Subject: Re: PF and Darren Reed
To: Jim Wise <email@example.com>
From: John Klos <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/19/2004 17:27:54
> >I think that anyone who makes such generalisations based on a serious
> >question has some issues to work out. I very seriously asked, "why not",
> >and all you did was make a dismissive comment.
> On the contrary, I'd say some generalizations are not only easy but
> correct. Right up there at the top of the list would be ``mass
I am talking about the generalisations you have made about me. Please
follow along - there was plenty of context. See the first sentence -
"generalisations based on a serious question". There is no ambiguity about
what question I was talking about.
> murderers make bad role models''. ``Totalitarian dictators make bad
> role models'' is surely a close second, and I'd suggest ``once a
> philosophy has been used to justify the murder of tens or hundreds of
> millions of people in a single century, it's philosophical leaders and
> defenders make poor role models'' is yet a third example of a perfectly
> reasonable `generalization'.
Who ever said that I / we are making role models of totalitarian
dictators? Who ever mentioned "role models" except you?
> Or are you suggesting that such murders are some sort of ``grey area''
> which we must be careful never to describe as ``wrong'' or ``evil''?
Huh? Now you're just making stuff up.
> After all, were someone to post to this list quoting Hitler as a
> positive role model in their .sig, no one would be the least bit
> surprised were they to be flamed -- even if the quote chosen were in
I'd be surprised. Why not quote Hitler? I have learned about Hitler
because he affected the world. I have learned about the Judeo Christian
bible because it affects the world. I have learned about the Bush
Administration because it affects the world. Am I deciding that they are
all role models? No! You are! Don't put ideas in my mouth.
> support of some policy of Hitler's (such as vegetarianism) which he had
> not used to justify his murders. I can see no reason why other
> totalitarian mass murderers should get a bye merely because they
> committed their crimes in the name of some other ideology.
Who said that, "totalitarian mass murderers should get a bye"?
> Are you suggesting that Mr. Nordin quoted Mr. Dimitrov, entirely out of
> context, so that his readers would tend not to believe the quote chosen?
> So that they would learn from Mr. Dimitrov's ``mistakes''? (Interesting
Look - this is really stupid, and you are not making any sense. I never
equated the quote with the example of a mistake that we can learn from,
and you know that. You're being argumentative for no good reason at all.
> choice of words, by the way -- I myself would use a word stronger than
> ``mistakes'' to describe mass murder and the establishment of a brutal
> totalitarian state apparatus, but perhaps you can explain why this
> `generalization' of mine is a sign that I have `issues'. :-)
You chose to be dismissive and condescending instead of explaining why you
thought that the quote was not "acceptable".
All of this other stuff is bullshit. You are assuming way too much based
on nothing. You do not know how I feel about Hitler, or Dimitrov, or
anyone else. I simply think that the idea of censure is blatantly stupid
and indicative of a weak mind.
> Really, Mr. Klos?
Please don't assume a title for me.
> My own suspicion is that Mr. Nordin was not aware of Dimitrov's later
> career when he selected a quote which he thought worthy. I'd be curious
> to hear his opinion on why the quote is worth citing, however.
Right. So you didn't know, and wrote in response, but still haven't
answered why he shouldn't have quoted Dimitrov.
> >Don't be such a dramatist.
> Yes, yes. It's only a few tens or hundreds of thousands dead. And they
> were all foreigners at that, and probably deserved it, eh? No reason at
> all to get `dramatic', eh, Mr. Klos?
Huh? Well, my pizza was eaten in the lunchroom yesterday because I left it
there unattended. What's this got to do with anything?
> >No. I asked, honestly, "why not". You chose to not answer. And here you
> >are condecending and dismissive because you are making judgements about
> >who I personally think are evil.
> You are absolutely correct. I am utterly dismissive of the opinion that
> mass murders and establishment of totalitarian states are some sort of
> ``grey area'' that we should not `judge' or `make generalizations'
> about. I dare say all reasonable observers are similarly dismissive of
> such opinions. Is that clear enough?
Who sais that they are in some sort of grey area and that we should not
judge them or make generalisations about them? I didn't. Or did you
somehow infer all of that from my simple, two word, "why not?"
> Oh yes, let's hold mass murderers up as examples, and classify Bush with
> Hitler and Stalin -- just as long as we're not `judgemental', right?
You were the one being judgemental about who someone chose to quote. I
never said anything about not being judgemental about the people quoted,
or Hitler, or Stalin, or Bush.
Please try to communicate without mixing up all of these rather simple