Tuesday, May 16, 2006

A response to Vox Day...

It seems Vox Populi, the blog Vox Day has, is taking me up on the offer. He has already misread my contempt and refusal to tolerate defense of his indefensible column as me being a "Chickenboy". To do so... well, that says more about you than me, Mr. Day.

My anger and disgust with your column comes due to the fact that I think the first principles that this country was founded on mean something. Particularly, when we laid out the reasons for breaking away from England:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Now, let's lay some cards down on the table. If we, as Americans, are to believe what Thomas Jefferson wrote, then the following statement in the President's speech is non-controversial:
We must always remember that real lives will be affected by our debates and decisions, and that every human being has dignity and value no matter what their citizenship papers say.
Then how are we to react when someone writes the following statement?

And he will be lying, again, just as he lied when he said: "Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic – it's just not going to work."

Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.

Let's be honest about the Nazis. They felt that there was a super-race - they called it Aryans. Other races were to be subjected - to be slaves, or second-class citizens. They targeted Jews, gypsies, and others for extermination, also known as the Holocaust. And you, Mr. Day, were at the very least, using it as a way to rebut the President of the United States. You might call yourself a libertarian, but your column came across as something far different from that, and extremely odious. It's not quite the worst that I have seen.

That's what this comes down to. You are either with Thomas Jefferson and President Bush, or you are with the perpetrators of one of the most evil acts in recorded history. I do not think that any sort of middle ground is possible in this - nor can such a blanket endorsement be explained away as merely "drawing upon the lessons of history". Because if it can be done to 12 million illegals, who else can it be done to?

Slopes can get very slippery, as we have seen on other issues. We've gone from debates over whether or not a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy or whether someone has the right to have a living will to seeing a Western European country practice out-and-out euthanasia, and debate over whether it should be legalized here.

In the same vein, we also see that from those who wish to practice gun control. It starts with just a few things - bans on guns that have "no legitimate sporting purposes", as the gun-control advocates claim. But then they demand more and more. Soon, they want to tell you how many you will be allowed to have in a month. Then they want to make you demonstrate to someone else that you need a given gun.

The reason I'm calling you a Nazi, Mr. Day, is because your column seems to have a lot more in common with them than it did with what this country is founded on. So you don't like Michelle Malkin. Big deal.

When it comes to the principles espoused by Jefferson vs. the actions of Hitler, there is no middle ground, Mr. Day. You're with one or the other, as is the case in the war on terror. I'm going to follow the President's lead and err on the side of Thomas Jefferson's principles. You are free to say or do otherwise, but complaining when you get called out on it looks bad. A pitcher who complains about a batter charging the mound after getting plunked by a pitch looks better.

You sent some of your fans to come on over and talk trash. But I see that none of them even tried to defend what you wrote. If you can reconcile citing what Nazi Germany did to Jews with the notion that even illegal immigrants - as human beings - have dignity and value, then do so. If you find that it is impossible, then have the courage - and honesty - to come out and say so.

If you lack the ability to do either, then say so. Are you too chicken to do so?

39 comments:

Pablo said...

OH PUH-LEASE!
You are completely missing the point here! What Vox pointed out was that the Nazis deported 6 million Jews over 5 years or so, THUS DISPROVING WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID, THAT DEPORTING MILLIONS OF INDIVIDUALS WAS IMPOSSIBLE.

That's it. Vox Day didn't promote or endorse genocide. He didn't put a stamp of approval on the National Socialist Party. He's not an advocate for mass murder or totalitarianism. AT ALL.

Quite the contrary in fact. He's a libertarian. Can't get much further from nationalist socialism than that. The really embarrassing part here is how so many people jumped all over Vox's comments without having read and/or understood them. The mere mention of Nazis triggered rages of indignation which succeeded only in having certain readers COMPLETELY MISS THE SALIENT POINT, namely that mass deportation of millions of people is possible.

That's the point Vox was making. That's it. Nothing else.
Sheesh!

DJ Drummond said...

Let me see ...

So Vox is saying we can solve our illegals problem by getting millions of people to leave the way the Nazis did.

The Nazis, and yes I looked this up, did not "deport" people the way the INS does. No air-conditioned buses or airplanes. In fact, the preferred method of deportation, before they decided it would be cool to enslave them, murder a few by gas and kill the rest through slave labor, was to take away their property, beat them bloody, and basically terrorize them into fleeing the country, making sure to take anything they could from the poor wretches.

Millions of people fled the country because they knew it was death to stay. So, Vox is basically saying we don't have to actually kill millions of people, just convince them we will murder them if they stay ... sorry, I will pass on that plan.

And by the way, the President never said it was "impossible", he said it was not feasible, not realistic. As in no one has figured out the cost of apprehending and deporting over ten million people and their possessions, to say nothing of the resources which would have to be pulled away from other vital jobs.

It's a paranoid pipe dream, this idea of treating people like trash to be collected and disposed of.

We all want secure borders, but the Nazi analogy just proves that some people don't care so much about keeping their souls intact.

God help you people. Seriously.

Pablo said...

Your insistance on MISSING THE POINT is absolutely stunning. Holy crap, can you just please stick to the facts?!?

NO ONE said the Nazis deported people the way the INS does, but they did use trains to move people out of their borders.

NO ONE suggested the mass murder or intimidation of illegal Mexican immigrants.

CAN YOU PUH-LEASE JUST STICK TO THE FACTS?!? Stop painting everything with your righteous indignation. NO ONE approves of the way Nazis treated Jews (and by that I mean genocide). The point was that it's possible to physically deport millions of people. That's it.

You are hardly alone in being revolted by what Hitler and his gang did, but you are missing the point here. Please stick to the point. PLEASE.

And as for parsing the difference between feasible, realistic and possible, that's so lame that I'm stunned into a stupor of hopelessness for the intellectual future of the world. Really. I'm paralyzed.

Ken Prescott said...

What Vox pointed out was that the Nazis deported 6 million Jews over 5 years or so

Wow.

"Genocide," Pablo, is not the same as "deportation." Words have specific meanings.

You are hardly alone in being revolted by what Hitler and his gang did, but you are missing the point here. Please stick to the point. PLEASE.

We are. When someone cites what Hitler and his gang did as proof that we can deport an even larger number of illegal immigrants, it is an endorsement of Hitler's methodology, if not his goals.

I'll confess, it's the first time I've ever heard someone arguing that the means justify the ends.

Oh, and a special note to Mr. Day: never send a boy to do a man's job.

Sergey Romanov said...

JFYI, here's one of the Nazis' deportation reports:

http://www.deathcamps.org/occupation/westermann.htm

Ken Prescott said...

Yeah, Sergey, that REALLY looks like a method of "deportation" that's morally acceptable to Americans.

Blech!

Crystal Lake said...

"You sent some of your fans to come on over and talk trash. But I see that none of them even tried to defend what you wrote."

I suppose one could call me a fan.

And yes, I think he wrote well.

Are you going to call me a Nazi, too?

"When someone cites what Hitler and his gang did as proof that we can deport an even larger number of illegal immigrants, it is an endorsement of Hitler's methodology"

pfth! Poppycock, little man. You have committed a worse travesty by continuing to write and talk politics - just like Hitler did! Oooooooh!!! Oh, no!

That is what Hitler did! You are a Nazi! An evil dastardly Nazi!! Don't gas me! Please, don't gas me!!

Pablo said...

Hey Prescott, I'm not a boy, I'm a man, and like the other guy, you managed to miss the point entirely. It's a gift; people even show up to explain it to you and you STILL don't understand what was said. You people are daft.

turin turambar said...

'Called As Seen' should perhaps be renamed as 'Close eyes and scream in emotional fury'

It is as when debating with feminists. Forget the facts! It is so because I feel it is so! Don't oppress me with your patriarchial logic, reason, and facts!

nicolaepadigone said...

wow, i'm glad to see that some people realize that Vox didn't think clearly (and thus raises the question about his membership with Mensa), in regards to why the Germans were so successful at the "removal" of Jews from Germany.

The Germans succeeded because they killed Jews. The fear was palpable among Jews that if they did not cooperate with the Germans, they would die.

Is that what America wants to do with Mexicans?

Salt said...

Harold, you are at least entertaining and popcorn worthy.

Master Doh-San said...

Are you really not capable of seeing the difference between citing a historical event and advocating said event?

High school students could do better than that.

Ken Prescott said...

Are you really not capable of seeing the difference between citing a historical event and advocating said event?

Citing said historical event as an affirmation that we could do likewise isn't advocating said event?

If I wanted that much nuance, strained parsing, and carefully not seeing the elephant in the room, I'd've voted for Kerry.

Ken Prescott said...

Hey Prescott, I'm not a boy, I'm a man, and like the other guy, you managed to miss the point entirely.

First, if you're a man, kindly act like one. Second, what point did I miss? Vox used the organized mass murder of six million human beings in four years as a performance benchmark. Just what the hell was anyone supposed to conclude?

It's a gift; people even show up to explain it to you and you STILL don't understand what was said. You people are daft.

And when you showed up to "explain" it, you did so by stating that the Germans "deported" Jews.

Work on understanding what you are saying before criticizing the statements of your betters.

Ken Prescott said...

Are you going to call me a Nazi, too?

I didn't call Vox Day a Nazi. Nor am I calling you one.

Thank you for playing.

turin turambar said...

reposting 3 others from another thread because it is central to what is being discussed here:

First
OK Ken, I'll defend it.

1) He's anti-death penalty, which automatically rules out any support for extra-judicial executions.

2) He's anti border wall because he believes Americans should be able to come and go as they please, regardless of race or where they're coming from.

3) The Nazis were extremely efficient at running their government. Their evil aside, they are an excellent benchmark because they prove that a government that is incredibly focused on doing something can be extremely competent at doing it.

4) The fact that our government is so bad at border security, when benchmarked against other governments that were too good at security proves that our government doesn't take security seriously. If they did, they wouldn't be so disorganized and lax in enforcing the laws.

5) Vox has been one of the only libertarians to point out that if we don't get the border under control, it will lead to bloodshed. In fact, Vox has in numerous blog posts pointed out that if the government doesn't take things VERY seriously, we may very well end up in an openly racist society again with a very abusive government, especially toward minorities.

From what I have seen, Vox actually has a farther reaching idea of where this issue can go.

By MikeT, at 8:53 PM

turin turambar said...

Second:

If you are automatically opposed to anything that is proposed as long as the word "Nazi" is in it, then here are some suggestions: don't fly in a jet plane, denounce NASA, don't EVER drive on the interstate highway system, and denounce George W. Bush's whole family. Why? Let's see.

The jet engine was invented practically by Messerschmitt and used in the me-262 during the last days of WWII.

NASA owes much of its existence to Werhner Von Braun, a Nazi scientist who was brought here after WWII. He was responsible in a large part for the development of the V-2 buzz bomb.

The interstate highway system was modeled after the Autobahn. The Autobahn was conceived by the Fuhrer himself as a way to show Germany's industrial prowess, national resolve and capacity for technical innovation. Why, every time I get on I-10 I can feel the evil soaking through the floor mats.

George Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a noted financier of the Nazi's. In fact, the government shut down his bank for that very same reason.

Any more reasons? just because someone uses the word "Nazi", which by the way is an contraction for the German words meaning "National Socialism", doesn't mean they have red armbands on and sing the "Horst Wessel". Pleae slow down and think before you commit electronic verbal diarrhea.

By Minuteman, at 9:54 PM

turin turambar said...

third:

I think I read and comprehended what he wrote.

No, the statement below clearly indicates you didn't:

At worst, he was endorsing stuff that ranks among the most evil acts of history.

I'm bursting with curiosity as to what exactly is it you think he endorsed.

Is it the nazi genocide? No.

Is it mass deportation? No.

So what is it that he's endorsing that "ranks among the most evil acts of history?"

Before you attempt to answer, let me break down the clear (to most people) logic of the paragraph you are so incensed about:

The president said that task A - finding the illegals, and task B, transporting them outside the USA, are impossible. Vox pointed out that another country, with less technology to work with, was able to carry out task A and B, with a population that was better able to hide. The fact that the other country in the past also subsequently carried out task X (rather than C, because the progression is NOT inevitable) that being killing the people, is not relevant to the point he was making. No one is suggesting task X - the fact that the example country added task X at the end of the process in no way diminishes the relevance of their success with task A and B to this LOGISTICAL, NOT MORAL comparison.

Now, is his comparison valid? I don't necessarily think so - the government in his example enjoyed more power than ours does today, and as others have pointed out, the population being found and moved then was much more passively compliant than the one in question today. However, he could counter that, in his example, task X was reasonably foreseeable because of the government's rhetoric and other actions, which would certainly increase the target population's incentive to work against the success of task A and B. However, none of this makes his comparison monstrous or morally questionable.

So what's your issue? It sounds like you think he's advocating genocide, task X, when he's not even advocating A and B. Allow me to correct your fallacy - Exposition does not equal advocacy.

Your assumption that he is endorsing genocide depends upon a line of reasoning that gives us the following absurdities:

-To say that the number of murderers who get their guns on the street proves that gun control is ineffective, and that it's easy to get a gun on the street,.is to advocate murder.

-To say that the number of underage drunk drivers involved in fatal accidents shows that it's easy for kids to get booze is to advocate running down pedestrians in a drunken haze.

By dweeb, at 10:05 PM

turin turambar said...

oh, and fourth:

hutchinson,

I can't lay it out more simply miket and dweeb have, they did an excellent job. Again, either you do not comprehend and understand what is being stated, you are blinded by emotion, or you are being willfully obtuse.

Which is it?

Again, your type of argumentation is most similiar to those of a liberal nature. 'I feel this way and thus it is!' and let the facts be damned.

By turin turambar, at 10:22 AM

Harold C. Hutchison said...

No, turin, it isn't.

If you see a guy walk up to a store clerk, pull out a knife, and demand that he hand over the money, how hard is it to tell that the guy with the knife is doing something wrong?

Sorry, it's the same way with his article. He used the methods of Nazi Germany as his "evidence" that President Bush was lying about the ability to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.

It was, in my opinion, an endorsement of those methods.

turin turambar said...

Yes, your opinion is based upon feelings that you perceived...and not the substance of what he wrote. He never endorsed those methods. He in fact stated he was against them(forced deportation, he believes other methods would be more effective)). What about 'against' do you not comprehend. I am beginning to think you are going to argue over what the definition of 'is' is.And yes, that is akin to the all too typical tactics of liberal debate. Stop dodging the facts and content of what he wrote.

Bush is lying in the sense that, yes, it is quite possible to to address the illegal problem. It would be possible to deport them if the nation put its will to that end. Many other lies have been issued by Bush in and others in regards to this issue. The demagog. of the issue is easily seen in such statements that have been issued from the pro-illegals side such as, 'These are jobs americans just won't do','americans are just too lazy to do them' and on and on.

I know americans will because I have in fact worked at many of these jobs.

Jefferson was no Republican. Jefferson would be most at home with the libertarian thought today. The current all out rejection of all things conservative(classic liberal, or small 'l' libertarian) of the Republicans is likely to doom the party. Those of us who actually hold to traditional conservative ideas are not to blame.

Equus Pallidus said...

Harold you said:

"You are either with Thomas Jefferson and President Bush, or you are with the perpetrators of one of the most evil acts in recorded history."

Don't you see the irony in your own statement. If I were an editor of a encyclopedia, I would include this statement along with Benito's and Adolf's as examples of fascist statements.

dweeb said...

He used the methods of Nazi Germany as his "evidence" that President Bush was lying about the ability to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.

It was, in my opinion, an endorsement of those methods


Well, then all bow before Harold's exalted opinion, and objective truth be damned. If that isn't the most leftist new age idea I've ever heard, I don't know what is.

So, apparently, Harold, you've failed to grasp the basic difference between exposition and advocacy.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're capable of comprehending what he was saying, but let's try one more time to spell it out for you:

He said that it was wrong and stupid, but possible. In other words, "sure, you COULD do that, but it would be pretty stupid." To support this, he pointed out that someone already did that stupid thing.

If I tell a parent that they should keep a closer eye on who their kids associate with, and they say, "Oh, nothing bad could happen in a nice community like ours." and I reply that yes, it could, and support that by pointing out what a similarly nice community John Wayne Gacy lived in, I've just used the heinous acts of a homicidal pervert as my 'evidence' that the parent's complacency is based on false premises; have I endorsed what Gacy did?

Let's put it another way - if the president says "No one can attack the USA successfully." and I cite 9/11 as a counterexample, have I just endorsed Al Quaeda and what they do?

Face it, Harold, you saw the mention of nazis, had a knee jerk, emotional reaction which blinded you to the actual context and what was being said, and lashed out, JUST LIKE A LIBERAL. Now, your pride forces you to defend an untenable position, and the longer you do so, the worse you're going to appear. Casting the words Vox wrote as an endorsement of the Holocaust requires the same tortured parsing used by Bill Clinton when he tried to obscure the meaning of "is."

dweeb said...

We are. When someone cites what Hitler and his gang did as proof that we can deport an even larger number of illegal immigrants, it is an endorsement of Hitler's methodology, if not his goal


So, to cite Hiroshima as proof that the physics of an unmediated fission chain reaction are as was predicted is to endorse that particular application of them?

dweeb said...

You are either with Thomas Jefferson and President Bush, or you are with the perpetrators of one of the most evil acts in recorded history

Gee, I can make a case on multiple issues that Neither of the last two Democrat presidents was with Bush and/or Jefferson. For instance:

"That government governs best which governs least"

Tax policy

Executive power (War in Iraq, Louisiana Purchase)

Does this mean that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are nazi's?

When it comes to the principles espoused by Jefferson vs. the actions of Hitler, there is no middle ground,

The governments of all but a handful of the world's nations currently fall in a middle ground between what Jefferson stood for and what Hitler stood for.

There's a huge middle ground. Most of the policies on which Jefferson disagreed with the government of George III are still in force today in the UK (Church of England, there is no presumption of innocence, no prohibition on double jeopardy, no direct election of the chief executive, no guarantee of free speech, the list goes on.) Therefore, by your reasoning, Tony Blair & Co. must be neo-nazi's.

Heck, all but a small minority who are pure Jeffersonian libertarians are nazi's in your view, i.e. Vox is one of the few people alive today who DOESN'T fit your definition of a nazi.

Ken Prescott said...

Don't you see the irony in your own statement. If I were an editor of a encyclopedia, I would include this statement along with Benito's and Adolf's as examples of fascist statements.

Pointing out that one cannot be fascist and Jeffersonian in belief and deed is somehow, in and of itself, fascist?

(Apologies to John Travolta for the next paragraph)

Generally, only wannabe grunge filmmakers searching for existentialism through a haze of bong smoke write something that inane...

dweeb said...

Pointing out that one cannot be fascist and Jeffersonian in belief and deed is somehow, in and of itself, fascist?

No, but claiming that you must be completely one or completely the other is.

One cannot be both, but one can be neither. For the airs you put on here Ken, I'm shocked that didn't occur to you.

Ken Prescott said...

He said that it was wrong and stupid, but possible.

Hmm. Somehow, somewhere, he kind of forgot to discuss the "wrong and stupid" part, and managed to focus exclusively on "possible."

Equus Pallidus said...

"Pointing out that one cannot be fascist and Jeffersonian in belief and deed is somehow, in and of itself, fascist?"

That makes absolutley no sense in the manner in which my statement was meant and clearly defined by the english language. Read what I wrote again and what statement I was responding to.

dweeb said...

Hmm. Somehow, somewhere, he kind of forgot to discuss the "wrong and stupid" part, and managed to focus exclusively on "possible."

That's your knee jerk tunnel vision talking. The one paragraph you have your knickers in a knot over dealt with possible. The topic of the entire column was about the wrong and stupid part.

He was clear on opposing mass deportation, and the fence. In case you missed that, he's repeated it several times since then.

To borrow your own literary tool, with apologies to Chris Tucker, CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORDS COMING OUT OF HIS MOUTH?

You've missed the forest by obsessing on just one tree.

Minuteman said...

Harold,

I was puzzled by your comparison of TJ's values and Bush's values. You said they were the same. Were you saying that Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence are the same values that Bush holds?

If Thomas Jefferson were alive today and knew of the NSA wiretapping that Bush brazenly ordered, he would have marched to the nearest gun store. Patrick Henry, even more so.

Is anyone suggesting we deprive illegal aliens of their lives?

Is anyone suggesting we deprive illegal aliens of their liberty?

I will admit that deporting illegal aliens when taken into custody by American law enforcement officers would deprive them of their liberty and their pursuit of happiness, but only for a short while and that action would be governed by the constitutional requirement of due process.

How many times do we have to tell you that Vox was not advocating the murder of twelve million people? Should we hire a Sopwith Camel to write it in the sky?

Vox Day merely said that the president's were ignorant at best, intentionally false at worst, because here is an example in history that disproves the president's words.

THAT IS ALL HE WAS SAYING.

Pablo said...

I think Harold and Ken either are beginning suspect they misunderstood Vox and are too proud to admit their mistake, or they are simply never going to clue in. I'm betting on the former.

Ken Prescott said...

How many times do we have to tell you that Vox was not advocating the murder of twelve million people?

I reread his piece (the original version as posted on the voxday site, thank you). He doesn't condemn it; he is silent. And silence allowed it to happen the first time around.

There are some ideas that one cannot be morally neutral on. This was one of them.

DJ Drummond said...

Hmm, let's look again at those claims:

"The jet engine was invented practically by Messerschmitt and used in the me-262 during the last days of WWII."

Messerschmidt developed a jet long after the jet engine itself was first developed by Dr. Jans von Ohain, and Sir Frank Whittle, neither of whom were Nazis.

SOURCE: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm

"NASA owes much of its existence to Werhner Von Braun, a Nazi scientist who was brought here after WWII."

It may come as a shock to you, but NASA was staffed mostly by American scientists. Von Braun was an advisor and aided the development of booster technology, but he was not the leading scientist nor did he have much at all to do with the development of the astronaut capsule or re-entry vehicle; in fact Von Braun was opposed to sending men into space, and became increasing irrelevant to the space program.

"The interstate highway system was modeled after the Autobahn."

The Autobahn was in place before Hitler became Chancellor, and the United States already had a network of highways prior to World War 2, and the Interstate project was developed through plans drawn up by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, at the request of FDR in 1938.

SOURCE: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/origin.htm

"George Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a noted financier of the Nazi's."

Maybe, maybe not. I have not seen evidence to support the claim. The things I do know are that G.H.W. Bush fought for America in World War 2, and George W. Bush served America in the Air National Guard. Trying to erase that truth is simple spite.

Stop lying. It's just stupid.

Salt said...

DJ, though the Nazis were not the first to ever deport, nor exterminate people, the salient point is that the Nazi regime is the best modern example most people would know about.

Unfortunately, it seems, most people cannot differentiate from the horrific end result, extermination, the general method used, deportation.

One should note that people are deported (repatriated to their counrty of origin) all the time from
here without bloodshed.

dweeb said...

The Autobahn was in place before Hitler became Chancellor, and the United States already had a network of highways prior to World War 2, and the Interstate project was developed through plans drawn up by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, at the request of FDR in 1938.

Funny, how I-70 is dotted with historical markers explaining how Eisenhower, as president, proposed the legislation authorizing the Interstate Highway system, motivated by his frustration over how long it had taken military convoys to get from the one end of the country to the other. Most of the modern Autobahn was constructed under the nazis, for the express purpose of facilitating rapid movement of military assets - the same reason Ike used.

dweeb said...

I reread his piece (the original version as posted on the voxday site, thank you). He doesn't condemn it; he is silent.

So, every mention of the nazi's should have an apositive phrase "which I, of course, condemn" attached?

Sounds sort of like Seinfeld's "I'm not gay, not that there's anything wrong with that" schtick.

Maybe we should attach mandatory disclaimers to everything to assuage your PC angst.

Grow up. Real adults can have rational discussions involving historical allusions without endless pandering to knee jerk assumptive disease.

Exposition does not equal endorsement - write it on the blackboard 100 times.

Furthermore, the moral dimension is irrelevant to the context of the reference. Even if someone made that comparison and they DID endorse what the nazi's did, it wouldn't matter to the issue being commented upon.

Here's a hypothetical. You enter a room behind another person, who notices, before you do, a cylinder marked "Cyklon B," which is emitting a hissing sound, obviously leaking. The other person exclaims, "Oh gosh, I know that's toxic because it's the gas the nazi's used in the camps, we'd better get out of here!" and bolts for the door.

Do you:

A) Run out the door yourself

B) Stand there looking stupid

C) Stand fast, close the door behind you, shutting both of you in, and make a showy display of moral outrage until he emphatically states his condemnation of the actions he just referred to, and supplies adequate credentials to prove he's not a nazi himself.

Clearly, if you're Ken or Harold, the answer is C.

dweeb said...

DJ, it's funny how your version of the history of the interstate highway system comes from cherry picking within an individual's essay on that site that admits in its first paragraph that the FDR link is a legend.

Going to the home page of the same federal highway administration, we find preparations to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system on 29 June 2006. Since I refuse to believe your math skills are too poor to allow subtracting 50 from 2006, may we assume then that you are "trying to erase truth out of simple spite?"

Further perusal of your link on the jet engine reveals that:

-Hans von Ohain is considered the designer of the first operational turbojet engine. (in Germany)

-However, Hans von Ohain's jet was the first to fly in 1939 (so just who was running Germany in 1939?)

It is revealing to note that although Whittle replicated much of von Ohain's work, and beat him to the patent office, in wartime with aircraft performance a critical factor, the Germans had operational jets in service first. That points to them getting the real credit.

There are numerous other examples of type Turin described. Shall we condemn the millions of people who ever drove a VW beetle?

No one denied the service of the Bush's, but Prescott's actions is well documented. Most of the financing for the German rearmament originated on Wall Street.

All this is irrelevant, though, because we're not talking about utilizing the fruits of evil, we're talking about making a simple observation about historical events instigated by evil people, and in a purely logistical context.

Logistics is a science, and science, as everyone knows, is morally neutral. Scientists ask if something is possible, not if it's morally good. The question Vox was not one of "should," but one of "can." you can't have a rational discussion of 'can' if 'should' destroys your objectivity.

The inability of so many who read Vox's column to objectively examine one issue without being emotionally distracted by non-sequiturs is an apt demonstration of the reasons why the jury system fails so often.

Crystal Lake said...

Ken wrote:

"I didn't call Vox Day a Nazi. Nor am I calling you one."

If you are Harold, then yes, you did.

Harold wrote:

"The reason I'm calling you a Nazi, Mr. Day"

Did I misquote you? Or do you have a problem comprehending your own writing?