Atrocities, Nazis, etc

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If you don't see a difference between one murder and twenty, you might be a psychopath.

I regard all cruel, wanton and deliberate killing of innocent people, regardless of the number of people involved, to be an atrocity. Don't you?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And? He's dead either way. "Ethically, I can't see the difference"

Not being privy to the thoughts inside Hitler's head in those last days, I cannot comment..

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I will bow to your superior knowledge regarding the gas chambers, but that doesn't change the point I was making.

And I agree that Dachau with all the camps was brutal and inhumane. However, unlike camps like Auschwitz, it was not established as an extermination camp.

[CivilDiscourse]

Not being privy to the thoughts inside Hitler's head in those last days, I cannot comment..

I can tell you the last thing that went through his head.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Excuse? No. But, I will definitely say you are trying to downplay it so that your country doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.

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.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I can tell you the last thing that went through his head.

How clever of you. Or are you referring to the bullet?

[CivilDiscourse]

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.

Time is an integral part of determining severity of an atrocity. After all, over a long enough time, your chance of dying is 100%. Therefore over a long enough time, virtually EVERYTHING has a higher death count.

[Sparko]

I regard all cruel, wanton and deliberate killing of innocent people, regardless of the number of people involved, to be an atrocity. Don't you?

Sure. And yet I can also regard the wanton and deliberate killing of 20 innocent people to be a lot worse than one. Can't you?

[Cow Poke]

Sure. And yet I can also regard the wanton and deliberate killing of 20 innocent people to be a lot worse than one. Can't you?

I think this is yet another case where she, somehow, thinks (or wishes) her position were morally superior, so that requires ignoring science, math, facts, reality...

[Sparko]

I think this is yet another case where she, somehow, thinks (or wishes) her position were morally superior, so that requires ignoring science, math, facts, reality...

Yeah she seems to be trying to say "I care so much more than you guys because to me even the killing of one person is as bad as killing a million!" and doesn't seem to see that killing a million IS worse even though killing one is bad too.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah she seems to be trying to say "I care so much more than you guys because to me even the killing of one person is as bad as killing a million!" and doesn't seem to see that killing a million IS worse even though killing one is bad too.

This attempt at moral superiority is often made by persons with really inferior morals.

[CivilDiscourse]

Yeah she seems to be trying to say "I care so much more than you guys because to me even the killing of one person is as bad as killing a million!" and doesn't seem to see that killing a million IS worse even though killing one is bad too.

Or, another way to put it is "You've killed 1, you are no worse to me if you kill another 999,999 people."

[Cow Poke]

In the case of somebody who murders another, there is always the possibility that there was little no forethought, or that it was a crime of passion, or that the person would actually be remorseful.

When you kill multiple people, all that goes out the window.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Time is an integral part of determining severity of an atrocity.

Is it? By that reasoning killing 4 million people over ten years is a lesser atrocity than killing half a million people in two years.

After all, over a long enough time, your chance of dying is 100%. Therefore over a long enough time, virtually EVERYTHING has a higher death count.

I am now being intentionally sarcastic and flippant, but one is left wondering if, and applying your reasoning, does it matter when or how people die? After all, as you so rightly note, we are all going to die anyway.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This attempt at moral superiority is often made by persons with really inferior morals.

Once again I must bow to your proficiency and expertise in such matters.