To Fidel Castro by Pablo Neruda

[prendrelemick]

Red Terror makes exactly the point I was trying to write about (thankfully now abandoned), Cuba was put under unimaginable pressure for decades. What would've happened without that pressure? Or without Castro? We'll never know, but a glance across the Windward Passage at Haiti is a clue I think. ( That could be Castro's epitaph "Yeah, but look at Haiti".)
Each society has it's own version of history, The Cuban experience embarrassed America, and led to a deep and extrordinary enmity that lasted 60 years.
So where is the truth? Castro did bad things, America did bad things, Russia didn't help. As EP. Thompson said, you have to wait at least a hundred years before attempting to write the history of anything.

[Pompey Bum]

And as I said at the time:

that's got nothing to do with the people Castro tortured and murdered.

Because (as I also mentioned) the idea that what Castro did is okay because of what America did, or as you say...

Castro did bad things, America did bad things

...is a logical fallacy. Do we really need to do this again?

[Danik 2016]

Well, free speech is always limited one way or another, if only out of politeness and consideration for others...

To be sure, DW. For example, do we know if Cubans are reading this thread?

[Pompey Bum]

Now it's DW who won't answer my question!

How about you, Danik? Do you agree that in a free society speech restrictions based on politeness and respect for others need to be self-imposed rather than mandated by the state? As an ancillary question: would my apology to you have carried any meaning if I had not chosen to give it but was acting under constraint?

[Danik 2016]

Of course, PB. Please read my post right above you.

[Pompey Bum]

That doesn't specify whether the limitation on speech is to be voluntary or mandatory, and that makes all the difference. The voluntary limitation of speech is a freedom (the right to remain silent). But mandatory abridgment of speech that the state deems offensive is a tyranny. But from what you say we agree on this.

I was originally responding to this comment by DW:

Well, free speech is always limited one way or another, if only out of politeness and consideration for others...

My question to him (still unanswered) was:

And in a free society, DW, that kind of restriction is self-determined and not imposed by the state. Are we in agreement on that?

You there DW?

[JCamilo]

And in a free society, DW, that kind of restriction is self-determined and not imposed by the state. Are we in agreement on that?

EDIT: And he's gone! Hope he was not restricted from speaking his opinion.

That is too easy, Pompey. In a free society you do not need to impose anything. You cannot impose anything.

Now, the true question is if in a specific society. One that is not free.

[Danik 2016]

[Pompey Bum]

That is too easy, Pompey. In a free society you do not need to impose anything. You cannot impose anything.

Of course there is and of course you must. Law must be imposed for the safety of the public. We manage that with relatively few executions, but when never without a trial. Believe me, there is nothing easy about being free.

[prendrelemick]

And as I said at the time:



Because (as I also mentioned) the idea that what Castro did is okay because of what America did, or as you say...



...is a logical fallacy. Do we really need to do this again?

Killing and torture is never ok.

You seem to be saying if anyone points out some good Castro's adminstration did, they are condoning or ignoring torture. (Isn't that a Logical Fallacy too?) They are not. Your country and mine was recently involved in Extraordinary Rendition, (a fancy phrase for kidnap and torture,) does that mean we can't point out our great freedoms and achievements ?

[Pompey Bum]

I'm confused, Danik. You said above that you agreed with me. So what is your answer to these questions? (Your OWN answer, please).

How about you, Danik? Do you agree that in a free society speech restrictions based on politeness and respect for others need to be self-imposed rather than mandated by the state? As an ancillary question: would my apology to you have carried any meaning if I had not chosen to give it but was acting under constraint?

[Pompey Bum]

Killing and torture is never ok.

Can you show me where I have ever said that it is? Please be sure to include the specific killing and torture I was referring to.

You seem to be saying if anyone points out some good Castro's adminstration did, they are condoning torture?

Of course I didn't. The fallacy lies in trying to justify one wrong by pointing out someone else's wrong. That just gives you two wrongs.

Your country and mine was recently involved in Extraordinary Rendition, (a fancy phrase for kidnap and torture,) does that mean we can't point out our great freedoms and achievements ?

Correct. It was an atrocity. It does not, however, justify other atrocities. As you say, it is always wrong. In the same way, the Castro's torture and murder of political dissidents cannot be justified by pointing out the atrocities at Gitmo (which you try to do above) or with blanket statements that, hey, Cuba did some bad, but then America did some bad, too. Nor does any benefit Castro may have brought to women or the arts justify his crimes. You, of course, are free to discuss those benefits. Where exactly have I denied them?

[prendrelemick]

There is also freedom not to speak I hope.

[JCamilo]

Well, that is because you do not disagree with me.

Of course there is and of course you must. Law must be imposed for the safety of the public. We manage that with relatively few executions, but when never without a trial. Believe me, there is nothing easy about being free.

Yes, Laws must be imposed (if you imagine the public body to be something apart from the private body in a society, which I dont). But who said this was a free society, the one you mention in your original question? If you are imposing laws, you just didnt got there yet.

[Pompey Bum]

There is also freedom not to speak I hope.

If you are referring to Danik, he did speak, twice, and in to opposite effect. It's reasonable enough to ask for a clarification. If he doesn't want to talk he can just say so. But in that case why hide behind the sign?

But if you are speaking about something else, my country has a right to remain silent, and it is my understanding that yours has an only slightly limited equivalent (I'm not sure how limited). So yes, for us there is a right not to speak. Dissidents in Cuban prisons (to this day) lack that right. They are expected to talk.