Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by mtf, Aug 1, 2016.
"If Trump wins, this is going to put to a life-or-death test everything humanists believe."
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Very difficult to discuss as I see no logical argument that leads to the statement. Can you suggest some reasons why it might be true?
Generally speaking, the form of our neighbor's question is a quiet version of now-more-than-everism. Normally, we use this phrase for basic policy prescriptions, like tax cuts. If the economy is good, tax cuts. If the economy is bad, tax cuts. If the terrorists attack, tax cuts. And whatever is going on means we need to do this now more than ever.
For comparative context, I might reach back to the eighties, in the States. You know, in the twenty-first century, Mark Steel did a joke about the British dashing off letters to the editor; it's the same underlying trope as the line in Harry Potter about accepting his owl should he wish to register his opinion, or also the bit in Gaiman and Pratchett (Good Omens) that spends a small handful of words chortling to its narrative self about the letters page.
In the eighties, reader correspondence to newspapers was a strange thing in the States; in my corner, the letters ranged from short paragraphs reiterating basic political outlooks as if those slogans actually meant anything to extended disputes over the proper way to tie a necktie.
In other words, a local iteration of a pretty universal phenomenon.
The advice columns were, in retrospect, childishly simple, presenting everything from salad forks to infidelity as if people were actors on a stage reciting scripts; just say and do this general something and everything else will work out. "Teen" advice columns were even worse; pretty much every one of them had a version of the "Curveball" letter, from the seventeen year old whose penis became erect in the school locker room and curved to the left. I remember an extended discussion of pinching the glans in order to curb an erection at school. Oh, Goddess grant, these are humiliatingly awful memories of my society.
But amid it all were a trio of what we might dismiss these days as "grumpy old man" notions orbiting the problem with the kids today, the thin edge of the wedge, and the decay of American social fabric: Secular Humanism, Moral Relativism, and coddling ("Citizenship").
Moral relativism and coddling remain in controversial play; secular humanism seems to be advancing just fine. And this is the problem. Well, you know, for some people who happen to hold certain outlooks.
The irony is that moral relativism is wrecking societal fabric, but it the damage is occurring in our Christian sector; the great example is a Republican who throws down for Christian values also arguing the moral imperative of not feeding the hungry. Indeed, survey the strange marriage of fiscal and social-Christian conservatism in the GOP over the course of decades, and we see the "grumpy old men" penning those letters were right to fear moral relativism.
Just like the angry Christians screaming about books and music; it turns out they were right, too, as long as we recognize they were describing their own progeny.
This part keeps happening.
The bit about coddling and lowering the bar has always been an interesting proposition. Part of it was invested in objecting to the idea of a "citizenship" award for conduct meritorious in a communal context. For many people, awards shoould only be given at schools and children's camps for being the fastest or strongest, or jumping the highest or farthest. Making the most baskets. Meritorious conduct in the community? That was just lowering the bar, a feelgood award for kids who can't sink a free throw. We ought not be surprised to witness the evolution fo these attitudes into a circumstance whereby "citizenship" is simply a political argument about who is allowed to be in the country.
Which leaves humanism. The indictment against humanism, wielded by its critics, is broad and entirely condemning. The functional differences 'twixt humanism and appeals to constricted abstraction, however, are apparent. Look at the humanist take on rights: If rights, then rights. A religious outlook offers the most concrete and regularly applied constriction: If rights, then rights, but God, ergo fuck rights.
In this case, the perceived threat of humanism is the erasure of insupportable abstraction.
Therefore, humanism becomes the target. A mortal test of a philosophical proposition. It is not specifically ironic, in this case, that the failure of humanism would not only bring about harrowing results subordinate to abstraction, but also justify the abstractions. To wit, if people elect Donald Trump, the place of logic in public policy is dead forever. That is the functional stake of a "life-or-death test" of "everything humanists believe".
We might as well suggest losing the Gay Fray means Christianity has lost a life-or-death test of everything religionists believe.
It's kind of absurd, sure, but what about traditionalism isn't these days?
This is the target they have left. Whether God or State or Personality Cult of Trump, the point is to disqualify logic, and we need to do so now more than ever.
Witness of my living American experience is amid an ouroboros transition; the cycle is apparent, and this is our time to learn from history. I cannot tell you quite how much of the exact bullshit these people used to push young people around in the eighties―quite literally the censorship arguments―are in play right now, but, yes, that's where our American discourse on supremacism has arrived.
The only other note I would specifically add is to attend the actual literary history of secular humanism with cautious eye and reserved hand; actual, genuine humanism is not actually in play―the word in the topic post is a straw man.
That is to say, you can put as much effort into illuminating that record as you want, but such an effort will be solely for the benefit of the gallery; it means nothing to our topic poster.
If his standards become the new social norm, then it will be very difficult to be a humanist.
Oh, sure. Next time I want to know what I think, I'll just ask you. Surely you are the authority over me!!765"!$819(!"!!!!!!
I disagree. It will be as easy as it ever was to be a humanist. The country, of course, may go in a different direction. But in your day-to-day life the things that define you as a humanist will not change.
If you are a humanist, are you ready for the challenges that may lie ahead?
As ready as anyone can be, I guess.
What challenges? It becomes more important than ever.
They have been a social norm in much of the US for decades now. No big change there.
Granted, of course. They aren't the norm everywhere else in the world, though. But since the world takes after the US ...
Let us consider a likely scenario.
Syria, with russian help defeats the turkish proxies fighting in Syria.
Turkey sends it's army into Syria. The russians bomb the Turkish army in Syria. The turks invoke article 5 of the nato agreement.
Should the turks ask us to bomb russian forces, which candidate is most likely to tell the turks to go fuck themselves?
And which candidate is most likely to get us into another war?
Since last November, when Turkey ordered the shootdown of a Russian Sukhoi-24 jet fighter which penetrated Turkish airspace for 17 seconds, tensions between Ankara and Moscow have been high.
Russia carefully has avoided any military action inside Turkey, since it is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Article 5 of the NATO charter says an attack on one is an attack on all.
However, a Russian official recently told G2 Bulletin that should Turkish troops enter Syria to attack Syrian military forces or Kurdish fighters, they could be subject to Russian aerial attack.
Such an attack, he said, would not constitute a violation of NATO’s Article 5, since it would not be on Turkish soil.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/russia-warns-turks-we-might-bomb-your-troops/#4kagcDXv1cx9tw0W.99
Then the world's humanists would have no more trouble than US humanists have had for decades now.
He's right. The US did not receive NATO help when attacked in Iraq, for example.
Curiously as/re article 5:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security ."
And: Turkey ain't in europe:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Which begs the question:
Would we be obligated under article 5 if the russians attacked a turkish army retreating from Syria within the borders of Turkey?
added to which:
In April 2012, Turkish PM Erdogan considered invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty to protect Turkish national security in a dispute over the Syrian Civil War. The alliance responded quickly and spokeswoman Carmen Romero said the alliance was "monitoring the situation very closely and will continue to do so" and "takes it very seriously protecting its members.” On April 17, Turkey said it would raise the issue quietly in the next NATO ministerial meeting. On April 29, the Syrian foreign ministry wrote that it had received Erdogan's message, which he had repeated a few days before, loud and clear. On 25 June, the Turkish Deputy Prime Minister said that he intended to raise Article 5 at a specially-convened NATO meeting because of the downing of an "unarmed" Turkish military jet which was "13 sea miles" from Syria over "international waters" on a "solo mission to test domestic radar systems". A Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman insisted that the plane "flying at an altitude of 100 meters inside the Syrian airspace in a clear breach of Syrian sovereignty" and that the "jet was shot down by anti-aircraft fire," the bullets of which "only have a range of 2.5 kilometers (1.5 miles)" rather than by radar-guided missile. On 5 August, Erdoğan stated that "The tomb of Suleyman Shah [in Syria] and the land surrounding it is our territory. We cannot ignore any unfavorable act against that monument, as it would be an attack on our territory, as well as an attack on NATO land... Everyone knows his duty, and will continue to do what is necessary." NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen later said in advance of the October 2012 ministerial meeting that the alliance was prepared to defend Turkey, and acknowledged that this border dispute concerned the alliance, but underlined the alliance's hesitancy over a possible intervention: “A military intervention can have unpredicted repercussions. Let me be very clear. We have no intention to interfere militarily [at present with Syria].” On 27 March 2014, recordings were released on YouTube of a conversation purportedly involving then Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioğlu, then National Intelligence Organization (MİT) head Hakan Fidan, and Deputy Chief of General Staff General Yaşar Güler. The recording has been reported as being probably recorded at Davutoğlu's office at the Foreign Ministry on 13 March. Transcripts of the conversation reveal that, as well as exploring the options for Turkish forces engaging in false flag operations inside Syria, the meeting involved a discussion about using the threat to the tomb as an excuse for Turkey to intervene militarily inside Syria. Davutoğlu stated that Erdogan told him that he saw the threat to the tomb as an "opportunity".
So we know that Erdogan won't hesitate to claim protection under article 5(even if the turks were the aggressor--------maybe why they shot down the russian jet, trying to provoke a russian response?).
What we don't know is how a future president will react if/when he does so.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ordinary people in many countries incorrectly associate terrorism with a particular community.
Trump is a shrewd businessman, he knows that it helps to advertise and mass sell his products to make a killing. He just did that and result is there in front of everyone. His product matches with the psyche of ordinary Americans.
If he wins, which he will, nothing great is going to happen to an ordinary american but yes he is not going to be an apologist for terrorists or countries pushing terrorism. Apart from that its going be brand America push. His success on terrorism will out shadow all his maverick follies.
And you are never wrong? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Dont sweat it... the real God told me that Trump is gonna loose.!!!
Do you have any doubt ?
Not about my being never wrong but about Trump winning ?
Yes, on both actually. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But of course you already knew that.
Separate names with a comma.