Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 02 Mar '13 22:24 / 1 edit
    In another thread, some writers seemed unable to understand that the fact that
    Hitler hated some people and devalued their lives does *not* mean that Hitler
    must have hated and acted cruelly toward every other person in his life.
    Hitler, a vegetarian, also seemed sincerely concerned about animal welfare.

    "In 1933, the German government enacted the world's most comprehensive
    animal protection legislation. Among other things, the law forbade any
    unnecessary harm to animals, banned the inhumane treatment of animals in
    the protection of movies, and outlawed the use of dogs in hunting. It banned
    docking the tails and ears of dogs without anesthesia, the force-feeding of fowl,
    and the inhumane killing of farm animals. Adolf Hitler signed the legislation on
    November 24, 1933. This was only the first in a series of Nazi animal protection
    acts. In 1936, for example, the German government dictated that fish had to be
    anesthetized before slaughter and that lobsters in restaurants had to be killed
    swiftly."
    --Hal Herzog (Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, p. 58)

    After forbidding Jews to own pets, the Third Reich followed legal procedures in
    humanely putting to death many animals that had been owned by German Jews.
    Similar consideration ('humane death' was not given to the Jews themselves.
  2. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    02 Mar '13 22:34
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In another thread, some writers seemed unable to understand that the fact that
    Hitler hated some people and devalued their lives does *not* mean that Hitler
    must have hated and acted cruelly toward every other person in his life.
    Hitler, a vegetarian, also seemed sincerely concerned abut animal welfare.

    "In 1933, the German government enacted the wor ...[text shortened]... German Jews.
    Similar consideration ('humane death' was not given to the Jews themselves.
    There's an old joke about the English being kinder to animals than people. Although that refers more to the gentry and their horses.
  3. 03 Mar '13 16:40
    More fodder for the upcoming BBC documentary "Hitler the misunderstood man who loved puppies and never raped anyone". How many John Wayne Gacy paintings do you own Duchess?
  4. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    03 Mar '13 17:09
    The price of rhino horn makes that particular animal much more valuable than the majority of human lives. Elephants are probably worth more than most people too.
  5. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    03 Mar '13 17:31
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    The price of rhino horn makes that particular animal much more valuable than the majority of human lives. Elephants are probably worth more than most people too.
    Bad news for an animal to be valued more dead than alive though.
  6. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    03 Mar '13 17:32
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Bad news for an animal to be valued more dead than alive though.
    This is not an evangelistic calculus.
  7. 03 Mar '13 17:40
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In another thread, some writers seemed unable to understand that the fact that
    Hitler hated some people and devalued their lives does *not* mean that Hitler
    must have hated and acted cruelly toward every other person in his life.
    Hitler, a vegetarian, also seemed sincerely concerned about animal welfare.

    "In 1933, the German government enacted the wo ...[text shortened]... German Jews.
    Similar consideration ('humane death' was not given to the Jews themselves.
    I suppose the question is, what do you value and why?

    Are human beings different than the rest of the animal kingdom? Do they have an innate value above the rest of the animal kingdom?

    For men like Hitler the answer is no. In fact, Jews, even though human, had the lowest value of all.
  8. 03 Mar '13 19:47
    Originally posted by whodey
    I suppose the question is, what do you value and why?

    Are human beings different than the rest of the animal kingdom? Do they have an innate value above the rest of the animal kingdom?

    For men like Hitler the answer is no. In fact, Jews, even though human, had the lowest value of all.
    Hitler was a nutty control freak. There is nothing to be gained by the study of his contradictory values toward humans and animals. Better to study the history of his struggle to power so we may avoid it in the future.
  9. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    03 Mar '13 22:51
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In another thread, some writers seemed unable to understand that the fact that
    Hitler hated some people and devalued their lives does *not* mean that Hitler
    must have hated and acted cruelly toward every other person in his life.
    Hitler, a vegetarian, also seemed sincerely concerned about animal welfare.

    "In 1933, the German government enacted the wo ...[text shortened]... German Jews.
    Similar consideration ('humane death' was not given to the Jews themselves.
    Why are you telling us about this?
  10. 03 Mar '13 23:11
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    The price of rhino horn makes that particular animal much more valuable than the majority of human lives. Elephants are probably worth more than most people too.
    In some places, children can be bought (for slave labour or sexual purposes) for
    less than the prices of some animal products. Market demand establishes value!

    An academic from Rwanda told me that he suspected (as did I) that some
    Westerners cared more about the fate of endangered gorillas than about the
    genocide of Tutsi people there. (Everyone in his family there was killed.)
  11. 03 Mar '13 23:51
    Originally posted by bill718
    Why are you telling us about this?
    To encourage people to question the complacent assumption that people
    always have valued human lives more than animal lives or have always
    treated human beings more 'humanely' than animals.

    I have been acquainted with some people who would show more kindness
    toward a stray dog or cat than toward a homeless person on the street.
  12. 04 Mar '13 00:10
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In some places, children can be bought (for slave labour or sexual purposes) for
    less than the prices of some animal products. Market demand establishes value!

    An academic from Rwanda told me that he suspected (as did I) that some
    Westerners cared more about the fate of endangered gorillas than about the
    genocide of Tutsi people there. (Everyone in his family there was killed.)
    And the 'Easterners', how concerned were they with the plight of the Tutsi people at the hands of their Hutu neighbours? I suspect that they were too busy harvesting Rhino horns in order to increase their sexual potency.
  13. 04 Mar '13 00:22
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    And the 'Easterners', how concerned were they with the plight of the Tutsi people at the hands of their Hutu neighbours?
    I suspect that they were too busy harvesting Rhino horns in order to increase their sexual potency.
    What a sweeping stereotype against East Asian peoples!

    First of all, Rwanda was a Belgium (European) colony, and Belgian colonial policies
    ('divide-and-rule' had helped provoke more conflict between Hutus and Tutsis.
    The Rwandan academic whom I knew resented European imperialism and racism.

    Second, rhino horn has been used by peoples outside East Asia (such as by
    some Arabs for dagger handles). Only a small minority of East Asians consume
    rhino horn products, but all East Asians should be blamed for that, right?

    Third, China and Japan have contributed economic aid to African countries.
    While China's increasing economic activities in Africa have become the subject
    of much attention, speculation, and criticism, I would submit that what China
    has done (since peacefully trading during the Ming Dynasty) has been much
    less harmful than what the Europeans did in Africa.
  14. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    04 Mar '13 00:26
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    In some places, children can be bought (for slave labour or sexual purposes) for
    less than the prices of some animal products. Market demand establishes value!

    An academic from Rwanda told me that he suspected (as did I) that some
    Westerners cared more about the fate of endangered gorillas than about the
    genocide of Tutsi people there. (Everyone in his family there was killed.)
    I don't see why we should have to choose between Tutsis and gorillas.
  15. 04 Mar '13 01:14 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I don't see why we should have to choose between Tutsis and gorillas.
    I was not saying that 'we should have to choose between Tutsis and gorillas'.
    I suspect that *some* Westerners might find it less uncomfortable to
    empathize with endangered gorillas than with non-white victims of genocide.

    My implicit point is that the Western media loves a 'sexy' story like that of
    Dian Fossey (1932-1985), a white American woman who devoted her career
    to studying gorillas in Rwanda. Her murder there remains unsolved.
    Hollywood made a film (starring Sigourney Weaver) about Dian Fossey's life.
    In contrast, covering the genocide in Rwanda was extremely difficult,
    dangerous, and distasteful work. Even when a film 'Hotel Rwanda' was made
    about it, the scenes of slaughter were whitewashed so as not to shock people.