was the Protestant Ascendancy. They were-to use Judith Brett’s phrase-the moral middle class of their time. The middle class folk of quality and proper opinions. The education system (particularly the elite private schools and the state system), public broadcasting, “quality” newspapers, the general tenor of public debate

Comments

[catsidhe]

When the patently not intimidated complain so relentlessly about the “intimidation” of debate, ...

If one refuses to submit to obvious intimidatory behaviour, then one is a complaining hypocrite who may be safely ignored.

If one is intimidated by that intimidatory behaviour, then it musn't be that bad, because no-one is complaining...

That's a wonderful way for bullies to have their cake and beat it. Um, eat it.

Does the lack of being intimidated imply that there were no efforts to intimidate? That's a fascinating argument to make.

... what they are actually complaining about is not winning the debates.

No, what I complain about is having the debates, but their having no effect, because it is my opponents who, having lost or abandoned a debate, proceed as if nothing happened. Nothing is learned, no element of the argument is changed, even when crucial parts are demonstrated to be wet tissue paper. Or else that argument disappears without trace, but the edifice it was used as the foundation for is still treated as a Temple of

What intimidation?

[erudito]

Marr completely fails to substantiate any claim of intimidation. He asserts, but never substantiates.

And since your normal response on, for example, global warming is to attack the motives of sceptics, claiming a monopoly of good intentions seems to be precisely the game.

Name one issue you think (1) Howard (2) conservatives (3) Dubya have displayed good intentions and moral concern over.

Re: What intimidation?

[catsidhe]

You mean what they consider moral, or what I consider moral?

From their own point of view, I would guess,
(1) He actually does have concern over child abuse and family/societal breakdown.
However I don't think he is above manipulating that concern, (in a ‘I support children and think we should do this, my opponent doesn't think we should do this, therefore he doesn't support children’ speciousness. I also think that his attitudes are paternalistic, arrogant and insulting, not to mention hypocritical, as far as his intervensionism directly contradicts his lassais-faire policy as far as corporations and businesses go

[catsidhe]

But before I go

their moral mascots seems to have reduced down to David Hicks, to a Jew-hater who went overseas to kill people. (When are violent racists martyrs?

You have to work pretty hard to misinterpret things that badly.

David Hicks is not an attractive person. I would not do what he has done. I would not advocate doing many of the things he did. And noe of that is the point.

The point is that we expect better of the United States than the treatment Hicks received. And, moreover, the rest of the Guantánamo inmates as well.

As Justice Kirby has said, it is hard to defend basic civil rights for unpleasant people, but if you don't, then it is that much harder when civil rights are eroded further for nicer people.

It is a matter of saying ‘this behaviour is not acceptible form anyone, and least of all from the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. If they want to set a standard, then let them set one. But let it be a good one, a worthy one, one that is not merely expedient

[jordan179]

As Justice Kirby has said, it is hard to defend basic civil rights for unpleasant people, but if you don't, then it is that much harder when civil rights are eroded further for nicer people.

Since Hicks fought out of uniform and not for an internationally recognized state, and since it is legal under the Laws of War to summarily execute persons matching that description, I'm assuming that something pretty awful must have been done to Hicks to have upset you so. Was he ... double-killed?

[catsidhe]

Yeah, you tell me precisely what the uniform was for a Taliban regular. Go on. Using google isn't cheating.

Your little world obviously has it that Afghanistan was Terra Nullius, and it was perfectly legitimate to murder everyone there with a gun, whether they had surrendered or not.

But I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. You just keep playing with tin soldiers.

Uniforms matter

[erudito]

you tell me precisely what the uniform was for a Taliban regular
Actually, that's the point. The point of not having uniforms is to be able to hide among civilians, putting civilians much more at risk (indeed, often hoping to maximise "collateral damage"). The point of uniforms (and laws of war rules about the same) is to allow soldiers to be distinguished from civilians.

Giving fighting for the Taliban some sort of "pass" because they don't have uniforms and then, for example, damming the Americans every time they kill some civilians is a tad inconsistent.

And it is not that there was no issue about the proper way to treat Hicks, it was the way he was turned into a rather overdone cause celebre. The real issue with Gitmo--apart from torture--was folk who were not actually guilty except literally being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[aussiemandias]

Excellent post. Thank you.

My pleasure

[erudito]

You may have gathered there was some venting involved, but they are issues I have been been thinking about for quite a while. And putting it in writing is helpful in itself.