Haitians, Cats, and Red Herrings

Do Haitians eat cats?

I don't know and I don't care. I do care that the Biden-Harris administration is violating the Constitution, undermining the rule of law, and destroying the country by importing illegal aliens. That's the issue. Whether Haitians chow down on what we consider pets is not the issue, but a distraction from it. It is an example of what is called a red herring.

Paradoxically, however, the current explosion of cat-memes,  far from distracting us from the relevant issue, is drawing attention to it, namely the invasion of illegals, which is not only permitted, but promoted by Biden-Harris.  This invasion will of course continue under a Harris-Walz administration, despite Kamala's brazen lies to the contrary. 

Here is Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump, Jr. on the issue.

My tone above is polite, but for some time now I've been wondering whether we really should be polite to our political enemies.  Do any of you have an opinion on the question you would be willing to share? 

Finally, I don't really want to believe that Haitians eat cats, but then again, where are all the cats in Port-au-Prince?

Comments

[Joe Odegaard]

Churchill said that "when you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

“My tone above is polite, but for some time now I've been wondering whether we really should be polite to our political enemies. Do any of you have an opinion on the question you would be willing to share?”

This is precisely the question that I have asked myself in the last few days, and what prompted it was the friendly handshake that Trump extended to the lying moron Harris at the 9/11 commemoration ceremony in NYC. My instinctive reaction that this gesture was a grave error, both morally and politically. Why? Because this evil idiot and her ilk, the front-men of the Obama, America hating regime, have engaged in a systematic campaign designed to destroy this courageous, too generous man, and to demonize and sanction, including public censoring and imprisonment, his supporters, and to discredit all that they hold dear for almost ten years, employing all sorts of nefarious means to do so, the details of which need not be recounted here. The extension of a hand, along with other conventional courtesies, to this wicked woman and other swinish lefties sends the unfortunate signal that the normal partisan contests of yesterday year continue in our time, that the Left of today is not an existential threat to the Republic and the American way of life, that the cries of alarm raised by we on the Right are, in fact, just one more instance of exaggerated political rhetoric. Those who are responsible for evil, in word and deed, do not merit politeness, since such public treatment is in itself the cause of scandal, as it minimizes or implicitly excuses their monstrous crimes (sins for believers) and renders the battle, one which they conduct with relentless brutality, against them less serious in the public mind. Civility to the evil-doer is no virtue.

Vito

[BV]

Vito,

I am happy to receive such a provocative comment. While you and I agree politically, I wonder whether you are right tactically.

>>The extension of a hand, along with other conventional courtesies, to this wicked woman and other swinish lefties sends the unfortunate signal that the normal partisan contests of yesterday year continue in our time, that the Left of today is not an existential threat to the Republic and the American way of life, . . .<<

Kamala is indeed a two-bit dipshit, a lying moron as you say, and if she and her swinish ilk gain power, the republic we love is done for. I know that and you know that. But the masses are one or more of the following: stupid, lazy and inattentive, living in the past with long-gone political pieties, up to their axles in quotidian woes including out-of-control children, paying the bills, uncritically open to the garbage emanating from the lamestream media outlets, lost in their private lives of pleasure-seeking drinking, dancing, playing stupid games, watching spectator sports, hitting little white balls into holes, gaming, etc.

To these people, any failure on Trump's part to show the conventional courtesies to his political enemy would be taken as reinforcing the media's portrayal of him as an evil man just out for himself and for power, a dictator. a thug, etc.

So, tactically, I think he played it well in the debate. The masses -- to use a leftish term -- clueless as they are for the reasons listed, really do believe that >>the normal partisan contests of yesteryear continue in our time.<<

That is a fact that needs to be taken into consideration, tactically speaking.

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

Perhaps, you are right in placing tactical political considerations first; and perhaps a reticent but polite nod of the head, rather than a hardy handshake with a smile, would be acceptable middle way for Trump to act in the midst of a presidential campaign, one that would allay your tactical concerns, while not overly vexing me.

However, I would like to raise this question: Does the spectrum of politeness and courtesy extend to all political opponents, no matter how vile their ideology and actions? What is the cut-off point, or is their none? Does one shake hands with Brüning but not with Hitler? And if so, why the former and not the latter, given that it might have been judged in the election of 1932 that not shaking hands with this brute is tactically hurtful?

So, while I grasp the importance of what you are arguing, I recoil at the utilitarian implications of tactical reasoning.

Vito

[Joel]

I cannot disagree with Mr. Vito, but to Mr. Bill I say, "Good tactics, sir."
Never in the Bible (at least, to MY knowledge) are we exhorted to "be nice" to each other. We are, however, told to "...be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another..." Eph 4.2
The distinction between being nice and being kind may take some word study, and some serious ponderin', at least for me.

[BV]

Joel,

One may seriously doubt whether the values of the Sermon on the Mount have any application at all in the realms of politics and geo-politics. Hannah Arendt:

>> The disastrous consequences for any community that began in all
earnest to follow ethical precepts derived from man in the singular
-- be they Socratic or Platonic or Christian -- have been
frequently pointed out. Long before Machiavelli recommended
protecting the political realm against the undiluted principles of
the Christian faith (those who refuse to resist evil permit the
wicked "to do as much evil as they please"), Aristotle warned
against giving philosophers any say in political matters. (Men who
for professional reasons must be so unconcerned with "what is good
for themselves" cannot very well be trusted with what is good for
others, and least of all with the "common good," the down-to-earth
interests of the community.) [Arendt cites the Nicomachean Ethics,
Book VI, and in particular 1140b9 and 1141b4.]<<

See this Substack article of mine for context: https://williamfvallicella.substack.com/p/david-french-christianity-and-politics?utm_source=publication-search

[BV]

Vito,

You are quite right to point to >>the utilitarian implications of tactical reasoning.<< And I admit that my reasoning has a utilitarian flavor. What I argued was that Trump's dissembling, which you find morally wrong, was justified by the overriding necessity that Harris be stopped. As I see it, the republic, its Constitution, the rule of law, free speech, etc. are all hanging by a thread. So this is almost certainly our last chance, and Trump is our only hope. If Trump loses, all is lost for the cause of liberty, and the forces of tyranny will have won. And if America falls to tyranny, then the whole world succumbs.

Now if I am not mistaken, you agree with that stark characterization. If you do, then I do not understand how you can let Trump's dissembling in the face of an evildoer, dissembling which -- you believe -- is absolutely morally wrong, wrong always, everywhere, and in every possible world, stand in the way of Trump's victory and the salvation of the republic.

What I think this example shows is the limits of anti-consequentialist reasoning: there are some situations in which good consequences morally justify an action that in other situations would be deemed immoral.

[BV]

Vito,

No doubt you appreciate the relevance of what I have just said to our earlier discussions of abortion. There are some conservatives who will not vote for Trump because the Repub position statement on abortion was weakened. That makes no sense to me at all. It was due to Trump that Roe v. Wade was overturned. If Kamerad Kamalita makes into into the White House and the overturning is itself overturned, will there be fewer abortions or more? Ans: More. Does it make sense to let the unattainable best thwart the implementation of the attainable better?

Remember all the conservatives back in 2016 who refused to vote for Trump because of his lack of perfection and who chose to wait around from Mr or Ms Perfect to make the scene? I am thinking of Lydia McGrew at the moment. That mentality shows a failure to grasp the nature of the political in a fallen world. It is not about perfect versus imperfect but about better versus worse.

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

I accept your argument with regard to the “the limits of anti-consequentialist reasoning.” So, on the matter at hand, the tactic of politeness in this election season, I judge you to be right and me wrong. This is a problem that has plagued me for many years, and I have always sought to uphold a fixed moral standard, but perhaps the reality of things requires this concession, whatever the unpalatable philosophical implications.

Vito

[Joe Odegaard]

I was born in the West, the old wild west, and there is a saying here about mules; "A mule will wait 20 years for a chance to kick you."

Politeness is a tactic.

A mule understands politeness. He won't waste it.

— Catacomb Joe.

[BV]

Vito,

The problem is very difficult, so difficult that it may be insoluble. As you appreciate, we are again in the vicinity of the problem of 'dirty hands.'

Harry Truman ordered the nuking of two Japanese cities, in plain violation of Justified War Doctrine. Elizabeth Anscombe called him out on it.

[BV]

Vito,

What I was mainly concerned with when I posed the question I posed in the O.P., was my use of harsh language.

I would prefer not to use such expressions as 'two-bit dipshit,' 'scum-sucking leftard,' 'contemptible POS,' 'lying moron,' and the like, but this is a war obviously -- mostly cold at the moment but threatening to go hot -- and doesn't this fact morally justify us in using any means at our disposal to defeat those who pose an existential threat to us?

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

I have been thinking further of our exchange, and it seems to me that your use of the phrase “the nature of the political in a fallen world” gets to the heart of the matter. And this observation leads me to consider the intermediate cases, ones that involve personal moral choices that are not strictly speaking “political” but that arise out of the conditions created by the latter. For instance, we have the classic example of the person, knowing the hiding place of a Jewish child, who lies to the SS by saying that he does not. Other quasi personal counter-examples to anti-consequentialist reasoning could be offered from history, which reveal that in this shadow world, we often have no choice but choose the “better versus the worst.” The philosophical and theological implications of this truth are large.

Vito

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

“I would prefer not to use such expressions as 'two-bit dipshit, ‘scum-sucking leftard,' 'contemptible POS,' 'lying moron,' and the like, but this is a war obviously -- mostly cold at the moment but threatening to go hot -- and doesn't this fact morally justify us in using any means at our disposal to defeat those who pose an existential threat to us?”

I suppose that the answer depends a reasoned evaluation of the nature of the threat posed by political enemies and from this the morally justifiable means to neutralize it. We go back to the classic distinction between the right to kill to defend one’s life but not one’s property: The response one makes to a threat must be proportional to the danger posed by the latter. If the political threat is “existential,” and I agree that it is, then I would judge such language to be morally justifiable, but, keeping in mind your earlier response, perhaps not always tactically wise. But I am no philosopher.

Vito

[BV]

Vito @ 5:08: >>For instance, we have the classic example of the person, knowing the hiding place of a Jewish child, who lies to the SS by saying that he does not. Other quasi personal counter-examples to anti-consequentialist reasoning could be offered from history, which reveal that in this shadow world, we often have no choice but choose the “better versus the worst.” The philosophical and theological implications of this truth are large.<<

This is indeed a classical test case. To repeat what I said above: "What I think this example shows is the limits of anti-consequentialist reasoning: there are some situations in which good consequences morally justify an action that in other situations would be deemed immoral."

It simply cannot be the case that it is wrong always and everywhere and in every possible situation to tell a lie. For if one refuses to lie to the SS man, then one sacrifices an innocent child to an abstract moral principle.

Given that there are limits to anti-consequentialist moral reasoning, where do the limits lie?

Suppose that God commands that innocent human blood must never be shed. Is it better known that God exists and has issued such a command, or is it better known that Truman was morally justified in ordering the nuking of two Japanese cities?

It is plausible to argue that the first obligation of a head of state is to defend the people of his state even if this involves the ordering of actions that he knows will result in the death of innocent noncombatants.

My interim conclusion is that this problem is a genuine aporia: an impasse: there's NO WAY forward, no solution, for paltry intellects of our constitution.

My interim conclusion, tentatively, not dogmatically held.

[BV]

Vito,

I don't know if I can do better than repeat what I said in War, Torture, and the Aporetics of Moral Rigorism.

https://williamfvallicella.substack.com/p/war-torture-and-the-aporetics-of?utm_source=publication-search