[ExI] To Arms!

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Tue Mar 31 04:33:40 UTC 2009

Fred writes

 > I described your statement as ridiculous and completely disgusting.
 > You were looking for an argument where none was intended.

May I ask what is the utility of such vacuous condemnations?

Do you believe "disgusting" to be in any sense whatsoever an
objective quality?

>> Sometimes in order to survive you have to challenge long
 >> standing principles [, including that] of freedom.
> You are assuming what would remain after the expulsion would be worth
> having.

No, I'm not making any assumption. Yes, I do see a
real risk any time that principles are violated.
On rare occasions expediency is necessary; normally
it is not.

What group would they expel next; the Jehovah's Witnesses?

One could have asked the same of Roosevelt: "What group
are you going to intern next? The Russian immigrants?
The German immigrants?" His answer would be the same
as mine, something along the lines of "We are in a very
unusual situation whereby armies of a certain nationality
threaten the invasion of our western states. We'll be
*very* sorry if these people are not interned. They'll
be released after we win or after we lose. We have *no*
plans to inter anyone else."

I would advise the French: make no plans, and have no
intentions of exiling anyone else besides Muslims. Yes,
it's too bad that the category "Muslim" is not crisp,
and it's too bad that a number of patriotic, loyal,
and industrious Muslims will be gathered up---but, as
said, France may cease to be a part of Western civilization
in four or five more decades unless this step is taken.

>> If the traditional non-Muslim French mobilized four
>> million men, they could put the Muslims anywhere they
>> wanted this side of the moon. They could distribute
>> it over any set of non-nuclear Arab countries they
>> wanted (France, you recall, has long had The Bomb).
> First not all Muslims are Arabs.

Literally, I said that they could exile those people
anywhere they wanted to. There are many nations that
an angry France could coerce into taking refugees.

> Second what is this about the Bomb, by
> which I assume you mean nuclear weapons.

Yes, in our day the ultimate threat, the ultimate
persuader. It is said (I really don't know how
accurately) that Dwight Eisenhower ended the Korean
war by secretly threating their use against North
Korean and Chinese armies if a reasonable peace
settlement could not be reached.

> So what if some country decided they could not
 > take a bunch of French speaking people;


> what would the French do bomb the entire country?
 > Have you seriously thought about what you are saying?

Yes. I have. In reality, it would never get that far.
France has many, many other ways of exerting pressure
long before hidden threats concerning nuclear attack
are reached. A four-million man French army, for example,
is plenty intimidating with or without a nuclear backup.
(But especially with.)

> Third you say "they could put the Muslims anywhere
 > they wanted this side of the moon" do you really
 > mean that?  Could they put them in your living
> room?

It is necessary in rational discourse to be able to
recognize the use of metaphor. Not all statements are
to be taken precisely literally; sometimes figures of
speech are employed.

Since you know this well, it's pretty clear that this
exchange has found you grasping (at some points) for
anything close to ammunition that can be used.

(Warning. The last sentence contained a figure of

>> And how dare you say that *no* one who believes oppositely
>> from you on this issue (or on any issue) has not spent more
>> than a very brief time thinking it through? How do you know
>> that? Consulting your gut again? To me, it smacks of not
>> a little arrogance to so cavalierly dismiss other people's
>> seriousness and their ability to reason.
> Frankly at this point I don't care if you think I am arrogant or not. 

Well, do *you* care?

> The idea of innocent people being jabbed with cattle prods, separated
> from friends, sent to a foreign country and have their lives disrupted
> is totally disgusting.


You are being simply absurd and unbelievably ignorant
not to take very seriously the peril France and other
countries face, the ignorance manifesting itself as
complete unwillingness to apply the laws of evolution
and history---and the many historical examples that
come to mind---to the current situation.

This last paragraph was a joke. This is Lee Corbin
speaking. I never seriously degrade conversation by
calling people "ignorant" or characterize them as
"absurd". Repeat: I do *not* engage in such name
calling, unlike some people who come to mind. The
previous paragraph was *only* an illustration of
futile animosity-building breech of good manners
and wasted breath.

>> My answer is no, it would *not* make progress in generating
>> tolerance. But it would *save* a great deal of the present
>> tolerance and rule of law always exhibited by modern European
>> nations 
> This is an assertion with no evidence.

Naturally. To be technically and literally correct, I could
have placed "In my opinion" before that last sentence. But
I hoped that since the very first three words of the paragraph
were "My answer is..." it would not have escaped you that this
was an opinion.

I note that you often resort to "this is an assertion
with no evidence" while you yourself constantly put
forth remarks that far from being evidence based, are
solely emotional in nature. So you should talk!

>> and never (or very, very rarely) exhibited by Muslim
>> nations. If you're going to lose, it's better to lose a little
>> than a lot. John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and
>> Franklin Roosevelt understood this very well.
> Of course this assumes that one can tell the difference
 > between losing a little and losing a lot.

It's a risky business, that's for sure. But you do the
best you can in life, weighing costs against benefits
and one risk against another.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list