To Fidel Castro by Pablo Neruda

[prendrelemick]

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

I can't, neither of us have ever said torture was ok. I was responding to your pp by agreeing with you.

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

I thought it was an error in reasoning that renders an arguement invalid.

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?

Ok then, He was a torturer who did some good things for his country.

[Pompey Bum]

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.

I disagree. A free society requires justice, not anarchy. But you are right that no society is perfectly free. That only makes freedoms (like the freedom of speech) more precious and worthy to defend.

I feel like Sinbad, fighting three at a time.

[prendrelemick]

I can't type fast enough to keep up Loving this all the same.

[Pompey Bum]

I thought it was an error in reasoning that renders an arguement invalid.

It is. Two wrongs don't make a right is an actual logical fallacy.

Ok then, He was a torturer who did some good things for his country.

And as you and I agree, any good he did does not justify his tortures and murders, because (as you have said), they are always wrong.

[Pompey Bum]

I can't type fast enough to keep up Loving this all the same.

Yeah, I didn't sleep last night, but I reckon my logic is still good enough. Where did Danik go?

[prendrelemick]

Ok I think what I've been driving at is that Christian adage, let him without sin cast the first stone. (not Pompey but western Governments and commentators I hasten to say.) America has been stone chucker in chief for a very long time, so I do think it is justifiable to point out its own similar wrongdoings when discussing Cuba. Also pertinent is - Do not judge lest ye be judged, who guards the guards and pot,kettle, black.

[prendrelemick]

It is. Two wrongs don't make a right is an actual logical fallacy.



And as you and I agree, any good he did does not justify his tortures and murders, because (as you have said), they are always wrong.

Justification is another argument - I suspect I may have to agree with you there.

How many rights and wrongs make a right? is it 3:1?

[JCamilo]

I disagree. A free society requires justice, not anarchy. But you are right that no society is perfectly free. That only makes freedoms (like the freedom of speech) more precious and worthy to defend.

I feel like Sinbad, fighting three at a time.

But imposed laws or not are not something that will lead or grant anarchy. If you, me, Jack, Gilliam and Hank each impose a law, we are creating chaos, no? Of course, if you mean political anarchy, it is something more libertarian than chaotic. But yeah, the point is that there is no society perfectly free (it is the objective and in your question it was already stabilished) and the form - either by individual efforts or by public efforts or both - it will be achived depends on the state of the society you are dealing with. Also, let's not fail for the easy trap of the great freedom in england and the lack of freedom in india, china, south africa, etc. It is always easy to be clean if you throw your garbage on the neighbour yard.

[Pompey Bum]

Grrrrr. Told you I haven't slept.

[Pompey Bum]

Ok I think what I've been driving at is that Christian adage, let him without sin cast the first stone. (not Pompey but western Governments and commentators I hasten to say.) America has been stone chucker in chief for a very long time, so I do think it is justifiable to point out its own similar wrongs when discussing Cuba. Also pertinent is - Do not judge lest ye be judged, who guards the guards and pot,kettle, black.

No we are not driving at that adage. Jesus was defending a woman from a crowd that was going to murder her, not enabling her murders by saying, "Oh, it's all right. I mean, I'm going to bring the Apocalypse, right? I mean, who am I to judge? Cast away!" You may put faith in any saying you like and interpret it accordingly, but unless you've got a real point to make, the argument's over (which I wouldn't mind since I've been up all night and I need to decide whether to go to sleep or make breakfast).

[Pompey Bum]

Justification is another argument - I suspect I may have to agree with you there.

Justification is by Grace alone. (So just stop trying. )

How many rights and wrongs make a right? is it 3:1?

Here you go, man. Nighty-night.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...s-Make-a-Right

[Pompey Bum]

But yeah, the point is that there is no society perfectly free (it is the objective and in your question it was already stabilished) and the form - either by individual efforts or by public efforts or both - it will be achived depends on the state of the society you are dealing with.

Fidel Castro tortured and murdered dissidents because it gave him more power if he extirminated their ideas. It is circular to argue that the state to which he and Batista reduced Cuba proves that Cuban society was at a state in which murder and torture were necessary components. They weren't. They were just conveniences to which two killers availed themselves (three if you count Raul).

Oh hell, I may as well have breakfast now.

[YesNo]

There is also freedom not to speak I hope.

That's a good point. Free speech also includes the freedom not to speak even if one is taunted or bullied to respond. That actually shows a lot of emotional control.

[Pompey Bum]

Stop taunting Prendrelemick!

[JCamilo]

Fidel Castro tortured and murdered dissidents because it gave him more power if he extirminated their ideas. It is circular to argue that the state to which he and Batista reduced Cuba proves that Cuban society was at a state in which murder and torture were necessary components. They weren't. They were just conveniences to which two killers availed themselves (three if you count Raul).

Oh hell, I may as well have breakfast now.

Well, Fidel was an inteligent man, I do not think he ever believed he killed people to kill ideas ,rather the men who fought for ideas that he saw were against his vision of Revolution. I do not think it is necessary to be very bright to not insist in killing ideas, but maybe you are just hungry when you wrote

Fidel, as most revolutionaries, never stop fighting. In the case of Cuba, of course, they had to keep fighting for much longer than necessary. That was his mindset, sort like those former athletes who keep trash talking to each other on TV - they keep playing. I think his logic was more in like "It is illegal to be against us" and with time this softned a lot. He was of course contraditory, his ideal is one thing, his pratical side another. I do not enjoy, aprove, defend (if I justify, this does not mean I think the justification make it ethical, only helps me to understand why) torture or murder, but the overal simplification of Fidel as Hero or Monster is a mistake. He was both.