It seems wild to me to cite Schmitt and his critique of the proceduralism of the Weimar Republic without mentioning even in passing that he was a major legal architect of the Nazi regime and died in 1985 as an unrepentant Nazi. (I am getting this from Wikipedia but I already had my Wikipedia-level familiarity of Schmitt before reading this article).
It doesn’t mean his criticisms of the Weimar Republic were invalid or inapplicable to today’s governments, but I think it bears discussing that his proposed cure was literally Nazism. This is analogous to a purportedly center-left writer citing Lenin’s writings on the oppression of the proletariat in order to argue for a somewhat higher minimum wage.
I don’t believe I have committed any logical error, especially as my comment is a statement about what context is reasonable to provide which is obviously a matter of opinion. Could you clarify where I am illogical?
It seems wild to me to cite Schmitt and his critique of the proceduralism of the Weimar Republic without mentioning even in passing that he was a major legal architect of the Nazi regime and died in 1985 as an unrepentant Nazi. (I am getting this from Wikipedia but I already had my Wikipedia-level familiarity of Schmitt before reading this article).
It doesn’t mean his criticisms of the Weimar Republic were invalid or inapplicable to today’s governments, but I think it bears discussing that his proposed cure was literally Nazism. This is analogous to a purportedly center-left writer citing Lenin’s writings on the oppression of the proletariat in order to argue for a somewhat higher minimum wage.
You've demonstrated precisely the logical error that makes it prescient for me to avoid the mention.
I don’t believe I have committed any logical error, especially as my comment is a statement about what context is reasonable to provide which is obviously a matter of opinion. Could you clarify where I am illogical?