Palin steps down as Governor of Alaska


Recommended Posts

This interpretation is borne only of an inherent contradiction in your values.

Michael,

There is no contradiction in my values.

Obviously there is, because like MichelleR you can not consider 'unpleasant' things good even if they are just, right, and necessary. Garbage is a consequence of existing in a real world with tangible material realities related to achieving things you value. Yet you are disgusted by it's existence and could never feel 'pride' at removing it. In fact what you desire is some other kind of metaphysical reality where every value is attained perfectly without any 'unpleasantness' such as trash you must take out to the curb. You desire a certain existence but deride the material requirements necessary to achieve that existence, as if some platonic ideal could form itself right out of the Aether. And you used this specific example as an equivocation to killing evil people so clearly you harbor this contradiction. Garbage is a consequence of an existence where you achieve certain material goods withing reality. Killing evil people is a consequence of an existence where you achieve certain political and philosophical goods within reality.

I have seen attitudes like what you express,

And I've seen attitudes like yours, people who live in all the fruits and comforts the efforts of those who fought for their values - and sometimes killed innocents accidentally in those struggles - wrought, but deride their actions as unjust or immoral. People who some how magically want a world which is a manifestation of all their deepest values, but without the effort required to actually achieve those values. People who champion their refusal to bow down to the 'lesser of two evils' - elevating their platonic idealism over the material reality necessary to actually promulgate their goals - wanting some perfect existence to spring from Zeus's head without the trash and death of innocents along the way. People whose adherence to abstract ideals are more important than the manifestation of their values in the real world - even though pursuing the 'best of available goods' has been the source of ALL the material and political progress the world has seen. How many people were tortured and executed during the American revolution? How many soldiers of the American revolution were conscripted? And what was borne of the American revolution but nation of conscription and slavery where women couldn't vote. My god! And yet here we are now, one of the free-est nations on the planet.

with the full dose of ignorance of events and culture you yourself admit,

No such thing was admitted, the ignorance was only of actually living in a military dictatorship. Here is a picture I took when my best friend and I best visited the grave of the CIA agent most directly responsible for Che's capture and death

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2148990&l=1ce4f5170f&id=500676324

But hey, I know nothing about South American involvement during the Cold War.

keep Americans blind to what their government has been doing in South America.

Much like platonic idealists blind to the reality they live in. If you are not omniscient nor omnipotent, than achieving values has material consequences. To reject those is to hold man up to a moral standard of omniscience.

This kind of thinking makes it easy to pass out pompous opinions about what is better for South Americans than what the South Americans know for themselves.

Nice, appealing to collectivism and group thought. I wasn't aware that South Americans had a unanimous collective idea of what is good for themselves, nor a absolute collective sense of Identity, nor that you are their official representative. I'm pretty sure Pinochet was from south america, and apparently he disagreed with at least a few thousand people about what was best. Nor was I telling them what is better for themselves. It was the Soviet Union that made every other nation of the world a battleground against communism - not the US.

Edited by Matus1976
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm done. If this miserable little creep wants to treat the systematic torture and murder of tens of thousands of innocent people like it's something out of The Lord of the Rings, he can do so by himself. I should have learned my lesson with him when he was waxing poetic about the joy of killing people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael[the Wizard Administrator]:

"Absolute freedom does not exist;

what does exist is the freedom

to choose anything you like and

then commit yourself to that decision. "

-- Paulo Coelho

(1947-) Brazilian lyricist and novelist

Just thought I would add his two cents into the discussion.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I never met Paulo Coelho and I was too late to meet Raul Seixas (the rock star he wrote songs with), since that guy was one of the young casualties of fame (and sex, drugs and rock 'n roll). But I did work with a lot of people who had worked with them both. Raul was a very colorful character and I have no doubt we would have gotten along really well. Maybe a new record had he lived. Almost all of the people I worked with who knew him told me that. (I have a thing about crazies. We seem to understand each other.) People did not talk about Paulo very much.

Anyway, after Paulo became a best-selling author (New Age stuff), he became more isolated as is natural to people who achieve fame and fortune.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asserted above that without legitimacy in its political institutions, a nation, including the US, can easily devolve into civil war. I gave the example of stolen elections as a form of illegitimacy. Michelle responded that there will always be differences of opinion politically (say between statists and free marketeers) and that this need not lead to civil war. I explained that I did not mean a difference of political opinion, but the legitimacy of the political process itself, say a stolen election. Michelle then responded that there are always close elections, and that the notion that my vote doesn't count is a result of this.

But again, close elections are not my point. The 2000 election was very close to producing violent protests, not because the vote was close, but because the Democrats were using every method from outright cheating to illegitimate post-facto changes in the election law to steal the election. This would have been a problem had it been the republicans stuffing ballot boxes, asking only for recounts in Republican leaning counties, and so forth. The potential cause for unrest was not a close election or differences in political philosophy. It was an attempted theft of an election that was the problem.

There seems to be a naive belief among many people that peaceful elections are the natural state of man, and that civil war is the result of nasty extremists who should not act because dictators like Allende were "going to fall anyway." This is naive on two counts. Dictators don't just fall out of office if they have no opposition and no one acts to push them out of office. And the existence of peaceful elections and legitimate political institutions is not the default state, not a fact of nature, not a crop that grows wild. Without men who establish legitimate political institutions, there is no state of free men. There is only anarchy which always evolves into dictatorship. States are established by men using force. They must chose to use force to establish the institutions of a free society. Free societies don't just spring out of thins air because right wing military officers refrain from overthrowing left wing dictators who were "going to fall anyway."

If a free state is desirable, then it is worth fighting for. There were 10,000 dead in the American Revolution. Many of these were loyalists. Not one of those loyalists was any where near as bad as even a green socialist, let alone a red communist. Loyalists in America were tarred and feathered, their land and property was seized, they fled to Canada in huge numbers. Certainly, compared to Che Guevarists they were good people. And although it would have been nice if the Founding Fathers could have refrained from violence and the loyalists had "fallen anyway" I am glad that these people were driven from the land, the results speak for themselves, and we should be proud of our founders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm done. If this miserable little creep wants to treat the systematic torture and murder of tens of thousands of innocent people like it's something out of The Lord of the Rings, he can do so by himself. I should have learned my lesson with him when he was waxing poetic about the joy of killing people.

Well, I had to take a break from torturing puppies and beating my wife, right? Of course, you never actually answered that very basic challenge to your philosophical position, where you said that sometimes killing was justified and right, but that it was NEVER good. THAT is the most obvious manifestation of some philosophical corruption you hold, which seems to be the same giving you this knee jerk post hoc reaction to the struggles of the Cold War. You obviously have a hard time defending such a position, so you can go ahead and make up all the nonsense you want to about me, like I'm so creepy wannabe serial killer, just to make yourself feel better about not answering a basic philosophical challenge or coming to terms with the logical implications of your own values. I should have learned my lesson when you were standing around campfires holding hands singing 'give peace a chance' flying the communist flag of North Vietnam while tens of millions of people were getting murdered and you kept right on patting your self on your own back congratulating yourself for being so morally pure.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael (Matus),

You kinda crack me up.

If you only knew my history...

In Brazil they say you are trying to teach the Lord's Prayer to the Priest.

Go forth in ignorance and peace, bro. I wish you well.

You still don't know jack about how South America works (or, I suspect, the world), but I still wish you well.

Michael

If you have points to make MSK, do so. Otherwise dispense with the appeals to the irrevocable logic of that which you have not said nor shared. Apparently you know nothing of the cold war struggles and the threat that communism posed to every single aspect of life. Funny that I know *nothing* about how world works yet I gave a presentation to the Navy War College's Strategic Studies Group for nearly two hours on the path the US Foreign Policy should follow for the next 50 years. So you can appeal to your pristine secrets of the South American world all you want, but if you want your experience to have any impact on people forming opinions on such matters you ought to consider SHARING THEM, instead of this twisted form of derision you launch against people who do not have telepathic access to your life story. But, as you say, go forth in ignorance and peace, I wish you well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matus:

She is too young to be a "you" in that Jane Fonda context. Therefore, I assume you meant the left wing type...Yes.

Let's take an apolitical situation.

A person is breaking into your house, cottage, apartment, lean too or section of inherited sidewalk in Calcutta.

There intent expressed at the top of their lungs is:

1) I am going to kill you and your woman and your kids and your dog/cat/gerbel/Japanese Fighting Fish or blow up doll.

2) You calmly kill the person with your rational volition by blowing him/her in half with the ten gauge semi automatic

shotgun you have for just such a rational volitional choice.

Folks would you feel pride?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) You calmly kill the person with your rational volition by blowing him/her in half with the ten gauge semi automatic

shotgun you have for just such a rational volitional choice.

From Wikipedia, a great place to start this question -

Pride is, depending upon context, either a high sense of the worth of one's self or one's own or a pleasure taken in the contemplation of these things. One definition of pride in the first sense comes from Augustine: "the love of one's own excellence." [1] In this sense, the opposite of pride is humility.

Pride is sometimes viewed as excessive or as a vice, sometimes as proper or as a virtue. While some philosophies such as Aristotle's consider pride a profound virtue, most world religions consider it a sin. The Roman Catholic Church lists pride as the most deadly of the seven deadly sins.

Would I feel a high sense of self worth - or, would it be elevated because of this action? NO. The action took place because of that pre-existing high sense of self worth - I value my own existence and that of my loved ones quite highly. The second definition is not applicable, since it refers only to contemplating your own sense of self worth. I'm not quite sure 'pride' could be used properly in this context, but its a squirmy word and concept. I would certainly not feel shame nor regret at such an act of self defense. If pride is the opposite of that, then perhaps I would, but pride to easily conjures up an arrogant boasting or narcissistic self absorption.

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, proud comes from late Old English prut, probably from Old French prud "brave, valiant" (11th century) (which became preux in French), from late Latin term prodis "useful", which is compared with the Latin prodesse "be of use".[2] The sense of "having a high opinion of oneself", not in French, may reflect the Anglo-Saxons' opinion of the Norman knights who called themselves "proud", like the French knights preux.[citation needed]

Interesting etymological history. 'I am of use' transformed into 'brave and valiant' could that have come from one defending their ability to be useful? e.g. 'I am a being of worth and useful, and I will continue to defend my existence' or perhaps being brave and valiant was merely one's attempt at proving one's usefullness.

It's interesting that every major religion condemns pride in all forms, and here we have objectivists who are perfectly content in feeling proper pride in every other area of their lives, but yet scoffing for some reason and feeling pride for defending the most important of all values, their own existence - why? All I am seeing here is the Christian remnant of humility and pride as a sin.

I believe Pride in it's original connotation, the of the Greek or Roman conceptions of, respectively, megalopsuchia (great sould ness, Aristotle) or severitas / magninimtas (the highest manifestation of human soul) then yes, I would feel pride. But just like selfishness, pride has been corrupted by religion and modern philosophy, and that characterization of pride is definitely not something I would feel. Either way, I think I would feel that what I did was right and just.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

The plain fact is that the USA acted like a dictator in South America for a while. You are essentially trying to defend the indefensible—that executing and torturing citizens is a necessary evil, that training dictators to execute and torture their citizens more efficiently is a necessary evil. When you defend and/or excuse people like Pinochet, that is precisely what you do.

Raping a continent like Europe did when it colonized the Americas is not a "free state" and all that other stuff you talk about. That is what the USA was actively pursuing for a while down there, using a lot of subterfuges and outright bribes.

I have no problem with applying political principles when they correspond to reality. God knows I did my share in promoting freedom down there. But you and Matus are ignoring large chunks of reality in your discourse (in addition to speculating about a hell of a lot you could not possibly know) because it does not fit the way you write that things should have been. It does not fit the principle, so blank it out, brush it aside, make excuses for it, whatever.

I see both of you in scapegoat mode and thirsty to stone the enemy you have chosen. Evaluate first, then find facts to fit it so you can cast stones. And both of you are misfiring terribly. There are kernels of truth in what you both say, but your views of the initial facts are wrong.

Until you can say "this was evil" and "that was evil," i.e., both were evil so let's clean up the mess, you will sound like apologists for dictators, torture and murder to people who know the reality there. You will not ever justify a dictator torturing and murdering its own citizens to me. That's for sure. There was never any danger so great in South America that supporting this was necessary. And there never is.

For a perfect example of what this kind of blindness does, look at what the USA did in Iran. It played the same game, it ignored the culture in the same manner, it promoted the big lie to the population, and it even did the junked infrastucture projects with bribery song and dance. And the SAVAK kept killing and torturing its citizens and the USA kept training it. When the people revolted with real hatred for the USA, that was the reason. People who ignored those realities scratched their heads in wonder.

But that is precisely the reason Iran is revolting again, except this time the USA is not involved in the secret police, so now the hatred is directed at the Islamist clerics, i.e., those who kill and torture and support the killing and torturing, promoting the big lie and all the rest.

Get it into your heads that killing and torturing your own citizens at will (for "political crimes") is evil. Period.

It does not become good when the USA government supports it.

Here are some hard facts:

1. Killing and torturing citizens for political motives (both on the anti-communist side and the communist side) is still a reality in many places.

2. The USA actively supported dictators who did this and helped perpetuate that reality.

3. The big lie does not blank it out, nor does it fool family members of people who are killed and tortured.

4. It is evil to do that.

5. People hate those who kill and torture them and their families.

Those are some initial facts that always get ignored or brushed aside in these discussions, but they will not go away.

Ever.

We can then add the danger of communism, Islamism, etc., to that mix. Those are terrible dangers, too. We cannot ignore or downplay the initial facts I just mentioned and claim to be rational. Nor can we ignore or downplay the dangers of communism, Islamism, etc., and claim to be rational.

But all I see in arguments of this kind is people doing one or the other.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) You calmly kill the person with your rational volition by blowing him/her in half with the ten gauge semi automatic

shotgun you have for just such a rational volitional choice.

From Wikipedia, a great place to start this question -

Pride is, depending upon context, either a high sense of the worth of one's self or one's own or a pleasure taken in the contemplation of these things. One definition of pride in the first sense comes from Augustine: "the love of one's own excellence." [1] In this sense, the opposite of pride is humility.

Pride is sometimes viewed as excessive or as a vice, sometimes as proper or as a virtue. While some philosophies such as Aristotle's consider pride a profound virtue, most world religions consider it a sin. The Roman Catholic Church lists pride as the most deadly of the seven deadly sins.

Would I feel a high sense of self worth - or, would it be elevated because of this action? NO. The action took place because of that pre-existing high sense of self worth - I value my own existence and that of my loved ones quite highly. The second definition is not applicable, since it refers only to contemplating your own sense of self worth. I'm not quite sure 'pride' could be used properly in this context, but its a squirmy word and concept. I would certainly not feel shame nor regret at such an act of self defense. If pride is the opposite of that, then perhaps I would, but pride to easily conjures up an arrogant boasting or narcissistic self absorption.

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, proud comes from late Old English prut, probably from Old French prud "brave, valiant" (11th century) (which became preux in French), from late Latin term prodis "useful", which is compared with the Latin prodesse "be of use".[2] The sense of "having a high opinion of oneself", not in French, may reflect the Anglo-Saxons' opinion of the Norman knights who called themselves "proud", like the French knights preux.[citation needed]

Interesting etymological history. 'I am of use' transformed into 'brave and valiant' could that have come from one defending their ability to be useful? e.g. 'I am a being of worth and useful, and I will continue to defend my existence' or perhaps being brave and valiant was merely one's attempt at proving one's usefullness.

It's interesting that every major religion condemns pride in all forms, and here we have objectivists who are perfectly content in feeling proper pride in every other area of their lives, but yet scoffing for some reason and feeling pride for defending the most important of all values, their own existence - why? All I am seeing here is the Christian remnant of humility and pride as a sin.

I believe Pride in it's original connotation, the of the Greek or Roman conceptions of, respectively, megalopsuchia (great sould ness, Aristotle) or severitas / magninimtas (the highest manifestation of human soul) then yes, I would feel pride. But just like selfishness, pride has been corrupted by religion and modern philosophy, and that characterization of pride is definitely not something I would feel. Either way, I think I would feel that what I did was right and just.

Excellent post Matus:

The Augustinian use of opposites was invalid at best.

I believe that, for example a humble man is prideful in his humility.

The Dalai Lama is clearly perceived as a humble man, by others, as well as himself, but he is also and at the same

moment a prideful man in the sense that he is the highest manifestation of human soul.

Good post.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matus--

A man who murders murderers is still a murderer. See under Dexter.

Rooting out Communism in Chile was necessary. Committing murder, mayhem, and torture in order to do so was not. Committing murder, mayhem and torture on people who were not Communists was even more certainly not necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Michael, where have I defended the indefensible? As if I revel in torture for torture's sake? I said that Allende needed removing, and asserted that even if some people are killed, the over all action may be justified. The problem is that justice only exists within a legitimate state, and that in order to establish the Chilean state the parties agreed to a new constitution and an amnesty. I can't see any good reason to torture 30,000 people. They should have been incarcerated, executed or freed, but not tortured. I would gladly have pushed your magic button to achieve a free just peace without anyone being hurt.

But the bottom line is that there must be a settlement, for in continued war there is no peace, freedom or justice possible. The settlement was only achievable through violence, and while unfortunate, so far as violence goes, 3,000 dead was not a lot. Of course, had the Communists not insisted on their dictatorship in the first place, none of there fellow travellers would have died. It is not like they had a legitimate free society and Pinochet popped up out of nowhere to kill the Jews. He came to power as a result of the long and illegal abuses of the Communists, and whatever Pinochet's culpability, (none after the amnesty) under the concept of joint and separate liabilty they bear the full blame for the results of their actions. In so far as Pinochet was morally guilty of anything, the Leftists were just as guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoth Ted

But again, close elections are not my point. The 2000 election was very close to producing violent protests, not because the vote was close, but because the Democrats were using every method from outright cheating to illegitimate post-facto changes in the election law to steal the election. This would have been a problem had it been the republicans stuffing ballot boxes, asking only for recounts in Republican leaning counties, and so forth. The potential cause for unrest was not a close election or differences in political philosophy. It was an attempted theft of an election that was the problem.

Ted, FYI--I live in South Florida, so I had in effect a ringside seat for all of that. The Republicans were just as bad as the Democrats. It was, in fact, Republicans who broke up a recount with the threat of mob violence. (And nothing that goes on in Miami-Dade County can be correctly judged unless you realize the extent that Cubans brought their attitudes to political violence with them from Cuba. In one sentence, they didn't mind it as much as those of us raised in the Anglo Saxon tradition did. That is only now fading, rather gradually, as the older members of El Exilio die off.)

But I will say that here in Florida there didn't seem to be any real threat of people turning violent over the elections. That one threat of mob violence was an orchestrated political maneuver.

Matus--it may be necessary to take the life of another human being; but that does not mean one should feel good about it. There is a rabbinical saying that being forced to kill another human being is actually a form of punishment.

Edited by jeffrey smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Smith...,

if that is your real name, now you have brought in the great and almighty

Ba'al. Here we were having a nice friendly discussion about murderers, torture,

mass murder and other Olympic sports and now with the rabbinical statement...

BA"AL WILL BE AWAKENED!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL!

Mi chamocha baalim Adonai

[Who is like Thee among the mighty, O Lord?]

:)

When you've been raised the way I was raised, quoting Tanach and Talmud to illustrate almost any point being discussed is almost second nature. Even if the religious underpinnings are thrown out, the Rabbis had lots to say that is worth listening to. (Of course, that is only when I am not quoting Shakespeare, Pope, Austen, Chaucer, K'ung Fu-Tzu, etc....

And it really is Smith. My grandfather changed it from Smid after being told his name sounded too German in the wake of WWI.

Edited by jeffrey smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff:

My good friend's dad had the Ellis Island bris. A holocaust survivor. It went from Lev - Polish to Lew. Hence, the junior high school stupidity of

Sammy Lew the Chinese Jew. No one even thought that it could ever be looked at as a slur. It was just a funny ditty. The worst is when a gentile gets the bris and he just thinks the immigration worker is like everyone in government back home...something to run from.

I love the law, so the more I know about the Talmud the better I understand the law. I only wish I spoke Hebrew, Greek and about 20 other languages, but I have more than enough to work with, lol.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not like they had a legitimate free society and Pinochet popped up out of nowhere to kill the Jews. He came to power as a result of the long and illegal abuses of the Communists, and whatever Pinochet's culpability, (none after the amnesty) under the concept of joint and separate liabilty they bear the full blame for the results of their actions.

Ted,

Horse crap.

Study Chilean history before making claims like that. I am starting to be inclined to no longer see statements like this as an innocent lack of knowledge.

And I am starting to be inclined to think you actually are an apologist for dictators, murder and torture, just so long as it is a dictator, murderer and torturer on your side.

We think very differently on this issue.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matus--

A man who murders murderers is still a murderer. See under Dexter.

That depends on how you define 'murder' vs 'killing' An executioner carying out sentance of a serial rapist murdering pedophile is not someone I would call in any rational sense a 'murderer' 'Killing' is merely an objective descriptive term. A drunk drive may 'kill' someone just as a soldier or violent criminal may. But the word 'murder' has legal and moral connotations to it that distinguish it from mere killing. A man who kills another unjustly is a murderer.

Rooting out Communism in Chile was necessary. Committing murder, mayhem, and torture in order to do so was not.

I agree on the murder and mayhem, and mostly on torture, though in those rare cases where authorities knew some knew where a bomb was, torture would have been justified. However, I have no idea how often that was the case - if at all.

Committing murder, mayhem and torture on people who were not Communists was even more certainly not necessary.

Oh, and what of people who WERE communists and actively worked to destroy the government? I find it amazing that everyone assumes that every single person Pinochet persecuted or assaulted was in fact NOT a communist. Amazing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and what of people who WERE communists and actively worked to destroy the government? I find it amazing that everyone assumes that every single person Pinochet persecuted or assaulted was in fact NOT a communist. Amazing!

Michael,

There is a thing called due process. I know this will seem incredible to you, but South American governments actually do have governments based on constitutions.

To my knowledge, political crimes were only included when dictators were in power.

I find it amazing that you think it's OK for secret police to pick up someone in the middle of the night, attach electrodes to his testicles and beat the living daylights out of him, then throw his remains in an unmarked grave, and never tell his family what happened to him just because he is a college student who said some communist things in public.

And you think that people who order that to happen should be excused because at that moment in time the victim had some poor ideas his head.

As you said, amazing!

One day you might learn that persuasion with ideas actually works. You don't persuade with secret police. You plunder with secret police. The secret police is not an instrument of cognition.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not like they had a legitimate free society and Pinochet popped up out of nowhere to kill the Jews. He came to power as a result of the long and illegal abuses of the Communists, and whatever Pinochet's culpability, (none after the amnesty) under the concept of joint and separate liabilty they bear the full blame for the results of their actions.

Ted,

Horse crap.

Study Chilean history before making claims like that. I am starting to be inclined to no longer see statements like this as an innocent lack of knowledge.

And I am starting to be inclined to think you actually are an apologist for dictators, murder and torture, just so long as it is a dictator, murderer and torturer on your side.

We think very differently on this issue.

Michael

I am sorry, but "horsecrap" is not an argument. You have to be specific as to what claims you are disputing. "Claims like that" is vague. Are you telling me that Allende, elected with 31% of the vote, put in office with a pledge to respect the people's rights, who then nationalized the banks, the copper industry, and all land over 80 acres, and who was denounced by the congress and the supreme court was legitimate and maintaining a free society? Should I snear as you do with one of your "Heh"s? I did post the article on Allende, you said "so what?" I am tempted to conclude that you have settled on your conclusion, and don't care to examine the evidence.

As for: "And I am starting to be inclined to think you actually are an apologist for dictators, murder and torture, just so long as it is a dictator, murderer and torturer on your side" That is the horse crap. What dictator is on my side? You are the one taking sides, you think South Americans are entitled to their own leftist dictaors so long as they are South American. My argument is that Pinochet did apparently do bad things, but he never would have come to power had Allende not been abusing power, and that Pinochet did restore a legitimate government, and did step down, and if you want to call Pinochet evil, then you also have to blame Allende for creating the circumstances that let an evil man come to power. How this argument amounts to the celebration of torture by dictators when they are on "my side" is not apparent to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now