Salvador Allende vs. Augusto Pinochet

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

who had better economic policies?  pinochet, obviously.

Even if we grant that that's true, that makes up for being more of a mass-murdering thug?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

who had better economic policies?  pinochet, obviously.

Even if we grant that that's true, that makes up for being more of a mass-murdering thug?

no.

But you'd still vote for him over somebody who you think had worse economic policies but was also less of a mass-murdering thug?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

who had better economic policies?  pinochet, obviously.

Even if we grant that that's true, that makes up for being more of a mass-murdering thug?

no.

But you'd still vote for him over somebody who you think had worse economic policies but was also less of a mass-murdering thug?

Less of?

Less of or, rather, not. I'm trying to convince WalterMitty that Allende was less bad than Pinochet, on the not insignificant chance that WalterMitty is one of those people who thinks that Allende was a mass-murdering thug.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The extent of the threat to humanity that existed during the Cold War and the existence of an objective 'good side' and an objective 'bad side' cannot be overstated.

Yes it can. In fact, you're doing it by saying that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The extent of the threat to humanity that existed during the Cold War and the existence of an objective 'good side' and an objective 'bad side' cannot be overstated.

Yes it can. In fact, you're doing it by saying that.

No?

Since it's distinctly possible to overstate the extent of the threat to humanity that existed during the Cold War and the existence of an objective 'good side' and an objective 'bad side', the fact that you are saying that the extent of those things was so vast as to be impossible to overstate is, itself, an overstatement of the extent of those things. I don't understand what it is that you find so confusing about that argument.

Allende's redeeming qualities were not being a mass murderer, not executing political opponents, not organizing the extralegal murder of opponents on foreign soil, not signing off on the murder of thousands of political opponents, not throwing people off of planes, not torturing 30 thousand people and not being a general psychopath.

Not doing something awful isn't a redeeming quality.

It is when compared to somebody who did something awful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It actually is difficult to grasp, since you're essentially saying that -10,000+1,000>0 (or -10,000+1,000>-1,000, if you're really insistent about Allende himself having been such a bad leader), which is of course absurd.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Redeeming qualities are redeeming qualities regardless of circumstance or other qualities.
[/quote]

Life is not lived in a vacuum. Leaders, and people in general, cannot be compared to each other in a vacuum. That is the exact opposite of the point of comparing people to each other.