Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Liberal Dilemmas

We have a wag about the office who regularly poses hilarious dilemmas for left-wingers. Here's the latest:

1. U.S. soldiers flush a Koran down the toilet.
2. It turns out they have a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.

Earnest left-winger, what should you think of this situation?

9 comments:

Tlaloc said...

In the context of a work of art I have no problem with it. In the context of torturing people it becomes a tad less understandable.

You might as well ask about beating a person for information and beating them because they like it. Context is rather important, Hunter.

Jay C. said...

I have an interesting dilemma:

1. Clever doctors have discovered the gene that inclines women to become radical femininists.

2. Advocating and supporting the abortion of those unborn females that possess that gene.

Tlaloc said...

Generally, eugenics in order to breed out certain traits is conidered abhorrent. Ultimately though the pregnant woman can have an abortion for whatever reason she wants within the timeframe allowed for an abortion.

Hunter Baker said...

Tlaloc, here's another left-wing dilemma for you. What if conservative couples started aborting unborn children with a genetic marker linked to homosexuality? Still support it?

Anonymous said...

Tlaloc said: In the context of a work of art I have no problem with it. In the context of torturing people it becomes a tad less understandable.

I'm confused. Hunter's wag apparently said nothing about torture in his dilemma. Hunter said nothing about torture in his post. So the context of the dilemma lacks torture. I took the dilemma as a jab at fact that some on the left are very solicitous of Muslim religious sensitivities while at the same time despising Christians, to the point of applauding as "art" gratuitous vulgarity like a crucifix in a vat of urine. My guess is that he had something like what we see here in mind, to wit:

What struck me about the segment was the completely biased depiction by Amanpour and Co. of the Crusades as an attack on the Muslim holy sites with nary a mention of the fact that the Crusades were a response to the earlier takeover of the Christian lands by Muslims.

Chuck

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, here's another left-wing dilemma for you. What if conservative couples started aborting unborn children with a genetic marker linked to homosexuality? Still support it?"

Support it? No. Think it's legal? Sure. As before I said that so long as they do so within the timeframe allowed by law a woman can have an abortion for whatever reason she wants. I don't have to agree with her position. In fact unless I'm the father I have no business in the decision at all.

Tlaloc said...

"I'm confused. Hunter's wag apparently said nothing about torture in his dilemma. Hunter said nothing about torture in his post. So the context of the dilemma lacks torture."

The original situation involved torture. The hypothetical "dilemma" did not, hence the difference in reaction. If an artist wants to desecrate a book as part of their art I don't care. If soldiers do it as an interrogation technique that's completely different.


"I took the dilemma as a jab at fact that some on the left are very solicitous of Muslim religious sensitivities while at the same time despising Christians, to the point of applauding as "art" gratuitous vulgarity like a crucifix in a vat of urine."

I'm sure that was his point but as before it's ill founded in a misunderstanding between art supported by a grant and a military run intelligence operation. Strangely the two have vastly different criterion. Or to put it another way I'd be pissed if a sergeatnt interrogating Hunter flushed a bible down the toilet as well.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that was his point but as before it's ill founded in a misunderstanding between art supported by a grant and a military run intelligence operation. Strangely the two have vastly different criterion. Or to put it another way I'd be pissed if a sergeatnt interrogating Hunter flushed a bible down the toilet as well.

I appreciate your last sentence, but as I read the dilemma, the original situation is irrelevant to it except as an occasion for this particular musing by Hunter's wag. I don't see how whatever humor the dilemma possesses depends in any way on the misunderstanding you cite. I see no attempt to exhonorate the flushers in the interrogation context, implied or express. I certainly don't exhonorate them.

By the way, one must wonder if the office wag is named Francis Beckwith:

After all, if 17 people were killed as a result of Christians angry about Piss Christ, Serrano and the NEA would not be blamed. The ones blamed would be the "intolerant" Christians (as they should be).

Chuck

Tlaloc said...

"I appreciate your last sentence, but as I read the dilemma, the original situation is irrelevant to it except as an occasion for this particular musing by Hunter's wag."

Without the context of the original situation there's no way to frame it as a "dilemma." The implicit claim here is "Liberals are mad that soldiers flushed a koran in an interrogation but they wouldn't be mad if an artist flushed a koran in an exhibit, that's hypocritical!" The claim is of course false, the dilemma does not really exist, but without reference to the original situation we can't even fake a dilemma on this topic.