Reply to the Art of Non-Conformity blog too long to post
Uncategorized No Comments »As those who read my blog know, I occasionally reply to others here because most blogs put a limit on the posted replies. I understand why and do not fault them, entirely, for this; but the points I make usually last more than the small boxes they want to put me. So, this is a reply to a post entitled ” Nothing Hitler Did Was Illegal ”
I have heard these argument before.
In fact, in my education and in groups on more times than I want to recall, the “What would you do if you were in Germany circa 1938?” is very familiar.
The basic elements boil down to some common things that would need to be defined.
What socio-economic level would you be from? Remember that the poor in Nazi-Germany had themselves pressed into service at the barrel of a gun and were constantly watched by each other for opportunities to rat out others to save their own families.
What race would you be from? The Jewish people were not the only ones looked upon as ‘unfit’ and were mainly used as scapegoats for the terrible poverty resulting from the loss and subsequent sanctions stemming from WWI.
Have you ever been in a argument with an armed person who points a weapon directly at you? I have, and let me tell you, your right and wrong compass has never been tested like that unless you have lived it.
As for the politics, these points seem rather thin, and definitely unsupported by both long-term and recent history.
Why don’t we have a “universal” health system that takes care of everyone ‘free’ of charge? Because ‘free’ is a fallacy. No one can give you anything without it costing someone else. Eventually, there will not be anyone else to take from because the producers are either out of supply or have moved on to a more fruitful pasture were they can be well compensated for their labor. We could do yards better by getting rid of the portability restriction and allowing true competition, by reigning in out of control lawsuits, and by allowing doctors to choose what procedures are necessary without forcing them into more expensive corners. Funny thing is, the Nazi practice was to take from one group and give to another because they were more deserving. Usually the Nazi argument is the end of all logical debate, but since it was broached by the topic, I think it fits here.
Why haven’t we changed the definition of the term “marriage” to include same-sex couples? Because the very term itself is made to define a relationship of life-long commitment between a man and a woman. The term was birthed to let other males know that the particular female they were in front of was off-limits. It would seem that the common cool kid today wants to change the definition of centuries of human history to fit their current needs. Another clear line with the Nazi party was their wonton re-writing of history to suit their wishes. If civil-unions have the same rights as marriage, fine by me; but don’t do changing the definition of a word because you feel left out, it is what it is and calling the sky magenta does not make it so.
That’s just my take, I could be wrong.