scratch-mark

Blurring Distinctions

I have been on record here, many times, in support of killing terrorists (those who vow to kill us and are to be taken seriously), and by that, I mean them and their material support network. I also allow that because of the nature of this reality in which we live, it is wholly impractical to hold as a prerequisite for such self-defense that innocents can’t be caught in the crossfire. Indeed, it is primarily because of the left’s political exploitation of the fact of innocent casualties that the real villains ensure that there are civilian casualties in abundance.

The proper moral position is to morally condemn them even further for purposefully involving civilians, and not abdicating our moral duty to defend ourselves against cunning aggression that seeks to hamstring us through political manipulations.

So, this is categorized as a Kim du Toit post, and longer-term readers will recall my mini campaign which has really sort of fizzled. In truth, I can’t keep up with the guy; I have a life that’s substantially lived apart from this blog. It was only last night that I decided to scan through the 178 posts of his, sitting in my RSS reader, having been neglected since early December. I could have chosen any of a dozen posts to highlight, but in the end, I just let it all go.

Of note, there was this, and then this. But shooting a sailor for stealing a laptop and trying to sell it to a spy, and then desertion, is not materially different from shooting people who refuse to submit to a draft, if it should ever come to pass again, and I already dealt with that. In the second case, dropping a Daisycutter on a bunch of Hezbollah supporters in Beiruit, a country not party to the war, was characterized an "unworthy thought;" so I gave it a pass. I understand thoughts, though with visitors well into the six figures monthly, Kim really ought to stop and think which of his thoughts are really appropriate to put on his blog.

And then there was this. What the JDAMs and Daisycutters don’t get, in an attack on Capitol Hill he doubts "could ever be classified as ‘friendly fire,’" he has a mop up plan.


Is it too early to start the hangings?

And so I ask you: what are these brave troops fighting and dying for? To protect that kind of jingoistic rhetoric spewing out to 200,000 Republican choirboys per month who visit his site? You’re welcome to explain it to me, but I fail to see a helluva lot of difference between that, and the mobs of 7th century primitives dancing in the streets and singing "Death to America" while effigies burn.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

8 Comments

  1. Richard Nikoley on January 30, 2007 at 23:48

    Bob:

    Yea, it's a good point you make. I was more talking about the meaningless distinction of shooting a guy after-the-fact for violating a contract and stealing, or or shooting him for refusing to submit to the draft. But I'll concede your point.

    Then again, the post is entitled "Blurring Distinctions," after all 🙂

  2. bob on January 30, 2007 at 21:22

    "But shooting a sailor for stealing a laptop and trying to sell it to a spy, and then desertion, is not materially different from shooting people who refuse to submit to a draft, if it should ever come to pass again, and I already dealt with that."

    I'm having trouble seeing how the two situations are "not materially different".

    In the first case we have a man who voluntarily signed a contract that obligated him to conform to certain standards of behaviour and to be subjected to particular rules — with attendant punishment for failure to comply. In the case of a draft, we have the naked use of force to compel submission and compliance with the wishes of other people. Just how are these the same thing?

    As to your other point (is there a delta between some of the stuff du Toit spews and the mobs of 7th century primitives), not too much of a difference. I think the things he gets wrong would, in the end, overwhelm the part he gets right were his espoused philosophy allowed to rule the rest of us.

  3. John Lopez on January 30, 2007 at 21:08

    There isn't much difference in principle. After all, isn't someone who's trying to live like it's the 7th century the ultimate "conservative"?

    In practice, DuToit has enough to live for under the modern welfare state that he won't be doing more than posting empty bluster intended for the consumption of empty heads.

  4. Richard Nikoley on February 1, 2007 at 08:28

    Kim:

    I understand that you wouldn't advocate doing it literally. But some will, and this sort of hyperbole feeds into their delusions.

    Regarding caring about others' opinions, don't you think there's a meaningful distinction to draw between caring whether people accept your truthful, reasoned writings, and caring whether they are concerned over hyperbole that's truly not funny?

    Do you think that those who would drop a daisycutter on a crowd of non-combatants — or, more likely, heartily advocate someone else doing it — are likely to recognize your posts as hyperbole?

  5. Kim du Toit on February 1, 2007 at 06:30

    Re: the mass hangings.

    Consult the word "hyperbole" in the dictionary. It's a device I use often, especially when it comes to liberals, nooses, utility poles and laughing Republican children armed with .22 rifles.

    See also the sub-categories entitled "humor" and "dramatic effect".

    Also note the post">http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/single/10175/">post appearing today, in which I express how little I care about the opinions of others about my writings.

  6. Richard Nikoley on February 1, 2007 at 14:17

    Kim:

    I'm certainly not trying to make the case you would be responsible, or that any restrictions should be forced upon you.

    Elegance and nobility begins by you taking your own responsibility, whether it would ultimately make any real difference or not.

  7. Kim du Toit on February 1, 2007 at 11:42

    Richard,

    I'm not responsible for the actions of others. The precautionary concept leads to silence, and also leads to bullshit like "only responsible writers should be published / have the right to publish."

    Anyway, if some nutcase is going to go haywire, I doubt very much whether my poor rhetoric would be the catalyst.

  8. John Lopez on February 3, 2007 at 08:33

    Bob,

    "In the first case we have a man who voluntarily signed a contract that obligated him to conform to certain standards of behaviour…"

    It was a faux contract, and thus irrelevant to the situation. It's true I'd have little sympathy for such an individual, but it's unclear that he's committed any moral crime.

    "I think the things he gets wrong would, in the end, overwhelm the part he gets right were his espoused philosophy allowed to rule the rest of us."

    It's more than that. The political power that DuToit pretends to wield in the ballot box has a corrosive effect on individuals if they ever actually get it. Even if his intentions were good and even if the things he wanted weren't malign, DuToit couldn't start to impose his plans via the government without committing crimes on a massive scale.

    I wouldn't trust you with such power, and I wouldn't trust Nikoley with it. I wouldn't trust myself with it – I'd abdicate it if I judged it were safe to do so.

    What DuToit fundamentally gets wrong is lusting for such power in the first place. Everything else is secondary.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780