Re: Mass murder, jokes and immigration [WAS: Re: Massive Starvation

On May 11, 4:22=A0am, Daniele Futtorovic
<da.futt.newsLOVELYS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 2008-05-11 10:39 +0100, John Holmes allegedly wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 11 May 2008, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>
> >> On 2008-05-10 20:17 +0100, Stephen R. Diamond allegedly wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 04:39:54 -0700, Daniele Futtorovic
> >>> <da.futt.newsLOVELYS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>>> That I find utterly objectionable. In my view it casts a very poor
> >>>> light
> >>>> on David -- and IMO would amount to libel, if it were untrue -- as
we=
ll
> >>>> as on yourself. I would rather make a joke about mass-murder in a
> >>>> casual
> >>>> context than not take political discussions as a whole seriously.
>
> >>> Here, here!
>
> >>> We shouldn't, of course, take John's characterization of David as
> >>> David's. For one thing, I don't see the inconsistencies John alludes
> >>> to. Hard to be sure without pointing them out.
>
> >> Yes, I was hoping David would care to comment.
>
> >> --
> >> DF.
>
> > I suppose I really ought to comment here. My remarks about Dave in
this
> > context were--well, a bit exaggerated at any rate, and are hereby
> > retracted.
>
> > I will also note that libel is a bad thing, but mass murder is a very
> > very bad thing.
>
> > What apst is is the computer equivalent of arguments in a bar while
> > drunk. Given a choice between two people to argue with in a bar, one
of
> > whom is not always 100% honest or consistent and one of whom is
> > violence-prone, I know which one I'd prefer to argue with.
>
> Err... the first one, right?
>
> All in all, how bally interesting. If I understand it correctly, JH
> prefers to argue with David, who is at least partially inconsistent in
> his speech, than with yours truly, who does not condemn mass-murder
> categorically.
>
> Right.
>
> The thing is that JH *****sment of David's honesty had arisen from my
> question why JH made a fuss of my statement, but none of David's similar
> statements. Turns out he's now withdrawn that *****sment.
>
> Consequently, JH prefers to argue with David, who is at least partially
> inconsistent in his speech and who wouldn't "lose a night's sleep" over
> a specific occurrence of mass-murder, than with yours truly, who does
> not condemn mass-murder categorically.
>
> I guess it all makes sense when you realise JH associates posting on
> APST and being drunk. I shall command him for not losing his grammar
> over his imbibed state.
>
> -.-
>
> But the more interesting part, which has sadly been lost in clipping
> somewhere, is the as of yet unanswered question how JH brings together
> his condemning of mass-murder (quote: "very very bad thing" -- note the
> absence of any precision; it's spurn in its abstract entirety) and
> social revolutions.
>
> Aren't social revolutions events during which mass-murders are highly
> likely to occur? If mass-murders are such a very very bad thing,
> wouldn't that moral judgement necessarily extend to social revolutions?
>
> Turns out JH had earlier on softened his judgement on mass-murders,
> saying that they weren't "grossly objectionable", provided they did NOT
> target "a social class or an ethnic group". Not targeting a social
> class? In a social revolution? Picture that.
>
> Is this yet another proponent of "peaceful revolutions" the scholars'
> ranks are so much famed for?
>
> --
> DF.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think you may be overarguing this Daniele. I'm wondering what the
context is? The Bolsheviks simply did NOT target the bosses or
aristocracy with extermination now did they? Certainly not as part of
any program. They did what they HAD to do to help lead the soviets in
maintaining power. Period. It's the only question there is.

I suspect the way this whole thing got brought up was Mr. Vngelis's
foaming at the mouth "kill them all" perspective toward what ever the
latest fa****onable definition of "settler" is. Maybe it "expel them
all".

So...the discussion is not whether one is "for it or again' it" but
that when occurs because of our class defending itself what is our
reaction? Like John (I think) and you (I suppose) this might occur.
it's not mass-"murder" but in a civil war it is very possible that the
enemy class may have to be destroyed physically depending on their
resistence. Again, for almost every body on this little list of ours,
this is probably logical. There is one notable exception, probably.

David