Originally posted by CivilDiscourse
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Atrocities, Nazis, etc
Collapse
X
-
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
Correct (thank you for tacitly admitting your earlier claim that we were saying 1 death of an innocent is not an atrocity, was a load of balogna)Whereas you are arguing that any atrocity is the same as any other atrocity. You are the only one here putting different values on human lives.
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
Then you have been beating a strawman. No one has made the argument you claim they are making. That you are too dense to realize this is not surprising.
Why did you dishonestly snip out the rest of my post?"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
Why are you unwilling to answer the question?
You shifted the emphasis by altering the language and replied "Saying 10 murders is worse than one murder doesn't diminish the value of the one person's life. It recognizes that every life is valuable and the more lives taken the worse the tragedy." [My emphasis]
I was not referring to tragedies which may include natural disasters or accidents, nor murders per se. The term murder has an emotional connotation and may also be the end result of multiple causes. Hence I have tried not to use that term on this thread, although, on occasion I have employed it.
So let us stay with the original terms of atrocity/atrocities and the neutral term killing.
I will therefore rephrase my original question.
What criteria are you employing to make an ethical argument which contends that the atrocity of the deliberate and wanton killing of one innocent while "bad" is not as "bad" as the atrocity of the killing one hundred innocents? [N.B. Apart of course from the numbers].
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostYou do realize (because everyone else sure does) that you are the only one who is only concerned with numbers, right?Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View PostI certainly recognise that several of you are trying to rank atrocities according to the number of victims involved, arguing that 27 victims is a greater atrocity than 4 victims, 49 victims is a greater atrocity than 27 victims, 58 victims is a greater atrocity than 49 victims, 300 victims is a greater atrocity than 58 victims, 3000 victims is a greater atrocity than 300 victims, and so on. That is definitely a numbers game.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
From Sparko, Gondwanaland, and rogue06.
So although killing 1 person is an atrocity and so is killing a million, and the only difference is "the scale" - you can't ignore that scale. 1 million murders is worse than 1 murder.
A smaller atrocity is still an atrocity. Just not as large as a large atrocity.
Sheer numbers.
You have been repeatedly informed by multiple posters that it isn't merely the numbers (although that certainly is a factor).
I've mentioned this at least three times now, only for you to either ignore it or literally remove it from my post when you respond.
But at risk of being accused of over-simplifying we'll stick with just three: intent, organization, and scope.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
The horror of the Nazi regime is the mechanisation of mass murder and the horrifying mundanity of the entire thing. The railway workers who must have had some inkling of what those trains carried, staff at IG Farben that took the orders for Zyklon B, the designers of the crematoria, the SS who worked in the camps yet went home each evening to their families. That is the sheer unadulterated obscenity and nothing like that had ever been attempted in history - to turn mass murder into a production line.
However, as people seem interested in numbers and while the Nazi atrocities took place over a comparatively short period of time, the totals for other countries over much longer periods of time may well exceed that of Hitler's Germany. Just look at the numbers that died during famines under British rule in India.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostYou just can't help yourself can you? Always trying to excuse the Holocaust through Whataboutism.
I fully expect the individual famines in India [the last in Bengal in 1943] to be deemed by some here to be lesser atrocities because their estimated numbers on each occasion were lower than the estimated eleven million who perished under the Nazis."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
Given that this thread is about what constitutes an atrocity, how do you arrive at that conclusion?
I fully expect the individual famines in India [the last in Bengal in 1943] to be deemed by some here to be lesser atrocities because their estimated numbers on each occasion were lower than the estimated eleven million who perished under the Nazis.
We probably could start a thread about the Holocaust and establish a betting pool on how long it'll be before you start.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostMy aren't you the dishonest troll.
You have been repeatedly informed by multiple posters that it isn't merely the numbers (although that certainly is a factor).
I've mentioned this at least three times now, only for you to either ignore it or literally remove it from my post when you respond.
But at risk of being accused of over-simplifying we'll stick with just three: intent, organization, and scope.
I have also repeatedly requested various individuals to cite the criteria by which they consider an ethical argument can be made that the deliberate and wanton killing of one innocent is not so great an atrocity as the deliberate and wanton killing of one hundred innocents.
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
And in reply to you I have cited the Holodomor and the Armenian genocide as examples of organisation, intent and scope. One might also include the Irish famines of the mid 1800s and the Indian famines of the late 18th and the 19th centuries.
I have also repeatedly requested various individuals to cite the criteria by which they consider an ethical argument can be made that the deliberate and wanton killing of one innocent is not so great an atrocity as the deliberate and wanton killing of one hundred innocents.
And for some reason, everyone forgets how Belgium's Leopold II decided that the Congo was his personal property and waged a genocidal campaign to rid the land of "trespassers." Estimates of those killed vary (upwards of around 10 million), but nearly everyone agrees that nearly half of the country's inhabitants were slaughtered.
All of which cause My Lai to pale in comparison.
1. post-Mao leaders acknowledged that 100 million people, one-ninth of the entire population, suffered in one way or another.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostYou just can't help yourself can you? Always trying to excuse the Holocaust through Whataboutism.
What she is doing is point out the obvious - those were not the only atrocities conducted, and there are others - conducted by other nations - that are just as bad.
The moral component of those atrocities is equal.
For my own -
There are associated factors that make the third Reich's action a stand out example of evil, the uniquely unambiguous and methodical approach only being an example, but the moral turpitude involved in the pogroms are not worse than that of Communist Russia or Communist China, America, Britain, Australia, North Korea and running through older histories, just about any nation that you could care to name.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostLet's not forget Mao's Great Leap Forward (18 to 56 million killed) and Cultural Revolution (1.5 to 3 million killed[1]), Pol Pot's Killing Fields (2 to 2.5 million killed) and North Korean concentration camps (1 to 1.5 million killed) and terror starvation campaign from 1993 to 2008 (up to 1 million killed).
And for some reason, everyone forgets how Belgium's Leopold II decided that the Congo was his personal property and waged a genocidal campaign to rid the land of "trespassers." Estimates of those killed vary (upwards of around 10 million), but nearly everyone agrees that nearly half of the country's inhabitants were slaughtered.
I also note that you have likewise ignored my invitation to offer a cogent argument citing the criteria by which you consider an ethical argument can be made that the deliberate and wanton killing of one innocent is not so great an atrocity as the deliberate and wanton killing of one hundred or ten million innocents.
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAll of which cause My Lai to pale in comparison.
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
That isn't what she is doing. Her posts are uniform in condemnation of the atrocities by the third Reich.
And absolutely nobody is arguing that there haven't been other atrocities, so I'll let you chase that red herring down the rabbit hole (ah the smell of mixed metaphors in the morning).
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
You have stated that "Numbers. 1 murderbof an innocent life is an atrocity. 400 murders of innocent lives are an objectively worse and larger atrocity."[sic] Using what ethical criteria do you arrive at the conclusion that the deliberate, brutal, and wanton taking of 400 lives is "an objectively worse and larger atrocity" than the deliberate, wanton, and brutal taking of one innocent life?
Given you are demanding that I provide you this 'ethical criteria', that implies that you believe that the 1 is the same as the 400. Therefore you believe those 400 lives are worth 1/400 of that 1 life, if you hold that the 400 is not an objectively worse and larger atrocity. That's pretty sick.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
6 responses
48 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 08:38 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
42 responses
234 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:53 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
24 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Yesterday, 02:40 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
189 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
73 responses
311 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:51 AM |
Comment