<< MEDICAL JOURNAL UNHEALTHY ~ MAIN ~ LAST VIEWER WATCHING >>
GOT MITTENS?
Leftoid hysterian ... er, historian Howard Zinn:
Divine ordination is a very dangerous idea, especially when combined with military power (the United States has 10,000 nuclear weapons, with military bases in a hundred different countries and warships on every sea). With God’s approval, you need no human standard of morality. Anyone today who claims the support of God might be embarrassed to recall that the Nazi storm troopers had inscribed on their belts, “Gott mit uns” (“God with us”).
Great argument, Howard. How embarrassed are you that Nazis claimed to be “national socialists”?
UPDATE. A prize for Zinny.
UPDATE II. For further comical Zinn-like notions, this might be the place:
Poland – the first country of the former Soviet bloc to dismantle communism - is soon to have a Museum of Communism.
So howard, did you read Luis’ post? You can put THAT in your pipe & smoke it. heh heh heh… Might like to brush up on your facts a little before you put fingertips to keyboard in future, heh heh heh.
Posted by Steve at the pub on 2005 06 18 at 01:49 PM • permalinkThat’s like Kurt Vonnegut’s absurd notion that the Wehrmacht was a Christian army because its insignia was a black cross.
Zinn is a tool. I defy anyone to read two pages of his “People’s History…” before hurling it across the room. “Yes, the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, but still they possessed a certain innocence…” Bleah! Hypocritical, condescending, paternalist, white liberal trash.
Exactly what would this ”...human standard of morality…” be? Isn’t it human standard(s) that’ve caused the problems in the first place?
(BTW- I’m unaware of any standard of morality approved of by the left.)
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 18 at 02:20 PM • permalinkWith God’s approval, you need no human standard of morality.
This is a highly ironic comment coming from a segment of the world where “moral equivalency” is their daily mantra.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 18 at 03:02 PM • permalink“Exactly what would this ”...human standard of morality…” be?”
The human standard that says humans shouldn’t kill, torture, rape, steal from or otherwise fuck with each other because we’re social beings who need to stick together to survive.
“Isn’t it human standard(s) that’ve caused the problems in the first place?”
The problem is caused by people who fuck with other people, whether it’s for greed, malice, or because God tells them to in one of his multiple and incompatible sacred texts.
Much of history’s mass killings have been done by idealogues, both secular and religious. For either side to attribute it to the other is nonsense. Any real student of history would know that. Zinn isn’t. He’s a polemicist and a propagandist.
He’s a polemicist and a propagandist.
And a fool.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 18 at 05:17 PM • permalinkPeople compare anything which they want to call ‘evil’ to Hitler because they have no broadly applicable ‘human’ ‘standard of morality’: they have instead one event, one man, one regime in history which has become the very definition of ‘evil’ for them. But the ‘Hitler’ to whom Bush etc. are compared has become a hollow mask—his actual crimes are diminished (how many academics of impeccable left-wing credentials have tried to diminish the evil of the Holocaust as some sort of Zionist trick?) while his name continues to be used as a slur. It’s casuistry carried to its most absurd limit, where a purely aesthetic or cosmetic supposed resemblance to the most trivial aspects of Hitler’s regime (the salute, the goose-stepping, the symbols, the slogans, a taste for Wagner) carries a far more potent ‘moral’ cloud with it than a repetition of even the most horrific of the regime’s actual crimes. People say that Hitler is evil, but without understanding WHY, so that they would recognize such evil if they saw it again.
Unfortunately, since Hitler has been made into nothing but an empty symbol from which no broader lessons have been derived, ‘Never Again’ is again and again proved pathetically meaningless in the face of ever more mass murders and genocides repeating and even exceeding Hitler’s own.
PC speech codes similarly diminish the moral imperative against bigotry and prejudice—rather than teaching children WHY they are wrong, giving them a broadly applicable moral sword (and, of course, running the risk of their thinking for themselves), we create mere meaningless social taboos against certain words, phrases, etc. and try to train people like Pavlov’s dog to respond a certain way to a bell instead of letting them in on the secret of WHY they should or shouldn’t do what they’ve been conditioned to do or not to do.
“Poland – the first country of the former Soviet bloc to dismantle communism - is soon to have a Museum of Communism.”
I bet it has a huge gift shop.
Posted by Geeko Suave on 2005 06 18 at 05:39 PM • permalinkWhen someone mentions Hitler in a completely unrelated discussion my ears involuntarily aplies a filter through which everything they say is turned into a shrill stream of “I am a douchebag. I am a douchebag! I am a douchebag!!”
Posted by The_Consigliere on 2005 06 18 at 06:08 PM • permalinkHoward Zinn likes candy, and so did Hitler! What conclusions are we to draw from the fact that in a world in which the vast, vast bulk ofthe population are religious, the vast, vast bulk also hope that God is on their side in everything they do? What horrible conclusions are we to draw? What a toad.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 06 18 at 08:58 PM • permalinkThe human standard that says humans shouldn’t kill, torture, rape, steal from or otherwise fuck with each other because we’re social beings who need to stick together to survive.
Documentation, please. On what authority is this the human standard? Why is this more the human standard than other man-made moralities? Socialism’s morality is “The ends justifies the means”, perhaps the most destructive standard in human history. The guiding principle of Nazism (and Shintoism) was “We’re better than everybody else, so we rule!” (The Shinto’s believed that their emperor was descended from the Gods. The Nazi’s rejected the God of Abraham, and all of Christianity. They held the Gods of Germanic myth, as celebrated by Wagner, as their ideal. Whether Hitler actual believed in these myths is still open for debate.) How about back to basics: Hammurabi’s code (An eye for an eye). Or maybe you prefer the 60’s “free love; anything goes; let it all hang out”, since this has worked out so well?
I’d almost grant that the US “Bill of Rights” was a “human standard”, but these are mostly a restating of English Common Law as influenced by 1800 years of Christianity.
...because we’re social beings who need to stick together to survive.
Riiiight. That’s just too absurd to comment on. Perhaps the most universal human standard is “screw the other guy before he screws you!”
The problem is caused by people who fuck with other people, whether it’s for greed, malice, or because God tells them to in one of his multiple and incompatible sacred texts.
People who “fuck with other people” because “God tells them to” are frauds or crazies. Or both. But I agree that the problem is “people fuck(ing) with other people”. But where do we find not fucking with each other as a human standard? People cannot “fuck with other people” without violating the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th commandments. Are far as moralities and standards go, the Ten Commandments are the best to come along so far. Even if you reject the concept of the deity, you can’t improve on these rules.
As far as the nut cases go: I will engage to rid the world of religious frauds and crazies if you will do the same for the secular world.
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 18 at 10:42 PM • permalinkUh—no it’s not, Nick. Again, all he did was quote Horrid Zinn. The man’s own stupid rhetoric made him (and by association, anyone who thinks Zinn is the greatest thing since sliced bread) look bad.
I’d say you really have to do better than this, but I doubt you’re capable.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 19 at 02:22 AM • permalinkIf you’ve never read the hilarious parody of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn discussing the Lord of the Rings then check it out:
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/22fellowship.html
Here’s a sample:
Chomsky: Well, what we see here, in Hobbiton, farmers tilling crops. The thing to remember is that the crop they are tilling is, in fact, pipe-weed, an addictive drug transported and sold throughout Middle Earth for great profit.
Zinn: This is absolutely established in the books. Pipe-weed is something all the Hobbits abuse. Gandalf is smoking it constantly. You are correct when you point out that Middle Earth depends on pipe-weed in some crucial sense, but I think you may be overstating its importance. Clearly the war is not based only on the Shire’s pipe-weed. Rohan and Gondor’s unceasing hunger for war is a larger culprit, I would say.
Chomsky: But without the pipe-weed, Middle Earth would fall apart. Saruman is trying to break up Gandalf’s pipe-weed ring. He’s trying to divert it.
Zinn: Well, you know, it would be manifestly difficult to believe in magic rings unless everyone was high on pipe-weed. So it is in Gandalf’s interest to keep Middle Earth hooked.
Chomsky: How do you think these wizards build gigantic towers and mighty fortresses? Where do they get the money? Keep in mind that I do not especially regard anyone, Saruman included, as an agent for progressivism. But obviously the pipe-weed operation that exists is the dominant influence in Middle Earth. It’s not some ludicrous magical ring.
Posted by Randal Robinson on 2005 06 19 at 03:34 AM • permalink“People cannot “fuck with other people” without violating the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th commandments.”
Or any number of codified civil laws. Or any number of tribal laws. Or any number of non-Western, non-Abramaic laws. You are aware of the existence of places like India and Asia, yes? You are aware that civil society pre-dates the Ten Commandments, yes?
“Are far as moralities and standards go, the Ten Commandments are the best to come along so far.”
The best bullet-points summary of what seem to be more-or-less universal mores, perhaps.
“Even if you reject the concept of the deity, you can’t improve on these rules.”
Well, if you reject the concept of a diety, you would at least think about ditching the first two.
“As far as the nut cases go: I will engage to rid the world of religious frauds and crazies if you will do the same for the secular world.”
And vice-versa. Actually, no - I oppose both religious AND secular idealogues, as my original post plainly states. You’ve got some catching up to do.
Andrea, perhaps I should have been more specific. I was referring to the “How embarrassed are you that Nazis claimed to be “national socialists”?” line. Attempting to insult someone Tim considers to be a socialist by comparing him to the Nazis because they chose the populist tag “national socialists” is at best drawing a longbow and being greatly unfair.
The quality (or lack thereof in this case) of Zinn’s work is not the point here. Tim could have easily pointed out the stupidity of Zinn’s statement without the irrelevant reference to Nazis calling themselves “national socialists.”
If it counts for anything, I too think Zinn’s statement was ridiculous.
I was referring to the “How embarrassed are you that Nazis claimed to be “national socialists”?” line. Attempting to insult someone Tim considers to be a socialist by comparing him to the Nazis because they chose the populist tag “national socialists” is at best drawing a longbow and being greatly unfair.
Aw. It’s unfair? Well that’s just too damn bad. It’s so unfair that the name for the philosophy behind Hitler’s political party was Nationalsozialismus—“National socialism”—which:
drew support from two popular ideologies, nationalism and socialism. The Nazis sought to build a strong State militarily, and a strong Welfare state economically, to protect and serve the interests of racially pure Germans, while being led by a supreme leader. They also wanted to abolish Social parasitism and to build a planned economy. (Via Wikipedia.)
Leftists regularly hurl the charge at rightwing conservatives (which in their definition is anyone who disagrees with their plan no matter their actual political beliefs) that they are “Nazis.” They would dearly love to sweep under the rug that Nazis were socialists too.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 19 at 10:18 AM • permalinkI dont support the labelling of anyone as Nazis, other than those who actually are Nazis (and those are few and far between). It is definately wrong to say that leftists as a collective “regularly” call conservatives Nazis, it comes up very, very infrequently, however many people exagerate it for some reason - those on the left do it with other terms a small minority on the right throw at them occasionally.
There really is nothing to be gained from either side beating up the behaviour of the other. Conservatives are rarely called Nazis, facists, racists, whatever and the left are rarely called a whole host of other things.
But I digress. Ill conceed that the formal Nazi agenda, at least economically, was socialist in nature, but socially it was definately of the lunar-right, and as time went on I would say it strayed more from the “national socialist” position and more into the never-never land of the weird workings of Hitler’s mind, so I dont think it is fair to bring it up in an attempt to attack someone of the left, there are plenty of better tactics in discrediting a stupid statement like Zinn’s IMO. Of course, neither is it fair for the left to do something similar.
Ive tried to be even-handed as both sides have done similar things, hopefully ive suceeded.
Or any number of codified civil laws. Or any number of tribal laws. Or any number of non-Western, non-Abramaic laws.
And the genesis of these codified laws would be? Religion, maybe?
You are aware of the existence of places like India and Asia, yes?
Yeah, we all know what bastions of civil liberty and human decency India and Asia are. Are you sure you want to base your argument on that?
...what seem to be more-or-less universal mores, perhaps.
And what color is the sky on your world?
You’ve got some catching up to do.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 19 at 11:53 AM • permalinkNic, why should the left have all the word twisting/inventing fun?
Are far as moralities and standards go, the Ten Commandments are the best to come along so far. Even if you reject the concept of the deity, you can’t improve on these rules.
A challenge!
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
The left has really led the way in strange gods, even without a deity it’s sound.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Instead we’ll use terms like “shitcock”, probably needs an update.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day
No deity, no need, just slice the entire thing off.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
What if they’re abusing you? Looking over the other commandents I don’t see a “do not molest or beat your children” law, hell there isn’t even one for adults.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
What if they’re trying to kill you? Do you just let it happen? How about if they’re trying to kill a loved again.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
No problems there.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
What if your children are starving and no one will help you? Just let them starve to death?
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
What if you do it to prevent a murder or something, what then?
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife.
So a woman (or gay man) can covet a neighbour’s husband? Where are the equal rights?
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods.
That’s two in a row, what is this the thought police?
I see nothing in those about respecting other people’s personal space and privacy, nothing about non-lethal violence or sexual abuse. Not a thing against yiffing or furries in general either, which goes against pretty much everything.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 06 19 at 02:04 PM • permalinkAndrea, perhaps I should have been more specific. I was referring to the “How embarrassed are you that Nazis claimed to be “national socialists”?” line. Attempting to insult someone Tim considers to be a socialist by comparing him to the Nazis because they chose the populist tag “national socialists” is at best drawing a longbow and being greatly unfair.
You apparently missed that Tim was merely mirroring Zinn’s own argumentative structure in order to show how stupidly empty it is. So, congrats Nic for seeing the flimsiness of Tim’s claim, but boo for not realizing where he got the idea. You may want to re-read alyosha’s post at #9 for some exposition on the thought processes Tim was criticizing there.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
“Gott mit uns” on the belt-plate was a tradition left over from the old Prussian army; it was a motto of the house of Hohenzollern and had been inscribed on flags and other decorative militaria for a century at least.
The German army was awfully tradition-bound. That motto certainly wasn’t a Nazi thing. The Nazis didn’t at all like the old Prussian institutional culture of the army.