Attack of the killer liberals

DumbJon is incensed at the fact that the Chief of Defence Staff isn’t a crazy right-wing bigot.

I like the implicit mental dilemma Jon is wrestling with here. "But… the head of the army must be brave… and we know all liberals are spineless and craven… so the head of the army must have been made to lie to appease the liberals… because he couldn’t possibly believe it himself…"

While I’m visiting the more insane bits of the right, this guy manages to combine Daily Mail-reader-ish crime-paranoia (I’m seriously tempted to commit some kind of horrible crime against the next idiot who tells me they’re worried about crime – purely as a way of validating their otherwise untenable position. of course), with the most impressive strawman argument ever.

He claims the liberal mantra is "punishment does not deter". What? Many liberals believe capital punishment doesn’t significantly deter compared to life imprisonment. Many liberals believe it’s unwise to exaggerate the rationality of criminals (particularly the ones who commit the horrendous axe-beheadings, random stabbings and child-murders that stupid people use as examples of how Things In General are fucked up) and thereby assume that there’ll be a direct inverse correlation between lavels of punishment and levels of crime.

However, I’ve never encountered a liberal, socialist, communist, anarchist or leftist of any other type who believed punishment didn’t deter – in other words, who believed that people’s ability to get away with doing things had no influence on their willingness to do them. There is no such person, obviously, and it’s a sign of some combination of desperation and insanity that the author has to make them up…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by John B. Bookmark the permalink.

9 thoughts on “Attack of the killer liberals

  1. Most amusingly, that Quackgrass guy solicits donations, specifically in e-gold. And then mentions John Galt as though he were an historical figure, rather than just a name Ayn Rand would moan whilst leaning against the clothes dryer during the spin cycle.

    Otherwise, a brilliant example of a tortured argument from utterly false premises. Is there a Latin phrase for "Argument From Utter Wrongness?" I’ll check the Adam Smith institute.

  2. OK, so, in the light of your complaint against Dumbjon, what’s your reasoning behind the constant criticism of the MCB emanating from Harry’s Place? Are they crazy right-wing bigots?

    And do you believe that the point of the armed forces is to reflect cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity? Personally, I think it’s nice if they do, but it’s not what they’re there for, and I think the job of the head of the armed services is to ensure that they’re good at fighting. If anyone is to try and socially engineer the armed services, it should be the government, who are elected and who therefore can be got rid of. What if the head of the armed services decided to get black people out of the army? Would that be OK? Of course not. That’s why we have the simple principle Dumbjon mentioned: the army keep out of politics. That’s not a right-wing idea: it protects right-wing and left-wing ideals equally.

    How did you manage to infer that bravery has anything to do with it? You don’t half talk some crap sometimes.

  3. DJ was using the guy’s speech to attack his bravery: "Time was when servicemen – even Hostilities Only soldiers, yanked out of Civey St and sent in harms way – would find it in themselves to resist weeks of torture by the Gestapo. Now, the mere threat of a nasty article in the Guardian is enough for them to throw the towel in."

  4. Yeah, your point that Dumbjon could well be wrong that the Chief of Defense Staff has been pushed into this by government and that he might, rather, actually believe this crap is fair enough, but that’s hardly the point of Dumbjon’s post, is it? I thought the Guardian article bit was pretty clearly just a throwaway line. What Dumbjon is incensed by is that the Chief of Staff is butting into politics and shmoozing the MCB, a rather nasty organisation. You said that to do otherwise would make him a crazy right-wing bigot. Explain.

  5. It’s hardly ‘butting into politics’ when – in the context of trying to recruit more Muslims into the army – an army guy makes a speech saying that the army quite approves of Muslims.

    I’d question the motives and/or sanity of someone who’d hear a speech like Sir Michael’s and think "evil dhimmitude and generals meddling in politics, the world and our freedoms are going to end".

  6. But he didn’t just say that the army approves of Muslim recruits. He said that he has a personal commitment to making the armed forces reflect the ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity of British society. That’s way outside his remit. If he’d said he wanted to recruit more Muslims because they’re good at fighting, I’d have no problem with that.

    He also praised the MCB for helping to create a just and tolerant society. That’s just bollocks. Next he’ll be speechifying to the BNP, telling them what good work they’ve done to combat fascism — and you’ll be defending him.

  7. 1) Unless there is a strong reason why Muslims are unfit to serve in the Army, which there isn’t, then the Army serves us best if it ensures it takes on the best soldiers available to it, rather than discriminating on grounds of colour or religious belief. This is how every major company and institution in the UK act; it is not controversial.

    2) The MCB denounces nutters like Sheikh Omar; it’s not a BNP equivalent. Obviously, I don’t approve of it any more than I approve of other conservative religious organisations – but if we had a problem getting Catholics to join the army, I’d certainly support a recruitment campaign where the Army allied with Catholic church leaders. Actually, are we doing this kind of thing to try and get Catholics to join the PSNI?

    *thinks* You’re not confusing the MCB with the MAB, are you? I would be disturbed were the Army to meet with that lot.

  8. Oh, God, am I? I lose track of all these abbreviations sometimes. Maybe I am. I have no idea. Kill me now.

    > the Army serves us best if it ensures it takes on the best soldiers available to it, rather than discriminating on grounds of colour or religious belief.

    Yes, that’s what I’m saying. What the Chief of Staff is saying, however, is that the armed forces should discriminate on grounds of colour and religious belief.

    > Actually, are we doing this kind of thing to try and get Catholics to join the PSNI?

    Contrary to Sinn Fein’s propaganda, Catholics were rather well represented in the RUC. The only barrier to Catholics wishing to join the PSNI is the high risk of being murdered by the IRA in order to discourage Catholics from joining the police in order to make Sinn Fein’s propaganda come true.

  9. <In a Beavis and Buthead styleee> he he ha he ha Jock Strap he hah he ha Jock Stirrup he he ha ha ad infinitum…

Comments are closed.