Sunday, April 26, 2009

Synopsis of a debate

"Western Civilisation - Worth Defending?" (, April 26, 2009):
A big part of the answer lies in one's assessment of the value of that civilisation - and its intrinsic strength/resilience.

If you think that something is wrong-headed and decadent, you might be disinclined to defend it even if it has some strengths you quite like - the more so if you think that the forces lined against it are bound to prevail.

Likewise even if you are the greatest champion of something, you might well not want to die defending it if you think the cause is hopeless. On the other hand, if you think that something is much stronger than it may currently look, you might argue that those clamouring for robust defensive moves are overdoing it and risk discrediting the cause.

... The Left want an enfeebled West to Just Give Up and submit to a new Islamisticly-inclined collectivism based on 'cooperation' on the state's terms.

Conservatives say that the West is not feeble, but needs to get back to some core values to keep the forces of extremist, nihilistic Islamisticly-inclined irrationality at bay.

I report. You decide.
[Hat tip to S.K.[

No comments: