Pat Buchanan Defends Hitler

[Frylock]

@Scylla

It’s plagiarism when you steal somebody else’s work without giving them credit. In this case the work you stole was somebody else’ compiling of those quotes, which begin and end in the same place as on the cite I’ve listed and are in the same order.

Scylla has the point here. Even when repeating a single quote, you cite the work you got it from. You give the original work and it’s bibliographical info, then say something like “As quoted in” and then you give the quoting work and it’s bibliographical info.

And this isn’t a technicality that no one ever actually follows. People actually do it.

[/referee]

[VarlosZ]

@Scylla

During his Vienna period [Hitler] is gradually convinced or has demonstrated to him that he was wrong. He sees that Germany was being saddled with unfair war reparations that kept its native populace in something like slavery level poverty, exploited for profit by corrupt foreign powers. He rails at the injustice of it.

I hope nobody will take me wrong when I say that I think he had a point here, a germ of truth that he could exploit that would seem very reasonable and appealing to the germanic populace.

If by “germ of truth,” you refer merely to the fact that the Versailles Treaty existed and imposed upon Germany certain restrictions and obligations, then you are correct. If, however, you refer to said restrictions and obligations being actually unfair or overly burdensome on Germany, then you would be incorrect to suggest that Hitler was saying a true thing.

I’ll quote here a few paragraphs from Weinburg’s outstanding A World at Arms. Actually, it appears you can read the vast majority of the book online thanks to Google, here. The relevant portion is pages 15 and 16, up until the section break on the latter. I don’t know how long the book will be up online (and people here are more likely to read it in-thread than off-site anyway), so I’ll go ahead and quote it here for posterity’s sake:

@Gerhard Weinberg

The terms of the peace settlement were attacked vehemently at the time and subsequently, and these attacks coincided with the general disillusionment about the new world which had emerged from the war and the peace among the former allies. There was a popular delusion, widespread at the time, sedulously fostered in the 1920s and 1930s by German propaganda, generally believed then and remaining the staple pabulum of history textbooks today, that Germany had been most terribly crushed by the peace settlement, that all manner of horrendous things had been done to her, and that a wide variety of onerous burdens and restrictions imposed upon her by the peace had weakened her into the indefinite future. On the basis of this view, a whole series of modifications was made in the settlement, all without exception in favor of Germany. The occupation was ended earlier than the peace treaty indicated, the commissions to supervise disarmament were withdrawn, the reparations payments were reduced and eventually cancelled, and the trials of war criminals were left to the Germans with predictable results, to mention only some of the most significant changes made. If at the end of this process, Germany – a bare quarter of a century after the armistice of 1918 – controlled most of Europe and had come within a hair’s breadth of conquering the globe, there was obviously something wrong with the picture generally accepted then and later.

The adoption of the national principle as the basis for peace settlement meant that the most recently created European major power, Germany, would survive the war, her population second in Europe only to Russia’s and her industrial and economic potential less affected than that of her European enemies, since it had been on the back of their, not Germany’s, economies that the war had been fought. Though weakened by the war, Germany had been weakened relatively less than her European enemies, and she had thus emerged relatively stronger potentially in 1919 than she had been in 1913. The same national principle, added to war-weariness, which had restrained the victors from using their armies to keep the new German apart, had equally restrained them from using their armies to refurbish the old or create some new larger structure in Central and Southeast Europe. The very portion of the peace treaty that all the Germans found most obnoxious, the revival of Poland, protected Germany from her potentially most powerful and dangerous adversary, Russia. The various argument over the details of the new boundaries between Hungary and Romania, between Poland and Czechoslovakia, between Bulgaria and Greece, between Austria and Yugoslavia, all only underline two facts of supreme importance: that Germany was now actually or potentially infinitely more powerful than any of her eastern and Southeastern European neighbors, and that there was practically no likelihood of those neighbors ever joining together against Germany.

The modifications introduced into the peace settlement reinforced rather than mitigated the stronger relative position of Germany. The prime example of this was the reparations question. The Germans shook off their reparations payments by simple refusal to pay, by destroying their own currency – in part to demonstrate inability to pay – and by more than off-setting what payments were made through borrowing abroad, followed by repudiation of most of these loans in the 1930s.

This process and the international public discussion of it fed an illusion of fateful significance. Because Germany did not pay reparations, it came to be widely believed that no or almost no reparations were paid at all. This, of course, is nonsense. All the reparations were paid: the devastated towns were rebuilt, the orchards replanted, the mines pumped out and all the pensions to survivors were paid (with some still being paid). This bill was simply shifted to other shoulders, primarily the very countries that had seen their economies suffer the most from the war. This shifting of the burden of repair costs from the less damaged German economy to the more damaged economies of others thus served to redouble rather than off-set the impact of the war itself. Only when a realistic perspective is restored to an examination of the peace settlement, its nature, its impact, and its modifications, can one begin to understand how a period of supposed German enfeeblement could culminate within less than two decades in a Europe, even a world, again terrified of German might.

[Scylla]

@VarlosZ

If by “germ of truth,” you refer merely to the fact that the Versailles Treaty existed and imposed upon Germany certain restrictions and obligations, then you are correct. If, however, you refer to said restrictions and obligations being actually unfair or overly burdensome on Germany, then you would be incorrect to suggest that Hitler was saying a true thing.

A fair point, well argued and supported. I really don’t know what it was like in post WWI Germany, but I will only add that since those reparations and restrictions were lightened in response to arguments that they were extreme, perhaps there may have been a germ of truth to them, which Hitler exploited.

Or maybe not, hence “germ of truth.” Certainly the argument could have been made, and was, successfully.

As your cite points out this lifting of sanctions enabled Germany’s rapid subsequent rise to power, and in retrospect does not appear particularly well-advised. The notion that these arguments to lift sanctions and reparations were largely propagandistic in nature is most certainly true. Hitler professes to admire propaganda tactics that he claims to have seen used against the Germans and openly states his intention to emulate them.

So, I think your clarification is well-taken.

[Jackmannii]

@Scylla

really don’t know what it was like in post WWI Germany, but I will only add that since those reparations and restrictions were lightened in response to arguments that they were extreme, perhaps there may have been a germ of truth to them, which Hitler exploited.

Sanctions/reparations were lightened and ultimately suspended because economic conditions in Germany had become shaky enough that the Allies realized that a collapse was possible that would 1) jeopardize any future attempts to get reparations payments, and 2) set the stage for a revolution in Germany, particularly a Communist one which the Allies feared more at that time than a nationalist/fascist one.

The ultimate impact of the sanctions against Germany was that they were just strong enough to create lasting resentments (poorly justified as those resentments were), but not harsh enough to prevent Germany from rapidly resuming its status as a belligerent power.

So, some bad moves on the Allied side, but not anything that justifies the absurd view by Pat Buchanan and his supporters that poor, poor Germany was shamelessly bullied and forced into doing what it did under Hitler.

[FinnAgain]

@Scylla

I’ve read Mein Kampf and it’s not unreasonable.

@Scylla

I said Mein Kamp was reasonable.

@Scylla

In my original post on the subject (post 24) I said Mein Kampf was “not unreasonable,” […]I don’t see how you can intelligently say I’m prevaricating when I claim that’s what I said.

Drunken apologists for the “reasonableness” of Hitler’s prose who also admit to voicing arguments which they know not to be true (I wish there was a word to describe that behavior…), should probably at least keep tally of their various dodges and bits of bait.

@Frylock

Scylla has the point here. Even when repeating a single quote, you cite the work you got it from.

I did. It’s from Mein Kampf, which I said.
If, for instance, you wanted to find a quote from the bible about wine and and took them from a concordance, you’d be will within rights if you cited the bible as their source. Because, it is.

If you then cited those quotes out of the concordance, only an idiot would accuse you of “stealing” them and “plagiarizing”.

But of course, while defending the eminently “reasonable” magnum opus of Adolph Hitler and shitting at everybody who pointed out that he hadn’t justified his claim or really defined his terms, I could expect Scylla to get a bit bombastic. This is the same internet tough guy who liked to accuse people of being “traitors” during the Bush years, after all.

Then again, he’s still lying about the actual contents of Mein Kampf. Much like he put forward a quote to prove the “reasonableness” (No, “not unreasonableness!”, no “reasonableness!”, no “not unreasonableness!”) of Mein Kampf and then admitted that he himself thought it did no such thing, but he was just posting stuff he didn’t believe in in order to argue with people. Much like his ‘mistake’, until I pointed it out, that Hitler was objecting to Marxism and not inextricably linking Marxism and the Jews.

Much like Scylla is still trying to distort what Hitler actually said about Marxism and Jews.
Scylla is relying on one single, quote, out of context, to make his apologia for Mein Kampf work. This quote:

It was during this period that my eyes were opened to two perils, the names of which I scarcely knew hitherto and had no notion whatsoever of their terrible significance for the existence of the German people. These two perils were Marxism and Judaism.

Of course, if we read further…

Knowledge of the Jews is the only key whereby one may understand the inner nature and therefore the real aims of Social Democracy.

What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the activities of the Jews in certain branches of life, into the mystery of which I penetrated little by little. Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.

In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the moment I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in literature and the theatre.

Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected. It was worse than the Black Plague of long ago. And in what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally, the lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic products the more inexhaustible his
fecundity. Sometimes it went so far that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his filth directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this connection we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One ought to realize that for one, Goethe, Nature may bring into existence ten thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers in poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could not be avoided, that
the greater number of the Jews seemed specially destined by Nature toplay this shameful part.

Then something happened which helped me to come to an early decision. I began to see through the meaning of a whole series of events that were taking place in other branches of Viennese life. All these were inspired by a general concept of manners and morals which was openly put into practice by a large section of the Jews and could be established as attributable to them. Here, again, the life which I observed on the streets taught me what evil really is.

The part which the Jews played in the social phenomenon of prostitution, and more especially in the white slave traffic, could be studied here better than in any other West-European city, with the possible exception of certain ports in Southern France. Walking by night along the streets of the Leopoldstadt, almost at every turn whether one wished it or not, one witnessed certain happenings of whose existence the Germans knew nothing until the War made it possible and indeed inevitable for the
soldiers to see such things on the Eastern front.

A cold shiver ran down my spine when I first ascertained that it was the same kind of cold-blooded, thick-skinned and shameless Jew who showed his consummate skill in conducting that revolting exploitation of the dregs of the big city. Then I became fired with wrath.

I had now no more hesitation about bringing the Jewish problem to light in all its details. No. Henceforth I was determined to do so. But as I learned to track down the Jew in all the different spheres of cultural and artistic life, and in the various manifestations of this life everywhere, I suddenly came upon him in a position where I had least expected to find him. I now realized that the Jews were the leaders of
Social Democracy. In face of that revelation the scales fell from my eyes. My long inner struggle was at an end.

I gradually discovered that the Social Democratic Press was predominantly controlled by Jews. But I did not attach special importance to this circumstance, for the same state of affairs existed also in other newspapers. But there was one striking fact in this connection. It was that there was not a single newspaper with which Jews
were connected that could be spoken of as National, in the meaning that my education and convictions attached to that word.

Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous stuff.

From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews.

I recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that
most of them belonged to the Chosen Race–the Social Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries of the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the row of names–Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellenbogen, and others. One fact became
quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for months past. I was happy at last to know for certain that the Jew is not a German.

Urged by my own daily experiences, I now began to investigate more thoroughly the sources of the Marxist teaching itself. Its effects were well known to me in detail. As a result of careful observation, its daily progress had become obvious to me. And one needed only a little imagination in order to be able to forecast the consequences which must result from it. The only question now was: Did the founders foresee the
effects of their work in the form which those effects have shown themselves to-day, or were the founders themselves the victims of an error? To my mind both alternatives were possible.

If the second question must be answered in the affirmative, then it was the duty of every thinking person to oppose this sinister movement with a view to preventing it from producing its worst results. But if the first question must be answered in the affirmative, then it must be admitted that the original authors of this evil which has infected the nations were devils incarnate. For only in the brain of a monster, and
not that of a man, could the plan of this organization take shape whose workings must finally bring about the collapse of human civilization and turn this world into a desert waste.

Such being the case the only alternative left was to fight

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this it takes away the very foundations of human existence and human civilization. If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know, with the result that the inhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear.

Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago.

And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.

And as should be glaringly obvious, either Scylla didn’t actually read the book, or he has read it and is deliberately trying to distort and hide what Hitler actually said and what his arguments actually were. It’s anybody’s guess as to how Scylla can read the book and come to the conclusion that “Marxism, not jews are what appears to Hitler to be the most serious threat.”

Equally obvious is that Scylla is being, to put it mildly, just a bit less than honest when he claimed that a representative quote about the evil of the Jews didn’t count because “He doesn’t spend that much time on Jews, and so no, the quote is not representative of the book.” Anybody reading the book will see that it’s 100% clear and unambiguous that Hitler lays most of the ‘problems’ he’s fighting against at the feet of the Jews. Deliberately, methodically, and repeatedly.
One words how Scylla managed to miss such a fact.

Much like one wonders how Scylla states that nationalism is Hitler’s goal, while forgetting (by accident, we can be assured) that Hitler says nationalism is necessary precisely due to a need to combat the Jews.

Therefore Protestantism will always take its part in promoting German ideals as far as concerns moral integrity or national education, when the German spiritual being or language or spiritual freedom are to be defended: because these represent the principles on which Protestantism itself is grounded. But this same Protestantism violently opposes every attempt to rescue the nation from the clutches of its mortal enemy; because the Protestant attitude towards the Jews is more or less rigidly and dogmatically fixed. And yet this is the first problem which has to be solved, unless all attempts to bring about a German resurgence or to raise the level of the nation’s standing are doomed to turn out nonsensical and impossible.

Etc… Of course, one of Scylla’s original, curiously mistaken claims about Adolph Hitler’s work was that “Marxism, not jews are what appears to Hitler to be the most serious threat”.
Of course, when he was caught in the fact that Hitler was actually saying that Jews are the primary threat, in part due to their weapon, Marxism, he began crowing about “plagiarism.” Much like how Scylla ignores that Hitler raging against the Jewish creation-and-plot-of-Marxism is exactly one of the reasons that the German people must ‘defend’ themselves with nationalism.

How is it that Scylla repeatedly managed to miss the actual arguments of Mein Kampf and just happened to distort them and argue for its, erm, “not un-it-is-reasonable-ness”?

~shrugs~

[FinnAgain]

@FinnAgain

One words how Scylla managed to miss such a fact.

Or even, one wonders.

[Scylla]

Finnagain:

For one who was earlier accusing me of being an asshole, you certainly are quick with the specious accusations of drunkenness and calling me a Hitler apologist. I don’t see how you can do either in good faith.

But, I care little for the judgement of a plagiarist who steals the work of others and then presents it as his own… as you have done.

Finally, that is combined with your sheer idiocy. I agree that Hitler blames Marxism on the jews. I agree that he blames pretty much everything on the Jews. None of this contradicts the fact that he spends the vast majority of the book talking about other things than the Jews. The jews are simply the scapegoat that gives him the justification to do all these other things and talk about all these other things that he wants to do and talk about. As such, if you think that Jews are the central theme to the book, you’re mistaken. They are simply the excuse for his brand of militant evil nationalism.

So, when you bring up some quotes you’ve lifted from another cite wherein Hitler blames the Jews, you’re not contradicting my argument that the bulk of the book is spent on other subject matter.

Btw, what translation are you reading from? I no longer have my Ford translation, but I found a Moore translation.

[FinnAgain]

Of course, objectively you are an apologist for Hitler which is why you’ve done your little song and dance on how “reasonable” his magnum opus was. It doesn’t surprise me we’ve found yet another common English word whose definition you don’t know. Writing in defense of the “reasonableness” of Mein Kampf is, indeed, serving as an apologist for it.

Now, a rational person might point out, as Magellan did, that Hitler was effective. You claimed, on the other hand, that his screed was reasonable. Big difference.

One you’re either too drunk, or too vile, to acknowledge. I’ve been giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you’re just fucking hammered.

@Scylla

But, I care little for the judgement of a plagiarist who steals the work of others and then presents it as his own… as you have done.

Why don’t you next rail about how someone finding quotes in Bartlett’s and citing them as an individual author’s work is “plagiarizing?” Or someone who finds specific passages via a concordance is “plagiarizing”. It makes about as much sense as your splooge about how someone who finds a set of quotes is “plagiarizing” if they select some of those quotes.

Come on Professor Jackass, please request to see my Works Consulted page along with the full bibliography and make sure that it’s in APA format.

Of course, your dodge about my fictional “plagiarism” is there so you can avoid addressing the fact that you were lying about how MK talked about Marxism, Judaism, and why exactly you were lying about it in the first place. It’s now been several posts, and I’ve had to drag it out of you, while you’re kicking screaming and most unpleasantly, whining. After first claiming that they were totally different.

Now you’re at least admitting that Hitler saw the two as inextricably linked, but you’re still full of shit.

@Scylla

I agree that Hitler blames Marxism on the jews. I agree that he blames pretty much everything on the Jews. None of this contradicts the fact that he spends the vast majority of the book talking about other things than the Jews.

Do you normally contradict yourself one sentence to the other and tie yourself up in such obvious knots, or is it only while offering up an apologia for Hitler’s politics?
If he’s blaming most of the problems he’s talking about on the Jews, then when he’s talking about those problems he’s talking about the actions of the Jews. Your little dodge rings hollow.

@Scylla

The jews are simply the scapegoat that gives him the justification to do all these other things and talk about all these other things that he wants to do and talk about. As such, if you think that Jews are the central theme to the book, you’re mistaken.

Again, do you normally contradict yourself one sentence to the other? If the Jews are the reason he gives do to all the other things he talks about, then they’re the central theme. You’re really not normally this stupid, I honestly am curious as to just how drunk you are, and how you’ve managed to keep drinking for a couple days straight. It is a weekend, but still… think of your liver.

@Scylla

They are simply the excuse for his brand of militant evil nationalism.

You mean the evil “but scarily intelligent and reasonable within its own context as a piece of propaganda”. I’m sure you really meant to say “not-unreasonable”. Of course, pointing out to you again the difference between “effective” and “reasonable” will probably be wasted as you seem to be, well, pretty damn wasted.

@Scylla

So, when you bring up some quotes you’ve lifted from another cite wherein Hitler blames the Jews,

Ahhh yes, those quotes I ‘lifted’. From Mein Kampf. But they were totally part of a larger collection that someone else provided! And I really should have provided a Works Consulted page in addition to my Works Cited page, both in APA format.
You sad little drunk.

@Scylla

I no longer have my Ford translation, but I found a Moore translation.

Gee… so the text you cited as being from Mein Kampf was really from a specific person’s translation that you didn’t credit. Possibly even from a specific website that ~gasp!~ listed quotes from MK. How horrible, finding quotes online and listing their source as the book they’re quoted from! Obviously a grave case of plagiarism.

I will throw you a bone though. I’ve quoted from the only English translation ever specifically authorized by the Nazis.

Anyways, ext time, instead of being a whiny little bitch about being an apologist for Hitler’s politics, or I suppose a druken, contrarian asshole just posting to be a schmuck, why don’t you just launch into an impassioned, rather than cowardly and dishonest, screed about how very “reasonable” you believe Hitler’s politics in Mein Kampf are? Not this rankly cowardly display. If you’re going to be a motherfuck for Mein Kampf, fly your flag high.

[Scylla]

That’s enough for me.

[FinnAgain]

It’s okay Scylla. I’ll just wait until you get drunk enough to post your next great revelation: Mao’s Little Red Book, Really Quite Reasonable But Wrong On A Few Particulars.

P.S. Still no cite for the quote you offered us, which by the standards of your own whine, you plagiarized?
Drunken janus-faced jackass apologist.

[Jackmannii]

Nah, I don’t think he was drunk.

It was just another case of Scylla blowing smoke down into the Leftists’ Burrow to see what might come running out. The problem is that it’s not just the Left that doesn’t buy the Hitler apologists’ act.

I don’t think he expected such caustic and accurate blowback. The petulance and martyrdom act are unusual.

Better luck next time.

[GIGObuster]

The last time I locked horns (Or is it tentacles?) with Sylla was a recent heath care thread where he told us that:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11431858&postcount=37

@Scylla

Hitler’s Nazi party was the National Socialist party, and they did promote universal healthcare. It was, Rush argues the entry point into totalitarianism. Nationalizing health care gives the government control over every aspect of your life. It makes it all the government’s business, what you eat, how you exercise, how often you go to the doctor, who gets health care. The government gets control over it all.

So, to correct Pelosi, Reid, et al. nationalizing healthcare is much more of a fascist move than protesting said takeover.

After I mentioned that that made no sense, he declared that whoever did not understand had head trauma.

Anyway, the reason why I mention that is that **Scylla **has demonstrated before his industrial strength ignorance regarding Hitler and German history. For it was Bismark, decades before Hitler showed his mustache, the one that gave health care to all Germans.

Other posters told that to Scylla later, and I even mentioned it to him in a different thread, but he never apologized.

I will always wonder how that works for right wingers. How is it that they believe that Hitler was an evil leftist, but he had reasonable ideas…

[FinnAgain]

Sure, some of this is surreal:

“Hitler was very reasonable when it came to Marxism.”
“Wait, what? His whole argument was that Marxism was part of an evil progression orchestrated by Jews that would lead to the end of humanity.”
“Well, yeah, other than that.”

But other than that weirdness, it’s annoying because there really is a legitimate discussion to be had here. Hitler really was almost preternaturally able to whip up emotion, motivate and unify the country, get people to adhere to a central doctrine and a central leader, control the course and nature of the discussion, etc, etc, etc. In terms of national politics I believe he was a true political genius (in terms of international politics he was, however, not).

It’s a fascinating discussion over how and why Hitler proved to be exactly the right person to work such a change in Germany. We can, certainly, agree that his reasoning was specious and paranoid, his solutions deranged and evil and his plan and its effects both the depths of methodical villainy that modern society has ever seen.

But we don’t have to go to the loony step of claiming that his politics were reasonable. They weren’t. What they were is diabolically effective, and that’s quite another issue entirely.

[elucidator]

Shit, I’m still trying to wrap my head around when he told us Charlie Manson was a leftist.

Thing is, with Scylla, he can be sweet as pie with a dumbass, he pats them on the head with an affectionate avuncular air, and he is very generous with instruction. As long as you play Grasshopper, he’s cool.

[FinnAgain]

Yeah, but if you listen to the subliminal messages in Helter Skelter you’ll see that they’re really quite reasonable.

[elucidator]

Aside, non-relevent, just for shits and giggles…

Always thought Helter Skelter was a Lennon thing. Turns out, it was all McCarthy, he thought he was showing he wasn’t just some cute choir boy, he could write hard-ass rock just as good as the Stones or the Who.

That may very well be a true story, its quite possible you could look it up.

[VarlosZ]

You guys do know that “reasonable” isn’t necessarily a compliment, right? It doesn’t mean that the thing being described is any good. It can be just a description of method.

For instance, if someone says:

But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

. . . that is a “reasonable” argument, in that it’s epistemological underpinning is logic. If P then Q. Not Q, therefore not P. That it is a reasonable argument does not stop it from being crap.

OTOH, if I say, “Hitler was uniquely monstrous and is deserving of our scorn,” that is an entirely emotive, unreasonable statement. It is also true.

@elucidator

Always thought Helter Skelter was a Lennon thing. Turns out, it was all McCarthy, he thought he was showing he wasn’t just some cute choir boy, he could write hard-ass rock just as good as the Stones or the Who.

That may very well be a true story, its quite possible you could look it up.

It’s true, basically. McCartney wanted to commit to tape something as loud and massive as the stuff The Who and others were doing. What a lot of Americans don’t know is that a “helter skelter” is a spiral playground slide. Paul, being Paul, wrote a heavy metal song about child’s toy.

ETA: Link.

[FinnAgain]

@VarlosZ

You guys do know that “reasonable” isn’t necessarily a compliment, right?

Yes, it is.
Rather clearly by connotation and also via denotation. Adopting the trappings of logic does not make something logical, making shit up to put into P and Q does not mean you’re being logical, it means you’re abusing logic.

@VarlosZ

It can be just a description of method.

No, it can’t. Putting something into a logical proof doesn’t make it reasonable.
“If and only if aliens are broadcasting secret instructions into my teeth (P), then my car is colored black. I have a black car, therefore ET is talking to me through my enamel.
QED.”

A valid but unsound argument is not reasonable.
Copying the methods of logic does not make an argument logical.
Or at least, that’s what a slug-creature from Sirirus tells me via my teeth.

@VarlosZ

“Hitler was uniquely monstrous and is deserving of our scorn,” […] is an entirely emotive, unreasonable statement.

No, it isn’t.
Was Hitler unique in his behavior? Well, since we haven’t had anybody else who did the same exact thing, then yes.
Was Hitler monstrous in his behavior? Yes, the methodical extermination of millions of human beings is monstrous.
Does that methodical extermination make someone worthy of our scorn? Yes, it does.

Quite reasonable.

Is “The Jews control communism and are an evil cancer who are going to destroy the world and thus we must stop them via Nazism.” a reasonable argument?
No, it’s not.
Even though it contains a given and a deduction from that given.

[FinnAgain]

Or, let’s put it another way.

Let’s assume that you’re trying to figure out where to put your retirement money and how it should best be invested. You visit a local firm and find the fund manager swinging from the ceiling, naked. He informs you that since there are magic pixies who live in his penis, he can guarantee you he’ll visit many cheap prostitutes with your money. And thus, you will earn an 800% return on your investment, since everybody knows that pixies spontaneously produce gold when in the vicinity of unprotected sex with a disease ridden prostitute.

Of course, that can all be expressed in the form of a logical proof.

Is your statement when you walk out of his office “My, what a reasonable investment strategy?”

[VarlosZ]

Never mind, you’re simply arguing semantics, insisting that there’s only one way to use that word, and therefore you’re right because that’s what the word means. I guess I asked for it.