RE: Is this a true Christian?
February 18, 2012 at 2:25 pm
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2012 at 2:34 pm by Aardverk.)
(February 18, 2012 at 10:12 am)Epimethean Wrote: Unfair to villains, Aard? Your problem there is that you seem to want to reach out to them through admiration of some quality which is nebulous in its capacity to be admired, whereas many have explained why doing so without discretion is the mark of a fool. Simply put, despite your attempt at popular appeal through Kennedy and Bush, there is nothing to admire in Hitler, nor is there a reason to attempt to rehabilitate the man. This is why your absolutists statement that we have to admire the fucknut preacher in the OP's post met with disapproval from me and others. We do not "have" to admire him or Hitler, nor is there anything in the actions of either which I find as a compelling cause to do so.
Ah, you really are clutching at straws now Epi! You know perfectly well that "you have to admire him for that" is simply a figure of speech and not an absolutist statement. I am sure you realise that I did not actually demand or expect that everyone should agree with me. I am rather more realistic than that; I am well aware that many people (well, at least four of you on this forum) operate in a biased and one sided manner. I suggest that you should not expect everyone to agree with you and it is evident that they do not.
You know perfectly well that I did not "reach out to them" in any way. You have a strange but vivid imagination. You know perfectly well that I condemned them.
By a quality being 'nebulous', I presume you mean that it can not be clearly identified. That is not the case with any of the examples given.
1. The oaf was brave - a quality.
2. Hitler was an extremely effective statesman - a quality.
3. Naomi Campbell is beautiful - a quality.
4. Suffragettes were brave - a quality.
Now matter how awful, or otherwise, the crimes or stupidity of the people in these four examples, those qualities remain to be observed - quite the opposite of 'nebulous' if I have understood your meaning of that word. I must then ask you the question yet again - why do you think that those qualities should be expunged/deleted/ignored? It is a simple question but you are studiously avoiding giving any coherent answer.
Unlike you ('many have explained' for example), I have not sought any popular appeal, I would be happy to stand alone if I needed to. You have completely misunderstood my reference to Bush and Kennedy because you clearly had no idea what was happening in Germany. Perhaps it will help you understand a little if I list some of the advances under the Third Reich that spring to mind. Just see if you can think of any country under any leader that has achieved that sort of progress.
There was huge growth in the obvious industrial companies: Volkswagen, BMW, Heinkel, Krupp, Mercedes, Braun, Messerschmitt, DKW, Fokker, Thyssen (significant Bush family connections), Dornier, etc and although some claims are open to question, the Germans will claim the following first inventions and advancements: The computer, jet planes, manned rockets (Hannah Reich survived the V1 but Lothar Sieber died in the Bachem Ba349), doctors linked smoking with lung cancer, nerve gasses, single person anti-tank weapon, autobahns, stealth technology, tape recorders, Wankel engine, wire guided missiles, IR guided missiles, major advances in rocket technology, advances in sewage treatment, advances in TV and first TV broadcasts, geophones for seismic wave detection, the rail gun, extraction of liquid fuel from coal, the ejector seat, electron microscope, pesticides, methadone, pethidine, inflatable sex dolls, punch card data sorting, etc. After WW2, approximately 300,000 German patents and copyrights were 'liberated' by the allies.
No, Hitler certainly can't take the credit for them but he did set up the state specifically to encourage, reward and support these sorts of advances and he turned the country round financially in the most dramatic manner ever witnessed. As well as those 'firsts' I have listed above German scientists were also making their own independent advances in a wide range of other technologies. The most obvious ones are nuclear fission and radar. Even during the war they were planning on delivering nuclear bombs on the USA via intercontinental ballistic missiles. Pretty advanced stuff in 1943! I am sure you know perfectly well that German scientists were in huge demand after the war, many being shipped of to the USSR and to the USA.
Again - by no means all of this can be credited to the mad, bad, Hitler BUT some of it can. Denying that strikes me as a strangely biased attitude.
(February 18, 2012 at 11:16 am)whateverist Wrote: Interesting question but I'm not sure there is a true opposite for qualities which are virtually defined as striking a balance between two other qualities, the golden mean for Aristotle. ............ So I'm not sure what an opposite would be which captures the wider meaning. Any suggestions?
The Dictionary of Opposites says that the opposite of courage is, "cowardice, faint-heartedness, fear, meekness, timidity, weakness". None of these seem to be fully appropriate, especially if we are to take Aristotle's definition.
I am tempted to challenge Aristotle but discretion is the better part of valour!
