Originally posted by whodeyNot really, they just thought that jews were inferior and that's how they rationalized it.
You know, killing vermon is not murder, right? That's how the Nazis rationalized it.
Whether or not you call something "murder" has no bearing on whether or not it is justified. Was the holocaust justified? Of course not. Is killing a mad gunman in a mall justified? I think so. Is killing another soldier in war justified? Maybe. Was the bombing of Dresden justified? No. Is abortion justified? I'd say so.
Originally posted by no1marauderFunny how you first state you don't want to argue about semantics and then spend another three paragraphs arguing about semantics.
You're confused. Your argument that the Holocaust wasn't mass murder because the Nazis said it was legal came as cold comfort to Kaltenbrunner, Sauckel and others who wound up dangling from the end of a rope at Nuremberg.
Just because some laws give a definition of a word, doesn't mean that that definition is the only one that can be used ...[text shortened]... force if necessary. This, of course, ties back with the central premise of this thread.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou can probably find a justification for killing all of mankind in the bible.
This isn't Spirituality, but I'm sure I could find Bible verses justifying protecting the innocent from murder by killing the would be killers. Surely, such a killing wouldn't be "murder" under the Ten Commandments.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMy point is that in order to mistreat another human being the first step in order to cope with our conscience is to rataionalize what we are doing. It is then imperitive that we then devalue them as inferior in order to rationalize what we are doing. Now whether they are vermon or infidels, or monkeys matters little in this devaluation. We see it time and time again in world history but have not seemed to have learned from this lesson.
Not really, they just thought that jews were inferior and that's how they rationalized it.
Whether or not you call something "murder" has no bearing on whether or not it is justified. Was the holocaust justified? Of course not. Is killing a mad gunman in a mall justified? I think so. Is killing another soldier in war justified? Maybe. Was the bombing of Dresden justified? No. Is abortion justified? I'd say so.
Originally posted by FMFHmmm.
"Pre-Emptive Abolition Of Slavery" from a few months back: it would be wrong to say that it was not inconsiderably unrelated to the "John Brown" question: Thread 108375
1) wrong to say
2) not
3) inconsiderably
4) unrelated
4 negatives.... So, that's a positive, right? 😉
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeySo we have not learned merely because some policies are in place with which you do not agree? How narrow minded.
My point is that in order to mistreat another human being the first step in order to cope with our conscience is to rataionalize what we are doing. It is then imperitive that we then devalue them as inferior in order to rationalize what we are doing. Now whether they are vermon or infidels, or monkeys matters little in this devaluation. We see it time and time again in world history but have not seemed to have learned from this lesson.
Anyways, to me it is far from controversial that one human being is worth more than another.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt is far from controversial? I assume you mean that you believe all people to be "equal" in worth.......that is except for the unborn?
So we have not learned merely because some policies are in place with which you do not agree? How narrow minded.
Anyways, to me it is far from controversial that one human being is worth more than another.
Originally posted by whodeyYes, it does sound odd. I assume he's talking about extreme special cases, like death row inmates, fetuses not considered persons under the law, etc... but I may be wrong, maybe he's thinking of a much broader set. However, maybe "worth" needs some clarification - who decides the "worth" of an individual? It's simple enough for an individual to rank other individuals in terms of their worth to him/her, but who is the decider when we talk about the intrinsic "worth" of an individual?
It is far from controversial? I assume you mean that you believe all people to be "equal" in worth.......that is except for the unborn?
Originally posted by whodeyI don't think the life of someone in a permanent coma is worth as much as the life of a 10 year old kid. The same could be said for someone with terminal cancer, a foetus etc. That is, if I was somehow forced to choose one of these two people to be killed, then I would not pick the child. If they were "worth" as much as each other to me, I would pick randomly.
It is far from controversial? I assume you mean that you believe all people to be "equal" in worth.......that is except for the unborn?