PDA

View Full Version : Anti-tobacco campaign was pioneered in Nazi Germany



Igor_Goldenberg
14-11-2008, 08:39 AM
This wikipedia article was on their front page as "Today's featured article"
Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany)
I found it quite ironic, especially the strong similarity between what they did and what Western governments do now.

Miranda
14-11-2008, 09:02 AM
The Nazi anti-tobacco campaign included banning smoking in trams, buses and city trains, promoting health education, limiting cigarette rations in the Wehrmacht, organizing medical lectures for soldiers, and raising the tobacco tax. The Nazis also imposed restrictions on tobacco advertising and smoking in public spaces, and regulated restaurants and coffeehouses.

Yeah, it does seem very similar to the rules and regulations we have now...

Trent Parker
14-11-2008, 09:27 AM
LOL! my father has an old cigar tin at home that states inside "smoking does not harm your health!" LOL

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2008, 09:28 AM
This wikipedia article was on their front page as "Today's featured article"
Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany)
I found it quite ironic, especially the strong similarity between what they did and what Western governments do now.
Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2VkNDI2ZjljY2ViZjM5YzBmMTI1N2VkMDEyYjRkYWQ=) documents the strong environmentalist fanaticism of the Nazis. E.g. many leaders in Nazi Germany were dedicated animal rights activists as well. The following quote sounds like it could come from animal liberationist infanticide lover Peter Singer or PETA's Ingrid Newkirk: ‘How can you find pleasure in shooting from behind cover at poor creatures browsing on the edge of a wood, innocent, defenseless, and unsuspecting? It’s really pure murder.’ In reality, it came from Heinrich Himmler. Hermann Göring similarly prohibited ‘the unbearable torture and suffering in animal experiments,’ and intimidated ‘those who still think they can treat animals as inanimate property’ with threats of internment in concentration camps.

Rincewind
14-11-2008, 04:04 PM
Just because two governments produce outwardly similar policies, that does not make the policy necessarily good or bad or the two governments related. It would seem from that Wiki page that the Nazi position was based on some science that was available at the time (and a lot of propoganda that had nothing to do with science) but that was probably not conclusive and the personal support of Hitler (a reformed smoker if the page is to be believed) would have gone a long way to getting the policies enacted.

The present policies enacted in various degrees in most industrialised countries are driven by the economic burden of lifestyle diseases like lung cancer and emphysema and the fear of public liability. The government does collect tax from tobacco as well but they also spend a lot of money in advertising and quit support services because there is the expectation that will be cheaper in the long term.

None of the current programs are presenting smoking as a genetic poison that leads to racial degeneracy.

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2008, 05:41 PM
Just because two governments produce outwardly similar policies, that does not make the policy necessarily good or bad or the two governments related.

Indeed. While it is certainly interesting and well worth noting that some Nazi Germany featured some quite progressive/sensitive/anticipatory/humane attitudes and innovations alongside some of the most backwards horrors the 20th century has witnessed, to use the presence of something in Nazi Germany as an argument against its presence today is a basic logical fallacy often dubbed "reductio ad hitlerum". If it had any validity you might as well rip up the autobahns, ban all VWs and revoke the German national park system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum - one of the better Wikipedia pages and well worth a read.

Admittedly, some VWs such as early model Passats would probably be better off banned! :D

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2008, 06:32 PM
vidzkYnaf6Y

Zwischenzug
14-11-2008, 06:53 PM
We're getting a little off topic comparing liberal policies to Nazism.


Indeed. While it is certainly interesting and well worth noting that some Nazi Germany featured some quite progressive/sensitive/anticipatory/humane attitudes and innovations alongside some of the most backwards horrors the 20th century has witnessed, to use the presence of something in Nazi Germany as an argument against its presence today is a basic logical fallacy often dubbed "reductio ad hitlerum". If it had any validity you might as well rip up the autobahns, ban all VWs and revoke the German national park system.

I agree with Kevin. It isn't because some of Hilter's politics are liberal or progressive, it is because Hilter created a totalitarian government and allowed his personal prejudices become a matter of policy.

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2008, 07:02 PM
We're getting a little off topic comparing liberal policies to Nazism.
The argument "Hitler did it, therefore it is bad" is unsound, as illustrated by the Yes Prime Minister clip above. But Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2VkNDI2ZjljY2ViZjM5YzBmMTI1N2VkMDEyYjRkYWQ=)no t only notes the similarity of the EuroFascists with American Progressives/Liberals, but also that the latter highly approved of the former before the aggression of WW2.


I agree with Kevin. It isn't because some of Hilter's politics are liberal or progressive, it is because Hilter created a totalitarian government and allowed his personal prejudices become a matter of policy.
Yet much of liberalism involves expanding government tentacles into more and more aspects of life. But in America, the despots are not the elected ruler as Hitler was, but unelected bureaucrats and judges. Many liberal policies are soft totalitarianism, as Goldberg explains (http://calitreview.com/303):


“Fascism” is such an overused word that it has almost become meaningless. How are you defining it in this book?

...

I’ve got a long definition in the book, but a short one would be an instinctual religious impulse - usually gussied-up as a secular or modern ideology - that seeks to impose uniformity in thought and action throughout the entire society. All oars in a fascistic society must pull together. The personal is political because everything goes together. Political correctness is one name we give to such efforts in civil society.



American Conservatism, with its limited ambitions for government, its belief in the imperfectability of mankind, its reverence for tradition and the US constitution and its innate opposition to radicalism are nearly the opposite of fascism. So calling conservatives fascists is not only a slander, but it prevents us from understanding our own political ideals and principles. Second, totalitarianism will never come on a white horse in this country. If it does come it will come with a friendly face. It will fancy itself a form of “progress” and do-goodery. If you use “fascism” as simply a stand-in for “evil” you will never recognize real fascism when it arrives.



But at the philosophical level, I think you can tell when a program or initiative is fascist by the motivating spirit behind it. If there’s a utopian impulse, if a “new age” or “new politics” are being promised, if the government is promising to create a kingdom of heaven on earth or “end” some basic feature of the human condition, then that policy is leaping out of the realm of problem-solving and into the realm of religion.



We’re going to nicey-nice ourselves into oblivion, enjoying it all of the way down. That’s my nightmare scenario.

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2008, 10:33 PM
The argument "Hitler did it, therefore it is bad" is unsound, as illustrated by the Yes Prime Minister clip above. But Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2VkNDI2ZjljY2ViZjM5YzBmMTI1N2VkMDEyYjRkYWQ=)no t only notes the similarity of the EuroFascists with American Progressives/Liberals, but also that the latter highly approved of the former before the aggression of WW2.

Yeah, well, diehard lefties are prone to be clueless and wishful and to imagine that every enemy of the capos is their friend. Nothing news about that.


Yet much of liberalism involves expanding government tentacles into more and more aspects of life.

Much of politics generally involves that. Tories are at least as bad in their own way and big-government tories like Howard and Bush (who are actually anti-freedom across virtually the whole of politics in comparison to their electorate) are pretty much the worst of the lot.


I’ve got a long definition in the book, but a short one would be an instinctual religious impulse - usually gussied-up as a secular or modern ideology - that seeks to impose uniformity in thought and action throughout the entire society.

A useless and false definition (much too broad and vague) that could even more easily apply to religious movements that insist that there is only one way to salvation and everyone should follow it. Like yours.

Political scientists have had a range of definitions of fascism based on the historical characteristics of fascist political movements that people can draw from. None of these definitions are perfect but several of them make far more sense than trying to broaden the term in order to take tryhard ideologically slanted potshots.


American Conservatism, with its limited ambitions for government,

... has long since ceased to exist as a coherent or serious force. :hand:


its belief in the imperfectability of mankind, its reverence for tradition and the US constitution and its innate opposition to radicalism are nearly the opposite of fascism.

Not nearly enough. For instance conservatism's innate opposition to radicalism and fascism's innate opposition to liberal modernity are often exactly the same thing, and conservatism's "reverence for tradition" is a very close match for fascism's innate nationalism and glorification of the past. The other differences are genuine but "nearly the opposite" is ideological drivel not accurate analysis.


So calling conservatives fascists is not only a slander

Wrong again. An ideological group can't be defamed. Calling conservatives fascists is woefully inaccurate but so is dropping hints that liberals are fascists, or suggesting that either movement is squeaky clean of the slightest similarities to fascism.


, but it prevents us from understanding our own political ideals and principles. Second, totalitarianism will never come on a white horse in this country. If it does come it will come with a friendly face. It will fancy itself a form of “progress” and do-goodery. If you use “fascism” as simply a stand-in for “evil” you will never recognize real fascism when it arrives.

Most ideologies are do-goodery, what fails to pass for conservatism in the USA included. The only quote about fascism coming to America that cuts any mustard with me is the observation that it would be wrapped in a flag and carrying the cross - apparently originally due to Sinclair Lewis but used by Ron Paul to brutal effect against Mike Huckabee in the recent primaries.


But at the philosophical level, I think you can tell when a program or initiative is fascist by the motivating spirit behind it. If there’s a utopian impulse, if a “new age” or “new politics” are being promised, if the government is promising to create a kingdom of heaven on earth or “end” some basic feature of the human condition, then that policy is leaping out of the realm of problem-solving and into the realm of religion.

What a pathetic load of drivel. Through history, countless social movements have displayed motivating spirits of this kind. Very few of them have resorted to tactics remotely resembling fascism and very few have held general political views that Mussolini would have recognised in a fit. This is not argumentation by Goldberg but simply a lame attempt to equate liberalism with fascism and yet another contribution to the devaluation of the term.

This "Goldberg" (not to be mistaken for Goldenberg!) is a hopelessly clueless tryhard and probably a dingbat of a fairly primitive order. Goldberg should not be mistaken for a political scientist of any calibre by any living thing. If you have Goldberg's email address please inform Goldberg that Dr Kevin Bonham said so in the nicest possible way, and politely requested Goldberg to desist from attempting to contribute to public life on the grounds of complete unfitness to do so. Please do not quote such a feeble and useless author again. :hand:

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2008, 12:21 AM
Much of politics generally involves that. Tories are at least as bad in their own way and big-government tories like Howard and Bush (who are actually anti-freedom across virtually the whole of politics in comparison to their electorate) are pretty much the worst of the lot.
Howard did a great job in combating much political correctness and black armband historical revisionism. Bush lowered taxes and at least tried to reform social security to private retirement accounts.


A useless and false definition (much too broad and vague) that could even more easily apply to religious movements that insist that there is only one way to salvation and everyone should follow it. Like yours.
But mine doesn't force anyone to follow it, unlike totalitarian fascists, communists, political correctness commissars, and university speech codes. Atheistic governments around the world are hardly models of toleration.


... has long since ceased to exist as a coherent or serious force. :hand:
It needs to be tried again. It worked with Reagan, and the GOP has failed miserably with its big government interventionism.


Not nearly enough. For instance conservatism's innate opposition to radicalism and fascism's innate opposition to liberal modernity are often exactly the same thing, and conservatism's "reverence for tradition" is a very close match for fascism's innate nationalism and glorification of the past.
Fascism doesn't respect tradition but sometimes a glorified past like the old Roman Empire (Mussolini) or Teutonic valour (Hitler).


Wrong again. An ideological group can't be defamed. Calling conservatives fascists is woefully inaccurate but so is dropping hints that liberals are fascists, or suggesting that either movement is squeaky clean of the slightest similarities to fascism.
Yet the Liberals/Progressives were quite favorably disposed to Mussolini for a time, and they supported eugenics and were concerned that the Nazis were overtaking them.


What a pathetic load of drivel. Through history, countless social movements have displayed motivating spirits of this kind. Very few of them have resorted to tactics remotely resembling fascism and very few have held general political views that Mussolini would have recognised in a fit. This is not argumentation by Goldberg but simply a lame attempt to equate liberalism with fascism and yet another contribution to the devaluation of the term.
No need to stretch the equation, precisely because American liberals really did admire the fascist expansion of government into far more areas of life.


This "Goldberg" (not to be mistaken for Goldenberg!) is a hopelessly clueless tryhard and probably a dingbat of a fairly primitive order. Goldberg should not be mistaken for a political scientist of any calibre by any living thing. If you have Goldberg's email address please inform Goldberg that Dr Kevin Bonham said so in the nicest possible way, and politely requested Goldberg to desist from attempting to contribute to public life on the grounds of complete unfitness to do so. Please do not quote such a feeble and useless author again. :hand:
Why should I believe you? His book documents his case. I doubt that he would lose any sleep over claims by Dr Kevin Bonham, a diehard supporter of the radical lefty Obamov and his hack VP, trying to paper over the warm support of American progressives for fascist programs.

Miranda
15-11-2008, 12:39 AM
...

How can you two start arguing over anti-tobacco campaigning in Nazi Germany?!

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2008, 12:50 AM
Howard did a great job in combating much political correctness and black armband historical revisionism. Bush lowered taxes and at least tried to reform social security to private retirement accounts.

Both were big-spending pseudo-conservatives.


But mine doesn't force anyone to follow it,

Unless they are gay and wish to marry each other in which case it apparently supports forcing them not to (to give one example). Your religious view considered broadly has a long history of supporting the legal enforcement of many of its views. I realise that it has become less inclined to do so but still even those adherents who consider themselves quite religiously libertarian are usually not as much so as they think or claim. Anyway, the word used by Goldberg in his definition was not "force" but "impose" which is much vaguer.


Atheistic governments around the world are hardly models of toleration.

List them. :D


It needs to be tried again.

I actually agree with this. But it has got to be a genuine conservatism and not moral reactionism tarted up as such.


Fascism doesn't respect tradition but sometimes a glorified past like the old Roman Empire (Mussolini) or Teutonic valour (Hitler).

It's a blurry line. The "tradition" advocated by many conservatives is frequently also an idealised version founded on nostalgia and distant from empirical fact.


No need to stretch the equation, precisely because American liberals really did admire the fascist expansion of government into far more areas of life.

But saying that they admired some facet of fascist governance is not in the same universe as saying that they are fascists and that is what this Goldberg clown seems to ignore.


Why should I believe you?

Go and read serious academic debate by political scientists about what fascism is if you don't trust me. You'll regret your unwarranted cynicism.


His book documents his case.

His book is not worth reading. Based on the excerpts you have quoted alone it is highly unlikely he will write anything worth reading on any political subject.


I doubt that he would lose any sleep over claims by Dr Kevin Bonham, a diehard supporter of the radical lefty Obamov and his hack VP, [remaining drivel deleted-KB]

Yet more stereotyping rubbish from Jono, who appears unable to handle it whenever a debating opponent is too difficult for him to fit into one of his trite little categories of easily defeated opponents, and hence resorts to making up stuff about them that simply does not fit the facts.

Far from me being a diehard supporter of Obama/Biden I expressed reservations about various aspects of Obama's economics several months out from the election. (As it happens, while I'm still not sure Obama has too many economically liberal bones in his body, his response to the economic crisis was still much less panicky and over the top than McCain's.)

Furthermore I did not even express a clear preference about who should win the election until it became clear that McCain had lost any right to my support by endorsing Sarah Palin as his running mate. Even at that point when you asked me how I would feel had McCain endorsed Lieberman I said that in that case I would consider supporting him. Your claim that I am a diehard supporter of Obama is therefore utter utter utter utter nonsense.

I would not try to portray you as a diehard supporter of McCain or Bush because I know that you are not. You should much know better than trying to portray me as a diehard supporter of Obama when your claim is not factual and you were too lazy to check it.

This is one of far too many clearcut and blatant misrepresentations of my views on your part in the last few days, and my view of your skill as a debater is much diminished on account of them.

Ditto for my view of your consistency as a Christian. I do not claim to be an expert on the Ten Commandments but it is my strong suspicion that the prohibition on bearing false witness is not confined to cases of deliberate lying, and also concerns writing nonsense about others without making reasonable attempts to check if that nonsense is true.

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2008, 12:53 AM
How can you two start arguing over anti-tobacco campaigning in Nazi Germany?!

Mike Godwin, who came up with Godwin's Law, noticed that whenever people start talking about Nazis on the internet the thread is almost bound to turn into endless arguments and the thread is often trashed as a result.

Igor has very kindly delivered us a pre-trashed thread that was bound to be rubbish from the outset and so what has followed is no surprise. :D

Igor_Goldenberg
15-11-2008, 08:58 AM
Igor has very kindly delivered us a pre-trashed thread that was bound to be rubbish from the outset and so what has followed is no surprise. :D
It was contingent on certain posters being deeply offended that striking similarity between what they passionately adore and passionately hate is revealed.

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2008, 03:12 PM
Both were big-spending pseudo-conservatives.
And I criticised them when they did spend. Taking money from taxpayers by forcw and giving it to special interest groups who lobby the hardest is stealing.


Unless they are gay and wish to marry each other in which case it apparently supports forcing them not to (to give one example).
Rather, I resist re-defining a term that has always meant male–female unions.


List them. :D
All the Communist countries.


His book is not worth reading. Based on the excerpts you have quoted alone it is highly unlikely he will write anything worth reading on any political subject.
His documentation of the favorable impressions of american progressives on the early fascists is notable. Fascism is not all about antisemitism and racism; Mussolini and Franco were neither.


Far from me being a diehard supporter of Obama/Biden I expressed reservations about various aspects of Obama's economics several months out from the election. (As it happens, while I'm still not sure Obama has too many economically liberal bones in his body, his response to the economic crisis was still much less panicky and over the top than McCain's.)
Obama certainly regretted that the Founders didn't give Constitutional authority to redistribute wealth, and wanted to "renegotiate" trade agreements. He was hardly any different from McCain when it came to that atrocious bailout.


Furthermore I did not even express a clear preference about who should win the election until it became clear that McCain had lost any right to my support by endorsing Sarah Palin as his running mate. Even at that point when you asked me how I would feel had McCain endorsed Lieberman I said that in that case I would consider supporting him.
Yes you did, with commendable even-handedness. But that changed as McCain/Palin's faults became magnified out of all proportion, while faults of Obama/Biden were downplayed.


Your claim that I am a diehard supporter of Obama is therefore utter utter utter utter nonsense.
It sure seemed to become that way. It's notable that a lot of people who praised McCain as the only decent Republican became shillers for Obama. It certainly wasn't just Palin, but something that was inevitable regardless of VP choice.


I would not try to portray you as a diehard supporter of McCain or Bush because I know that you are not.
That's something.


This is one of far too many clearcut and blatant misrepresentations of my views on your part in the last few days, and my view of your skill as a debater is much diminished on account of them.
Your hostility to Christianity has become more blatant lately. But it's notable that a few of my atheist opponents have appealed to Christian ideas of right and wrong ;)

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2008, 10:00 PM
Rather, I resist re-defining a term that has always meant male–female unions.

You can resist it all you like but such resistance remains illiberal and non-libertarian. That marriage has a history of being available only to mixed sex couples does not justify refusing to extend its availability to same sex couples. No amount of quibbling over the history of the definition changes that.


All the Communist countries.

And at present these are?


His documentation of the favorable impressions of american progressives on the early fascists is notable.

Even if so it is not worth wading through all the elementary pol-phil howlers to get there since such material can be found elsewhere without being cloaked in abysmal gibberish. Certainly that aspect of his claims was not news to me.


Fascism is not all about antisemitism and racism; Mussolini and Franco were neither.

Agreed, but was not in dispute.


Yes you did, with commendable even-handedness. But that changed as McCain/Palin's faults became magnified out of all proportion, while faults of Obama/Biden were downplayed.

It would be difficult to magnify Sarah Palin's faults out of proportion without them consuming the entire planet. Furthermore while I have pointed out many of McCain's campaigning errors, I have generally not been harsh on him in terms of comments about my personal views of his policies (and indeed given his moral conservative leanings I have probably given him a much fairer run than many would have expected me to.) But even if your claims above were true rather than oversimplistic they would still not make me a "diehard supporter" of Obama/Biden. That claim of yours is simply unfactual.


It sure seemed to become that way.

If it seemed that way to you then that simply reflects your own inattention and failure to check your opponent's views before misrepresenting them. Preferring one side of an election over another by default, rather than out of wholehearted positive enthusiasm that would signify "diehard support" is something that I do rather often, probably even more often than not, and I have discussed it on this board before. A correct description of my attitude would be that I was delighted with the election result but that my attitude towards the incoming Obama/Biden administration is one of cautious (not "diehard") support.


It's notable that a lot of people who praised McCain as the only decent Republican became shillers for Obama. It certainly wasn't just Palin, but something that was inevitable regardless of VP choice.

The first sentence is true but concerning the second, many who praised McCain became disillusioned with him during the campaign because they perceived he had abandoned the moral high ground he took against Bush in 2000. Whether it would have happened to anything like the same degree had McCain not (a) endorsed Palin as running mate (b) run a relatively poor campaign and (c) campaigned more negatively than his reputation suggested he would, is something we will never know.


Your hostility to Christianity has become more blatant lately.

My attitudes towards Christianity are unchanged from what they were a week ago, a month ago, a year ago, five years ago. My patience with your tendency to mischaracterise opposing positions, however, has expired, and you can expect to be called on this more frequently in the future unless you have the sense to stop doing it.


But it's notable that a few of my atheist opponents have appealed to Christian ideas of right and wrong ;)

Yes, to point out your apparent failure to live up to them, which you don't seem in the least bit apologetic or repentant about.

In any case there is nothing unique to Christianity about the idea that carelessly or wilfully misrepresenting the views of others is sloppy form, and I would be surprised if that view, widespread as it is, even demonstrably originated within "Christian" culture. Furthermore that view does not in itself entail full agreement with the Commandment in question even as a guiding principle.

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2008, 10:06 PM
It was contingent on certain posters being deeply offended that striking similarity between what they passionately adore and passionately hate is revealed.

I don't see any sign that anyone has been offended by it in the slightest. Indeed, banning smoking isn't an article I see that many chessplayers getting all that fired up about (so long as there is no smoking in or near the tournament room!)

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2008, 12:02 PM
It would be difficult to magnify Sarah Palin's faults out of proportion without them consuming the entire planet.
Come off it. She was a successful governor, with more executive experience than the other three combined, with a good record of pork-busting. I don't mind fair-minded critics like Krauthammer, but many objecters just hate that she's a biblical Christian. So much for the Constitutional clause, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States".


Furthermore while I have pointed out many of McCain's campaigning errors,
Of which there were many, like first abandoning the debate to join the Senate bailout jawboning. We probably don't agree on what constitutes campaigning errors in many cases.


The first sentence is true but concerning the second, many who praised McCain became disillusioned with him during the campaign because they perceived he had abandoned the moral high ground he took against Bush in 2000.
I.e. he started to campaign like a Republican, instead of poking a Republican in the eye in return for a laudatory article in the NYT.


Whether it would have happened to anything like the same degree had McCain not (a) endorsed Palin as running mate
Which gave him the lead in the polls, which might have held without the market crash blamed on the GOP. Palin was also attracting audiences of the level of Obamov's.


(b) run a relatively poor campaign and (c) campaigned more negatively than his reputation suggested he would, is something we will never know.
Campaigned negatively?? McCain fell for that, yet nothing was as negative as Obamov's buddies in Daily Kos, or the his Leftmedia allies going for Palin while papering over Biden's flaws.


My patience with your tendency to mischaracterise opposing positions, however, has expired, and you can expect to be called on this more frequently in the future unless you have the sense to stop doing it.
What "tendency" and what "patience"? My patience with your mimophantism likewise grows thin. Avoiding mischaracterizations is just the right thing to do, and not just because of your threats, and you can expect to be called out on any misrepresentations of Christian viewpoints or allegedly typical Christian behaviour.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2008, 01:14 PM
I don't mind fair-minded critics like Krauthammer, but many objecters just hate that she's a biblical Christian.

The primary source of my objection to Palin was not that she was specifically a "biblical Christian" but that she was such in an interventionist illiberal fashion, with the usual basket of social policies that "the base" were supposed to adore (albeit not as illiberal as some).


I.e. he started to campaign like a Republican, instead of poking a Republican in the eye in return for a laudatory article in the NYT.

Well, campaigning "like a Republican" didn't do him very much good. Hopefully no-one will do it again.


Which gave him the lead in the polls, which might have held without the market crash blamed on the GOP. Palin was also attracting audiences of the level of Obamov's.

His lead in the polls was a post-convention bounce that was actually delayed substantially by initial (and justified) caution about Palin. And the audience a candidate attracts is no proof of anything (indeed, boasting about rally attendances when they are a minority of the population is a flop tactic best left to the Greens.)


What "tendency" and what "patience"?

I'll be listing all the examples on the other thread where you've asked me "how many"? In the past I've generally been happy to just calmly debunk the odd misrepresentation here and there but in the last week or so there have been too many and most of them were in the should-know-better category.


My patience with your mimophantism likewise grows thin.

I don't see how you can be impatient with something that doesn't exist, so this must be either a biased view or just more trolling.


Avoiding mischaracterizations is just the right thing to do,

Pleased to hear it. Hope to see you making more efforts in this direction.


and not just because of your threats, and you can expect to be called out on any misrepresentations of Christian viewpoints or allegedly typical Christian behaviour.

Well I actually try to avoid this by putting the word "Christian" in quotes whenever I am referring to viewpoints not held by all who call themselves Christian. However in a recent case where I did Christianity that service, you complained (#93 of gay marriage thread) and tried to insist that the view in question was a broad Christian view although (a) it is actually contentious and (b) your illustration was laughably ineffectual. So if you are looking for someone who misrepresents viewpoints as Christian generally when they are actually only those of some "Christians", go find a mirror. :hand:

I think I am generally quite careful in mentioning when certain items of behaviour are just perpetrated by the extremist fringe or by parts of Christianity rather than by the whole. Feel more than free to point out any errors in this regard.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2008, 01:20 PM
The primary source of my objection to Palin was not that she was specifically a "biblical Christian" but that she was such in an interventionist illiberal fashion, with the usual basket of social policies that "the base" were supposed to adore (albeit not as illiberal as some).
Nothing could make up for the stockmarket crash blamed on the GOP, already on the nose for its liberal spending. Not sure what social policies were so objectionable, as opposed to Obamov wanting government tentacles to intrude into every aspect of life, including content of Talk Radio (http://townhall.com/Columnists/AustinHill/2008/11/15/meda_reform_and_the_assault_on_free_speech).


Well, campaigning "like a Republican" didn't do him very much good. Hopefully no-one will do it again.
What a good thing Reagan didn't follow that advice. McCain had a record of "reaching across the aisle" and the GOP Congress spent like Dems. So it would be a pleasant change for the Republican candidates and Congressmen to act like Republican. Acting like Dems was a flop, since the people chose the real thing rather than the copy—again!


His lead in the polls was a post-convention bounce that was actually delayed substantially by initial (and justified) caution about Palin. And the audience a candidate attracts is no proof of anything (indeed, boasting about rally attendances when they are a minority of the population is a flop tactic best left to the Greens.)
I mentioned it mainly because Obamov was famous for his huge rallies.


I don't see how you can be impatient with something that doesn't exist, so this must be either a biased view or just more trolling.
Not at all. You seemed to have little problem when Christians or conservatives are misrepresented or caricatured, but woe betide the slightest attack on misotheists, Dems or homosexual activists. This spills over into the attacks on McCain's allies for "negative campaining" while ignoring the huge negativity from Obama's allies.


Pleased to hear it. Hope to see you making more efforts in this direction.
Not that much effort is needed in my case :hand:


So if you are looking for someone who misrepresents viewpoints as Christian generally when they are actually only those of some "Christians", go find a mirror. :hand:
Christian means following Christ; no more, no less. Liberal "Christians" have little to do with what Christ actually said, and are basically secularists who have hikacked Christian terminology and twisted it beyond recognition.


I think I am generally quite careful in mentioning when certain items of behaviour are just perpetrated by the extremist fringe or by parts of Christianity rather than by the whole. Feel more than free to point out any errors in this regard.
For sure. :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2008, 02:37 PM
Not at all. You seemed to have little problem when Christians or conservatives are misrepresented or caricatured

Caricature and misrepresentation are often two very different things. Contrary to your false claims above, I am frequently at pains to defend a defensible meaning of the word "conservative" for those who like to simply use it to attack almost all right-wing views. I also agreed with you (again) that it is incorrect to say that the Christian attitude of "faith" was originally one of "blind faith".

So where is your evidence that I have little problem when those who you call Christians and conservatives are misrepresented? And furthermore, it is one thing to reproach me if you don't think I've corrected misrepresentations by others, but it's another to actively misrepresent.


, but woe betide the slightest attack on misotheists, Dems or homosexual activists.

Again this is nonsense since only in the last few days I have explained that I am not that impressed by or keen to read Sam Harris, who is one of your so-called "misotheists".

And trying to portray me as one who defends the Democrats from even the "slightest attack" is simply ludicrous and can be added to your list of lame misrepresentations. I have pointed out errors in some criticisms of Obama (such as the "infanticide" rubbish) but I have also pointed out, for instance, that some of Obama's attacks were found to be unfactual. I have continually criticised both Al Gore and John Kerry and have also been heavily critical of Clinton on a range of issues. At one stage I expressed the view that Clinton should be removed from office - not because of his affair(s) or his lying about it/them, but because he had himself supported various illiberal upholdings of so-called "Christian" moralities while not living up to them.

I also approvingly quoted Guy Rundle's attack on hacks in the Democratic campaign and wonder if the errors they were making at that time would have resonated had not the election been delivered to them on a platter by the global financial crisis and their candidate's calmer handling of it compared to McCain.

As for your suggestion that Reagan campaigned "like a Republican", to compare Reagan's campaigns to the Karl Rove school of negative slurring is actually quite an insult to Reagan who frequently and famously employed positive campaigning (and was often accused of glibness for doing so, although the record shows that it worked for him.)

As for gay activism, there are issues where I do not agree with some gay activists. However, the issues relevant to gay activism that I most often encounter on this board are ones relating to gay liberties, on which I generally regard the opposing arguments as utterly without a shred of intellectual validity and respond to them accordingly.


Not that much effort is needed in my case :hand:

It wouldn't be much effort but I see from your false claim re my attitude to the Democrats above that you are still not making it.


Christian means following Christ; no more, no less. Liberal "Christians" have little to do with what Christ actually said, and are basically secularists who have hikacked Christian terminology and twisted it beyond recognition.

They would argue otherwise, and although I do not always agree with them and suspect a level of desperation on some of their parts, I do not pretend to be in a position to resolve that debate. If someone's views accord with the main part of what Jesus said then it is reasonable for them to consider themselves "Christian" (which my OMED gives as "believing in or following the religion of Jesus Christ" and "an adherent of Christ's teaching") even if there are some minor points of divergence. That said the label is already so polluted that I cannot see why anyone would want it.