Searching \ for 'What is evil ? was: [OT] Who would you choose ?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=who+would+you+choose
Search entire site for: 'What is evil ? was: [OT] Who would you choose ?'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'What is evil ? was: [OT] Who would you choose ?'
2006\05\29@141028 by Mike Singer

picon face
Gus S Calabrese wrote:
> This thread does not offend me.  It does however
> fall into the area of politics.

Historical theme rather, in my opinion.

MS

2006\05\29@142316 by Mike Singer

picon face
Gus S Calabrese wrote:
> This thread does not offend me.  It does however
> fall into the area of politics.

Historical theme rather, in my opinion.

MS

2006\05\29@143629 by David VanHorn

picon face
What is evil.. Intentionally harming yourself, or someone else.

2006\05\29@160053 by Mike Singer

picon face
Gus S Calabrese wrote:
> This thread does not offend me.  It does however
> fall into the area of politics.

Historical theme rather, in my opinion.

MS

2006\05\29@204637 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
David VanHorn wrote:

> What is evil.. Intentionally harming yourself, or someone else.

There's not only the question what is harm, there's also the question who
is the harmer. To stay in the overall theme of this thread: I don't think
Hitler himself killed a single person -- just like most other leaders, evil
or not.

"Words don't kill, people do." Or so the saying goes...

Gerhard

2006\05\29@210907 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
> There's not only the question what is harm, there's also the question who
> is the harmer. To stay in the overall theme of this thread: I don't think
> Hitler himself killed a single person -- just like most other leaders,
> evil
> or not.


I don't see how that absolves him of anything.

2006\05\29@214904 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> To stay in the overall theme of this thread: I don't think
> Hitler himself killed a single person -- just like most other
> leaders, evil
> or not.

Uncertain. Not too important of course, but interesting. He personally
lead his people from the front during the 'raid' on the SA during the
'night of the long knives'. People dies, he was there and at the head
(physically and morally) of the 'troops' involved. He was guilty by
any normal judicial standards of the murder of consequent murder of
Rohm.

FWIW Hitler was known for his personal bravery under fire. He was a
messenger in WW1 and known and liked for his bravery, willingness to
carry messengers to the front under the most extreme conditions, and
his willingness to volunteer to do messenger duties assigned to
others. That he lived is a miracle. Add to that an extreme patriotism
and genuine love for his country, almost perfect photographic memory,,
inexplicable charisma in public speaking roles, and an ability to
fine tune a presentation to the feelings of a given group * and you
had the makings of a top leader. Add an utter hatred of one race and a
total conviction of the utter inferiority of several others and you
had a world scale disaster.



           Russell McMahon

* Is anyone UNABLE to see the attributes PRIOR to the asterisk as
admirable when taken in isolation? That was the basis for the question
re admirability.

2006\05\29@215731 by David VanHorn

picon face
> * Is anyone UNABLE to see the attributes PRIOR to the asterisk as
> admirable when taken in isolation? That was the basis for the question
> re admirability.


Similarly, Leni Reifenstahl takes a big hit,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl
but her skills are undeniable, even if you despise what they were used for.

2006\05\29@220653 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 09:57 PM 5/29/2006 -0400, you wrote:
> > * Is anyone UNABLE to see the attributes PRIOR to the asterisk as
> > admirable when taken in isolation? That was the basis for the question
> > re admirability.
>
>
>Similarly, Leni Reifenstahl takes a big hit,
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl
>but her skills are undeniable, even if you despise what they were used for.

Not to mention Wernher Von Braun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun


http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/wernherv.htm

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun
-- Tom Lehrer

>Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
spam_OUTspeffTakeThisOuTspaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
->>Test equipment, parts OLED displys http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff


2006\05\29@222455 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-May 29, at 19:46hrs PM, Russell McMahon wrote:

> To stay in the overall theme of this thread: I don't think
> Hitler himself killed a single person -- just like most other
> leaders, evil
> or not.
>

Uncertain. Not too important of course, but interesting. He personally
lead his people from the front during the 'raid' on the SA during the
'night of the long knives'. People dies, he was there and at the head
(physically and morally) of the 'troops' involved. He was guilty by
any normal judicial standards of the murder of consequent murder of
Rohm.
[ see below:   *personal bravery under fire*--- provisionally  
okay .... under what circumstances ?
Was Germany defending itself or being aggressive ?  Makes a  
difference to me
as to what cause a person pledges themselves to.  I feel *patriotism*  
is a bad thing.
blinding !!!.  *Love for his country*.  This is is a poorly  
understood phrase.  Love of
state ?  Love of dirt ?  Love of the people ?  Love of ????  I also  
do not admire charisma.
I only admire or detest the way in which it is used.  POD ]
FWIW Hitler was known for his personal bravery under fire. He was a
messenger in WW1 and known and liked for his bravery, willingness to
carry messengers to the front under the most extreme conditions, and
his willingness to volunteer to do messenger duties assigned to
others. That he lived is a miracle. Add to that an extreme patriotism
and genuine love for his country, almost perfect photographic memory,,
 inexplicable charisma in public speaking roles, and an ability to
fine tune a presentation to the feelings of a given group * and you
had the makings of a top leader. Add an utter hatred of one race and a
total conviction of the utter inferiority of several others and you
had a world scale disaster.



            Russell McMahon

* Is anyone UNABLE to see the attributes PRIOR to the asterisk as
admirable when taken in isolation? That was the basis for the question
re admirability.

2006\05\30@005122 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> * Is anyone UNABLE to see the attributes PRIOR to the asterisk as
>> admirable when taken in isolation? That was the basis for the
>> question
>> re admirability.


> Similarly, Leni Reifenstahl takes a big hit,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leni_Riefenstahl
> but her skills are undeniable, even if you despise what they were
> used for.


To that add Hanna Reitsch

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanna_Reitsch

Some of my favourites of her exploits are in the Wikipedia:

Flew a (arguably the first "real") Helicopter indoors in the
"Deutschlandhalle" at the Berlin Motor Show.

Flew a (wo)manned V1 when they had early handling problems.

Flew *to* Hitler's bunker in the last days of the war under heavy fire
with the city surrounded by Russians and then flew out again just
before the end. Her passenger was wounded by artillery fire during the
fly in.
Make every effort to see the movie "The Bunker". Sombre. Moving.
Ghastly. Brilliant. Horrendously accurate.
Hanna and Hitler and all his horrendous mates.

Also (from Wikipedia - previously unknown to me).

Became a gliding champion after the war when German nationals were
allowed to fly only gliders.
Many men would be extremely pleased to equal her Out & return world
record of 802 km set in the Appalachians.

Established gliding schools in a number of locations including Ghana,
and India.


BUT

Many aspects of her life and Nazi involvement would and did attract
vast criticism.

____________

While we are on Nazis, Erwin Rommel, who wasn't one, was and is
admired by all and yon both during the war and ever since. He chose
commit suicide as penalty for his involvement in the plot to kill
Hitler, in order to prevent reprisals against his family. Yet his day
job was to kill people for the Nazis, which he did with great
efficiency, including many of my countrymen (who he rated as the top
soldiers he encountered). And, if he had had his way, Hitler may have
well won. And Dunkirk would have been the disaster it promised to be
for the British. He was as brave a soldier as you would never hope to
meet. He was in charge at one stage of Hitler's bodyguard and rode
ahead of the troops with Hitler in an open car (at Rommel's
suggestion) into an unconquered European city.

I have various books both about and by him. I admire him greatly - but
I still find it hard to 'like' a person so wholeheartedly dedicated to
killing as many people as possible, let alone for masters whose aims
he didn't support. Even if he tried to kill his boss :-).

I think he epitomises the spirit of the original question.
Brilliant. Capable. Did his job very well.
Obeyed legally constituted authority, while that term still had
meaning.
Not evil at core.
But supported and abetted evil by his unquestioning and questioning
obedience.
Killed many many people.
Admirable in many ways.
But hard to like.


       Russell McMahon






2006\05\30@005903 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Not to mention Wernher Von Braun
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun
>
>
> www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/wernherv.htm
>
> "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down
> That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun
> -- Tom Lehrer


"I aim for the Moon. But I hit London"

           WVB


           RM

2006\05\30@005904 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Was Germany defending itself or being aggressive ?  Makes a
> difference to me

Both.
But they became very myopic and saw all actions as justified. And went
out of their way to "legally" justiofy their aggressions. The
invasiosns of both Czechoslovakia and poland were, in their eyes, the
justifiable result of aggression on the other parties part. Until one
understands that this sort of perspective exists and can be held by
'rational' men (as well as irrational ones) then trying to understand
what happened is impossible. After that it's just almost impossible
;-).

> blinding !!!.  *Love for his country*.  This is is a poorly
> understood phrase.  Love of
> state ?
Yes

Love of dirt ?

Yes

> Love of the people ?
Yes !!!

> Love of ????

Everything that constituted 'The Fatherland'.


       RM

2006\05\30@005906 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> There's not only the question what is harm, there's also the
>> question who
>> is the harmer. To stay in the overall theme of this thread: I don't
>> think
>> Hitler himself killed a single person -- just like most other
>> leaders,
>> evil
>> or not.

> I don't see how that absolves him of anything.

The writer (wasn't me) didn't intend it to - was just making a point.
The same is true of all recent US Presidents, as far as we know.
It was NOT true of some previous US Presidents, even in the last
century.



       RM

2006\05\30@024245 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> BTW, this is an interesting site: http://www.hitler.org/

> I find his speeches are particularly interesting in comparison with
> those of
> contemporary politicians.

Many thanks for that. I never knew it existed. A substantial Hitler
resource, and with the *stated* aim of prsenting allpossible material
dispassionately.

Here's an interesting excerpt after a quick skim:

   "Thus democracy will in practice lead to the destruction of a
people's true values. And this also serves to explain how It is that
peoples with a great past from the time when they surrender themselves
to the unlimited, democratic rule of the masses slowly lose their
former position; for the outstanding-achievements of individuals which
they still possess or which could be produced in all spheres of life
are now rendered practically ineffective through the oppression of
mere numbers. And thus in these conditions a people will gradually
lose its importance not merely in the cultural and economic spheres
but altogether, in a comparatively short time it will no longer,
within the setting of the other peoples of the world, maintain its
former value. . . .  "

               Dusseldorf, Industry Club
               SPEECH OF JANUARY 27, 1932

It looks then like much of western 'democracy' is in safe hands after
all.
Explains what went wrong with britain in the past cventury or so as
well :-)

I have read much about Hitler, but little by him. And I must admit
that I've never been overly attracted by wading through his writings
and speeches. But, with gems such as the above available, I can see
that at least a little looking is in order. Sometime anyway :-).



       Russell McMahon

2006\05\30@035516 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-May 30, at 00:31hrs AM, Russell McMahon wrote:

> BTW, this is an interesting site: http://www.hitler.org/
>


> I find his speeches are particularly interesting in comparison with
> those of
> contemporary politicians.
>

Many thanks for that. I never knew it existed. A substantial Hitler
resource, and with the *stated* aim of prsenting allpossible material
dispassionately.

Here's an interesting excerpt after a quick skim:

    "Thus democracy will in practice lead to the destruction of a
people's true values. And this also serves to explain how It is that
peoples with a great past from the time when they surrender themselves
to the unlimited, democratic rule of the masses slowly lose their
former position; for the outstanding-achievements of individuals which
they still possess or which could be produced in all spheres of life
are now rendered practically ineffective through the oppression of
mere numbers. And thus in these conditions a people will gradually
lose its importance not merely in the cultural and economic spheres
but altogether, in a comparatively short time it will no longer,
within the setting of the other peoples of the world, maintain its
former value. . . .  "

                Dusseldorf, Industry Club
                SPEECH OF JANUARY 27, 1932

It looks then like much of western 'democracy' is in safe hands after
all.
[ You lost me with the comment above.  Please explain.  POD ]

Explains what went wrong with britain in the past cventury or so as
well :-)

I have read much about Hitler, but little by him. And I must admit
that I've never been overly attracted by wading through his writings
and speeches. But, with gems such as the above available, I can see
that at least a little looking is in order. Sometime anyway :-).



        Russell McMahon

2006\05\30@074402 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
David VanHorn wrote:

>> There's not only the question what is harm, there's also the question
>> who is the harmer. To stay in the overall theme of this thread: I don't
>> think Hitler himself killed a single person -- just like most other
>> leaders, evil or not.
>
> I don't see how that absolves him of anything.

As Russell said, this was not meant to absolve Hitler of anything. It was
meant to illustrate the difficulty to answer your question with some sort
of precision (or definition):

>>> What is evil.. Intentionally harming yourself, or someone else.

What is harm? Who is the perpetrator of the harm?

I then said:

>> "Words don't kill, people do." Or so the saying goes...

In the discussion about weapons, there is often the real short version of
the thought that "weapons don't kill, people do". Usually meant to mean
that only the one who actively uses the gun to kill someone is the "bad
guy", not the one who gave the gun to someone, or who influenced a gun
owner in this or that way.

This is not to absolve Hitler. He is not on trial here, and I am not to
accuse or absolve him. This is about the difficulty to define what is harm
and who is responsible for it. It's easy to find a catchy phrase, but it's
more difficult to make it work when put into reality. That's (one reason)
why populism is so dangerous. (And here we are back to Hitler -- and many
other leaders.)

That's one reason why justice is a concept, not a reality.

Gerhard

2006\05\30@083402 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Gus S Calabrese wrote:

>> "Thus democracy will in practice lead to the destruction of a people's
>> true values. [...]"

>> It looks then like much of western 'democracy' is in safe hands after
>> all.

> [ You lost me with the comment above.  Please explain.  POD ]

I don't know about Russell, but IMO there's little 'democracy' going on in
much of western democracy. Participation (the elixir of life of democracy)
-- and I don't mean voter turnout, I mean /participation/, as in going to
town hall meetings, knowing your representatives (on all levels, in all
spheres) personally if possible, following their activities, getting to
know the various arguments around issues that are to be decided, and so on
-- /that/ kind of participation is very low, in varying degrees in
different places, but low (for me). Which means to me that we have little
democracy. I'm not sure how to call what fills the void; maybe moneyocracy
or teeveeocracy or sheepocracy (but neither of these seems to do justice to
reality <g>, neither probably does the more technical term oligarchy).

Since little democracy is going on, one could say that we are pretty safe
from the claimed destructive qualities of democracy. This is one
interpretation, of course, and Russell may have thought of something
completely different.

Gerhard

2006\05\30@112740 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

Think of it as 'wry humour".

Once upon a time Britian very very much ruled the waves and was
arguably THE world power that wannabee upstarts like them Yankees
aspired to be like. While they practiced democracy after a fashion it
was not democracy as we have come to know it, Jim. [[Star Trek
allusion lest anyone wonders who Jim is]]. By the end of the 19th
century Universal Suffrage was a new idea, colonies were very much
still colonies, The Raj was still the Jewel in the Crown, the Irish
Potato famine and the social structure that led to it was still
relatively recent history, Gunboat diplomacy involved real gunboats,
Jutland had yet to happen and the idea of a Europe where you could
drive for a week and never see a noticeable international border was
still almost 100 years away (unless you were Hans Guderian)(Google
knows).

However, with the 20th century came increasing democracy as we now
know it (Jim). The kind that Hitler is alluding to above. As Britain
adopted what hotler shunned it also lost its dominant place as 'the'
world power. How well these events are correlated is left for the
styudent to establish.

HOWEVER, with the arrival of the 21st century we seedemocracy as Jim
knows it again fast eroding, not only in the IK but within other major
powers. We can expect to look forward to, should Hitler prove correct,
increasing glories of the Britich Empire and of britain again assuming
its rightful place in the new world order. Hence my comment that
western democracy as in safe hands - as the new fangled weak and
spineless form fades away, the real sort from the past which brought
such power and glory can be expected to again assert its influence.
That is, if other democratic countries do not decay even faster and
beat her to it. Or something like that ...

> Explains what went wrong with britain in the past century or so as
> well :-)

As above.


       RM

2006\05\30@132248 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-May 30, at 08:50hrs AM, Russell McMahon wrote:

{Quote hidden}

[RM   Excellent  ....... although I agree that Hitler meant that  
democracy
creates decadence and he wanted a return to a more dictatorial state,
I have begun to think that democracies are very dictatorial and I  
dream**
of a return to the politics of the USA in the early 1800's. ( ha ha not
the tech though )  Very weak central government, no power to go on
international crusades.  ** definitely a fantasy for me    POD]


Think of it as 'wry humour".

Once upon a time Britian very very much ruled the waves and was
arguably THE world power that wannabee upstarts like them Yankees
aspired to be like. While they practiced democracy after a fashion it
was not democracy as we have come to know it, Jim. [[Star Trek
allusion lest anyone wonders who Jim is]]. By the end of the 19th
century Universal Suffrage was a new idea, colonies were very much
still colonies, The Raj was still the Jewel in the Crown, the Irish
Potato famine and the social structure that led to it was still
relatively recent history, Gunboat diplomacy involved real gunboats,
Jutland had yet to happen and the idea of a Europe where you could
drive for a week and never see a noticeable international border was
still almost 100 years away (unless you were Hans Guderian)(Google
knows).

However, with the 20th century came increasing democracy as we now
know it (Jim). The kind that Hitler is alluding to above. As Britain
adopted what hotler shunned it also lost its dominant place as 'the'
world power. How well these events are correlated is left for the
styudent to establish.

HOWEVER, with the arrival of the 21st century we seedemocracy as Jim
knows it again fast eroding, not only in the IK but within other major
powers. We can expect to look forward to, should Hitler prove correct,
increasing glories of the Britich Empire and of britain again assuming
its rightful place in the new world order. Hence my comment that
western democracy as in safe hands - as the new fangled weak and
spineless form fades away, the real sort from the past which brought
such power and glory can be expected to again assert its influence.
That is, if other democratic countries do not decay even faster and
beat her to it. Or something like that ...


> Explains what went wrong with britain in the past century or so as
> well :-)
>

As above.


        RM

2006\05\30@133741 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-May 30, at 06:33hrs AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:

Gus S Calabrese wrote:


{Quote hidden}

I don't know about Russell, but IMO there's little 'democracy' going  
on in
much of western democracy. Participation (the elixir of life of  
democracy)
-- and I don't mean voter turnout, I mean /participation/, as in  
going to
town hall meetings, knowing your representatives (on all levels, in all
spheres) personally if possible, following their activities, getting to
know the various arguments around issues that are to be decided, and  
so on
-- /that/ kind of participation is very low, in varying degrees in
different places, but low (for me). Which means to me that we have  
little
democracy. I'm not sure how to call what fills the void; maybe  
moneyocracy
or teeveeocracy or sheepocracy (but neither of these seems to do  
justice to
reality <g>, neither probably does the more technical term oligarchy).

Since little democracy is going on, one could say that we are pretty  
safe
from the claimed destructive qualities of democracy. This is one
interpretation, of course, and Russell may have thought of something
completely different.

Gerhard

[  I would like to advance the theory that democracy is a word that  
has accumulated
a very good reputation that it does not deserve.  Democracy seems to  
be confused
by many with other words like freedom, self actualization, have-a-
nice-day.  In practice
democracy often leads to situations where a majority suppresses  
minorities.  The
South in the USA during the late 1800's springs to mind.    POD  ]

2006\05\31@053929 by Joe McCauley

picon face
Russell,

I like how you highlighted 'the *stated* aim'. Being somewhat of a history
buff, I had a quick scan of this site last night. I would be the first to
admit that it was a quick look only. I had a look at the links page and
would be particularly uncomfortable with some of them. Enough so that I'd be
wary of the agenda of the entire site. (some of them link to what *seem* to
be neo-nazi sites.)

The air photo "evidence" link is particularly offensive to me. We are
probably now at a stage where Nazism and WWII are ancient rather than recent
history to the population of most of the planet. No one should be allowed
muddy the waters with respect to what happened. Even if the only people
murdered in the camps did not exceed those shown on the footage shot as the
camps were liberated, then even that was too many! (Don't the Germans &
Austrians have a law against Holocaust denial? Maybe every country should
too.)

The 'The Omega File: Greys, Nazis, Underground Bases, and the New World
Order ' link? Well the title speaks for itself..... (won't I look foolish
when the lizards take over the world :))


Just my opinion, which I could not resist sharing. I'm not implying that
anyone on the list holds the views I'm railing against above. I'm just
posting a general warning about the site & its stated aims. Personally I
just plain don't believe them. Is it really a 'substantial Hitler resource'
or does it selectivly quote from his speeches. Is it really a 'non-biased,
non-profit museum' or a revisionist site aimed at making the Nazis look a
little better. Murky waters here.

Joe


> > I find his speeches are particularly interesting in comparison with
> > those of
> > contemporary politicians.
>
> Many thanks for that. I never knew it existed. A substantial Hitler
> resource, and with the *stated* aim of prsenting allpossible material
> dispassionately.
>


2006\05\31@102609 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I like how you highlighted 'the *stated* aim'. Being somewhat of a
> history
> buff, I had a quick scan of this site last night. I would be the
> first to
> admit that it was a quick look only. I had a look at the links page
> and
> would be particularly uncomfortable with some of them. Enough so
> that I'd be
> wary of the agenda of the entire site. (some of them link to what
> *seem* to
> be neo-nazi sites.)

> The air photo "evidence" link is particularly offensive to me.

I too looked at the links page and didn't like the "air evidence"
material. That said, the site should arguably largely be judged on
it's own content rather than links, although I'm also not certain how
good the rest is. It seems a shame that they have provided exerpts
from speeches and addresses rather than full text of everything
available. While they may be seeking to do what they claim they do not
seem to be a scholarly site per se. Worth knowing about though.

I pesonally suspect, based on what *seemed* to be very good material
by a reputable researcher, that the figures for jewish war dead from
all causes was somewhat lower than the traditional figure. It doesn't
bother me too much whether it was 1, 2 or 6 million dead Jews - it's
still absolutely beyond conception or any shade of justification.
Arguably if a nation 'exterminated' people in the hundreds to say a
few thousands range then it *MIGHT* be explained away by the excesses
of the day - such things happen in war, ugly as it may be. The US has
eg My Lai and a smaller scale recent incident (jury still out) and no
doubt various others where civilians have been totally improperly
killed. It happens. War is ugly. War is often (if not always)
illegally carried out. The strictest possible steps should be taken to
ensure that such things are prevented, but they will always happen
regardless. BUT,when you get to say 10,000 civilian dead, let alone
100,000 or 1,000,000 or 6,000,000 there has been a total systems
failure by the nation concerned. Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan, Ex
Yugoslavian states, ... . And many more alas.

Conversely, I believe that the figure for Russian war dead is probably
higher than traditionally published. A figure of up to 30 million dead
(civilian and military)(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)  is oft
enough given BUT I think a figure of more like 50 million is liable to
be closeer to reality. The communists wished to place a better
impression on things post war and reality tended to take a rear seat.
Not ata all uncommon in most regimes of course. The behaviour of the
Russians when they finally over-ran Germany was utterly appalling. But
at least understandable if not able to be condoned if the figure of 50
million dead is true - about 1/4 to 1/3 of all Russians at the time.

> ... Don't the Germans & Austrians have a law against Holocaust
> denial?
> Maybe every country should

They do. I feel that the Germans are if anything too keen to enforce
this - but I can certainly understand why they would be.

> > ... I'm not implying that anyone on the list holds the views I'm
> > railing against above.

They might. It's a free world (of sorts).
But you should rail against them nonetheless :-)


       Russell McMahon





2006\05\31@115329 by Joe McCauley

picon face
Comments interspersed below.....

> -----Original Message-----
> From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu
> [piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu] On Behalf Of Russell McMahon
> Sent: 31 May 2006 15:22
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: Re: What is evil ? was: [OT] Who would you choose ?
>
>
> > The air photo "evidence" link is particularly offensive to me.
>
> I too looked at the links page and didn't like the "air evidence"
> material. That said, the site should arguably largely be judged on
> it's own content rather than links, although I'm also not certain how
> good the rest is. It seems a shame that they have provided exerpts
> from speeches and addresses rather than full text of everything
> available. While they may be seeking to do what they claim
> they do not
> seem to be a scholarly site per se. Worth knowing about though.

I'd disagree and take the view that the links a web page owner includes in
his site are included because he/she feel they are worthy of inclusion. If
you accept that argument, then surely, given the sort of stuff he links to,
does that not call into question his stated aims?

{Quote hidden}

I don't see anything *too* bad about this. If one tries to rationalise the
State sponsered mass murder (as opposed to combat deaths) of millions of
people, or worse deny it happened, then surely you are setting the stage for
it to happen again. Is it not better to nip it in the bud & educate people
as the Germans are trying to do? You are still going to get extremists in
any country, but the ideas will not take root & flourish in the bulk of the
population as they did back then.

Anyway enough about this & back to PICS.

Joe


2006\05\31@153452 by Joe McCauley

picon face
Obviously I'm not trying to imply that you're trying to justify any of this
Russell (just in case it came across that way in my post)

Joe (now really back to PICS :))


<Snip>

{Quote hidden}

> --


'What is evil ? was: [OT] Who would you choose ?'
2006\06\01@130438 by Russell McMahon
face
flavicon
face
> Obviously I'm not trying to imply that you're trying to justify any
> of this
> Russell (just in case it came across that way in my post)

No - I had no problem with anything you said - or anything anyone else
has sais so far on and off list. Most people agree more or less on
such things - it's just agreeing that we agree that is the problem
:-).

re

>> > I feel that the Germans are if anything too keen to enforce
>> > this - but I can certainly understand why they would be.

>> Is it not better to nip it in the bud &
>> educate people as the Germans are trying to do? ...

The Germans are, entirely understandably, very very sensitive to such
things and go the forty second mile to stamp it out. The risk is much
the same as the risk in attempting to stop terrorists - by over
reacting you play into their hands. Excessive zeal in attempting to
stop neo-Nazi activities can end up looking uncomfortably Nazi like.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. I'm glad I don't have to work
out how to handle such things - they have my sympathy. Note that the
youngest German who could realistically be deemed to have any
responsibility for anything that was done in Nazi Germany is now 73
years old (12 in 1945), and people in any sort of position of power
would be at least 83 and probably older. That generation has
effectively gone. We now have the children and the children's children
dealing with the sins of their fathers.


       Russell McMahon



More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...