[thechat] Arguments for war

[David Wagner]

Just wanted to wrap up my end of this discussion by backing out. I'm too
tired of the topic already to try to respond, Judah, so I'll just cede it.
You make valid points, and I understand where you're coming from, but I
still disagree entirely on a gut level.

Everyone else -- I'd like to recommend a deep breath and a cold shower.
Remember that personalizing this issue doesn't really do anything except
piss people off. Head-butting and pissing matches are tiresome to watch, so
it makes more sense to quit after you've made your point and before you've
started naming names (and this goes for me, too).

Can't we all just get along?

<ducks the rotten fruit flying from all directions>

--

David Wagner
dave at worlddomination.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judah McAuley" <judah at wiredotter.com>
To: <thechat at lists.evolt.org>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [thechat] Arguments for war


> David Wagner wrote:
> > Wow -- if you want to make me suspicious of your intentions, use the
words
> > "they" and "them" four or five times in every paragraph. This guy seems
a
> > little kindergarten-ish in his attitude.
>
> The author didn't even use the word "they" or "them" until the 7th
> paragraph by my count and he spent the first six trying to define who
> "they" are.  That's what a great deal of the article is about: who (or
> what) is the enemy.
>
> > While the essay contains some interesting arguments, it is also based on
> > several fallacious assumptions:
> >
> > - If I'm your enemy, then you're my enemy.
>
> Not a tautology, but a reasonable assumption in most cases.  Why would
> this not be true in most cases?
>
> > - The US is culturally superior to all Arab cultures.
>
> That's not an assumption of the article.  He lists 7 criteria that
> define a culture as a failure in the modern world and links to an
> explanation provided by the author of those criteria.  Looking at those
> criteria and examining them in relation to modern Arabic/Islamic
> societies forms the basis for his analysis.  You may disagree with the
> criteria, but they are explicit and his conclusion that western culture
> (and the US in particular) is superior to Arab/Islamic culture with
> respect to those criteria follows from the analysis.
>
> > - Arab resentment of Western imperialism can only be changed by
eradicating
> > Arab cultures.
>
> That should be Arab resentment of Western culture rather than
> imperialism.  And, once again, that is his *conclusion* not his
> assumption.  You really ought to be more careful with your words.  And
> he didn't advocate the eradication of Arab cultures, he advocated the
> eradication of *current* Arab culture/institutions to set the stage for
> reconstruction of those cultures.  WWII Japan and Germany are 2 recent
> examples of that happening.  Japan and Germany both have strong current
> cultures (they have not been "eradicated") but they are most definitely
> not the same cultures found in pre-WWII Japan and Germany.  And many
> people would argue that the current cultures are "better" in many
> respects.  The author argues that a similar reconstruction needs to
> happen with the current Arabic/Islamic social world.
>
> > In addition, despite all of the introductory hemming and hawing to the
> > contrary, there is no attempt made in the essay to make a truly
objective
> > intellectual argument. It is a racist and imperialist manifesto,
carefully
> > cloaked in an "I know it's not PC, but here's all my excuses..."
statement.
>
> I didn't feel that it was racist at all.  He argued that cultures need
> to have certain characteristics to play well with others in the modern
> world.  He also argued that Arabic/Islamic culture currently lacks those
>   elements and that other elements of the culture cause the culture to
> present a threat to other modern cultures.  That is a straightforward
> argument.  I don't know that I agree with him, but I don't think its
> racist.  Imperialist, possibly, but the US managed to help rebuild Japan
> without ending up in an imperialist relationship.  Who knows how things
> would go?
>
> > "Western Civilization" has raped the land and cultures of the Middle
East
> > for years. Some of its residents have decided to try to tear us apart.
> > What's our solution? Kill them back? Why?
>
> The author is arguing that the rape of the land and culture is not the
> reason they hate us.  And you will notice that the "rape of the land"
> argument would seem to indicate that Ossama, et al., would hate Britain
> and France the most since the US has never had much to do with the
> Middle East until the last 50 years.  But the greatest animosity is
> reserved for the US, who has raped and pillaged plenty over its history
> but has never had that much to do in the Middle East.  So that argument
> doesn't really hold up.
>
> As for cultural rape, I'm not quite sure what you mean or how to respond
> to it.  So I won't for now.
>
> > ESR has never struck me as being a terribly rational guy. Brilliant,
yes,
> > but kinda rabid. And not necessarily all that coherent:
> >
> > "Civilizing the barbarians needn't even be a bloody process if you start
the
> > job right after their will has been smashed by a major defeat in war."
> >
> > Huh?!?
> >
> > Try that argument again.
>
> The Marshall plan grew out of an understanding that we failed after WWI.
>   We conquered but then we went into isolationist mode.  Because of the
> isolationism, there was economic depression and a complete power vacuum
> within Germany.  This directly lead to the rise of Nazi Germany.  ESR is
> saying that you don't win and then wander off and that if you want
> things to go your way, it works alot better if you have a plan for
> rebuilding immediately after finishing a war.
>
> > C'mon, Judah, you of all people should know that memes don't work that
> > way -- you can't "wipe them out" by destroying them, just as you can't
pull
> > a gene from your DNA and expect to become healthier. Sorry, I don't mean
to
> > get personal about this, but you're the one who introduced me to these
> > concepts, years ago...
>
> I've never said that you can't destroy a meme.  Historical research
> indicates that there were a number of strong matriarchal societies in
> the tigris/euphrates and indus valleys where modern human culture was
> reared.  Those cultures were conquered by patriarchal groups.  They did
> a quite effective job of wiping out a dominant meme.
>
> And as far as the DNA argument goes, we have multiple copies of many of
> our genes and gene therapy frequently works by blocking the action of a
> defective copy and letting the others do their job correctly.  Take that
> analogy for what you will, but I couldn't let the DNA comment stand.
>
> Once again, to cover my liberal white ass, I'm not saying that I agree
> with the author.  I'm just saying that its a fairly well argued, non
> knee-jerk reaction.  Which is unfortunately rare these days.
>
> Judah
>
>
> ___________________________________
> thechat mailing list - Ruttling and Strife and IPA.
> thechat at lists.evolt.org
> http://lists.evolt.org/mailman/listinfo/thechat
> http://lists.evolt.org/thechatarchive/
> ____
> I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why
don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem
solve itself?
>